IMPR
OVING R
EADING
COMPREHENSIO
N
THROUGH V
OCABULARY
PREP
ER
I C C
. PO
WE
LL
, ED
72
01
/ 02
, F AL
L 2
01
1/ S
PR
I NG
20
12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Statement of the Problem
2. Current Methodology
3. Theoretical Basis
4. Review of Related Literature
5. Statement of Hypothesis
6. Experimental Design
7. Threats to Validity
8. Statistical Analysis
9. Sources
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
During my time as both a reading and writing tutor and a fifth
grade student teacher, I have come to notice a disparity between
student phonemic awareness and reading comprehension levels.
Students who regularly display a positive grasp of phonic decoding
skills are not always able to comprehend and explain what they
have just read. Based on these observations I am interested in
investigating techniques which purport to increase student
comprehension levels. The current model for reading
comprehension instruction is the reading workshop – a model in
which there is one particular gap: vocabulary reinforcement.
CURRENT METHODOLOGY
The current instructional model for teaching and encouraging reading comprehension is called the reading workshop.
The reading workshop involves the modeling of various strategies such as monitoring for comprehension, activating background knowledge, asking questions, inferring meaning, determining importance, and summarizing.
THEORETICAL BASIS
The basis for the reading workshop model can be traced to Vygotsky, who emphasized social interaction as a necessary component of learning. (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001)
LITERATURE REVIEW
Positive gains in reading comprehension:
• Oral reading techniques (Hinchley & Levy, 1988)
• Make predictions when reading, generate questions about the text, summarize what was read (Lysynchuk, Pressley, & Vye, 1990)
• Emphasizing higher-order thinking (Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2003)
• Cooperative learning (Uttero, 1988)
• Exposure to reading strategies before being presented with instruction [5th graders] (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005)
LITERATURE REVIEW
Negative gains in reading comprehension:
• Enriched reading experiences by exposing students to books in their areas of interest, daily supported independent reading of challenging self‐selected books using differentiated reading instruction, and interest‐based choice opportunities in reading (Reis, McCoach, Coyne, Schreiber, Eckert, & Gubbins, 2007)
• Exposure to reading strategies before being presented with instruction [2nd graders] (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005)
STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS
Exposure to vocabulary as a pre-reading strategy
during one 45 minute period twice a week for four
weeks will increase reading comprehension among
ten 5th graders at PS X in Brooklyn, NY as
measured by pre- and post-treatment assessments.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Pre-Experimental/Quasi-Experimental –
• Two non-randomly selected groups
• Designated treatment group (X1)
• Control group (X2)
THREATS TO VALIDITY
Internal threats:
• Instrumentation (pre-assessment vocabulary prep not sufficient to boost comprehension/vocabulary incorrectly chosen, assessment not administered/interpreted correctly)
• History (comprehension troubles are due to factors other than vocabulary comprehension (i.e. cultural/experiential differences from the world of the text, student’s native language is not English, student does not possess phonemic decoding skills))
• Mortality/Differential Selection of Subjects (student absent for assessment due to illness or other family concern)
THREATS TO VALIDITY
External threats:
• Participant effects (ie the Novelty effect – a student’s effort may be dependent on the novelty of participating in the experiment)
• Experimenter effects (ie a student’s effort may be affected by the presence of the researcher)
PRE-TREATMENT/POST-TREATMENT SCORES (SUBJECT GROUP)
AVERAGE INCREASED 0.9 POINTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
PRE-TREATMENT/POST-TREATMENT SCORES (CONTROL GROUP)
AVERAGE INCREASED 0.1 POINTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND SELF-ASSESSMENT OF READER CONFIDENCE IN
TREATMENT GROUP(0.349015=LOW/FAIR CORRELATION)
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Reading Confidence
Scor
es
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND SELF-INITIATED DICTIONARY USE IN TREATMENT GROUP
(0.884985=HIGH CORRELATION)
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Dictionary Use
Scor
es
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND PARENTAL READING AS A CHILD IN TREATMENT
GROUP(0.416463=LOW/FAIR CORRELATION)
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Read-to by Parents as a Child
Scor
es
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND REGULAR LIBRARY USAGE IN TREATMENT GROUP
(0.806478=HIGH CORRELATION)
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Library Use
Scor
es
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND SELF-ASSESSMENT OF READER CONFIDENCE IN
CONTROL GROUP(-0.23837=LOW CORRELATION)
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Reading Confidence
Scor
es
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND SELF-INITIATED DICTIONARY USE IN CONTROL GROUP
(0.690066=FAIR/HIGH CORRELATION)
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Dictionary Use
Scor
es
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND PARENTAL READING AS A CHILD IN CONTROL
GROUP(0.790569=FAIR/HIGH CORRELATION)
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Parental Reading
Scor
es
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND REGULAR LIBRARY USAGE IN CONTROL GROUP
(0.806478=HIGH CORRELATION)
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Library Usage
Scor
es
REFERENCES
Amendum, S.J., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Ginsberg, M.C. (2011). The effectiveness of a technologically facilitated classroom-based early reading intervention. The Elementary School Journal, 112 (1), 107-131. doi: 10.1086/660684. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660684
Ash, B. H. (1990). Reading assigned literature in a reading workshop. English Journal,
79, 77-79. http://www.jstor.org/journals/00138274.html August, D., Francis, D.J., Hsu, H.A., & Snow, C.E. (2006). Assessing reading
comprehension in bilinguals. The Elementary School Journal, 107 (2), 221-238. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/510656
Dougherty Stahl, K. (2008). The effects of three instructional methods on the reading
comprehension and content acquisition of novice readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 40 (3), 359-393.
