CHAPTER ONE - LaGrange College



IMPROVING READING COMPREHENSION IN A RESOURCE CLASSROOM FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISIBILITIES USING A READER’S WORKSHOP

A thesis submitted

by

Michele Andrea Knoll

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia

May,11 2011

IMPROVING READING COMPREHENSION IN A RESOURCE CLASSROOM FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISIBILITIES USING A READER’S WORKSHOP

Except where reference is made to the works of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my Thesis Chair. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information.

Michele Andrea Knoll

Certificated of Approval:

______________________________ ______________________________

Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D. Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D.

Thesis Co-Chair Thesis Co-Chair

Education Department Education Department

Abstract

Students in a reading support class have weaknesses in basic reading skills and reading comprehension. By using a reader’s workshop format, students were able to take ownership of their learning by participating in focused lessons, student/teacher conferences, choosing their own books based on identified reading levels, and spending significant time reading independently. Giving students the choice of what books they read and giving them plenty of time to read using strategies taught in whole group focus lessons helped students to increase their reading comprehension. This study showed that students with learning disabilities did benefit from participating in a reading resource classroom implemented a reader’s workshop format.

Table of Contents

Abstract…..…………………………………………………………………………….…iii

Table of Contents…..…………………………………………………………………….iv

List of Tables…………..……………………………………………………………..….vi

Chapter 1: Introduction….………………………………………………………..……….1

Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………….....1

Significance of the Problem…….………………………………………………...2

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks….……………………………………...3

Focus Questions…………………………………………………………………..6

Overview of Methodology….………………………………………………….…7

Human as a Researcher……………………………………….…………………...8 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature..…………………………………..…………............9

Instructional Plan and Strategies……………………………….……...……..….10

Student Achievement…………………………………………………….......….16

Student Motivation/ Engagement………………………………...……..….…....19

Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………………………....23

Research Design……………………………………………………………….. 23

Setting…………………………………………………………………………. 24

Subjects/Participant……………………………………………………………. 24

Procedures and Data Collection Methods……………….…………………….25

Validity and Reliability Measures……………………………………………...32

Analysis of Data……………………………………………………………….36

Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………………….....39

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results……………………………………....49

Analysis………………………………………………………………………...49

Discussion……………………………………………………………………...56

Implication………………………………………………………………….....58

Impact of the Student Learning………………………………………………61

Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………61

References………………………………………………………………………...63

Appendixes……………………………………………………………………….67

List of Tables

Tables

Table 3.1 Data Shell……...…………………………………………………………27

Table 4.1 Dependent t-test Oral Reading Pre and Post Test………….……….….…44

Table 4.2 ANOVA Oral Reading Scores…………..….....……………………….….45

Table 4.3 Dependent t-test Silent Reading Pre and Post Test…………..…………44

Table 4.4 ANOVA Silent Reading Scores…………………………………….…....45

Table 4.5 Dependent t-test Reading Levels Pre and Post Test………………….….46

Table 4.6 ANOVA Reading Levels Scores..……………………………………....47

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

This study explored the implementation of a reading workshop in a high school resource classroom for those students who have a learning disability and struggle with reading in their regular education classrooms.

By the time students with learning disabilities enter into high school their success in academic classrooms has become more and more difficult due to their lack of reading skills. According to Lausé, (2004) “Our high school students, like their peers around the nation, had stopped enjoying reading after fourth grade; after that, reading was strictly an academic exercise—BORing” (p. 24). For special education students, the problem is frequently compounded because of the lack of reading skills, especially in the area of reading comprehension. By the time students with learning disabilities reach high school, they may not have received direct reading instruction for several years. Success in their academic classrooms becomes increasingly more difficult because of a lack of reading skills and an increase in the degree of difficulty of subject material. Oberlin and Shugarman said “The Reading Workshop approach has been found to successfully improve students’ reading comprehension and attitudes toward reading” (as cited by Meyer, 2010).

Significance of the Problem

Students who are weak in reading skills often lack motivation in their classes; they do not read for pleasure, and they struggle with academic courses such as history and biology. When students do not understand what they read their overall academic grades decline. Their perceptions of themselves as poor readers and poor students can lead to an increased number of students who have to repeat their academic classes and an increase in the dropout rate which can affect their job opportunities in the future (Martin, Martin, & Carvalho, 2008).

If a student does not have strong reading skills, they are embarrassed to read in front of the class (Paige, 2006). When this happens, the teachers often have to read to the class; this means that valuable class time is spent reading material to students who could care less about what is being read to them.

Lausé (2004) stated that in her study the students in her classroom showed increased improvement in their reading speed and reading comprehension; when she started readers’ workshop in her classroom fourteen percent of her students were reading 15 pages per workshop and by the end of the year only 2 percent of her students fell into this category, while 44 percent of her students, moved into the category of reading between thirty to thirty-five pages. In the category of over thirty-five pages read there were only 8 percent in this group at the beginning of the year, but by the end of the year this had increased to 28 percent. While no one was in the last category of over fifty pages by the end of the year, there was a 10 percent increase in this category (p.27). The results that Lausé achieved demonstrate how even struggling readers can benefit from a reader’s workshop. This holds importance for teachers of students with learning disabilities; if learning disabled students can increase their reading skill by participating in a reader’s workshop, then this can affect their overall academic achievement (Lausé, 2004).

The purpose of this study was to assess the implementation of a Reading Workshop in a special education resource class; for high school students with learning disabilities, to determine its effectiveness on each student’s basic reading skills. With improved reading skills, these students should experience fewer obstacles in their academic life and be better prepared for job opportunities in the future.

