Ltl.appstate.edu



Improving Reading Comprehension

in

Academically Gifted Students

Theresa Edwards

3rd Grade AG

Whitaker Elementary

WSFCS

Background/Introduction

The concern I decided to study involved building reading comprehension in Academically Gifted 3rd grade students. Typically students who test well generally are harder to show growth on end of grade tests. For example if a students tests in the 99 percentile where is there room to grow? Through my research I should be able to show a way to grow my students in their reading comprehension. In addition with enough practice students should be able to transfer higher level thinking in math as well as science and social studies. Therefore my research question was:

Does Higher Level questioning improve reading comprehension in Academically Gifted students?

I read several research studies that determined certain strategies that build comprehension skills in all students. In the book Classroom Instruction That Works authors Marzano, Pickering and Pollock provide evidence to prove that questioning increases student achievement. Questions offered prior to learning establishes a mental set to help students tap into their prior knowledge in order to process new information quicker. Deeper levels of learning is a direct produce of higher level questions. In their study they found an average effect size of .61 with students having an average 23 point percentile gain. (pg.iv)

An article in Gifted Child Today by Elizabeth Shaunessy (2000) documents the use of questioning techniques with gifted students. She reports the use of questioning techniques stimulates creative development and encourages purposeful inquiry. She recommends Bloom’s Taxonomy for teachers to become skilled in effective questioning. In this article Shaunessy (Callahan,1978) lists types of questions to use such as evaluative questions and interpretive questions.(pg.14)

Another research article by Goldenberg (1992/1993) advocates the use of Instructional Conversations to build comprehension. He believes Instructional Conversations “engage students in interactions to promote analysis, reflection, and critical thinking.” Some keys to implementing this type of instruction are appropriate book selection and teacher preplanning. The planning is labor intensive but teachers must know the material in order to sustain and facilitate students’ discussion. (pg. 316)

In my research I found some interesting information related to high-level thinking and gifted students. Andrew Johnson (2001) wrote an article in which he states “ high-level thinking is not the same as a thinking skill. High-level thinking is any cognitive operation that places significant demands on the processing taking place in short term memory, such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Teachers often present high-level thinking tasks without any instruction. All students, including those who are highly creative and intellectually gifted, benefit from being given explicit instruction before being asked to engage in high-level thinking tasks. This instruction helps them learn these cognitive operations more quickly and opens up space in short term memory that can then be applied to other things.” (Pg.58)

Design of the Research Project

Participants and Setting:

I studied all the students in my morning class that consisted of 15 third grade students who were identified as Academically Gifted from IQ and achievement testing completed in second grade. There were 9 females and 6 males. There were no minority students in my class. The socioeconomic make up of the class was middle to upper class. Two students were in single parent families but the majority were in a two parent home. The setting was in a regular classroom. I was the only teacher in the classroom.

Intervention/Instructional Procedures:

I did my research while I was teaching the students within the context of Literature Circles. The class was divided into three groups of 5 students. Each Literature Circle was based on their pre STAR grade equivalent score. I made some adjustment to the groups so that I had a mixture of females and males. They were labeled the red, blue and green groups for purposes of documentation and classroom management.

I met with the red group on Mondays and Thursdays, the blue group on Tuesdays and Fridays and the green group on Wednesdays and Fridays for 25 to 30 minutes each day. My project started on September 29, 2005 and ended on October 24, 2005. Each group was assigned a chapter book to read that relate to our reading theme of family, school and friends. Students had reading assignments and journal responses on the days I met with the other groups. The meeting dates were for group discussion of what they have read and responded to in their journals. In addition I developed higher level questions based on Bloom’s Taxonomy to add to our reading group discussions. I used the following chapter books: Dear Mr. Henshaw with the higher level group (red), Ramona Quimby, Age 8 with my middle level group (blue) and Amber Brown Wants Extra Credit with my lower level (green). However my lower level readers were still on grade level to slightly above grade level readers .

Data Collection Methods:

My data collection consisted of several items. One was a checklist based on the quality of response (level one, level two, or level three) with three being considered a higher level response. I spoke with a teacher who was presenting workshops at our school about which comprehension objectives I should look for from my students. She help me to develop a list of comprehension objectives that I used to make my checklist. (See Appendix 1) I completed the checklist each time each group met. I coded the checklist as Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4 and Student 5 as the students came to the first meeting. I asked the students to continue to sit in the same location for each meeting in case I wanted to look at the responses of a particular student. I also looked at the frequency of responses, student participation in group discussions, and the independence of the conversation (were students able to hold a discussion with me as only an observer). I audio taped the three groups near the end of the project. I used this as a tool to help me review the level of responses and to see if I was allowing enough wait time for students to respond. Students kept a response journal so I looked at their written responses to determine if they comprehended at a higher level. Students also took a pre and post STAR test. STAR is a computerized test students take independently that determines a grade equivalent reading comprehension level. I collected the data over the four week period on all three groups and determined if their ability to think at a higher level improved as well as their STAR grade equivalent reading level.

