Moss, Barbara (1997). A qualitative assessment of first graders’ retelling of expository text. Reading Research and Instruction, 37, 1-13.
The purpose of this Case Study was to test the comprehension level of 20 first grade students with expository text. Comprehension was measured through an oral retelling of a book. The participants in this study were 20 children from a first grade class in a rural northeastern Ohio elementary school. The students’ socio-economic levels ranged from lower-to-upper-middle class, with ability levels ranging from below average to above average. Twenty preservice teachers (research assistants enrolled in a reading methods class) were trained in read-aloud strategies, and were thoroughly familiar with the retelling procedure. They also learned how to administer and score retellings. The research assistants read aloud the book How Kittens Grow (Selsam, 1973). Each research assistant read aloud to one child. The children’s ability levels were unknown to the research assistants. Following the reading, the children retold the book. Four follow up questions were also asked to assess the children’s ability to summarize, identify important information, and express opinions about the book. The research assistants transcribed and recorded each retelling. The retellings were assessed and assigned a score using an adapted version of Irwin and Mitchell’s (1983) 5-point Scale for Judging the Richness of Retellings. This scale provides a holistic evaluation similar to those used in evaluating writing samples. Each retelling was “blindly” scored three times, and assigned a score ranging from 1 (low) to 5 (high). A fourth reader (the primary researcher) rescored those retellings that varied by more than one point on the scale. Of the 20 first graders, 18 received a score of 3 or better on the Irwin and Mitchell (1983) scale. Additional information was obtained about the children’s understanding of the text by analyzing each child’s responses to the follow up questions. These responses were coded and categorized. Twelve of the 20 children provided adequate summaries of the book. Those who received scores of 4 or 5 on the retelling were also able to make inferences beyond the text. Nearly all of the children were able to identify the most important thing learned from the text.
The author did accomplish what she intended to do. She demonstrated that young children are capable of comprehending expository text. Individualized assessment may be a better means of assessing young children’s comprehension than traditional test-type measures. In this qualitative study, several standards of adequacy were addressed. Although the author does not state why she chose this particular first grade classroom, an assumption can be made that there was some connection between the researcher and the school (the researcher is on staff at the University of Akron, and the school subject to this research is in northeastern Ohio). The purpose of the study was Descriptive Exploratory. She intended to show that young children did comprehend expository text, but that traditional testing environments aren’t the best way to assess that comprehension. Validity was enhanced by the researcher using multiple researchers and mechanically recorded data. Audibility was one strategy used that enhanced reflexivity (i.e., rigorous self scrutiny by the researcher). Data was managed with specific codes and categories by at least three different research assistants, and then again by the researcher when a one point discrepancy occurred. Components to generate the extension of findings include Research Role (the research assistants were outsiders), Data Collection Strategies (precise descriptions of data collection were given), Data Analysis Strategies (analytical strategies in data analysis were specifically outlined), and Other Criteria by Research Approach (the researcher suggests further investigation in examining reading comprehension in young children).
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Acclerated Reader #4
Putnam, S. Michael (2005). Computer-based reading technology in the classroom: The affective influence of performance contingent point accumulation on 4th grade students. Reading Research and Instruction, 45, 19-38.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the number of Accelerated Reader (A.R.) points earned by students and their level of self-efficacy and the value of reading. Self-efficacy was defined as what an individual believes he/she can do rather than his/her actual ability or skill. The value of reading refers to the importance or value reading has to an individual, that he/she has a positive attitude toward reading. Questions addressed in the study were: “Did students who accumulated differing amounts of Accelerated Reader points demonstrate different levels of self-efficacy? Did a relationship exist between the number of points accumulated and the students’ value of reading?” The study was conducted at a Midwest suburban elementary school with a largely Caucasian middle class population. The participants were the 4th grade students at the school, with approximately 60% of the subjects being female. Reading self-efficacy and reading value were measured through the Reading Survey portion of the Motivation to Read Profile. The MRP is four-point response scale with the most positive responses receiving the maximum points. The study was conducted over a continuous fourteen-week period. The MRP was administered during week one and again at the end of the fourteenth week. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze group scores in both the pre and post-tests. Students in Group A (earning more than 35 A.R. points) showed an increase in self-efficacy from pre to post-test. Group B (mid-level point accumulation) demonstrated decreases in both self-efficacy and reading value. Group C (fewest A.R. points earned) scored the lowest scores of self-efficacy and reading value. The researcher partially accomplished his intentions. He did show that there was a positive correlation between the number of A.R. points earned and the level of self-efficacy in Groups A and C, but not in Group B. However, all three groups decreased in the reading values scores from the pre to post-test. The researcher believes that this may be an indication of A.R. points being viewed by the students as an extrinsic motivator. Extrinsic motivators (i.e., rewards) have been shown to have less value to students than activities that are intrinsically motivated (no obvious external incentives).
