Action Research Proposal Template.docx



How Will Explicit Instruction in Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) Improve First Grade Students’ Reading Comprehension?Roberta LattinEast Carolina University AbstractThe purpose of this action research study was to determine how the use of explicit Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) instruction would affect first grade students’ reading comprehension achievement. This quasi-experimental pre/posttest design study included 39 students from two classrooms. The intervention group implemented the QAR strategy, while the comparison group used the traditional questioning method during reading instruction. An independent t-test using the mean gain scores from the pre and post MCLASS data (two-tailed p=0.03) and the common formative assessment data (two-tailed p=0.02) indicated the intervention positively impacted the reading comprehension achievement of the students. Keywords: Question-Answer Relationships, reading comprehension achievementThe “Read to Achieve” initiative, which challenges educators to ensure all students develop strong reading comprehension skills, was passed into law during the 2012-2013 North Carolina legislative session. This initiative requires every student in kindergarten through third grade to be assessed using a valid, reliable, formative, and diagnostic reading assessment. To meet the guidelines of this law, public schools throughout the state began using MCLASS Reading 3D to assess students’ reading proficiency. The text reading and comprehension (TRC) portion of the assessment requires students to read a text, provide a retell, and answer comprehension questions. In order for a student to attain proficiency, they must learn to read closely in order to determine what the text says explicitly while also making logical inferences. They must also cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text. The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of an action research study that explored the impact of explicit instruction using Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) on first grade students’ reading comprehension. Teachers implement questioning strategies to guide and monitor student learning and to promote higher-level thinking in their students during reading instruction. QAR is a reading comprehension strategy developed to help students approach the task of reading texts and answering questions (Raphael, 1986). QAR instruction teaches students where information can be found “In the Book” or “In my Head” by helping them realize the need to consider both information in the text and information from their own background knowledge or schema. Raphael’s (1986) research showed that students’ ability to correctly answer reading comprehension questions improved after being explicitly taught the QAR strategy. Therefore, QAR is a beneficial tool for students to utilize during reading comprehension instruction. A literature review that supports the use of the QAR reading strategy follows.Literature ReviewReading ComprehensionToday’s teachers share a common goal of teaching students to become strategic readers who are able to successfully comprehend different types of text (McLaughlin, 2012). The most recent 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results reveal that more than 30 percent of fourth graders attending public schools were unable to able to make simple inferences, locate information in text, identify supporting details, describe characters’ motivations and mood, and describe the problem in narrative text (Connor, Phillips, Kaschak, Apel, Kim, Otaiba, Crowe, Thomas-Tate, Johnson, & Lonigan, 2014). Many factors affect a students’ success in learning to read with understanding including: genetics, home literacy environment, health, poverty, stress, preschool experiences, parenting, peers, and motivation (Connor et al., 2014, p. 380). Research by Connor et al. (2014) supports the assertion that the achievement gap between students living in poverty and their more affluent peers continues to exist. Therefore, all teachers must have the instructional goal to improve each student’s comprehension and understanding, regardless of their achievement level. Defining Reading ComprehensionHarvey and Goudvis (2013) explain that reading comprehension is the act of thinking and constructing meaning before, during and after reading by integrating the information presented by the author with the reader’s background knowledge. Reading comprehension is not an ability that students automatically possess. It is an active mental process, which needs to be explicitly taught, developed and nurtured. Strategic reading requires students to think about reading in ways that enhance their learning and understanding (Harvey & Goudvis, 2013). Reading comprehension provides the foundation for all other learning in every content area and is the key to a student’s academic success (Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, & Randolph, 1996). A major focus of reading comprehension research has been to identify effective reading strategies. Researchers report that reading comprehension is a multifaceted process (McLaughlin, 2012). Knowing how to read words has little value if the student is unable to construct meaning from the text. Students who struggle with reading comprehension do not retain information about what was read and often lack the motivation to read altogether. Therefore, it is imperative that a student understands, as well as, retains the information he/she is reading. Comprehension is an integral part of learning; it is also a multifaceted process with many levels of understanding.Students are able to construct meaning from text when they are able to successfully make connections between what they are reading and their prior knowledge or schema. Background or prior knowledge is imperative to creating meaning. The more background knowledge students have with a particular subject, the easier it is for them to make connections between what they already know and what they are learning (McLaughlin, 2012). It is essential that teachers help students activate their background knowledge prior to reading a text so that connections can be easily made (Pardo, 2004). The focus of reading comprehension is to teach students strategies that will enable them to turn new information into accessible knowledge (Harvey & Goudvis, 2013). Students are able to enhance their understanding through meaningful discussions with their peers. According to Harvey and Goudvis (3013) one of the best predictors of a student’s ability to comprehend text is his or her ability to decode. However, some children can read with automaticity, but still have limited comprehension. It is important that students monitor their reading and keep track of their thinking while they are reading. Therefore, teachers must explicitly model and teach their students to listen to their inner voice or internal conversation while they are reading and to stop, think, and react to information rather than simply reading without understanding (Harvey & Goudvis, 2013). Ness (2011) explains that explicit strategy instruction intentionally and directly teaches students to monitor their comprehension and build their understanding of text. Reading comprehension develops as a child engages in the process of reading. Rereading texts leads to increased fluency and improved comprehension. Comprehension is also enhanced when children read in pairs, discuss their reading, and receive feedback from an adult or peer. Comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading instruction (Ness, 2011). Comprehension ContinuumHarvey and Goudvis (2013) explain that the goal of comprehension is to acquire and actively use knowledge; therefore, they developed the comprehension continuum. The different levels on the comprehension continuum build on one another and gradually progress from easy, answering literal questions, to more difficult, actively using knowledge. It is imperative that teachers ask a variety of questions across the different levels of the comprehension continuum (see Appendix A for more information on the comprehension continuum). Harvey and Goudvis (2013) argue that reading comprehension is most effective when it is explicitly taught, as well as, when students incorporate and flexibly use reading and thinking strategies across a wide variety of texts. Making it essential that students learn to connect their prior knowledge to the new information they are acquiring as they read. Teachers need to model these skills by demonstrating how reading and thinking strategies are used across the curriculum and support students as they practice (Harvey & Goudvis, 2013).Emma Phillips (2013) examined how a teacher’s questioning during guided reading helped to scaffold students’ understanding of reading. Student observations and interview data showed that questioning statements and teacher involvement increased student engagement and understanding of the text. While insufficient wait time and open questions with a closed intent seemed to stifle the children’s understanding of reading. The findings of this study indicated that a range of questioning techniques is necessary in order to create a guided discussion for children’s comprehension to develop (Phillips, 2013). Follow-up questions promote higher-level thinking in all students and is directly related to student achievement (Gilson, Little, Ruegg, & Bruce-Davis, 2014). Correlation Between Reading Comprehension and WritingMason, Davison, Hammer, Miller, and Glutting (2013) explored the interrelationship between reading comprehension and writing. Two studies were actually conducted during this research The first experimental components analysis study included 77 urban and rural low-achieving fourth-grade students with and without disabilities. Students were randomly assigned to a group. The second study expanded the evaluation of reading comprehension instruction or reading comprehension instruction plus writing to include written semantic and syntax performance. The data from this study indicated that students in reading comprehension instruction or reading comprehension plus writing instruction outperformed the control group on oral and written retelling, a standardized reading test, and semantic measures. However, syntactic measures did not show statistically significant differences by treatment group or control group. Therefore, this study helped reinforce the belief that reading and writing go hand in hand. Wallace, Pearman, Hail, and Hurst (2007) reiterate the importance of the