Data Analysis Procedures

At the end of the data collection period I began to analyze the data to determine the best way to present the information. After analyzing the checklists I determined that the majority of responses were limited to four of the comprehension objectives that I was observing. Those were:

*Student can make connections.

*Student can make inferences.

*Student can generate questions.

*Student can make and justify judgements using text and background knowledge.

I assigned a point value to each level of response with level one having one point, level two having two points and level three having three points. Then I counted the frequency of each level of responses. I divided the number of points by the number of responses to get an average point value. I made these calculations on each objective for each group for each date we met. After I double checked my calculations I compiled the data into a chart per each group using the software program EXCEL.

I had the students take the STAR test again on October 26 or 27. I printed a Growth Report using the STAR software that compared each student’s pre and post STAR grade equivalent scores. Once again I used the software program EXCEL to create line graphs that showed the comparison of their pre and post STAR scores for each reading group.

Finally I listened to the recording of each of the three groups and chose a few minutes of discussion that best illustrated what I was trying to achieve.

Results

When I compared the results of the average points from the checklist I

discovered that the green and blue groups which were the lower and mid level groups increased their points over the four week period. While the red group which was the higher level group increased point value slightly it did not show as much as increase as the two other groups. The following charts show the results I received:

Red Literature Circle Checklist Results

|Comprehension Objective |29-Sep |3-Oct |6-Oct |10-Oct |18-Oct |

|Student can make connections. |0 |1 |2.5 |0 |2.5 |

|Student can make inferences. |1.75 |1.3 |2.6 |2.3 |3 |

|Student can generate questions. |1 |0 |2 |2 |3 |

|Student can make and justify judgements|2.5 |0 |2.6 |2.3 |3 |

|using text and background knowledge | | | | | |

Blue Literature Circle Checklist Results

|Comprehension Objective |30-Sep |4-Oct |7-Oct |11-Oct |18-Oct |24-Oct |

|Student can make connections. |1.2 |1.75 |2 |2 |2 |2.9 |

|Student can make inferences. |1.2 |2 |3 |2.8 |2.2 |2.8 |

|Student can generate questions. |1 |1 |2 |0 |2.5 |0 |

|Student can make and justify |0 |0 |2.8 |3 |4.7 |3 |

|judgements using text and background| | | | | | |

|knowledge | | | | | | |

Green Literature Circle Group Results

|Comprehension Objective |30-Sep |5-Oct |7-Oct |12-Oct |20-Oct |

|Student can make connections. |1 |1 |2 |1.6 |2.4 |

|Student can make inferences. |1.5 |1.3 |2.3 |2.6 |3 |

|Student can generate questions. |0 |0 |0 |2 |3 |

|Student can make and justify judgements |0 |2 |2.7 |2.5 |3 |

|using text and background knowledge | | | | | |

When I analyzed the pre and post STAR grade equivalent scores I noticed a striking similarity. The higher red group’s scores were basically maintained with one student scoring higher and one student scoring lower. While the lower green group and the middle blue group showed overall growth. The following graphs depict the results:

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

The final analysis was on the audio taped recording of the blue literature

circle group. The following is a partial transcript of the blue group’s discussion on

October 24, 2005. Please notice the detail with which Student 3 gives her explanations and how she can make connections to the real world. These responses were rated a level 3. In contrast to Student 4’s level one responses. Student 2 referred to the text in her responses which I also scored a level three:

Teacher: What has happened to the family car in this chapter?

Student 1: They’re getting it fixed.

Student 4: They’re getting it fixed and fill it up with gas and everything.

Teacher: Why is this worrying Ramona?

Student 3: Because their family has only a little bit of money and the car needs a new transmission. It costs a lot of money and Ramona’s afraid that if they have to spend all that money then her dad might get kicked out of his job or her mom because they don’t have enough money.

Student 2: And her dad won’t be able to go back to school.

Student 3: Yeah and he’ll just have to work as Santa’s little helper for a really long time.

Student 2: Yeah in the freezer department and get really cold because she said every single time that she came home his feet were cold.

Student 4: Yeah and then there was this guy that had those things from his moustache.

Student 3: The icicles.

Student 4: Yeah the icicles from his moustache. He had to break the icicles off from his moustache.

Teacher: Why would that worry Ramona?

Student 3: Because she doesn’t want her dad to get some kind of disease.

Student 4: Frostbite.