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

The concepts, goals, and purpose of a reader’s workshop appear to be in alignment with the constructivist thought that are held by LaGrange College Education Department (2008). The idea of constructivist thought is not a new idea since it has been around since the time of Socrates. Over the years it has been expand and developed into what it is today. No matter how it may change the under lining concept remains the same; inquiry methods are used to facilitate learning (Powel & Kalina, 2009).

In the mission statement of LaGrange College it says “to inspire the soul and challenge the mind in a caring and ethical community” (LaGrange College, Education Department, 2008, p.2). In the reader’s workshop students are encouraged to expand their reading skills through teacher and peer support. They are challenged to become better readers by setting reading goals and by participation in read alouds, think alouds and independent reading. Taylor and Nesheim (2000) said that, “Within the nurturing community environment of a reader’s workshop, students come to understand that all classmates are valued as readers regardless of their reading level” (Taylor & Nesheim, 2000, p.501). Because individuals all learn differently, the best way to develop learning is through peer and teacher support (Powell & Kalina 2009).

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development said that humans cannot be given information, that they understand immediately and use; they must instead construct their own knowledge (as cited by Powell & Kalina, 2009). Vygotsky believed that learning is embedded in social interaction (as cited by Meyer, 2010). Students with learning disabilities need to have the encouragement to build upon their social interaction to help increase their learning. Beers (2003) stated that we can all be struggling readers given the right text. The difference is what Beers calls an independent reader: those readers’ who use strategies, find antecedents, make connections to their life, use context clues and analyze expository text. In the reader’s workshop, students are taught to use all of these strategies in order to become better readers.

The Georgia Frameworks for Teaching intertwines with the Conceptual Frameworks of LaGrange College as set forth by their undergirding for the Professional Education Programs. Both see the importance of building on the student’s prior life experiences, using those past experiences and expounding upon them in the learning process. The Georgia Frameworks Domain 1 Content and Curriculum section 1.4 states that teachers will, “relate content area(s) to other subject areas and see connection to everyday life” (Georgia Professional Standards Commission, 2005). In LaGrange College Conceptual Framework, Tenet 1: Enthusiastic Engagement in Learning, Competency Cluster 1.2: Knowledge of Curriculum states “Candidates relate content areas to other subject areas and see connections in every day life to make subject matter meaningful” (LaGrange College, Education Department, 2008, p.3-4).

The readers’ workshop encourages students to share what they have read by retelling, share their reactions to the readings, and make connections between reading and life experiences and to set goals for themselves (Taylor & Nesheim, 2000) which is in alignment with the Georgia Frameworks. In order to increase their reading skill learning disabled students, as well as regular education students, have to know, learn and have the opportunity to practice the strategies that good readers use. Tovani explained that in a readers’ workshop the teacher does a think aloud, so that the students can see what the teacher is thinking (as cited by Meyer, 2010). The teacher makes predictions, asks question, clarifies any ideas or word that might be confusing and makes connections to life, text, and to the world. Also during the read aloud the teacher demonstrates how to mark text while making comments about the reading strategies that good readers use (Meyer, 2010).

National Board of Professional Teaching Standards, (NBCT) Proposition 1 states that teachers will treat students equitably, recognize the student’s differences, and take into account these differences in their practices. Also teachers must respect the cultural and family differences each student brings to the classroom (NBPTS, 2010).

Au stated that, “the reading experience of diverse students may depend on their relationship with their teachers and peers” (as cited by Taylor & Nesheim 2000, pp. 3-4.). Students come from different backgrounds; they have different cultures, and different experiences. It is our job as teachers to give the at risk student the opportunity to have time to read and read material that is interesting as well as meaningful to them (Taylor & Nesheim, 2000). It is important to give students with learning disabilities the opportunity to read on their level in an environment that is supportive, non-threatening, and conducive to learning.

Focus Questions

It was hoped that this research did find that the reader’s workshop did help students with learning disabilities in their overall academic achievement. The focus questions that were addressed are:

1.) Is a reader’s workshop format affective for teaching high school special education students with learning disabilities?

2.) Will participation in reader’s workshop in a resource setting affect reading levels for high school special education students with reading disabilities as measured on the Reading Inventory for the Classroom (RIC)?

3.) Will the implementation of reader’s workshop in a resource setting improve student interest in reading and student perceptions of themselves as readers as measured on a student questionnaire?

Overview of Methodology

This thesis was an action research as opposed to other types of possible research styles. The study was done over one semester from August 2010, through December, 2010 at East Coweta High School. The nine students who participated were in the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th grades and were in a reading support class for students with reading disabilities. The students who were in the reading support class were recommended by their teachers last year to take this class in order to help with their reading. This was discussed during each student’s IEP meeting and agreed to by the committee as being potentially helpful for the individual student’s needs.

The students were given the Reading Inventory in the Classroom (RIC) as a pre-test to determine what reading level the students were on and a RIC posttest was given to look for any increase in the reading level. The pre-test helped the teacher to design a program that was best for each student. During the course of the semester the students had their progress monitored by the teacher though the use of techniques such as introducing schema, read aloud, think aloud, individual student conferencing, and independent reading. Students also kept reading logs, set goals, and kept conference logs to monitor their progress.

The content of this class focused on improving comprehension reading skills as evident by improved reading levels. In the 1980s, Atwell (1987) implemented a reading workshop in her classroom with much success. Since that time many other teachers have used this in their class with a high degree of success. The concept that you only become a better reader by reading was put to the test using the reader’s workshop format.