close connection between reading and writing. The authors offer four research-based writing strategies that teachers can use to improve reading comprehension. The writing strategies include: About/Point, Cubing, Four Square Graphic Organizer, and Read, Respond, Revisit, Discuss. Wallace et al. (2007) state these writing strategies will improve reading comprehension by strengthening student skills “at summarizing, thinking in-depth from multiple perspectives, activating and organizing numerous thoughts, and creating interest through meaningful social interactions” (p. 41).The authors discussed the difference between learning to write and writing to learn. Learning to write involves learning the skills of letter formation, encoding, sentence structure and the stages of writing. Writing to learn is writing for comprehension. Writing to learn provides students with the opportunity to recall, clarify, and question what they read (Wallace et al, 2007). In conclusion, reading and writing need to be integrated throughout instruction in order to improve the quality of each. The four writing strategies can be used in any content area to help students gain more from texts and help them improve their comprehension skills. Question Answer Relationships (QAR) Many third, fourth and fifth grade students still expect to open a text and find the answer to a question written in one sentence. They often become easily frustrated searching for the answers to questions they can’t easily find in the text (Kinniburgh & Prew, 2010). Raphael (1986) developed QAR as a tool for clarifying how students can approach the task of reading texts and answering questions. This strategy helps students realize the need to consider both information in the text and information from their own background knowledge. QAR instruction helps students analyze, comprehend and respond to text questions (Raphael & Au, 2005). QAR was based on the Pearson and Johnson (1978) question taxonomy. The idea behind the question taxonomy was that questions should not be identified in isolation. Questions need to be identified in relation to both the text being read and the reader’s prior knowledge (Raphael, 1986). Students of different ages benefit from different amounts of QAR instruction. Students prior to second grade respond best when introduced initially to just the first two levels of QAR “In the Book” and “In My Head” (Raphael, 1986). Kinniburgh and Prew (2010) argue that it is imperative to introduce the QAR strategy to students in kindergarten and continue it through first and second grades. When kindergarten students are able to understand that some answers are not found in the text they are getting a strong foundation of how questions work. “Promoting high levels of literacy for all children is a core responsibility for today’s teachers” (Raphael & Au, 2005, p. 206). The QAR framework has the potential of closing the achievement gap because it addresses the four problems that currently stand in the way of moving all students to a higher level of literacy. Those problems include: a need for a shared language, a need for a framework for organizing questioning activities across grade levels and subjects, the need for accessible and straightforward whole-school reform for higher level thinking literacy instruction, and the need to prepare students for high-stakes testing. QAR moves all students, especially those of diverse backgrounds, to a higher level of thinking about the text they read. The QAR framework provides benefits to schools, teachers, and students in a relatively small amount of time and effort (Raphael & Au, 2005). Students who understand how questions are written are better prepared to answer questions. Reading comprehension is an essential skill for achieving success in school and future learning. Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, and Randolph (1996) state “One approach for enhancing reading comprehension skills has been to teach students a strategy called Question Answer Relationship” (p. 64). QAR is a metacognitive approach that teaches students to classify questions into two categories: information found in the text and information acquired from background knowledge or personal experiences. QAR instruction teaches students to locate information, determine text structure, and determine when an inference is required in order to answer a question (Raphael, 1986). QAR allows students to demonstrate their ability to determine importance, make inferences and monitor their comprehension. Studies of QAR have shown that students that use this strategy outperform those that do not when completing reading comprehension questions. QAR explicit instruction includes modeling and guided practice. Teachers demonstrate to students how the type of question determines the thinking process needed to appropriately respond (Helfeldt & Henk, 1990). The recommended sequence of QAR instruction steadily reduces the amount of teacher guidance and gradually increases the amount of learner responsibility. When teaching the QAR strategy it is important to remember four principles: give immediate feedback, progress from shorter to longer texts, build independence by guiding students from group to independent activities, and provide transition from the easier task of recognizing an answer to the more difficult task of creating a response from more than one source of information (Raphael, 1982). During QAR instruction students receive feedback on their ability to identify the type of question, their ability to use the QAR to locate the information needed to respond, and their ability to provide an acceptable response (see appendix B for more information on QAR).QAR ResearchEzell, Hunsicker, Quinque, and Randolph (1996) examined how well students were able to maintain question-answering skills with fiction and nonfiction books after receiving QAR instruction. This study included 34 students from two fourth-grade classrooms in a Pittsburgh public school. Both classes received Language Arts instruction from the same teacher at different times. The intervention was introduced throughout the fourth grade academic year through a multiple (4) probe approach involving the four types of QAR questions. The frequency data was analyzed using a logit-model analysis, exploring the relationship between response accuracy, intervention, and question type. The study focused on whether or not students who participated in QAR training were able to maintain their question answering performance over time, as well as, whether or not they were able to answer questions to expository texts to the same extent they were able to answer questions to narrative texts. The ability to answer implicit, as well as, explicit questions was also examined during this study. Students were able to maintain their answering skills very well on the Right There and Putting it Together questions and not as well on the Author and You questions. The intervention was ineffective for the On Your Own questions (Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, & Randolph, 1996). Results were similar with both types of text (narrative and expository). Kathleen Lawrence (2002) planned and implemented a 10-week unit to help third and fourth grade students prepare for standardized testing. The author wanted to increase comprehension of informational text, help students effectively respond to short answer questions, help students recognize and locate textual evidence, and provide students with practice writing a balanced essay. Emphasizing that all questions are not equal, Lawrence implemented QAR instruction with a traffic light analogy. The green light represented the “right there” questions, the yellow light represented the “think and search” questions and the read light represented the “on my own” questions (Lawrence, 2002). Standardized test scores in the school slowly improved. Kinniburgh and Prew (2010) studied how QAR can be effectively taught to students in the primary grades. The four-week study was conducted in a Title I school in the southwestern United States. It included a kindergarten, first grade, second grade, and a special education classroom. A total of four teachers and 69 students participated in the study. The teachers were all trained in the use of the QAR reading strategy prior to the intervention. They taught and used the QAR strategy every day over a four-week period using a variety of activities. At the end of the four-week intervention the four teachers and all students were Interviewed. A pre and post reading comprehension test from the basal reading series was administered to all first and second grade students. The results showed gains in reading comprehension for both grade levels. The data for students in the kindergarten and special education classrooms consisted solely of student interviews. The results from the student interviews showed that all students enjoyed learning the QAR strategy. Students also felt it helped them better understand the stories and to answer questions regarding the stories (Kinniburgh & Prew, 2010).QAR Across Content AreasQAR is a research based reading strategy that benefits every type and level of learner (Raphael, 1986). The QAR strategy easily and authentically enhances comprehension across a variety of content areas and encourages the use of a common language for strategy use throughout the school day (Raphael & Au, 2005). Neufeld (2005) warns that comprehension instruction should be an essential part of content area instruction, because learning from texts encompasses all subject areas. Students that are only taught comprehension strategies in language arts often have a difficult time transferring the strategies and skills to expository texts in other content areas. Draper and McIntosh (1996) argue that if students are to successfully solve mathematical word problems, they must use a combination of both text-based (information provided by the text) and brain-based (information acquired from personal experiences) thinking. “QRA is not meant to replace content instruction, but to accompany it” (p. 123). Kinniburgh and Shaw (2009) state that using the question-answer relationship reading comprehension strategy during science instruction increased students’ reading comprehension of science texts. Consequently, student strategic reading of scientific texts will increase test scores in science and reading. Cortese (2003) incorporated pictures with QAR instruction with primary grade children with language disorders. Cortese concluded that the Picture-Question-Answer Relationships (P-QAR) strategy reduced “the cognitive linguistic