Elish-Piper, L., & L’Allier, S.K. (2011). Examining the relationship between literacy
coaching and student reading gains in grades K–3. The Elementary School Journal, 112 (1), 83-106. doi: 10.1086/660685. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660685
REFERENCES
Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers. (pp. 191-192, 218). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ferguson, J., & Wilson, J. (2009). Guided reading: it’s for primary teachers. College Reading Association Yearbook, 30, 293-306.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J.P. & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension
strategies to students with learning disabilities: a review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71 (2), 279-320. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516086
Hinchley, J., & Levy, B.A. (1988). Developmental and individual differences in reading
comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 5 (1), 3-47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233608
Kletzien, S.B., & Hushion, B.C. (1992). Reading workshop: reading, writing, thinking.
Journal of Reading, 35 (6), 444-451. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40007556 Larson, L.C. (2008). Electronic reading workshop: beyond books with new literacies and
instructional technologies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52 (2), 121-131. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20111749
REFERENCES
Lausé, J. (2004). Using reading workshop to inspire lifelong readers. The English Journal, 93 (5), 24-30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128931
Lysynchuk, L.M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N.J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading-
comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 90 (5), 469-484. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001797
Maney, E.S. (1954). The reading workshop: building pre-reading comprehension skills part 1: vocabulary development. The Reading Teacher, 7 (3), 183-186. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20196764
Meyer, K.E. (2010). A collaborative approach to reading workshop in the middle years. The Reading Teacher, 63 (6), 501-507. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25615840
Oberlin, K.J., & Shugarman, S.L. (1989) Implementing the reading workshop with middle school ld readers. Journal of Reading, 32 (8), 682-687. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40030025
Reis, S.M., McCoach, D.B., Coyne, M., Schreiber, F.J., Eckert, R.D., & Gubbins, E.J. (2007). Using planned enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading fluency, comprehension, and attitude toward reading: an evidence‐based study. The Elementary School Journal, 108 (1), 3-23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/522383
Reutzel, D.R., & Cooter, Jr., R.B. (1991). Organizing for effective instruction: the reading workshop. The Reading Teacher, 44 (8), 548-554. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20200734
REFERENCESRoessing, L. (2007). Losing the fear of sharing control: starting a reading workshop. Middle School Journal, 38 (3),
44-51.
Schaffer, L.M., & Schirmer, B.R. (2010). The guided reading approach: a practical method to address diverse needs in the classroom. Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education, 11 (1), 40-43.
Scharer, P., Pinnell, G., Lyons, C., & Fountas, I. (2005). Becoming an engaged reader. Educational Leadership, 63
(2), 24-29. Stewart, R.A., Paradis, E.E., Ross, B.D., & Lewis, M.J. (1996). Student voices: what works in literature-based
developmental reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39 (6), 468-478. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40014036
Swift, K. (1993). Try reading workshop in your classroom. The Reading Teacher, 46 (5), 366-371.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20201090 Taylor, B.M., Pearson, P.D., Peterson, D.S., & Rodriguez, M.C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms:
the influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104 (1), 3-28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3203047
Uttero, D.A. (1988). Activating comprehension through cooperative learning. The Reading Teacher, 41 (4), 390-395.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20199801
Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J.P. (2005). Effects of explicit reading strategies instruction and peer tutoring on second and fifth graders' reading comprehension and self-efficacy perceptions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73 (4), 291-329. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20157404