Human as Researcher

I have been at East Coweta High School since returning to education in 2006. This was my fifth year teaching Special Education at East Coweta High School. In 2007-08 the county built a 9th grade campus and split 9th grade students away from the main campus. I have taught 9th grade Special Education students since that time.

One bias I had was that I believed that if you want students to learn how to become better readers you must teach them reading strategies and then give them plenty of time to practice those strategies when they read. All too frequently students are not given time to practice what we want them to be able to do. The average high school student spends very little time in the school day actually reading. They spend almost no time reading for pleasure and get very little if any actual reading instruction.

CHAPER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Today our schools are being asked to do something they have never been asked to do before; that something is to ensure that all students attain high standards. Teachers have to educate children to be able to live and function in a world that does not yet even exist. Educators have to teach children concepts that will remain true and consistent and relevant no matter how the world changes. Teachers cannot do this by simply working harder at what they have always done. As educators embark on the era of performance standards they are going to be faced with changes in the way they do business in our schools. The only reliable way that can be seen through the fog of these changes is an understanding of our purposes and a reasonable expectation of the results that will occur as a result of these changes.

There was once a time when teachers did not have to pay much attention to student data. Then a paradigm shift occurred and now everything is data driven. Today schools struggle with the problem of student achievement and accountability. Data now tells teachers they need to change their delivery. The question is not why teachers should change but how are they going to do it.

In this day and age educators have extensive research to help them maximize learning opportunities that will help students in developing the knowledge and skills necessary for achieving success in school. There are three bodies of research worth reviewing. They are:

1. Instructional Plan and Strategies

2. Student Achievement

3. Student Motivation/ Engagement

Instructional Plan and Strategies

One of the problems facing many students with learning disabilities is that when they reach high school they lack the skills and strategies that good readers have. Lacking those skills, they struggle and fall further behind in their academic content areas. This frequently results in increased frustration, a sense of hopelessness, and in some cases an increase in the dropout rate for those students (Martin, Martin, & Carvalho, 2008).

The reader’s workshop is a child centered approach to teaching students. Atwell (1987) said that by allowing sustained reading in her classroom she saw positive results in the number of students who increased their reading levels which also improved their standardized test scores. A reader’s workshop is where the teacher begins the class with a focus lesson in which they model what they have just taught the students before they have the students start their silent reading. During the silent reading, the teacher confers with the students to make sure that the students understand what is expected of them before settling down to read as well (Hagerty, 1992). In a reader’s workshop students are able to select the books they want to read and read at their own pace. The students also have the opportunity to share what they have read with others in the class. Good readers learn about reading by reading, listening to others and talking to others, about what they have read. Hagerty (1992) said that “through self-selection, self-pacing, sharing, listening, and spending significant amounts of time reading, the children not only learn how to read, they also learn what reading is about” (p. 3).

Miller and Higgins (2008) said that teachers are becoming more and more frustrated because they have to teach to the test instead of being able to use techniques that work. However, there are practices out there that will work and they do not require teachers to abandon those teaching practices that are effective in place of teaching test preparation to the students. Miller and Higgins (2008) suggest that a reader’s and writer’s workshop approach will help provide authentic learning and still help the students prepare to take the standardized test that has been mandated by the government. By allowing students to have the time to read and working on reading skills, teachers can help the student’s progress in their reading skills. According to Fountas and Pinnell, (2001) when teachers increase sustained silent reading giving students more time on task to practice using reading strategies the more academic achievement increased. In order for students to achieve this, they must read every day. Most students seldom read more than 5 minutes a day, and students who are the lowest readers do not read at all. Often the opportunity that the students have to read is in school and then it is taken up with the teacher giving a lecture, having the students fill out a worksheet, or waiting for others to finish up. Therefore struggling readers spend less time reading independently and have poor recall and comprehension of what they have read, so they never improve their reading. Ivey (as cited by Miller & Higgins, 2008) said that by giving students including struggling students time to read improves their skills and helps them to be more prepared for standardized tests. By giving students time to read independently, students improve their vocabulary, are more familiar with sentence structure, and gain more information; this enables them to build their comprehension which, in turn, helps with reading standardized tests (Miller, & Higgins, 2008).

William Glasser (1982), in his book, Control Theory, believes that humans need to have some control over their life. Students do not receive control at school through their academics but in their extra-curricular actives such as athletics, drama, and music. Glasser gives an example of a basketball team that is driven to win because they have the power players who can get the job done. In this case he explains that the weaker players do not see much playing time during the game but this does not stop them from being the hardest workers on the court during practice in hopes that the coach will put them in for just a few minutes of playing time. Glasser says that the players are willing to work hard because they have control over whether or not they get to play those few minutes or not. Glasser believes that students have a lack of belonging and power in their academic classes that they receive in their nonacademic actives such as athletics, drama, music and other nonacademic groups (Glasser, 1982).

When students get to choose what they want to read, it no longer becomes a chore and they do not even mind reading at home. Just as adults choose what they enjoy reading and what is meaningful, so should students be allow to do the same. As they read more, the students start to understand what genre they like and what genre they do not like to read and can even explain why they like or do not like a particular genre. Reader’s workshop is designed to do just that: to let students read material on their level that is interesting to them, while teaching them strategies that will help to develop their reading ability. Students have a hard time picking out books at first because they do not know what they like. When teachers tell the students that they should like a book because it is a classic and they do not like to read, they find it hard to want to participate in the reading experience. Adults are able to choose what they like to read and so to should students be allowed to discriminate between what they like and what they do not like (Lausé, 2004).