burden on students by extricating processing demands from text” (p. 376). In conclusion, several research studies have shown that the use of the question-answer relationships (QAR) strategy has improved reading comprehension in students from varying backgrounds and grade levels. Many different research articles discussed the benefits of providing QAR instruction for every type and level of learner across a variety of content areas. Reading comprehension is an essential skill that provides the foundation for all other learning (Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, & Randolph, 1996). Therefore, the research question for this action research study was, “How will explicit instruction in question-answer relationships (QAR) improve first grade students’ reading comprehension?” The methodological details of this action research study follow. MethodologyThis action research study utilized the quasi-experimental pre/posttest comparison group design. The independent variable, reading comprehension instruction, was assigned two levels: Traditional and Question-Answer Relationship (QAR). Traditional instruction consisted of continuing to simply ask students a combination of text explicit and text implicit comprehension questions based on the book they were reading. The comparison classroom received traditional reading instruction throughout the research study. During whole group read aloud with accountable talk the teacher read a text to the students while asking them reading comprehension questions before, during, and after the read aloud. During small group guided reading instruction the students read with the guidance of the classroom teacher while she asked them reading comprehension questions before, during, and after reading the text. The students devised answers to the comprehension questions and responded. QAR instruction consisted of teaching students how to analyze comprehension questions in order to identify whether the answers could be found “In the Book” or “In my Head” (Appendix B). The intervention group received QAR instruction throughout the research study. During whole group read aloud with accountable talk the teacher read a text to the students while asking them comprehension questions before, during, and after the read aloud. During small group guided reading instruction the students read with the guidance of the classroom teacher while she asked them comprehension questions before, during, and after reading the text. Throughout whole group and small group QAR instruction the teacher modeled and coached students on how to analyze the questions, identify where the answers could be found, and how to appropriately respond (Appendix C). The dependent variable was comprehension achievement. The gain scores from the pre and posttest on the MCLASS Reading 3D TRC reading assessment and The Snowy Day pre and post common formative assessment (Appendix D) defined the students’ achievement of text comprehension. Intervention Students: Guided Reading/Question Answer Relationships InstructionComparison Students: Guided Reading/Comprehension QuestionsDependent Variable:reading comprehension achievement1. MCLASS Reading 3D TRC assessment (pre and post)2. The Snowy Day Pre and Post Reading Comprehension CFA/Question-Answer Relationships Checklist3. Researcher Log observations/QRA Checklist1. MCLASS Reading 3D TRC assessment (pre and post)2. The Snowy Day Pre and Post Reading Comprehension CFA/Question-Answer Relationships ChecklistFigure 1. Independent Variable: Reading Comprehension InstructionParticipants and SettingThe research study was conducted in two first grade classrooms in a public STEM school in western North Carolina. The Title I K-5 elementary school serviced approximately 489 students of which 56% received free or reduced lunch. The students in each first grade classroom were placed at the beginning of the year by the principal to ensure a balance of ethnicity, gender, and academic achievement. The intervention group consisted of 19 students, including nine girls and ten boys. Five of these students were Latino, four of the students were African American, one of the students was Multi-Racial, and nine of the students were Caucasian. The comparison group consisted of 20 students, including 11 girls and 9 boys. Six of these students were Latino, six of these students were African American, and eight of the students were Caucasian. The researcher received parental permission (Appendix G) and student assent for all participants in the study.Mrs. Lattin was the teacher of record for the intervention group and was the researcher. She had six years of teaching experience and ten years of teaching assistant experience. This was her second year as a first grade teacher. Mrs. Berg, who had two years of teaching experience, was the teacher of record for the comparison group. This was her second year as a first grade teacher. InterventionResearch supports that consistent QAR instruction helps students develop strategies to analyze questions and utilize appropriate strategies and language in order to provide apt responses (Raphael & Au, 2005). Therefore, the researcher implemented QAR instruction each day during read aloud with accountable talk (whole group for approximately 15 minutes per day) and guided reading groups (small group for approximately 20 minutes per group). The researcher began QAR instruction on Wednesday, January 21st and provided the intervention for five weeks concluding on February 25th. QAR instruction helps students recognize whether or not information is present in the text or if they also need to tap into their own schema in order to provide an acceptable response (Raphael, 1986). Raphael suggested to begin QAR instruction by introducing and modeling the two main levels of questions “In the Book” and “In my Head” (Appendix C). The researcher explained that these two levels tell students where they can find the answers to the questions. She emphasized to the students that finding answers to questions is what good readers do in order to better understand the text they are reading. Once the students became proficient at the two main levels of QAR, which required differentiated instruction according to each reading group, the researcher began to introduce the two types of questions at each level including: Right There, Think & Search, Author & Me and On My Own. (Raphael & Au, 2005). The two types of questions at the “In the Book” level are classified as either “Right There” questions or “Think and Search” questions (Appendix B). The answers to “Right There” questions are found in the text, and are usually very easy for students to find. The words used to make up the questions and the words used to answer the questions are “right there” in the same sentence. Students can simply scan the text to find the answers. The answers to “Think and Search” questions are pieced together using information from different parts of the text. The words for the questions and the words for the answers are not found in the same sentence, therefore, students need to put together different pieces of information to find the answers. The two types of questions at the “In my Head” level are classified as either “Author and Me” questions or “On My Own” questions (Appendix B). The answers to “Author and Me” questions are not found in the text. These questions require students to think inferentially. Students must think about what they already know, what the author is telling them, and how both pieces of information fit together. The answers to “On My Own” questions can be answered without even reading the text. The answers to these questions rely completely on a students’ own experiences. On Monday of the first week, the researcher introduced and modeled the two main levels of questions “In the Book” and “In my Head” during the whole group mini lesson (Appendix C). She explained and modeled where the answers to these two types of questions can be found. The researcher read the nonfiction text Palm Trees by Marcia S. Freeman and asked the students a combination of both types of questions. They had to answer the questions and respond whether they found the information (or answer) in the text or if the information was acquired from their own personal experiences (or in their head). The researcher made an anchor chart and wrote the questions under the appropriate heading after the students told her where the answers could be found “In the Book” or “In my Head”. Throughout the rest of the week, during the mini-lesson for Reader’s Workshop, the intervention group reviewed the main two levels of questions. The researcher then rotated meeting with each of the four reading groups. She met with two groups each day for about 20 minutes per group in order to provide them with more individualized instruction and support. During small group instruction the students took turns reading a book at their reading level and answering a combination of questions. Students also had to tell the researcher where they acquired the information to answer the questions either “In the Book” or “In my Head”.The second week, during the whole group mini-lesson for Reader’s Workshop, the researcher introduced, modeled, and provided guided practice with “Right There” questions (Appendix C). She read the text Beavers and Their Lodges by Martha E. H. Rustad. After reading each page, she called on students to come up with a “Right There” question to ask their peers. Throughout the rest of the week during the mini-lesson for Reader’s Workshop the intervention group reviewed “Right There” questions. Then, the researcher rotated meeting with each of the four reading groups. She met with two groups each day for about 20 minutes per group in order to provide them with more individualized instruction and support. During small group instruction the students took turns reading each page of a text at their reading level and asking their peers a “Right There” question that could be answered from the page they just read. The third week, during the whole group mini-lesson for Reader’s Workshop, the researcher introduced, modeled, and provided guided practice with “Think and Search” questions (Appendix C). She read the book Sun Up, Sun Down by Gail Gibbons and asked the students questions. The researcher told the students to really pay attention and listen to the story because “Think and Search” questions are found throughout the text and not just on one page or in one sentence. Throughout the rest of the week during the mini-lesson for Reader’s Workshop the intervention group reviewed “Think and Search” questions. Then the researcher rotated