This study represents a comparative design, which is non-experimental. Because of the nature of the convenience sample selected (middle class Caucasian students), it is difficult to generalize these results to other students, even other 4th graders. The sample size was also small (68 students) and not randomly selected. The pre-test itself could be considered a threat to the internal validity of the study. The survey questions themselves might have stimulated the students to think about the subject and perhaps change their attitudes. Environmental facts such as instruction and feedback may have had an affect on the subjects’ attitudes.
I would agree that the points earned through the Accelerated Reader program would be extrinsic motivators. My hope is that in using the program and reading self-selected books, my students will realize that reading can be an enjoyable activity. The points, while important to my students, are really secondary to my true dual purpose- to improve the student's reading ability and to cultivate a love of reading.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the number of Accelerated Reader (A.R.) points earned by students and their level of self-efficacy and the value of reading. Self-efficacy was defined as what an individual believes he/she can do rather than his/her actual ability or skill. The value of reading refers to the importance or value reading has to an individual, that he/she has a positive attitude toward reading. Questions addressed in the study were: “Did students who accumulated differing amounts of Accelerated Reader points demonstrate different levels of self-efficacy? Did a relationship exist between the number of points accumulated and the students’ value of reading?” The study was conducted at a Midwest suburban elementary school with a largely Caucasian middle class population. The participants were the 4th grade students at the school, with approximately 60% of the subjects being female. Reading self-efficacy and reading value were measured through the Reading Survey portion of the Motivation to Read Profile. The MRP is four-point response scale with the most positive responses receiving the maximum points. The study was conducted over a continuous fourteen-week period. The MRP was administered during week one and again at the end of the fourteenth week. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze group scores in both the pre and post-tests. Students in Group A (earning more than 35 A.R. points) showed an increase in self-efficacy from pre to post-test. Group B (mid-level point accumulation) demonstrated decreases in both self-efficacy and reading value. Group C (fewest A.R. points earned) scored the lowest scores of self-efficacy and reading value. The researcher partially accomplished his intentions. He did show that there was a positive correlation between the number of A.R. points earned and the level of self-efficacy in Groups A and C, but not in Group B. However, all three groups decreased in the reading values scores from the pre to post-test. The researcher believes that this may be an indication of A.R. points being viewed by the students as an extrinsic motivator. Extrinsic motivators (i.e., rewards) have been shown to have less value to students than activities that are intrinsically motivated (no obvious external incentives).
This study represents a comparative design, which is non-experimental. Because of the nature of the convenience sample selected (middle class Caucasian students), it is difficult to generalize these results to other students, even other 4th graders. The sample size was also small (68 students) and not randomly selected. The pre-test itself could be considered a threat to the internal validity of the study. The survey questions themselves might have stimulated the students to think about the subject and perhaps change their attitudes. Environmental facts such as instruction and feedback may have had an affect on the subjects’ attitudes.
I would agree that the points earned through the Accelerated Reader program would be extrinsic motivators. My hope is that in using the program and reading self-selected books, my students will realize that reading can be an enjoyable activity. The points, while important to my students, are really secondary to my true dual purpose- to improve the student's reading ability and to cultivate a love of reading.
Accelerated Reader #3
Mallette, M. H., Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (2004). The influence of "Accelerated Reader" on the affective literacy orientations of intermediate grade students. Journal of Literacy Research. 36, 73-84.