Student 2: I think she said something about cancer.

Student 4: Frostbite.

Student 3: She’s afraid her dad might get a really bad cold.

Teacher: If her dad got sick or got some disease from that how would that affect their family?

Student 3: Because he’s the moneymaker.

Student 2: He’s the one who has to go back to school so he can be an artist and make more money.

Student 4: To be an art teacher.

Teacher: Why do you think Mrs. Whaley sent letters from the class to Ramona?

Student 2: Probably because Ramona was a pretty good student and she probably didn’t like it if one of her students were sick and she wanted them to have cards so maybe she will feel better about herself and actually start telling her things. Then if she gets sick she will tell her.

Student 3: I think because she just really likes Ramona and she’s not a really disruptive person. She feels that Ramona might feel kind of embarrassed because she got egg on her head. Mrs. Whaley I think feels really bad because Ramona is having a bad experience at school so far. Mrs. Durham talked about this. When somebody has a bad experience at school then sometimes they’ll just not want to come back. And Ramona’s saying in the book, “I don’t want to go back to school.”

Student 2: Probably she’ll feel more welcome to come back to school.

Student 3: Yeah and Mrs. Whaley’s probably telling the kids, “don’t make Ramona feel bad when she comes back because you’ve already made her feel pretty bad.”

It was interesting to listen to this discussion because allowing the extended wait time caused Katherine and Brooke to think at a higher level and respond with detail.

Discussion

My findings began to show that students do improve reading comprehension

with higher level questioning. I think the red group would eventually show growth with an extension of this research project. Perhaps inviting them to see if they could use the other comprehension objectives that they were not using might grow them.

It needs to be noted here that the teacher’s judgement was used to rate the level of responses. It was somewhat difficult to remain consistent on grading the responses due to the differences in the text. The red group had the more difficult book with the greater chance for more thought provoking discussion. It is not certain that the questioning technique alone was the impetus for the growth shown. It simply could have been just the repeated exposure to the text along with the additional instruction of another whole class novel taking place concurrently with the literature circle instruction. Regardless the research project led me to believe in the power of high level questioning to build reading comprehension to a deeper level.

I have also come to realize the importance of teacher preparedness. In order to teach a novel at an in depth level and facilitate the discussion the teacher must know the material extremely well. The teacher must be prepared without notice to handle an alternative viewpoint from the students and respond in a way that would allow all students to comprehend and appreciate the response.

This information needs to a part of any workshop on how to teach guided reading or literature circles. The following website gave examples of the types of questions and levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy for teachers to use as a reference: (www,reading/blooms-taxonomy.html).

Another audience needs to be aware of these findings and that is administration. Teachers’ lack of sufficient planning time has been in discussion for many years. The need to be highly prepared for literature circle study provides another reason to provide teachers with more planning time.

In summary higher level questioning is a powerful tool for all teachers to utilize in their classrooms. Providing a risk free environment and sufficient wait time during discussions also is needed to grow good readers into lifetime readers.

Future Directions

I plan to continue using the higher level questioning technique in my

literature circle groups as well as whole class reading. I also will expand it to use in my other academic areas of instruction. Students can learn this technique as well. I have found question starter cards that I can use to teach my students to use the questioning technique within the literature circles. (See Appendix 2)

The checklist I created for this action research project would be a great tool for assessment. I plan to use this as a way for me to assess my students to see what comprehension objectives they continue to use in literature circle groups and which ones I need to teach them to use. Instead of using it every time as I did in my action research project I will use it as a pre and post assessment each time I begin a new novel with my literature circle groups.

The most important future direction is to continue to search for proven

strategies to grow higher level students. I will continue to search educational journals and converse with my colleagues and other teachers to find strategies to use with my gifted students and monitor their progress.

References

Marzano, Robert J., Pickering, Debra J., Pollock, Jane E.(2001) Classroom Instruction That Works. Alexandria, VA. ASCD

Shaunessy, E. (2000. Sep/Oct.) Questioning Techniques in the Classroom. Gifted Child Today. 14-21.

Goldenberg, C. (1992/1993 Dec./Jan) Instructional Conversations: Promoting Comprehension Through Discussion. The Reading Teacher. 316-326

Ford, D., Howard, T., Harris, J., (1999 Jul/Aug) Using Multicultural Literature in Gifted Education Classrooms. Gifted Child Today. 14-21

Johnson, A. (2001 Fall) How to Use Thinking Skills to Differentiate Curricula for Gifted and Highly Creative Students, Gifted Child Today. 58-63

Reading Services Center.(updated unknown) Teacher’s Corner. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from

Teaching Resources.(2005, October 15) The File Cabinet. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from

[pic]

[pic]

................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download