Nancy Atwell (1987) thought that if she gave her student’s choices on what they could read and write, it was the same as her students taking ownership. Atwell said that it took her a long time to come to the conclusion that students had ideas that they could and would write about if given a chance. Once she eventually gave up the lectures, assignments, tests, and worksheets as ways of teaching Atwell discovered how talking with students about writing and reading could become practical ways of teaching. Atwell (1987) said that, “if we want our adolescent students to grow to appreciate literature, another first step is allowing them to exert ownership and choose the literature they will read” (p.161).

Miller (2002) stated that in the beginning of the reader’s workshop the teacher has most of the control of the class, but as the school year progresses, the control is turned over to the students. Students are given time, choice, responsibility and a structured guide that helps them take ownership of their reading. According to Au, et al. (2001) the students have to learn ownership and the teacher serves as a model for students to learn how to take ownership of their reading. When teachers play an authoritarian role in the classroom, the results are a decrease in student motivation, poor student attitude, and poorer classroom performance. However, when students are allowed to have choices in their instruction they are motivated and actively participate in the classroom (Flowerday, Schraw, & Stevens, 2004).

Miller (2002) said that there are four stages to helping students become independent readers. Those four stages are: teacher modeling, guided practice, independent practice, and application of the strategies. By using these four stages one can teach comprehension strategies such as building on prior knowledge, creating a visual image, making inferences, drawing conclusions, asking questions, finding the main idea, and synthesizing to help students to become more proficient readers. One of the most important things that Miller does in her reader’s workshop is to read aloud to her students. By modeling this method she is helping her students and motivating them to become better readers, helping to extend their oral vocabulary, and introducing her students to new and interesting genres. Au, et al. (2001) agree that one of the most important things you can do for your students is to read aloud to them. By modeling this for the students, they see the teachers’ fascination and excitement the teacher has for reading and learning and that reading can be pleasurable.

Meyer (2010) has a different approach to the reader’s workshop. Meyer uses a collaborative reading workshop. In this approach the teacher chooses the material that will be discussed by the class. The material that is used is articles from magazines, newspapers, lyrics from songs and poems of high interest to the students. In the collaborative reading workshop, the teacher still models reading strategies and higher order thinking. As the teacher reads and thinks aloud, the students write their own questions, wonderings, and connections using sticky notes or writing in the margins of their worksheets. Students are encouraged by the teacher to make connections through text-to-text, text-to-self, text-to-world and to share their connections at the end of class. According to Fountas and Pinnell, (2001) teachers need to make the literature relevant to the students by connecting it to their real lives. Au, et al. (2001) said that reading comprehension is the ability of students to construct meaning and respond to the text using background knowledge they already have as well as using printed information. As the students read on their own and write down their questions and wonderings, they have to decide whether or not they can find the answer in the text or their head. This is a question-answer relationship approach that helps to increase reading comprehension. Meyers found out that as students made connections, wondered about things, and asked questions, the process provided the students with greater input and ownership of their reading (Meyer, 2010).

According to Krashen, (2009) one way students learn is by giving students books that are interesting and comprehensible. Readers do not learn by doing vocabulary drills, grammar practice, or comprehension actives. The students learn by reading. Students learn to read because the teacher has modeled for them different strategies that good readers use and the students are allowed time to practice these strategies. One of the most important things that a teacher can do is to read aloud to her students; by doing this, the student’s experience the excitement and fascination that books can hold and learn that reading is pleasurable (Au, et al. 2001). Being successful in the reader’s workshop does not mean you have to be a good reader. The goal is to become a better reader (Lausé, 2004).

In 1999 South Lawrence East Elementary School joined the Coalition of Essential Schools in order to help with their literacy program. They adopted the “Learn to Read by Reading” which was developed by Eliot-Pearson Center for Applied Child Development at Tufts University (Toomey, 2007). This approach is set up with a Reader’s Workshop, Writers Workshop, Phonics/Word Study, and Interactive Read Aloud. In the Reader’s Workshop the teacher conducts a focus lesson; give the students time to read, and conducts conferences with the students. At the end of the session students come together and share what they have learned or read related to a focus lesson. The outcome for South Lawrence East Elementary School is that the children love to read books that they are choosing for themselves. For struggling readers, they are able to give them the extra support they need to be successful. Because of this approach they have been able to meet Adequate Yearly Progress in English Language Arts (Toomey, 2007).

Student Achievement

In order to understand where the students’ reading levels were, some kind of assessment was needed. Teachers have found informal reading inventories an easy and fast way to assess for reading levels and reading comprehension. The informal reading inventory was chosen for this research, for its design in assessing reading comprehension, and reading levels.

Reading comprehension testing has been conducted for decades. When the informal reading inventory was first used it was mainly used to assess fluency and recall. Today it is used to assess critical reading skills, schema, and building on a student’s prior knowledge. Testing for critical reading skills, including having students respond to literature both orally and with writing, seeks deeper meanings and not just memorization. The more students are engaged in what they are reading, the more likely it is that the student will continue to read. The more reading the students do, the more they begin to think for themselves and know what the author is talking about (Applegate, et al. 2004).

The informal reading inventory that was used is Reading in the Classroom (RIC) as found in Reading in the Classrooms (RIC) by Flynt and Cooter (2004). The narrative passages from sections A and B was used to measure comprehension, fluency and reading rate. The Reading Inventory for the Classrooms by Flynt and Cooter (2004) was developed for the use by teachers who might still be in a transitional stage of teaching reading while moving toward a more balanced type of instruction. Some the items that were measured in this reading inventory are: reading fluency, fluency of reading rate, attention to story elements and content text elements, literal, inferential and evaluative comprehension, and content text elements. The RIC is designed to help educators to quickly and efficiently evaluate students reading ability and help determine what skills they are weak in and which skills are their strengths (Flynt & Cooter, 2004).