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of the Accelerated Reader program on students’ affective literacy orientations. The reading attitudes and self-perceptions of 167 fourth graders and 191 fifth graders in two school districts were compared. The two school districts were similar in socioeconomic demographics (both had low to moderate family incomes). Approximately 60% of the fifth grade students in both schools met or exceeded the standards on the 2002 state assessment in reading. The study design was a Non-Equivalent Control Group type. A t-test was used to compare the initial reading ability of both groups, and the differences found were not significant (t= 1.60). Students in one school district experienced A.R. as their basic reading instructional program. These students had participated in A.R. since first grade. Students at all grades were expected to participate in one full hour of A.R. activities per day. The students in the control school had been exposed to A.R., but their primary instruction as literature-based and centered on the use of novel units. The use of A.R. varied, but in all cases it was an addition to the reading curriculum.
The main independent variable was treatment (Accelerated Reader). At the end of the 2001-2002 school year, students in both school districts were assessed using the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey- ERAS (McKenna and Kear, 1990) and the Reader Self-Perception Scale- RSPS (Henk and Melnick, 1995). The analysis indicated that A.R. positively influenced attitude toward academic reading, but not recreational reading.
While this study indicates A.R. did not have a positive influence on attitudes toward recreational reading, it did have a positive influence on attitudes toward academic reading. This alone to me justifies the use of the program. Many students cringe at the thought of academic reading, so anything that helps take away this stigma would seem to be good for a student's attitude in their academic future.
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of the Accelerated Reader program on students’ affective literacy orientations. The reading attitudes and self-perceptions of 167 fourth graders and 191 fifth graders in two school districts were compared. The two school districts were similar in socioeconomic demographics (both had low to moderate family incomes). Approximately 60% of the fifth grade students in both schools met or exceeded the standards on the 2002 state assessment in reading. The study design was a Non-Equivalent Control Group type. A t-test was used to compare the initial reading ability of both groups, and the differences found were not significant (t= 1.60). Students in one school district experienced A.R. as their basic reading instructional program. These students had participated in A.R. since first grade. Students at all grades were expected to participate in one full hour of A.R. activities per day. The students in the control school had been exposed to A.R., but their primary instruction as literature-based and centered on the use of novel units. The use of A.R. varied, but in all cases it was an addition to the reading curriculum.
The main independent variable was treatment (Accelerated Reader). At the end of the 2001-2002 school year, students in both school districts were assessed using the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey- ERAS (McKenna and Kear, 1990) and the Reader Self-Perception Scale- RSPS (Henk and Melnick, 1995). The analysis indicated that A.R. positively influenced attitude toward academic reading, but not recreational reading.
While this study indicates A.R. did not have a positive influence on attitudes toward recreational reading, it did have a positive influence on attitudes toward academic reading. This alone to me justifies the use of the program. Many students cringe at the thought of academic reading, so anything that helps take away this stigma would seem to be good for a student's attitude in their academic future.
Accelerated Reader #2
Cuddeback, M.; Ceprano, M. (2002). The use of Accelerated Reader with emergent
readers. Reading Improvement, 39, 99-96.
The purpose of this study (Cuddleback & Ceprano, 2002) was to ascertain if Accelerated Reader (AR) helps the reading development of young emergent readers’ comprehension. The subjects who received the AR treatment were 12 of 36 students from a rural high-need school. These students, after completing first grade, had not met the district’s benchmark for promotion. The students receiving the AR treatment were randomly assigned to one of three different summer school classes. The summer school program ran for a four-week period, with the children attending four days a week for 4 hours a day. The 12 students received the AR treatment for periods of 30-40 minutes a day the first three days in the week, and the last day of the week the children wrote about their favorite AR book. The students were expected to read books within their reading zone (level 1.0-1.9 during the first two weeks, levels up to 2.9 during the second four weeks), and to take an AR test daily. A motivational bulletin board in the classroom encouraged students to read and accumulate points, and prizes were given to students each week based on the number of points they had earned. To help determine specific benefits of AR on attitudes, the children took a short survey with a multiple choice format at the end of the four week period. Ten of the twelve children maintained or improved their comprehension. The class mean increased by approximately 2% in reading comprehension. The survey results indicated that using AR in summer school helped them become better readers. The authors concluded that AR contributed to children’s reading comprehension improvement when used in conjunction with other teaching procedures, and that it can be a motivating program.
