pangea.selu.edupangea.selu.edu/~crobertson/word documents/robertso… · web viewthe effects of...

Running head: CLOSE READING INSTRUCTION ON STUDENT COMPREHENSION 1

The Effects of Close Reading Instruction on Elementary Students’ Comprehension

Cathy Robertson

Southeastern Louisiana University

CLOSE READING INSTRUCTION ON STUDENT COMPREHENSION 2

Abstract

This is a study of the effects of Close Reading instructional approach on elementary school

students’ comprehension. Forty-eight third grade students from the same elementary school will

be used in the study. One group will have the Close Reading instruction and the other group will

not have the Close Reading instruction in place. The students will complete a pretest assessment

utilizing just the reading comprehension part of form C of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills before

the reading instruction is implemented. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) is standardized

tests provided as a service to schools by the College of Education of the University of Iowa. The

test battery provides a comprehensive assessment of student progress in major content areas. At

the end of the school year, students will once again take just the reading comprehension part of

form C of the ITBS. The assessment will be scored to determine if the Close Reading instruction

had any impact on students’ comprehension.


The Effects of Close Reading Instruction on Elementary Students’ Comprehension

Purpose

Forty-five states including the District of Columbia have adopted the Common Core

Standards. With the adoption of these standards for English Language Arts and Literacy, many

teachers have focused their attention on the practice of close reading. The purpose of this study

is to determine the effects of Close Reading instruction on elementary students’ comprehension.

Review of Literature

The implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the adoption of the

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) have many educators

frustrated with the task of getting students to perform at the expected level. Governmental

mandates across numerous states require that children become proficient readers across a variety

of text structures and genres (Ortlieb, 2013). The CCSS emphasizes students’ independence and

perseverance in reading complex texts, finding relevant evidence to construct sound argument,

and ability to communicate ideas and analysis through speaking and writing (Brown & Kappes,

2012). Moreover, students have to examine the deep structures of a piece of text and apply skills

of interpretation, critique, and evaluation in seeking the answers (Ortlieb, 2013). To prepare

students to meet the standards of the CCSS and for the rigors of college and careers, schools

must place a greater emphasis on teaching how to comprehend increasingly complex text (Brown

& Kappes, 2012).

Close Reading has become a principal aspect of reading instruction in the CCSS. Reading

research experts describe it as the bridge that will close the comprehension gap. As school

districts are embracing the standards, teachers are focusing on the practice of close analytic

reading to help students examine the deep structures of text and reach higher achievement levels


(Boyles, 2013). Brown and Kappes (2012) writes that close reading of text involves exploring a

short piece of text and rereading it several times over multiple instructional lessons. Throughout

the lesson, students are guided to analyze and appreciate different aspects of written text.

Students are equipped with various strategies to interpret text meanings (Hinchman & Moore,

2013). Cummins (2013) agrees that this type of instruction forces students to pay attention to the

way sentences are constructed, the imagery that is used, semantics, cultural implications,

structural importance, and any emerging themes while actively monitoring their own

understanding.

In a recent study, Fisher and Frey (2012) discovered that students are making gains through

this type of instruction but to accelerate this gain, especially for elementary students, close

readings must be accompanied by interactive read-aloud, shared readings, think-aloud, teaching

modeling, and guided readings across various texts. The authors and a selection of elementary

teachers observed 14 secondary teachers implementing the close reading over a course of 10

observations. They watched these teachers routinely model reading complex text and use the

skills for integrating the ideas in the text. They also observed teachers answering questions

while providing evidence from the text in their responses. After each observation, the observing

team discussed aspects of close reading and how the approach used might work for elementary

students. Their findings suggest that with some modifications, close reading instruction offers

effective strategies for elementary students’ reading comprehension.