meeting with each of the four, guided reading groups. She met with two groups each day for about 20 minutes per group in order to provide them with more individualized instruction and support. The students took turns reading each page of a text at their individual reading level and were asked “Think and Search” questions where/when appropriate so that they had to think and search the text for the answers.The fourth week, during the whole group mini-lesson for Reader’s Workshop, the researcher introduced, modeled, and provided guided practice with “On My Own” questions (Appendix C). She gave each student a clipboard, sheet of paper, and a pencil. While the researcher read the book Amazing Grace by Mary Hoffman, she stopped periodically and asked the students “On My Own” questions. She told the students to write their answers to the questions on their sheet of paper in order to keep all students actively engaged in the activity. The researcher called on one or two students to share their answers with the class. Throughout the rest of the week during the mini-lesson for Reader’s Workshop the intervention group reviewed “On My Own” questions. The researcher then rotated meeting with each of the four guided, reading groups. She met with two groups each day for about 20 minutes per group in order to provide them with more individualized instruction and support. The students took turns reading each page of a text at their reading level and were asked “On My Own” questions where/when appropriate. The fifth week, during the whole group mini-lesson for Reader’s Workshop, the researcher introduced, modeled, and provided guided practice with “Author and Me” questions (Appendix C). She gave each student a clipboard, sheet of paper, and a pencil. While the researcher read the book The Little Red Hen by Paul Galdone, she stopped periodically and asked the students “Author and Me” questions. She told the students to write their answers to the questions on their sheet of paper in order to keep all students actively engaged in the activity. Then she called on one or two students to share their answers with the class. Since there was only two days of school this week due to the snow, the researcher decided to do a whole group activity rather than trying to pull all four guided reading groups. Therefore, during the whole group Reader’s Workshop mini-lesson, the researcher reviewed “Author and Me” questions and passed out clipboards and pencils to the students. They wrote their names and the date on the top of the paper. The researcher told them that she would stop periodically while reading the story to ask them one of the questions on the paper and they would have a minute or two to write their responses. There were seven questions already typed up on the sheet of paper for the students to answer while the researcher read the book Ned’s New Old Sled by Robin Bloksberg. Then she called on one or two students to share their answers with the class. Data Sources and Data Collection ProceduresThree data sources were utilized during this study. Student scores on MCLASS Reading 3D TRC were used for the pre/posttest quantitative data. The MCLASS TRC benchmark (pre-test) was administered January 7th through January 16th and MCLASS TRC progress monitoring (post-test) was administered February 25th through March 4th. The Snowy Day common formative pre-assessment (CFA) was administered between January 7th and January 16th and the post CFA was administered between February 25th and March 4th (Appendix D). The CFA also provided quantitative data. Anecdotal records and reflections were kept in a researcher log throughout the research study. A Question-Answer Relationships checklist was used throughout the research study to observe students and notate whether or not they were able to identify and appropriately answer the different types of questions. The checklist was part of the researcher’s log. The QAR checklist and researcher’s log provided qualitative data for the research study.MCLASS Reading 3D is an on-going formative and diagnostic assessment with three benchmark periods and a progress-monitoring component created by Wireless Generation. MCLASS provided immediate feedback about the instructional needs of individual students and identified appropriate, individualized interventions and strategies. Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) was an individually administered assessment that used leveled readers from a book set to determine a student’s instructional reading level. This measure required students to read an authentic text, provide a retell and answer oral or written comprehension questions. The Snowy Day by Ezra Jack Keats (Appendix D) was a teacher created common formative assessment (CFA) that consisted of ten questions from the two main levels of QAR instruction (“In the Book” or “In my Head”). Students were expected to identify and name the type of question (“In the Book” or “In my Head”), locate and/or articulate where the answer can be found and provide an adequate response to the question. Students were required to follow this process for each of the questions on the assessment. Each question was worth a total of two possible points: one point for identifying the type of question and one point for locating and/or articulating where the answer could be found while providing an adequate response (Appendices E & F). The number of possible points a student attained were divided by a total of 20 points (10 questions worth a possible two points each) in order to determine a percentage for each student (Appendices E & F). I administered the CFA to only six students from each classroom (two lower readers, two medium readers, and two higher readers). After the CFA was scored the results of the pre and posttest were graphed (Figure 3).Data SourcesDate AdministeredMCLASS Reading 3D TRC AssessmentJanuary 7th – January 16th (pre-test)February 25th – March 4h (posttest)The Snowy Day CFAJanuary 7th (pre-intervention)February 25th (post-intervention)Researcher Log & QRA ChecklistJanuary 7th – March 4th (throughout the entire research study)Figure 2. Data Collection Timeline. This timeline shows the dates each data source was collected throughout the intervention.Data AnalysisAfter the data was collected, the pre/posttests were compared and analyzed using the independent samples t-test to determine if significant gains were achieved, between the mean gains score for the independent and comparison group (Appendices H & I). Both the researcher’s log and the checklist were analyzed and coded for themes related to the research question.Validity and Reliability or TrustworthinessOver the course of the five-week action research project, four possible threats to validity existed. Intervention participants were not randomly chosen which posed a selection threat. The intervention participants were chosen because they were in the researcher’s classroom. This could not be controlled; however, this did not pose any discrepancies in data because students were placed at the beginning of the year by the principal in an effort to ensure a balance of ethnicity, gender, and academic achievement. Collector bias posed a threat to the research project. This posed a threat because when collecting and analyzing data, there is the possibility that the researcher might inadvertently view and record data in ways that favor their hypothesis. The implement/implementation threat was another possibility if the researcher were to unintentionally treat the students in the intervention group differently based on a desire to obtain results that supported the study. Both of these threats were controlled by the integrity of the researcher, teacher code of ethics, and the desire to attain accurate results. Also, the validity and reliability of MCLASS Reading 3D TRC assessments would make it difficult for the researcher to influence results.The school in which the study was conducted is located in a low-income, highly transitional neighborhood and students frequently move in and out of the attendance area. Therefore, experimental mortality was another possible threat to the validity of this study. This threat could not be controlled and did not pose any discrepancies within the study. Data triangulation was used to ensure reliability of this study. However, the study is not generalizable to all first-grade classrooms. The results of this research project are specific to the classroom of students that were provided the intervention.Findings/ResultsQuantitative DataAt the conclusion of the five week study, the results from the pre/posttests of the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) and The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA) were analyzed to find the difference in means and the standard deviation (SD). The analysis of the mean score data for the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension shows that the intervention group (n=19) had a mean gain of 1.10, while the comparison group (n=20) had a mean gain of 0.75. The standard deviation was 0.56 for the intervention group and 0.44 for the comparison group (See Table 1 and Figure 3). These results indicate that the intervention group made more gains than the comparison group. Therefore, the Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) instructional reading strategy had a positive effect on the MCLASS reading comprehension achievement of the students in the intervention group. Analysis was also done to determine the mean gain score and the standard deviation for The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA). The data shows that the intervention group (n=19) had a mean gain of 4, while the comparison group (n=20) had a mean gain score of 1.66. The standard deviation was 1.67 for the intervention group and 1.36 for the comparison group (See Table 1 and Figure 3). These results indicate that the intervention group had a higher mean gains than the comparison group. Therefore, the QAR instructional reading strategy also had a positive impact on The Snowy Day CFA comprehension achievement scores of the students intervention group. However, in order to more accurately determine the effect of the intervention (QAR instruction) further data analysis was conducted.Table 1Pre and Posttest MeansMCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) MeanSDIntervention1.100.56Comparison0.750.44The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA)MeanSDIntervention41.67Comparison1.661.36Note: Intervention N=19; Comparison N=20Figure 3. Bar graph of the pre/posttests for the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) and