Limitations of this study are that it was conducted over a short period of time and that a small sample of at-risk readers participated. A longer period of observation and a larger sample would yield results that would be considered more reliable.
readers. Reading Improvement, 39, 99-96.
The purpose of this study (Cuddleback & Ceprano, 2002) was to ascertain if Accelerated Reader (AR) helps the reading development of young emergent readers’ comprehension. The subjects who received the AR treatment were 12 of 36 students from a rural high-need school. These students, after completing first grade, had not met the district’s benchmark for promotion. The students receiving the AR treatment were randomly assigned to one of three different summer school classes. The summer school program ran for a four-week period, with the children attending four days a week for 4 hours a day. The 12 students received the AR treatment for periods of 30-40 minutes a day the first three days in the week, and the last day of the week the children wrote about their favorite AR book. The students were expected to read books within their reading zone (level 1.0-1.9 during the first two weeks, levels up to 2.9 during the second four weeks), and to take an AR test daily. A motivational bulletin board in the classroom encouraged students to read and accumulate points, and prizes were given to students each week based on the number of points they had earned. To help determine specific benefits of AR on attitudes, the children took a short survey with a multiple choice format at the end of the four week period. Ten of the twelve children maintained or improved their comprehension. The class mean increased by approximately 2% in reading comprehension. The survey results indicated that using AR in summer school helped them become better readers. The authors concluded that AR contributed to children’s reading comprehension improvement when used in conjunction with other teaching procedures, and that it can be a motivating program.
Limitations of this study are that it was conducted over a short period of time and that a small sample of at-risk readers participated. A longer period of observation and a larger sample would yield results that would be considered more reliable.
Accelerated Reader #1
Anderson, E., Melton, C. M., & Smothers, B. C. (2004). A study of the effects of the Accelerated
Reader program on fifth grade students' reading achievement growth. Reading Improvement. 41, 18-23.
The purpose of this study (Anderson, et. al., 2004) was to compare fifth grade students’ reading achievement growth after a year of participation in the Accelerated Reader program with the growth of fifth grade students who did not participate in the Accelerated Reader program. A pretest-posttest design was used to determine if a significant difference existed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The Terra Nova standardized achievement test was used as both a pretest and posttest of reading achievement growth. Two schools in Jackson, Mississippi, with similar demographics were chosen for the study. At the end of the year, those students who used the Accelerated Reader program did not show a significant increase in reading achievement growth when compared to the other group of students who did not participate in the A.R. program. The opposite actually seemed to have occurred. Students not participating in the A.R. program showed a significant increase in reading achievement growth when compared to students who had participated. The researchers concluded that further longitudinal studies should be conducted to determine the long-range effects of the A.R. program on reading achievement growth, in addition to studies on students’ attitudes toward reading before and after participation in the program.
Reader program on fifth grade students' reading achievement growth. Reading Improvement. 41, 18-23.
The purpose of this study (Anderson, et. al., 2004) was to compare fifth grade students’ reading achievement growth after a year of participation in the Accelerated Reader program with the growth of fifth grade students who did not participate in the Accelerated Reader program. A pretest-posttest design was used to determine if a significant difference existed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The Terra Nova standardized achievement test was used as both a pretest and posttest of reading achievement growth. Two schools in Jackson, Mississippi, with similar demographics were chosen for the study. At the end of the year, those students who used the Accelerated Reader program did not show a significant increase in reading achievement growth when compared to the other group of students who did not participate in the A.R. program. The opposite actually seemed to have occurred. Students not participating in the A.R. program showed a significant increase in reading achievement growth when compared to students who had participated. The researchers concluded that further longitudinal studies should be conducted to determine the long-range effects of the A.R. program on reading achievement growth, in addition to studies on students’ attitudes toward reading before and after participation in the program.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Journal Unit One EDUU 564
I registered for Google Sites in the previously class, EDUU 563. It was an easy process, though I did not use it for my blog. I like to create my responses in Word first, then paste them into wherever I intend to post. I had trouble using this process with Blogspot, so I created my blog in www.thoughts.com. Looking at examples of sites that were created in Google Sites, I liked their clean look. I may choose to use Google Sites for my portfolio, though previously I have used Apple’s Mobile Me.
