Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Eric C. Powell
ED 7201T/7202T
CUNY Brooklyn College, Fall 2011/Spring 2012
[1]
Table of Contents
Abstract3
Introduction.4
-
Method.10
-
Participants..10
Instruments..10
Experimental Design10
Procedure.11
Results..13
Discussion.17
Implications...17
References18
Appendices21
-
[2]
Abstract
The researcher conducted an experiment to determine whether
or not an increased exposure to vocabulary via vocabulary flash cards
would increase reading comprehension levels among elementary
students. The researcher had a treatment group of ten 5th grade
students and a control group of ten 5th grade students. The treatment
group was exposed to flashcard technique and dictionary skills over
the course of a four week period. Pre- and post-treatment assessment
levels were then compared to determine the effect (if any) of the
treatment. It was determined by the experiment that the treatment
was successful and that the researchers hypothesis was correct.
Reading comprehension levels among the treatment group increased
by a mean of 0.9 points, while the control group maintained their
comprehension levels with only a 0.1 point mean increase. It was
determined as a result of the experiment that an increased focus on
vocabulary within the reading workshop model currently employed in
the classroom would be beneficial to the reading comprehension
levels of elementary students.
[3]
Introduction
The researcher has been fortunate enough to work with
developing readers in the capacity of reading and writing tutor for
almost four years now. The students the researcher has worked with
have ranged in level from kindergarten to young adults, and have
included every age in between. Reading instruction usually begins
with phonemic awareness before proceeding to comprehension. A
student is first taught to decode words phonetically in order to be able
to read the words on the page, with reading comprehension the
students understanding of what is being read left as a secondary
concern.
As a Childhood Education student at CUNY Brooklyn College,
the researcher had the opportunity to work in a Brooklyn elementary
school in the capacity of student teacher. The students the researcher
worked with had in place with the exception of the ELL students
their phonemic awareness and were thus working on their reading
comprehension skills. The students were taught to approach reading
comprehension through various strategies, but a gap still existed
between their phonemic awareness and their comprehension levels
when encountering a text.
Statement of the Problem
[4]
[7]
[10]
[11]
Method
Participants
The participants consisted of twenty fifth grade students from
P.S. X, an elementary school in Brooklyn, New York. Ten students were
utilized as a control group, meaning that while pre- and posttreatment assessments were given, the students were not subjected to
the actual treatment. Ten students were utilized as a treatment group,
meaning that they were subjected to the treatment as well as to the
pre- and post- treatment assessments. The twenty students were a
mixture of male and female participants between the ages of 9 to 10
years old. All participants consider English their primary language,
with English being the spoken language in the home environment as
well as the language of the texts with which they are primarily
engaged and confronted.
Instruments
1. Survey: Pre-treatment survey to assess student reading habits,
student perceptions of reading comprehension levels, and other
factors which may contribute to current reading levels.
2. Assessments: Pre- and post-instructional assessments to
measure student reading comprehension levels as well as any
gains or losses resulting from the treatment.
[12]
Experimental Design
The projects experimental design is both Pre-Experimental and
Quasi-Experimental, consisting of two non-randomly selected groups:
the designated treatment group (X1) and the control group (X2). The
rationale for the design lies in the non-random selection of the
students involved in the experiment, as well as the division of the
students into the two groups (treatment and control). A true random
selection of participants was not possible given the parameters of the
researchers experiment. The division of the students into two groups
was necessary in order to contrast any gains or losses derived from
the treatment with student scores which were derived from similar
assessments but were not the result of the experimenters treatment.
Both internal and external threats to the validity of the
experiment have been identified. Internal threats to validity were
identified as follows: a) Instrumentation (pre-assessment vocabulary
prep not sufficient to boost comprehension/vocabulary incorrectly
chosen, assessment not administered/interpreted correctly), b)
History (comprehension troubles are due to factors other than
vocabulary comprehension (i.e. cultural/experiential differences from
the world of the text, students native language is not English, student
does not possess phonemic decoding skills)), and c)
[13]
[14]
words. Access to the students occurred over the course of two 45minute periods.
Week three saw the treatment group making vocabulary cards
in earnest, beginning from a pre-prepared list created by the
researcher. The progress of the students in this task began slowly, as
the students were unpracticed in the usage of a print dictionary.
Students proclaimed that they primarily used an online dictionary at
home or did not use a dictionary at all. As the students did not have
access to an online dictionary for this task, the usage of print
dictionaries was required.
During week four, the treatment group was given time to
complete its vocabulary cards and review them. Students were
directed to create sentences utilizing the vocabulary and were
encouraged to create sentences that displayed an understanding of
the vocabularys meaning. The treatment group remained responsible
for their individual vocabulary cards, ensuring that the students had
the opportunity to take the cards home for review.
Week five saw both the control and treatment groups being
subjected to the post-treatment assessment. The post-treatment
assessments were done at a pace and manner similar to the pretreatment assessments, with all students from both groups being
assessed over the course of a five day period.
[15]
Results
The results of the pre- and post-treatment assessments can be
summarized as follows: the control group saw little to no improvement
in comprehension levels over the course of the treatment, while the
treatment group saw modest gains as a result of the treatment. One
student from the control group saw an increase in comprehension
level while the remaining control group students maintained their pretreatment assessment levels (figure 1). The treatment group,
excepting one student, saw comprehension levels increase by one
point between the pre- and post-treatment assessments (figure 2).
[16]
[17]
reader confidence among the treatment group (figure 3). There was a
high correlation shown (rxy=0.884985) between test scores and selfinitiated dictionary use among the treatment group (figure 4). There
was a low/fair correlation shown (rxy=0.416463) between test scores
and parental reading among the treatment group (figure 5). There
was also a high correlation shown (rxy=0.806478) between test
scores and regular library usage among the treatment group (figure
6).