The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA). This figure shows the difference in means (Mean) and standard deviation (SD) results from the pre and posttests for the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) and The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA); the data is presented in Table 1. The effect the intervention had on the students’ reading comprehension achievement was calculated by the mean gain scores of the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) and The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA). An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare first grade students’ reading comprehension achievement in Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) instruction and traditional reading instruction. There was a significant difference in the mean change scores on the MCLASS TRC for QAR instruction (M=1.10, SD=0.56) and traditional instruction (M=0.75, SD=0.44) with a two-tailed p value of p=0.03. There was also a significant difference in the mean change scores on The Snowy Day CFA for QAR instruction (M=4, SD=1.67) and traditional instruction (M=1.66, SD=1.36) with a two-tailed p value of p=0.02. In order for a two-tailed p value to show a significant gain, it must be <0.05. In both of the analyses that were completed, p-value was less than 0.05, showing great significance (See Table 2 and Figure 4). Therefore, the results of this study suggest that QAR instruction positively impacts reading comprehension scores more than traditional instruction.Table 2Independent t-Test on Reading Comprehension Achievement on Pre/ Posttest MCLASS Text Reading & Comprehension (TRC) and The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA)AssessmentMean DifferenceSEt-valuedftwo-tailed pEffect sizeMCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC)0.350.162.18370.030.79The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA)2.330.882.64100.021.70Note: p<.05 = gains are attributable to the intervention and are not just chanceFigure 4. Bar graph of the Independent t-Test on Reading Comprehension Achievement on Pre and Posttest MCLASS Text Reading & Comprehension (TRC) and The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA). This figure shows the results for the Mean Difference, Standard Error (SE), t-value, two-tailed p, and the Effect Size for the intervention and comparison groups; the data is presented in Table 2. Qualitative AnalysisDuring the five week intervention, the researcher created and maintained a researcher log to record anecdotal notes of observations, reflections, and evidences of student learning. The researcher took thorough notes during each Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) instructional lesson in order to qualitatively analyze how the intervention group was progressing throughout the intervention. She documented the context of the lesson, teacher and student questions, student responses, student reactions, teacher reflections, and next steps during each instructional period in order to note common themes related to the study. Recognizing, Answering, and Asking “In-The-Book” and “In-My-Head” QuestionsAfter carefully reviewing and analyzing the notes in the researcher’s log, the researcher observed that the students had an easier time recognizing and answering “In the Book” and “In my Head” questions than they did coming up with these types of questions for their peers. While reading the text Palm Trees by Marcia S. Freeman, the researcher asked the question, “What is a frond?” A student responded, “The leaves on a palm tree.” The researcher then asked, “Where did you find the answer to that question? Did you find it by looking in the book or in your head?” The student replied, “In the book.” A few days later the researcher read a similar text Pine Trees by Marcia S. Freeman to the students. She read the first page, “Pine trees grow to be big trees. They have straight trunks.” Then she called on the same student to ask an “In the Book” question to her peers. The student asked, “Where do pine trees grow?” She asked the student if she was asking an “In the Book” or “In my Head” question. The student responded, “In the book.” The researcher read the page again then asked the student, “Did the author mention where pine trees grow on this page?” She replied, “No, but it could be an in your head question if you know where pine tress grow.” The researcher provided a lot of guided practice to help students gain a better understanding of asking their peers questions about the text they are reading. However, many students had to continue to be redirected and coached throughout the process.The researcher also noticed that most students had a more difficult time coming up with “In my Head” questions than they did with “In the Book” questions. While observing students during whole group, small group, and independent reading time, the researcher noted that students asked their peers more “In the Book” questions than “In my Head” questions if given the choice. When students were required to ask their peers an “In my Head” question the researcher often had to coach the students through the process. Making ConnectionsA second theme that was evident after a close analysis of the researcher’s log was that students were able to easily make text-to-self connections. During whole group and small group reading instruction the researcher noted that students anxiously answered the “In my Head” questions. They would often blurt out their answers and talk over top of one another in order to be heard by the teacher and their peers. Students were able to quickly tap into their schema and relate their own personal experiences to the story they were reading. During a small group lesson the researcher was reading the text Bobbie Goes on Vacation by Monica Hughes. She stopped and asked the students, “Have you ever gone on a vacation?” All four of the students in the small group began to blurt out a reply. The researcher reminded them to raise their hand if they wanted a turn to answer the question. She called on the student whose hand went up first. He responded, “Yes, two times and I found snakes. I found a family of snakes and I ran!” Another student quickly blurted out, “Yeah, and I’m going to Yellowstone this summer!” During a whole group reading lesson the researcher read the book Amazing Grace by Mary Hoffman. She asked the students, “If you could pretend to be anyone, who would you pretend to be? Why?” Many of the students began to call out their responses. The researcher reminded them to please raise their hands if they would like to share their response. Most of the students raised their hand in the air. She called on one of the students to answer the question. The student responded, “I sometimes act out a zoologist and a jungle discoverer. I do it outside with my dog. I made a map with my own notebook and we explore and do investigations.” The researcher noted that the students were very eager to talk about their own personal experiences and were very creative in their responses.Rereading, Skimming and Scanning the TextA third theme that became apparent after a careful review and analysis of the researcher’s log was that students were beginning to utilize their texts to answer questions. During small group instruction the students began looking back through their books to answer the researcher’s questions. They started rereading, skimming and scanning the text in order to find an appropriate response to “Just Right”, “Think and Search” and “Author and Me” questions. Students searched through their leveled readers in order to provide text evidence to support their answers. Main Idea A fourth theme that became quite obvious to the researcher during the “Author and Me” portion of the intervention was that the students had a very difficult time answering questions about the main idea or lesson of a story. While reading the story The Little Red Hen by Paul Galdone the researcher asked the students, “What is the main idea of the story? What lesson is the author trying to teach us?” One student responded, “Um, they weren’t helping at first, but they helped her.” A second student answered, “That you shouldn’t be lazy because maybe your friend will leave and you won’t see them.” A third student replied, “It’s about the little red hen teaching the cat and the frog a lesson. Don’t be lazy if you are the person who is doing all the work won’t give you anything.” Another student added, “I think it’s about teaching a good lesson about not being lazy.” Throughout the rest of the intervention the researcher continued discussing, modeling and providing guided and independent practice to help students learn to identify the main idea or lesson of a story.Dominate StudentsAnother theme that emerged from the researcher log was the fact that a handful of students dominated both small group and whole group discussions. The researcher noted that a few of the same students’ names appeared throughout the researcher log. These were the students that continually offered their responses to the questions the researcher asked. This observation was especially apparent during whole group read aloud with accountable talk. The researcher noticed that the same students overshadowed their quieter classmates every time they met for whole group instruction. Therefore, the researcher had to work to ensure that all students had a voice during whole group reading instruction. She accomplished this by having students provide a written response to questions and selecting different students to share their responses during QAR instruction. Discussion and ConclusionsThe purpose of this action research study was to determine how the use of explicit Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) instruction would improve the reading comprehension achievement of first grade students. The anticipated outcome of this study was that the classroom of students that received explicit instruction in QAR (intervention classroom) would show an increased ability to analyze, comprehend and respond to text questions on the MCLASS Reading 3D TRC assessment. The researcher expected this intervention would help students learn to read closely in order to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it, as well as, cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text. At the conclusion of the five week study, the results from the pre/posttests of the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) and The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA) were analyzed to find the difference in means and the standard deviation (SD). The results indicated that the intervention group made more gains than the comparison group (See Table 1 and Figure 3). An independent samples t-test was also conducted to compare first grade students’ reading comprehension achievement in Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) instruction and traditional reading instruction. The results indicated that the two-tailed p value for each of the measures was less than 0.05 (See Table 2 and Figure 4). Therefore, quantitative data showed that there was a significant difference between the use of QAR instruction and traditional instruction on the reading comprehension achievement of first grade students. This action research project allowed the researcher the opportunity to explore and implement a new reading instructional strategy in the classroom. Not only were students more capable and successful in comprehending and responding to text, but the researcher also gained insight into a new skill and teaching method. In order to substantiate the intervention used was evidence-based, the researcher first investigated the QAR method of instruction. Previous evidence-based research supported the use of QAR as an effective reading comprehension strategy. Reading comprehension is an essential skill for students to learn in order to achieve success in school and future learning (Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, & Randolph, 1996). While administering the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) pre-test, the researcher observed that most of the students in the intervention group were able to read texts with 96 percent to 100 percent accuracy. However, they had difficulty responding to the oral and written comprehension questions that they were required to answer in order to move on to the next reading level. Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, and Randolph (1996) state “One approach for enhancing reading comprehension skills has been to teach students a strategy called Question Answer Relationship” (p. 64). Studies using QAR reading comprehension instructional strategies have shown that students using these strategies outperform other students when answering reading comprehension questions (Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, and Randolph, 1996). Raphael and Au (2005) believe “All readers at all grades can benefit from learning to think in terms of information sources for answering and asking questions” (p. 220). The QAR strategy equips students with the tools to successfully decode and comprehend what they read. Raphael (1982) states that students “need to be taught how to analyze a question in order to find the correct answers” (p. 186). The QAR strategy helped raise student awareness of the need to look through the text in order to answer comprehension questions. The researcher noted that students began utilizing their texts to look back through the story in order to answer questions and to use text evidence to support their response. The findings from this action research project on QAR confirms its value as a reading comprehension strategy. It also affirmed the importance of helping students make connections between the texts they read and the world around them. For many students a lack of prior knowledge and schema often hampers their performance when answering “On my Own” questions. QAR instruction helped students answer higher-order, text implicit questions, which require students to make inferences and tap into their own schema. Raphael and Au (2005) explain “We believe QAR provides a framework that offers teachers a straightforward approach for reading comprehension instruction with the potential of eventually closing the literacy achievement gap.” Providing students with strategies to activate prior knowledge or schema to make text-to-text, text-to-self, and text-to-world connections definitely improved their ability to answer higher-order comprehension questions.LimitationsThere were several limitations to this action research study, including sample size, length of the intervention, and inclement weather. The first limitation was the small sample size of only 39 students. There were 19 students in the intervention group and 20 students in the comparison group. Due to the small sample size it would be difficult to generalize these findings. Therefore, more research should be conducted with larger sample sizes in order to analyze whether or not the results are consistent. A second limitation was the length of the action research study. The QAR reading comprehension intervention was implemented in the classroom for only five weeks. A third limitation was inclement weather. During the final two weeks of the study school was closed for seven out of nine days due to snow and ice. Longer research studies should be conducted in order to see if they yield different results. The final limitation was researcher bias. The researcher administered The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA) to students in both the intervention group and the comparison group. Students were expected to identify the type of question “In my Head” or “In the Book” and provide an appropriate response. The researcher reviewed the students’ responses for the intervention group and the comparison group and decided whether or not they were acceptable responses. Unfortunately, this process may have allowed the opportunity for unintentional researcher bias.Implications for EducatorsThe results of both the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) assessment and The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA) indicate that the mean gain score for the intervention group was higher than the mean gain score for the comparison group. Also, the two-tailed p value for both assessments was less than 0.05, which demonstrates great significance. Therefore, the quantitative data for this study showed that there was a positive significant difference in the achievement of students’ reading comprehension due to Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) instruction rather than through traditional instruction. These results support Raphael when he states that students “need to be taught how to analyze a question in order to find the correct answers” (p. 186). The ability to ask and answer questions is a fundamental part of the comprehension process and is critical to the effectiveness of all other reading strategies. Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) instruction teaches students three comprehension strategies: locating information, determining text structures and how they convey information and determining when an inference is required or invited. Raphael and Au (2005) believe “All readers at all grades can benefit from learning to think in terms of information sources for answering and asking questions” (p. 220). Knowing the results of this research study is beneficial to educators because it gives them the opportunity to implement research-based reading comprehension strategies with their students. The QAR comprehension strategy has the potential of increasing students’ reading comprehension achievement.Future Directions for ResearchAlthough the quantitative results of this action research study showed a positive significant difference between Question-Answer-Relationships (QAR) reading instruction and traditional reading instruction, there are still many more opportunities for research in this area. More studies need to be conducted using much larger sample sizes, different age students, and for longer periods of time. Due to the small sample size a lack of generalizability exists. The findings for this action research study are only relevant to the intervention classroom, its students and its unique characteristics. The QAR intervention may yield different results in a different classroom, grade level, school, community, etc. The use of a researcher who is not also the teacher of record in that classroom might also change the results of the study. ReflectionAs I reflect on my first journey as a teacher researcher, I breathe a sigh of relief. The light at the end of this long, winding tunnel is finally in sight. I found the process of conducting an action research project very complex and often overwhelming. However, at the same time I found it to be extremely enlightening and rewarding. The process of attaining IRB approval (Appendix J) was particularly new to me and a little unnerving. The purpose of this action research study was to determine how the use of explicit Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) instruction would improve the reading comprehension achievement of my first grade students. The anticipated outcome of this study was that by introducing, modeling, and providing guided and independent practice in QAR instruction my students would show an increased ability to analyze, comprehend and respond to text questions on the MCLASS Reading 3D TRC assessment. I hoped this intervention would help my students learn to read closely in order to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it, as well as, cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text. After administering the initial MCLASS assessment in the fall, I noticed that 47.9 percent of my students scored below benchmark (level D). Many of my students were able to fluently read the text, however they had a difficult time responding to the oral and written comprehension questions. Therefore, I decided to make one of my Personal Development Plan (PDP) goals to have 100 percent of my students increase their reading placement by at least three levels by February. When I re-administered the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) pre-test, in early January, once again most of my students were able to read the texts with 96 percent to 100 percent accuracy. However, they still had difficulty responding to the oral and written comprehension questions that they were required to answer in order to move on to the next reading level.At the conclusion of the five week study, the results from the pre/posttests of the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) and The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA) were analyzed to find the difference in means and the standard deviation (SD). The results indicated that my students (the intervention group) made more gains than the comparison group. An independent samples t-test was also conducted to compare first grade students’ reading comprehension achievement in Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) instruction and traditional reading instruction. In both of