A feasibility study done by Katz and Carlisle (2009) demonstrated that close reading

instruction is an effective tool for students with reading difficulties. Their study describes a

program that was used to help upper elementary students read and understand words as they read

text independently. This Close Reading program combined morphological-analysis and context-


analysis strategies with modeling and guided experiences during reading. Three fourth-grade

girls were the participants of this 12-week program. Three case studies were conducted using

standardized pretest and posttest measures of language and reading skills. Experimental progress

monitoring measures were administered before, during, and after instructions. The authors Katz

and Carlisle (2009) reported that all three students showed improvement in reading words and

comprehension on both measures. The results suggest that a combination of close reading

instruction with morphological-analysis strategies is effective in improving students’ word

reading and comprehension.

The CCSS mandates that reading and writing instruction be a shared responsibility among

educators within a school. It pushes for college and career-ready students. Senechal (2011) also

believes that the job of every teacher, despite the grade level or subject taught, is to teach the

strategies students need to be successful readers and writers at their current grade level and

beyond. Every teacher’s goal in using Close Reading throughout the curriculum should be to

gradually move students from a dependent environment where the teacher models the strategies

to an independent state where the students employ the strategies on their own when they read

independently (Brown & Kappes, 2012). Elizabeth Dobler (2013), a literacy professor at

Emporia State University, writes that in order to keep students motivated as they move through

complex text, teachers need to come up with authentic reasons for Close Reading in the

classroom. In her article, she refers to one particular program that motivates students to take

another look at the text.

The program, In2Books, was used in an elementary class. Students were matched with an

adult mentor. Both students and their adult mentor read the same book from a selected list of

books supplied by the teacher. Students read and discussed the book in class in a whole or small


group. While students read and discuss books at school, the adult mentor read at home. Then

students and their mentor share ideas via online letters (Dobler, 2013). Letters were uploaded to

the teacher’s inbox and after teacher approval passed on to the student. Dobler (2013) says that

having an authentic audience gives students a reason to return to the text multiple times and an

opportunity to think beyond the surface of the text. Benefits of this program included students

becoming more careful with their work, sort deeper comprehension of the text, and used

analytical strategies when trying to understand complex passages.

Research has shown that teachers who are implementing Close Reading instructions in their

classroom are observing greater student engagement and effort. College and career readiness

begins in the primary grades (Boyles, 2013). If given the time and tools to work with students,

Close Reading instructions can improve even the youngest student’s reading comprehension

(Boyles, 2013).

Hypothesis

It is hypothesized that third grade students who receive Close Reading instructions will score

statistically significantly higher than third grade students who do not with respect to reading

comprehension.

Operational Definitions

For the purpose of this study elementary school is defined as grades one through five. The

instructional reading program used in this study is Close Reading, which according to the article

uses a school-wide literacy approach to reading comprehension (Scholastic 2010). Close

Reading instruction is defined as a form of guided instruction in which the teacher questions,

prompts, and cues the learner (Fisher & Frey, 2013). Close reading is defined as uncovering


layers of meaning that lead to deep comprehension (Boyles, 2013). Reading comprehension is

the ability to read text, process it, and understand its meaning (Ortlieb, 2013).

Methodology

Research Design

A sequential, mixed-method design will be used for this study. A randomized pretest/posttest

group design will be the quantitative component. The independent variable is the Close Reading

instruction, and the dependent variable is the reading comprehension achievement level. The

levels are the presence of the instruction (implementation group) and the control group without

the presence of instruction. The qualitative data will be collected at the end of the experiment by

having students complete a questionnaire about their experiences of reading with increasingly

complex text during the school year.

Sample

A convenience sample of forty-eight third grade students from two intact classes in a semi-

rural public elementary school will be utilized because it is a subset from a population of interest

who are readily available. The ages of the participants will range for eight to nine years of age.

The sample will consist of 46% Caucasians, 48% African Americans, .02% Asians, and .04%

Hispanics. The sample will be 54% male and 46% female.