With increasing pressure from state and federal governments on student achievement, it is becoming more and more important that teachers monitor student performance and assess their strengths and weaknesses (Provost, et al. 2010). In order to identify those students who are struggling with their reading, many schools have turned to Informal Reading Inventories (IRI) as a way to supplement teacher made assessments. Educators who teach special education find the IRI a practical tool for evaluating students reading skills (Spector, 2005). The IRI are diagnostic assessments designed to help teacher’s evaluate student reading performance through word recognition, oral reading, strengths, weaknesses, fluency and comprehension (Applegate, et al. 2005; Nilsson, 2008). IRI’s are a set of passages that are leveled going from beginner all the way to high school. After reading a passage the student answers questions that assess his or her comprehension and recall ability. Then the student reads the passage aloud while the teacher checks for mistakes. The teacher combines the two and determines the student’s independent, instructional and frustration level. Once the diagnosis is made the teacher can help match the student to his or her independent reading level so that the student can choose books of interest (Nilsson, 2008).

Nina Nilsson (2008) did an analysis of eight informal reading inventories and found that they all had strengths and limitations. The first category that is discussed is passage genre. Five of the eight IRIs had the narrative text and expository materials separate. This made it easier to assess the passages for all levels. Next was the passage length which varies from short to longer length for students in high school. Lastly, in comprehension/recall measures, all of the IRIs tried to assess these areas of determining a readers understanding of both narrative and expository text structure and different levels of reading comprehension. Six of the eight IRIs evaluated narrative text for comprehension and retelling and focused on question schemes with use of a retelling rubric. For evaluating expository text in comprehension and recall, there is variety with the IRIs. According to Spector (2005), most IRIs have not changed in the past twenty or thirty years. Those authors of IRIs have not addressed the reliability issue of their work, and with so much depending on test scores, this needs to be addressed if educators are going to use IRIs as a form of measurement for students reading level. Documentation of IRIs reliability is poor. Janet Spector’s last finding showed that the authors have made the inventories weak by not including instructions to use two passages at the same level to get accurate scores. Due to the need to review student reading progress teachers are often left to figure out not only what to measure but how to do this. For those teachers who do use the IRI there are many different ones available out there including making one of your own. Because of the federal mandates that the government has placed on grant money, for a school to be able to receive the money, they have to have a way to test the students that has both proven validity and reliability. Also the assessments must cover five critical areas of reading; comprehension, vocabulary, fluency, phonemic awareness, and phonics (Provost, et al. 2010).

Many educators have found the IRI’s to be very useful in the classroom and continue to use them. A difficult job for educators is to find the IRI that will do what it is that the teacher wants to measure. Educators need to ask questions about what they are looking for in an IRI. In order to help teachers with this, Flippo, et al. (2009) implemented five criteria: content, the passages used, measuring comprehension, IRI administration, and interpretation of the results. Looking at these five criteria can help teachers determine their own values and what is important to them and their students. There are three things that the teacher needs to be aware of: what does the teacher want to assess of the student, what is the best way to assess it, and what provides the best instructions possible for the student.

Student Motivation/ Engagement

In school students are told what to read, when to read and how long they have to get the material read. For students who struggle with reading this can be a turn off that causes them to shut down reading the material at all. Frequently, these same students do not want to read the material the teacher tells them to read, but they are not given a choice in the matter. When students have the opportunity to choose books that interest them they are more likely to read for pleasure and read more often.

There are two types of interest that researchers have determined: topic and situational interest. Topic interest is sometimes known as personal interests that are built on prior knowledge, personal expression and emotions. Situational interest is short term and is dependent on the content of the engagement. With situational interest the uniqueness or significant informational content is the bases of this interest. Situational interest is what gets your attention, whereas topic interest will hold your interest. Students with higher topic interest prior to reading do better on recall tests and create more visual images of what they are reading. Both topic and situational interest have an effect on engagement and learning of students. Because situational interest grabs our attention it can help in promoting topic interest. Students with lower interest in reading were found to perform better on rote memory tests where the test wanted facts and details. Students who have a higher interest in reading have an in-depth understanding in the information and processing it (Flowerday, et al. 2004). Glasser (1982) states that we are social creatures that need the support and the interest of others in order for us to find deeper meaning, and we need to discuss what we read with others.

Literature circles have been very effective in the general education classroom. However when they are used for students with reading disabilities, they are still just as effective. Literature circles increase achievement in oral language, reading, and writing. Students have the opportunity to choose the books that they are interested in reading. Having involvement in making decisions about their books gives students’ empowerment. Even students with learning disabilities can find success in this structure. As these students begin to develop more self confidence they begin to take greater risks. Glasser (1982) worked in a reform school for girls and he would take books from his library, share with the girls what the book was about, and then leave the book for the girls to read. What he found is that girls who had never read started to read and, more than that, they wanted to discuss what they had read with each other. Literature circles are similar to reader’s workshop in that they allow the students to choose their own book and they are given time to read. In both literature circles and in reader’s workshop, students share responsibility for their learning and the teacher guides the students. The students begin to see good reading strategies modeled by the teacher and over time the hope is that students will increase their interest in reading (Anderson & Corbett, 2008).