My current technology portfolio is located at http://web.me.com/debbieanderson/Technology_Portfolio/Welcome.html. I liked using this site because it was easy to use, I liked the look of the pages, and it was an Apple product, which is what I prefer to work with. Unfortunately, Professor Shorey had some difficulty accessing the different pages I created using Mobile Me, so I may switch to Google Sites for this class.
Reviewing the checklist based on the National Standards for Facilitation, I have several artifacts created in the previous two classes that meet the requirements. I think one standard I have few artifacts for would be Standard I- Technology Operations and Concepts. Suggestions include a resume of technology training (I have none outside of my Chapman coursework) and my technology plan, however the technology plan is also suggested under Standard VI. I do not have artifacts for Standard V (Productivity and Professional Practice), though I have assisted other teachers in the use of word processing, graphics programs, and online curricular programs. Artifacts I have for other standards are lesson plans and online web-based instruction plan (Standard II), essential question plan, primary source plan, and a student research plan (Standard III), gradebook samples, rubrics, and STAR test data reports (Standard IV), and a technology plan (Standard VI and VII). At this time the only resource I have developed for Standard VIII (Leadership and Vision) is a literature review, though I imagine I will create more through this course. I plan to digitize these artifacts using a variety of formats, depending on what is best for that particular artifact.
My plan to complete my electronic portfolio is to first create an outline of each standard. I plan to create this outline with the needed links on a web page. I will then locate my existing artifacts that meet each standard, and place them in a separate folder before importing them into the portfolio. I will determine what artifacts will be created throughout this course and what I will still need to create. For those that I do not have, I will need to conduct some research and begin developing them.
My current technology portfolio is located at http://web.me.com/debbieanderson/Technology_Portfolio/Welcome.html. I liked using this site because it was easy to use, I liked the look of the pages, and it was an Apple product, which is what I prefer to work with. Unfortunately, Professor Shorey had some difficulty accessing the different pages I created using Mobile Me, so I may switch to Google Sites for this class.
Reviewing the checklist based on the National Standards for Facilitation, I have several artifacts created in the previous two classes that meet the requirements. I think one standard I have few artifacts for would be Standard I- Technology Operations and Concepts. Suggestions include a resume of technology training (I have none outside of my Chapman coursework) and my technology plan, however the technology plan is also suggested under Standard VI. I do not have artifacts for Standard V (Productivity and Professional Practice), though I have assisted other teachers in the use of word processing, graphics programs, and online curricular programs. Artifacts I have for other standards are lesson plans and online web-based instruction plan (Standard II), essential question plan, primary source plan, and a student research plan (Standard III), gradebook samples, rubrics, and STAR test data reports (Standard IV), and a technology plan (Standard VI and VII). At this time the only resource I have developed for Standard VIII (Leadership and Vision) is a literature review, though I imagine I will create more through this course. I plan to digitize these artifacts using a variety of formats, depending on what is best for that particular artifact.
My plan to complete my electronic portfolio is to first create an outline of each standard. I plan to create this outline with the needed links on a web page. I will then locate my existing artifacts that meet each standard, and place them in a separate folder before importing them into the portfolio. I will determine what artifacts will be created throughout this course and what I will still need to create. For those that I do not have, I will need to conduct some research and begin developing them.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Assessments
Assessment #1: Take the unit test on the lessons presented. You are allowed to use your texts as a reference.
Assessment #2 (Performance Assessment): Design a brochure that teaches people about the dangers of earthquakes. Identify ways to be prepared for such an event. Include safety guidelines to follow during and after the event. Keep your paragraphs short and include drawings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