the analyses that were completed, p-value was less than 0.05, showing great significance (See Table 2 and Figure 4). Therefore, the results of this study suggest that QAR instruction positively impacts reading comprehension scores more than traditional instruction.While completing my action research study, I learned the importance of exploring and applying research based instructional strategies. I also learned the importance of critically analyzing student observations and performance data in order to determine the instructional needs of my students. By reviewing, analyzing and reflecting on my quantitative and qualitative data I was able to plan instruction that was rigorous, coherent, and substantiated within a theoretical and philosophical base. Part of the requirements for this project was to create and maintain a researcher’s log. This helped me helped me reflect on my teaching, as well as, my student’s learning and performance. These reflections helped guide my instruction and develop effective QAR reading comprehension lessons that maintained student engagement, promoted student progress, and ensured overall student success. One strategy that I began implementing in order to maintain student engagement during whole group read aloud with accountable talk (asking students the four different types of questions for QAR instruction) was allowing all students to write a written response to each question. One day during whole group, I noticed a few students beginning to lose interest while their classmates were responding to the questions I was asking. They began playing with their shoes, looking away, etc. So, I decided to give all of my students a clipboard, a sheet of paper, and a pencil so that they all had an opportunity to respond to each of my questions. While students were writing I would call on one or two of them to verbally share their response with their peers. I was quite satisfied with how well this activity turned out. Most of my students remained very engaged in the story and the lesson I was teaching. I was pleasantly surprised to see that all of my students answered every one of the questions I asked them. I could tell that many of my students put a lot of thought and effort into each one of their responses. I believe this technique really helped keep my students on task throughout the lesson. Many times a handful of my students will never want to share during whole group and they often become quite easily distracted. This strategy helped ensure that all of my students had an opportunity to respond and share their thoughts either verbally or in the form of a written response. It is also imperative that my students practice the skill of writing in response to comprehension questions in order to successful complete the on written part of the MCLASS Text Reading Comprehension (TRC) assessment. I will continue using this strategy to keep my students engaged during whole group reading instruction and I also began implementing it during whole group math and writing instruction.I really thought that the “On my Own” questions would have been the most difficult for my students since text-to-self connections are usually quite difficult for young students to answer. However, once my students learned how to analyze a question, identify the type of question and know where they needed to look in order to appropriately respond they seemed to really enjoy “On my Own” questions. Children love to talk about themselves and what better way to incorporate talking about themselves into a lesson than asking them these types of questions.“ Throughout this study, I have gained a wealth of knowledge about evidence-based, effective reading comprehension instruction. I learned that the ability to ask and answer questions is an essential part of the comprehension process and is critical to the effectiveness of all other reading strategies. Modeling strategies for students is imperative to the success of comprehension instruction. Guided and independent practice allows teachers the opportunity to monitor students and provide individualized feedback. The ultimate goal for teachers is to help our students become self-regulated learners, which are able to independently use comprehension strategies to understand the texts they read. The ability to read is a fundamental skill that is vital to the attainment of knowledge in all content areas (Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, & Randolph, 1996). Reading immerses children in language and exposes them to new ideas and experiences. Therefore, providing children a means to understanding the world around them. I believe that reading is the key that unlocks the door to academic success and infinite possibilities. Our goal as educators is to nurture and motivate our students while teaching them the skills necessary to read with fluency and comprehension. I believe it would be beneficial to teach QAR to all students, starting in kindergarten and continuing throughout high school. I definitely plan to continue using QAR as a part of my reading comprehension instruction throughout the remainder of this year and throughout my teaching career.References Connor, C. M., Phillips, B. M., Kaschak, M., Apel, K., Kim, Y., Otaiba, S. A., Crowe, E. C., Thomas-Tate, S., Johnson, L. C., & Lonigan, C. J. (2014). Comprehension tools for teachers: Reading for understanding from prekindergarten through fourth grade. Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 379-401. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9267-1Cortese, E. E. (2004). The application of question-answer relationship strategies to pictures. The Reading Teacher, 57(4), 374-380. Retrieved from , H. K., Hunsicker, S. A., Quinque, M. M., & Randolph, E. (1996). Maintenance and generalization of QAR reading comprehension strategies. Reading Research and Instruction, 36(1), 64-81. doi: 10.1080/19388079609558228Gilson, C. M., Little, C. A., Ruegg, A. N., & Bruce-Davis, M. (2014). An investigation of elementary teachers’ use of follow-up questions for students at different reading levels. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(2), 101-128. doi: 10.1177/1932202X14532257Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2013). Comprehension at the Core. Reading Teacher, 66(6), 432-439. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.1145Helfeldt, J. P., Henk, W. A. (1990). Reciprocal question-answer relationships: An instructional technique for at-risk readers. Journal of Reading 33(7), 509-514Kinniburgh, L. H., & Prew, S. S. (2010). Question answer relationships (QAR) in the primary grades: Laying the foundation for reading comprehension. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 2(1), 31-44. Retrieved from , L. H., & Shaw, Edward L., Jr. (2009). Using question-answer relationships to build reading comprehension in science. Science Activities, 45(4), 19-26. Retrieved from , K. M. (2002). Red light, green light, 1-2-3: Tasks to prepare for standardized tests.The Reading Teacher, 55(6), 525-528. Retrieved from Mason, L. H., Davison, M. D., Hammer, C. S., Miller, C. A., & Glutting, J. J. (2013). Knowledge, writing, and language outcomes for a reading comprehension and writing intervention. Reading and Writing, 26(7), 1133-1158. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9409-0McIntosh, M. E., & Draper, R. J. (1995). Applying the question-answer relationship strategy in mathematics. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39(2), 120-131. Retrieved from , M. (2012). Reading comprehension: What every teacher needs to know. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 432–440. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01064Ness, M. (2011) Explicit reading comprehension instruction in elementary classrooms: Teacher use of reading comprehension strategies. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(1), 98-117. doi: 10.1080/02568543.2010.531076Neufeld, P. (2005). Comprehension instruction in content area classes. Reading Teacher, 59(4), 302-312. Retrieved from , L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(3), 272-280. Retrieved from , E. (2013). A case study of questioning for reading comprehension during guided reading. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 41(1), 110-120. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2012.710106Rapael, T. E. (1982). Question-answering strategies for children. The Reading Teacher, 36(2), 186-190. Retrieved from , T. E. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516-522). Retrieved from , T. E., & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 206-221. Retrieved from , R., Pearman, C., Hail, C., & Hurst, B. (2007). Writing for comprehension. Reading Horizons, 48(1), 41-56. Retrieved from AComprehension Continuum (Harvey & Goudvis, 2013)Appendix BQuestion-Answer Relationships (QAR) Question Stems and Answer StrategiesQuestion TypeWhere is the Answer?StrategiesRight ThereWhat did…?Who did…?How many…?When did…?What does…mean?Give one example…In one place in the text.RereadScanLook for key wordsThink & SearchHow do you…?What happened to…?What examples…?Where did…?Compare and contrast…Explain….In more than one place in the text.Skim or rereadLook for important information.SummarizeAuthor & MeWhat do you predict…?Why did the author…?Do you agree with…?What will happen…?Why do you think…?What do you picture when…?The answer is not given in the text. Think about how what you know and what is in the text fit together.RereadPredictThink about what you already know and what the author says.On My OwnHave you ever…?What do you think…?In your opinion…?What do you know about…?Do you believe…?What would you do if…?The answer is not in the text. Use your own thoughts and opinions when you answer.Make connectionsThink about what you already know.Think about what you’ve read before.Appendix CIntervention TimelineDateInterventionJanuary 7th – January 16thMCLASS Reading 3D TRC Benchmark Assessment (pre-test)The Snowy Day pre CFAJanuary 21st – January 28thIntroduce and model the two main levels of questions “In the Book” and “In my Head”. Explain and model where the answers to these two types of questions can be found.Coaching students through guided and independent practice with the two main levels of questions “In the Book” and “In my Head”.Begin QAR Checklist (observing students and noting those that are able to identify and appropriately answer “In the Book” and “In my Head” questions).January 28th – February 4thIntroduce, model and provide guided & independent practice with “Right There” questions.QAR Checklist (observing students and noting those that are