As we become more technologically advanced we run the risk of having our students lose interest in reading. Some say that, the increase in visual media is leading to decrease reading comprehension skills and learning. There are several factors that affect interest in reading: your age, sex, family background and home environment. According to Johnson-Smaragdi, and Jonsson (2006), girls tend to read more than boys. Teachers are faced with finding ways to make reading more interesting for males and finding material that is less feminine in content (Johnson-Smaragdi, & Jonsson, 2006). Beers (2003) thought if she taught her students the basic skills that they would begin to enjoy and even like to read. What she did not understand was that if she taught the cognitive aspects of reading then that did not necessarily mean that they would gain the aspects of engagement, interest, enjoyment, and motivation automatically. Hopper (2005) states that adolescent reading habits have not changed over the years. They still like the same type of fiction that other generations liked and the only difference is the authors. Most adolescents want to read books that are relevant to their life experiences and apprehensions they have. When teachers make suggestions on or choose books for students to read in their classroom, one of the problems is that teachers are not always aware of adolescent literature on the market. They do not keep up with what is interesting to the students they are teaching. In her conclusion, Hopper said that if teachers can make clear connections between curriculum directives for reading and understand what students are interested in reading, they can provide reading material and incorporate 21st century technology literacies progression in reading in their classrooms. When these connections are made, then there is a possibility of encouraging better reading habits and giving students the opportunity to become readers.

According to Beers (2003) students who have reading problems can be grouped into three areas. In the first group are the students who lack cognitive abilities and struggle with confidence, comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, or word recognition. In the second group are those readers who have negative attitudes towards reading and say that, “It is boring”, “I don’t like to read”, “Why do I have to read this stuff.” This group has frequently experienced so many failures in their reading career that they are now disengaged from the reading process and lack the social and emotional confidence to become successful readers. In the third group, are the readers who do not know what types of books they like to read. They believe that reading a novel is like reading a text book and they lack the stamina to complete the text.

In the experiment done by Flowerday, et al. (2004) they found that a student’s situational interest had an major effect on attitudes, but only a mild effect on engagement of the reader. In the second experiment when they revised the text, the student’s attitude toward learning and engagement increased. As student interest increased student attitude became more positive. The second outcome of the study was that although topic interest when considered by itself showed there was an effect on students attitudes, the effect was more salient than with situational interest. The research suggests that this could be due to redundancy, the material being too simple, the material too poorly written; students knew little about the topic or had a different understanding than the researcher had. Last the study showed that choice by itself with no student interest had little effect on attitude or engagement.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Educational action research is a study that changes and improves work with the students, and schools. This research can be used to generate knowledge of a practice that can be shared with others at the school and can be used to produce lasting and sustainable change in the school (Hendricks, 2009). According to Hendricks (2009) there are four types of action research: collaborative, critical, classroom, and participatory. This research was classroom action research. Teachers often use classroom action research because it is designed with the purpose of improving a teacher’s practice and it is often done alone (Hendricks, 2009). Saul and Launius (2010) said it is teacher research or action research when a teacher uses the best methods to help students learn.

Setting

The study was done over one semester from August 2010 through December 2010 at East Coweta High School. East Coweta High School had a population of 2,659 students of which 971 of those students had an Individual Education Plan (IEP). This location was chosen because the person doing the study was employed there as a Special Education teacher. This class was assigned by the school administration to the teacher doing the study. Permission was given by the principal at East Coweta High School and by the Coweta County Board of Education. The Institutional Review Board application was submitted for approval.

Subjects and Participants

The nine subjects who participated in the study were in high school grades 9, 10, 11 and 12. There are 4 ninth grader boys and 5 girls 2 tenth graders, 1 eleventh grader, and 2 seniors. They were in a reading support class for students with reading disabilities. The students who were in the reading support class were recommended by their teachers last year to take this class in order to help with their reading. This was discussed during each student’s IEP meeting and agreed to by the committee as being potentially helpful for the individual student’s needs. The participant is a teacher in the ninth grade building who teaches ninth grade literature. The participant had work for two years at East Coweta High School where she had taught a collaborative class working with students with special needs. She was chosen because she has knowledge of how a reader’s workshop operates, was familiar with the standards that was covered, and had worked in a collaborative setting with students who had special needs. She received her MEd from LaGrange College last July and is familiar with the requirements necessary to receive a MEd degree from LaGrange College.

Procedures and Methods

In this study, the Reader’s Workshop design was used to examine the effectiveness of this design for students with reading disabilities. Using informal reading inventories helped to assess the students’ growth and having the students respond to a pre and post questionnaires showed if giving the students a choice in reading increased their interest in reading. The data shell (see Table 3.1) is important because it provides a brief overview of how the study was designed. By referring to the data shell the reader can see how focus questions align with literature sources as well as the data collection methods and analysis.

Table 3.1. Data Shell

|Focus Question |Literature Sources |Type: Method, Data, |How these data are |Rationale |

| | |Validity |analyzed | |

|1.) Is a reader’s workshop|Meyer, K., (2010) |Type of Method: |Coded for themes | |

|format effective for |Atwell, N., (1987) |Instructional Plan rubric |Recurring |Looking for |

|teaching high school |Hagerty, P. (1992) |and interview |Dominant |categorical and |

|students with learning | |Type of Data: |Emerging |repeating data that |

|disabilities? | |Qualitative | |form patterns of |

| | |Type of Validity: | |behaviors |

| | |Content | | |

|2.) Will participation in |Flynt & Cooter (2004) |Type of Method: |Qualitative: |Inferential |

|reader’s workshop in a |Applegate, M.D., Quinn, |Reading Inventory for the |Dependent T-test |statistics |

|resource setting affect |K.B., & Applegate, A.J. |Classroom (RIC) |ANOVA | |

|reading levels for 9th |(2004) Nilsson, N. |Type of data: |Effect Size | |

|grade students with |(2008) |Interval | | |

|learning disabilities as | |Type of Validity: | | |

|measured on the Reading | |Content | | |

|Inventory for the | | | | |

|Classroom (RIC)? | | | | |

|3.) Will the |Atwell, N., (1987) |Type of Method: |Coded for themes |Looking for |

|implementation of reader’s|Anderson, P., & Corbett,|Reflective Journal |Recurring |categorical and |

|workshop in a resource |L.. (2008) Flowerday, |Student Questionnaire |Dominant |repeating data that |

|setting improve reading |T., Schraw, G., & |Readers Notebook |Emerging |form patterns of |

|interest for students? |Stevens, J. (2004) |Reading Logs | |behaviors |

| | |Type of Validity: | | |

| | |Construct | | |

Focus Question 1

1. Is a reader’s workshop format affective for teaching high school special education students with learning disabilities?