[19]
[20]
[21]
Discussion
The results of the treatment and the outcome of the research
affirm the hypothesis of the researcher that increased focus on
vocabulary will increase reading comprehension levels among
students whom the treatment is applied to. The treatment group was
shown to have a mean increase of 0.9 points in reading
comprehension levels, while the control group was shown to only have
a 0.1 points increase. The increase in reading comprehension levels
(0.9 is approximately one point) is enough of an increase to justify
further research along these lines.
The implication that further research is justified by the results
of this experiment carries with it some caveats. The first is that while
increased vocabulary exposure has been shown by the research to
increase reading comprehension levels, the additional classroom time
allowed for this experiment is not to be realistically expected as
available to the average classroom teacher. A second caveat is that it
may not be realistic for a classroom teacher to give each student the
individual attention necessary to ensure that the student knows how
to make a vocabulary flash card, access a dictionary (whether print or
virtual), or ascertain which vocabulary one should focus on to improve
comprehension levels.
[22]
[23]
References
Amendum, S.J., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Ginsberg, M.C. (2011). The
effectiveness of a technologically facilitated classroom-based
early reading intervention. The Elementary School Journal, 112
(1), 107-131. doi: 10.1086/660684.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660684
Ash, B. H. (1990). Reading assigned literature in a reading workshop.
English Journal, 79, 77-79.
http://www.jstor.org/journals/00138274.html
August, D., Francis, D.J., Hsu, H.A., & Snow, C.E. (2006). Assessing
reading comprehension in bilinguals. The Elementary School
Journal, 107 (2), 221-238.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/510656
Dougherty Stahl, K. (2008). The effects of three instructional methods
on the reading comprehension and content acquisition of novice
readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 40 (3), 359-393.
Elish-Piper, L., & LAllier, S.K. (2011). Examining the relationship
between literacy coaching and student reading gains in grades
K3. The Elementary School Journal, 112 (1), 83-106. doi:
10.1086/660685. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660685
Ferguson, J., & Wilson, J. (2009). Guided reading: its for primary
teachers. College Reading Association Yearbook, 30, 293-306.
Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers. (pp.
vii, 191-192, 218). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J.P. & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching
reading comprehension strategies to students with learning
disabilities: a review of research. Review of Educational
Research, 71 (2), 279-320. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516086
Hinchley, J., & Levy, B.A. (1988). Developmental and individual
differences in reading comprehension. Cognition and
Instruction, 5 (1), 3-47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233608
Kletzien, S.B., & Hushion, B.C. (1992). Reading workshop: reading,
writing, thinking. Journal of Reading, 35 (6), 444-451.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40007556
[24]
[25]
Schaffer, L.M., & Schirmer, B.R. (2010). The guided reading approach:
a practical method to address diverse needs in the classroom.
Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education, 11 (1), 40-43.
Scharer, P., Pinnell, G., Lyons, C., & Fountas, I. (2005). Becoming an
engaged reader. Educational Leadership, 63 (2), 24-29.
Stewart, R.A., Paradis, E.E., Ross, B.D., & Lewis, M.J. (1996). Student
voices: what works in literature-based developmental reading.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39 (6), 468-478.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40014036
Swift, K. (1993). Try reading workshop in your classroom. The
Reading Teacher, 46 (5), 366-371.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20201090
Taylor, B.M., Pearson, P.D., Peterson, D.S., & Rodriguez, M.C. (2003).
Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: the influence of
teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in
literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104 (1), 3-28.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3203047
Uttero, D.A. (1988). Activating comprehension through cooperative
learning. The Reading Teacher, 41 (4), 390-395.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20199801
Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J.P. (2005). Effects of explicit reading
strategies instruction and peer tutoring on second and fifth
graders' reading comprehension and self-efficacy perceptions.
The Journal of Experimental Education, 73 (4), 291-329.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20157404
[26]
Appendices
[27]
Spring 2012
Dear parent,
Sincerely,
Eric C. Powell
[28]
Principal __________,
Sincerely,
Eric C. Powell
[29]
Spring 2012
Dear __________,
[30]
Sincerely,
Eric C. Powell
[31]
Survey
This is an anonymous survey and you are not required to place
your name anywhere on this paper. All responses are
confidential. Please answer each question using the following
scale:
1
Strongly disagree
Agree
2
Disagree
3
Agree
4
Strongly
2 3 4
3 4
2 3 4
7) I read books that are not assigned to me in my classroom.
2
4
1
3 4
or sister) 1 2 3 4
[32]
11)
cousin, etc). 1 2 3 4
12)
day.
13)
2 3 4
1 2 3 4
Student does
Student
Student
Student can
not
understands
understands
explain the
understand
the actions of
the actions
actions of
the actions
the
of the
the
of the
characters in
characters,
characters,
characters in
a minimal
i.e. can
their
the book.
explain
motivations,
explain basic
character
and their
action.
actions and
connections
connections.
to other
Student
Score
Student
Student can
Student can
character.
Student can
cannot
follow the
follow the
explain the
[33]
follow the
basics of the
plot of the
plot of the
plot of the
plot without
story and
story and
story.
understandin
can offer a
connect that
g the theme.
basic
plot with a
statement of
well-formed
the theme.
explanation
Student
Student can
Student can
of the theme.
Student can
cannot make
make a basic
make more
form text-to-
any
text-to-self
than one
self, text-to-
connections
connection
connection
world, and
to the text.
to the text.
text-to-text
connections
with the text.
[34]