able to identify and appropriately answer “Right There” questionsFebruary 4th – February 11th Introduce, model and provide guided & independent practice with “Think and Search” questions.QAR Checklist (observing students and noting those that are able to identify and appropriately answer “Think and Search” questions).February 11th – February 18th Introduce, model and provide guided & independent practice with “On My Own” questions.QAR Checklist (observing students and noting those that are able to identify and appropriately answer “On My Own” questions).February 18th – February 25th (Had to change implementation of “Author and Me” QAR due to inclement weather)Introduce, model and provide guided & independent practice with “Author and Me” questions.QAR Checklist (observing students and noting those that are able to identify and appropriately answer “Author and Me” questions).February 25th – March 4thMCLASS Reading 3D TRC Progress Monitoring (posttest)The Snowy Day post CFAAppendix DPre and Post Reading Comprehension CFAName: _______________________________________ Date: ___________________Read and answer each question about the story The Snowy Day by Ezra Jack Keats What season does the story take place? How do you know? What was making the crunching sound the boy heard in the snow? What is the boy’s name?What were some of the things the boy did outside in the snow? What happened in the story to cause the snow to fall on his head? Who played in the snow with him the next day?What are some ways you are like the boy in the story?Do you remember waking up to a snowy world outside your window? What was it like? What did you do in the snow?What happened to the snowball he put in his pocket? When he went to sleep what did the boy dream? Did the dream come true?Appendix EQAR Individual Student Checklist (Pre & Post Data)Student Name: ___________________________________The Snowy Day Question DateIdentified Question“In-the-Book”Identified Question“In-My-Head”Ability to locate and/or articulate where the answer can be found and provide an adequate response to the question12345678910Y = Yes N = NoGrading2 points possible per question1 point for identifying the type of question1 point for locating and/or articulating where the answer can be found and providing an adequate response to the questiona possible total of 20 points Grade: __________ out of 20 points ____ = _____ % 20Appendix FQAR Intervention Classroom Checklist (Pre and Post Data)Collective Data (# of students that correctly identified, located, and responded to questions)The Snowy Day Question DateIdentified Question“In-the-Book”Identified Question“In-My-Head”Ability to locate and/or articulate where the answer can be found and provide an adequate response to the question12345678910QAR Comparison Classroom Checklist (Pre and Post Data)Collective Data (# of students that correctly identified, located, and responded to questions)The Snowy Day Question DateIdentified Question“In-the-Book”Identified Question“In-My-Head”Ability to locate and/or articulate where the answer can be found and provide an adequate response to the question12345678910Appendix GIntervention Group Parent Consent Letter Dear Parent/Guardian, As part of my Master’s of Reading Education degree requirements at East Carolina University, I am planning an educational research project that will help me learn more about reading comprehension. The fundamental goal of this project is to improve reading comprehension. I have investigated an effective instructional practice, explicit instruction in question-answer relationships (QAR) that I will be implementing during reading instruction in January 2015. I am going to track student improvement during reading instruction for 5 weeks. The MCLASS Reading 3D TRC assessment, QAR checklist, and a researcher log will allow me to track student progress. This project has been approved by my instructor at ECU, Dr. Elizabeth Swaggerty, and the ECU Institutional Review Board. I am asking permission to include your child’s progress in my project report. Your child will not be responsible for “extra” work as a result of this project. The decision to participate or not will not affect your child’s grade. I plan to share the results of this project with other educators through presentations and publications to help educators think about how they can improve reading instruction in their own classrooms. I will use pseudonyms to protect your child’s identity. The name of our school, your child, or any other identifying information will not be used in my final report. Please know that participation (agreeing to allow me to include your child’s data) is entirely voluntary and your child may withdraw from the study at any point without penalty. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at school at (704) 782-5912 or email me at roberta.lattin@cabarrus.k12.nc.us. You may also contact my supervising professor at ECU, Dr. Elizabeth Swaggerty, at swaggertye@ecu.edu, 252.328.4970. If you have questions about your child’s rights as someone taking part in research, you may call the Office of Research Integrity & Compliance (ORIC) at 252-744-2914 (days, 8:00 am-5:00 pm). If you would like to report a complaint or concern about this research study, you may call the Director of the OHRI, at 252-744-1971. Please indicate your preference below and return the form by _____________________. Your Partner in Education,------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As the parent or guardian of ________________________________________, I grant permission for _______________________ to use my child’s data in the educational research project described above regarding reading comprehension. I voluntarily consent to___________________ using data gathered about my child in her study. I fully understand that the data will not affect my child’s grade and will be kept completely confidential. Signature of Parent/Guardian:______________________________________ Date____________________________ -OR-As the parent or guardian of _______________________________, I do not grant permission for my child’s data to be included in the study. Parent/Guardian: _______________________________________ Appendix HDel Siegle Data SpreadsheetThe Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment Pre and Posttest Value used for Group 1 ------------------>1This speadsheet was prepared by Del Siegle for use in EPSY 341Value used for Group 2 ------------------>2Note: The df for the Unequal Variance Independent t-test is an approximation.????p of F-Max-->0.667219126?Effect Size ???Independent t-test??Use Equal Variance?d=????????EqualUnequal1.535299755No Control Group??????VarianceVariance1.394433378Control Group is Group1 Group 1Group 2?Mean diff.2.3333333332.3333333331.707825128Control Group is Group2Mean41.666666667?SE0.8819171040.881917104????SD1.6733200531.366260102?t-value2.6457513112.645751311????n66?df105????????two-tailed p0.024491010.025265825???????????Paired t-test???Correlation->The scores are not paired.??????????????1 Group 1Group 2?Mean diff.The scores are not paired.1MeanN/AN/A?SEThe scores are not paired.2SDN/AN/A?t-valueThe scores are not paired.n120?dfThe scores are not paired.????two-tailed pThe scores are not paired.Group (IV)DV2nd DV if calculating a paired (correlated) t-test13 312 213 314 416 616 622 221 124 420 021 122?2Appendix IDel Siegle Data Spreadsheet MCLASS Pre and PosttestValue used for Group 1 ------------------>1This speadsheet was prepared by Del Siegle for use in EPSY 341Value used for Group 2 ------------------>2Note: The df for the Unequal Variance Independent t-test is an approximation.????p of F-Max-->0.299635567?Effect Size ???Independent t-test??Use Equal Variance?d=????????EqualUnequal0.702522803No Control Group??????VarianceVariance0.626421828Control Group is Group1 Group 1Group 2?Mean diff.0.3552631580.3552631580.799670985Control Group is Group2Mean1.1052631580.75?SE0.1626678960.163696997????SD0.5671308730.444261658?t-value2.1839783132.17024848????n1920?df3718????????two-tailed p0.0353782460.037040913???????????Paired t-test???Correlation->The scores are not paired.??????????????0 Group 1Group 2?Mean diff.The scores are not paired.1MeanN/AN/A?SEThe scores are not paired.1SDN/AN/A?t-valueThe scores are not paired.n390?dfThe scores are not paired.????two-tailed pThe scores are not paired.Group (IV)DV2nd DV if calculating a paired (correlated) t-test12 211 111 111 111 112 211 111 111 110 012 211?112?211?111?110?011?111?111?120?020?021?120?021?121?120?021?121?120?021?121?121?121?121?121?121?121?121?121?1Appendix JIRB Approval LetterEAST? CAROLINA? UNIVERSITYUniversity & Medical Center Institutional Review Board Office?4N-70 Brody Medical Sciences Building· Mail Stop 682600 Moye Boulevard · Greenville, NC 27834Office 252-744-2914 · Fax 252-744-2284 · HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" ecu.edu/irbNotification of Exempt CertificationFrom:Social/Behavioral IRBTo: HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" Roberta Lattin CC: HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" Elizabeth Swaggerty Date:12/18/2014?Re: HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" UMCIRB 14-002280 LATTIN Impact of Question-Answer Relationships on Reading ComprehensionI am pleased to inform you that your research submission has been certified as exempt?on 12/17/2014. This study is eligible for Exempt Certification under category #1.?It is your responsibility to ensure that this research is conducted in the manner reported in your application and/or protocol, as well as being consistent with the ethical principles of the Belmont Report and your profession.This research study does not require any additional interaction with the UMCIRB unless there are proposed changes to this study. Any change, prior to implementing that change, must be submitted to the UMCIRB for review and approval. The UMCIRB will determine if the change impacts the eligibility of the research for exempt status. If more substantive review is required, you will be notified within five business days.The UMCIRB office will hold your exemption application for a period of five years from the date of this letter. If you wish to continue this protocol beyond this period, you will need to submit an Exemption Certification request at least 30 days before the end of the five year period.The Chairperson (or designee) does not have a potential for conflict of interest on this study.IRB00000705 East Carolina U IRB #1 (Biomedical) IORG0000418IRB00003781 East Carolina U IRB #2 (Behavioral/SS) IORG0000418 ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download