The reading support class was set up based upon a reader’s workshop design. In this design the lesson opened with whole group instruction/focus lesson on reading skills and/or strategies. During the class opening the teacher conducts a read aloud followed by a group book discussion. Students then move to independent reading with books matched to their independent text level and read for 30 to 40 minutes using the strategies that had been taught in the focus lesson at the beginning of class. During this time the teacher facilitated independent reading activities with reading conferences and reading assessments. To bring closure to the class, students had time to write in their readers’ note book about what they had read before they come together again as a whole group to share what they had read and to tie it to the focus lesson and standard (Au, et. al., 2001; Atwell, 1987; Fountas, & Pinnell; 2001; Hagerty, 1992).

To improve on this study an instructional plan was developed along with a rubric. The instructional plan rubric was given to two colleagues in order to gather suggestions to improve instruction in the classroom. Colleague one was chosen for her knowledge of the reader’s workshop format. Colleague two was chosen because of her knowledge of special needs students.

The purpose of the focus skill/strategy lesson at the beginning of the class was to teach students a skill, schema, or concept that had been identified as a need for students. The teacher chose the focus of the lesson based upon observed needs or needs as identified in student IEPs. Lessons generally ran no more that 10 to 15 minutes and became an underlying focus for independent reading. Lessons also became the focus for the topic during closure of the lesson.

Students were assessed through Reading in the Classrooms (RIC) an informal reading inventory. This was given three times throughout the semester to look for strengths, weaknesses and growth in students reading comprehension. With this information the teacher conferred with the students individually to discuss their weaknesses, set strategies and goals for students to use as they read their books (Flynt & Cooter, 2004).

Students were given a pre/post questionnaire at the beginning of the semester and again at the end of the semester to determine if their attitude toward reading had changed. A reflective journal was used to see how the practitioner felt the focus lessons worked in the class. The knowledge gained from both successful and unsuccessful lesson practices were recorded during the semester (See Appendix A).

Focus Question 2

2.) Will participation in reader’s workshop in a resource setting affect reading levels for high school special education students with reading disabilities as measured on the Reading Inventory for the Classroom (RIC)?

The RIC that was used for the pre and posttest was designed by Flynt and Cooter (2004) to help teachers in the classroom to have a quick look at and determine what reading level the students in the classroom are on. The pretest that was given to the students at the beginning of the semester was form A (See Appendix B). This study used the narrative form to address students reading weakness.

The students were taken to a different classroom with the teacher and asked to read from a card that had sentences with different levels. They started out at level 3 and progressed until the student made three mistakes. At that time the teacher gave the student a passage to read that was one level below where the student made the three mistakes. Before the students read the passage they were told to read it carefully because they would need to tell the teacher about what they read. After the students read the passage, then retold the story, the teacher marked “ua” on the line to show that the student answered the question unassisted, and then the teacher would ask the remaining question to the student and write “a” on the line to show that the student answered the question with the assistance of the teacher. Students were then asked to move on to read the passage aloud to the teacher while she timed it and checked for mistakes. This process was continued until the students reached their frustration level. This process allowed the teacher to determine the student’s independent level, instructional level, and frustration level. This gave the teacher a starting point at which to help the students to choose books that would be on their reading level.

Focus Question 3

Will the implementation of reader’s workshop in a resource setting improve student interest in reading and student perceptions of themselves as readers as measured on a student survey?

The students participated in a reader’s workshop for one semester. An instructional plan was developed as a guide line for the study. The instructional plan and rubric was given to two colleagues to look over and make suggestions for improving the reader’s workshop and making it better (See Appendix C and D).

The students were given an informal reading inventory to measure reading levels in the students. The informal reading inventory that was given was the RIC (See Appendices E and F). Using the informal reading inventory was useful to both the teacher and the students. The teacher was able to share the information from the informal reading inventory with the students and show them their weaknesses. Then a plan was developed cooperatively by the teachers and students to best help the student improve on their weaknesses. Students were able to select their own reading materials as their independent level after learning of their RIC results.

The students were given a pre/post questionnaire at the end of the semester to find out what they thought about themselves as a reader before the semester and at the end of the semester. This was designed to let the teacher know if the students changed their opinions about themselves as readers over the course of the semester. The questionnaire helped the teacher know what worked well and what did not work so well for the students.

During the reader’s workshop, a reflective journal (See Appendix G) was kept by the teacher to write down information on which instructional techniques worked and which ones did not work so well. Teacher observations and students conferences were held to see if the students were engaged in their books and were able to apply focus lessons to their reading during the week.

Validity, Reliability, Dependability and Bias

Focus question: Is a reader’s workshop format effective for teaching high school students with learning disabilities? To determine if the reader’s workshop format is effective, the method that was used to gather data was the instructional plan rubric and the interviews with the colleagues. After the colleagues filled out the rubric, an interview was conducted with the colleague to clarify the responses. The qualitative data that was collected was used to improve the classroom instruction.