Instrumentation

For this study, the reading comprehension part of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (form C) will

be used as the pretest/posttest to measure the comprehension level among the students. The

assessment consists of 12 multiple choice items, which can be administered in a group and takes

25 minutes to complete. The reading test assesses reading comprehension and consists of

passages that vary in length from a few lines to a full page. Passages are drawn from fiction,


fables, tales, poetry, interviews, diaries, biographical sketches, science and social studies

materials and other nonfiction. Its measures of stability have been shown to be .85. Reviews of

the ITBS in Mental Measures Yearbook describe a long history of stable measurement of school

abilities and basic skills. The ITBS has been aligned to the CCSS to determine content validity,

criterion prediction, and construct identification. Standards and assessments are developing in

sequence to the Common Core State Standards by external content experts to maintain test

validity of the assessment.

Procedures

Two groups of students from the same elementary school will be selected because of the

availability, easy access of participants, and ease of gathering data. Both groups are third grade

semi-rural students. All students will be required to obtain signed consent from their parents in

order to be involved in the study. The consent forms will include an area where parents will

write the child’s name, age, grade, race, and gender. This information will be obtained only for

research purposes to describe the sample.

In order to describe which class would receive the reading instruction, the name of each

student will be written on a piece of paper and drawn from a box. The first name to be drawn

will be assigned to the Close Reading instruction, and the second name to be drawn will be

assigned to the control group.

Students in group A will receive the Close Reading instructions in vocabulary development,

text structure, author’s purpose, and cross-text analysis, and students in group B will not receive

the reading instructions. Both groups will be given a pretest before receiving reading

instructions. Throughout the study all students will take informative assessments after each

reading unit. Students who did not receive permission to participate in the study will be moved to


an alternate class. At the end of the study, which is at the end of school, all students will take a

post-test. Students will be given 25 minutes to complete only the reading comprehension section

of the ITBS assessment. The assessments will be collected by the teachers and scored. In order

to maintain confidentiality, no identifying factors will be recorded on the assessments except for

the last four digits of students’ identification number. This will allow the researchers to match

up the pretest and posttest assessments.

Data Analysis

In order to determine whether a statistically significant difference exists between the

instructional group and those who did not receive the Close Reading instructions, an ANOCVA

will be used. Quantitative data from the ITBS assessment will be analyzed to identify emerging

trends.


References

A comprehensive approach to literacy development from birth to grade 12: Recommendations

for a state’s comprehensive literacy plan. Scholastic, (2010, December 1.) Retrieved from

http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/title1/initiative/recommend.pdf

Boyles, N. (2013). We can’t wait until middle school to teach students to read closely. Three

practices bring close reading to the lower grades. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 36-41.

Retrieved from http://www.ASCD.org

Brown, S. & Kappes, L. (2012). Implementing the common core state standards: A primer on

“close reading of text”. The Aspen Institute, 13(33), 1-6. Retrieved from

http://www.aspendrl.org/portal/browse/DocumentDetail?documentId=1396&download

Cummins, S. (2013). What students can do when the reading gets rough. Educational

Leadership, 71(3), 69-72, Retrieved from http://www.ASCD.org

Dobler, E. (2013). Authentic reasons for close reading: How to motivate students to take another

look. Reading Today, 30(6), 13-15. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2013). What’s the secret to successful close reading? Strategic preparation

and follow up. Reading Today, 3(2), 16-17. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2012). Close reading in elementary schools. The Reading Teacher, 66(3),

179-187. doi: 10.1002/TRTR01117

Hinchman, K. & Moore, D. (2013). Close reading: A cautionary interpretation. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(6), 441-450. doi: 10.1002/JAAL.163

Katz, L. & Carlisle, J. (2009). Teaching students with reading difficulties to be close readers: A

Feasibility Study. Language Speech Hearing Services in School, 40(30), 325-340. doi:

10.1044/0161-146(2009/07-0096).


Ortlieb, E. (2013). Using anticipatory reading guides to improve elementary students’

comprehension. International Journal of Instruction, 6(2), 145-149. Retrieved from

http://www.e-iji.net

Senechal, D. (2011). Let strategies serve literature. Educational Leadership, 68(6), 52-56.

Retrieved from http://www.ASCD.org

pangea.selu.edupangea.selu.edu/~crobertson/word documents/robertso… · web viewthe effects of...

Documents