To ensure content validity was done in this study an instructional plan was created. According to Popham (2008) content validity is the extent to which an assessment procedure adequately represents the content of the curricular standard being measured. To determine if the reader’s workshop format is effective an instructional plan was developed. In the instructional plan an overview of the study was created along with a rubric which was given to a colleague to make suggestions and ensure that the standards would be covered. To ensure dependability transcript interviews were recorded and the interviewee checked transcripts for accuracy in the instructional plan.

Popham(2008) stated that there are three types of bias that can occur: unfair, offensive and disparate impact. According to Popham (2008) an unfair bias occurs when an unfair penalization is made on a student based on his or her association with a certain membership to a group. According to Popham (2008) an offensive bias is when certain subgroup members have negative stereotypes that are present in a test.

Focus question two: Will participation in reader’s workshop in a resource setting affect reading levels for 9th grade students with learning disabilities as measured on the Reading Inventory for the Classroom (RIC)? The data gathering method that used was the Reading Inventory for the Classroom. The RIC is an informal reading inventory that was used along with a student reading notebook to gather data. The students wrote in their readers’ notebook at the end of each class. This was used to help determine if the students were using the information from the focus lesson introduced at the beginning of each class session.

Interval data were used to measure students reading levels. Salkind (2010) states that interval data is a test or a type of assessment that is based on some underlying continuum such that we can discuss how much higher a performance is than a lesser one. The students read sentences from different level passages to determine the starting point on the RIC.

To ensure content validity with the students reading levels, the Reading Inventory for the Classroom (RIC) was administered. According to Salkind (2010), content validity is when a test measures many universal items that the test was designed for. The RIC measures for comprehension, inferential, theme, evaluative, literal and problem solving. The RIC was given at the beginning of the semester, in the middle of the semester, and at the end of the semester. By administering the RIC three times during the semester the teacher was able to determine if the students improved on their reading levels. The RIC was used to target the student’s areas of weakness so that an instructional plan could be developed and implemented to help the students improve in the areas of their weaknesses.

Parallel forms of reliability were used to expose the RIC to the degree to which the RIC testing was reliable for the assessment. According to Salkind (2010), parallel forms of reliability are used when examining the equivalence or similarity between two different forms of the same assessment. The RIC was given three times during the semester. Each time it was given a different assessment passage was used to measure the reading levels. At the conclusion of the semester all three RIC assessments were checked for reliability using a parallel correlation between tests and an examination of the variances with an ANOVA among the three groups.

According to Popham (2008), an offensive bias occurs when there is a negative stereotype of a certain group. This study was conducted with students who were in special education and had been identified as having a learning disability in reading. Because this study was conducted with only students who had learning disabilities there was no offensive bias in this study. When students were given the RIC there was no disparate impact found. All the students were assessed under the same conditions when they were given the RIC. The students were not penalized when they took the RIC based on their disability. The study may only be skewed by the opinions of the teacher. No evidence was found that an unfair bias took place because the assessment sought to find individual strengths and weaknesses in reading comprehension.

To address focus question three with regards to improving student interest in reading, data were collected from a reflective journal, questionnaire, and student artifacts.

My hypothesis was that after the students participated in a reading support class set up in a reader’s workshop format that the students’ interest will change. According to Popham (2008), construct validity is the hardest of the three types of validity to measure because attitudes and behaviors are difficult to measure. Developing a hypothesis about student outcomes is the first thing that is done to establish construct validity. Evidence must then be gathered to support the hypotheses. This study used the reflective journal, teacher observation and student questionnaire to determine if after participating in the reading support class the student’s interest in reading improved. In this study, the student questionnaire was used to determine if the student’s interest increased after participating in the reading resource class. To check the degree to which these questionnaires were reliable, the Infinite Campus electronic grade book was used. These data that were recorded in the grade book reflected whether the students were responding to the teacher’s instruction during the week. If students were missing their readers notebook and/or reading logs this was recorded in the grade book. The missing assignments gave evidence of engagement with the strategies that were used. The reflective journal was kept for the collected data over a semester during the school year. These data were accurately recorded with the use of protocols. Files with all the documents were kept in a locked filling cabinet in the office of the researcher. The threat of an unfair bias was reduced in this study due to the length of time devoted to the treatment. The treatment was done over one semester during which time each student received instruction based on his or her needs. All measures were taken not to have offensive and disparate impact bias in the questionnaire that the students completed. This questionnaire was entirely optional for them to fill out.

Analysis of Data

The qualitative data that were used to answer focus question one was through an instructional plan rubric. The rubric was filled out by a two colleagues who critiqued the instructional plan. When the rubric was complete, an interview was conducted to clarify the feedback from the rubric. The qualitative analysis was coded for themes by using recurring, dominant and emerging analysis of the data. The study looked for categorical and repeating data that form patterns of behaviors.

The quantitative data that was used to answer focus question two was an informal reading inventory, Reading Inventory for the Classroom (RIC). The assessment was given at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the semester. The quantitative analysis used was a dependent- t test which analyzed pre and post test results to determine if there was a significant difference between the mean from the beginning of the study to the end of the study with the same group of subjects. The decision to reject the null hypothesis has been set at p < .05. Once the RIC had been administered a dependent-t test was run to determine if there was a significance difference before the treatment. The class had only nine students in it so an effect size r was used for paired data in the dependent t test to determine if there was a significant difference. An ANOVA was done to analyze the variance with the students over the course of the semester to determine if there was any student achievement. The decision to reject the null hypothesis for the ANOVA has been set at p ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download