research on teacher practices with talented readers
TRANSCRIPT
Can Teachers Teach Talented Readers?
Signature SeriesAddressing the Needs of Today’s Gifted Learners: Putting Research into Practice
Dr. Liz [email protected]
Talented readers receive
little challenging instruction, instead doing work that is simple and
redundant for them. (Archambault et al., 1993; Reis et al., 2004; Reis, Westberg,
Kulikowich, & Purcell, 1998; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993; Westberg et al., 1998)
Integral Aspects of Reading Instruction for Talented Readers
Use of higher-level questioning techniques
Self-selected reading Independent research projects Development of research skills
(Dole & Adams, 1983; Reis & Renzulli, 1989; Renzulli, 1977)
Reading Comprehension Strategies Lower Level Higher Level Decoding/Phonics SynthesizingSlowing down/Rereading Making
Inferences Using pictures Making Connections Knowledge Determining Importance Other Visualizing
QuestioningMetacognition
Keene & Zimmerman, 1997; Harvey & Goudvis, 2000
Sample 10 treatment teachers
5 elementary 5 middle school
6 control teachers 3 elementary 3 control
100% Caucasion 87% Female 83% M.A. or Specialist Degrees
Instrumentation ITBS - Iowa Test of Basic Skills CBM - Oral Reading Fluency Indicators Teaching Reading: Attitudes and
Practices Reading Classroom Practices Record SEM-R Treatment Fidelity Scale
Methodology1. Developed manual & trained co-
researchers to use RCPR. 2. Analyzed ITBS & CBM fluency data to find
H, A, & L students. Randomly chose one from each level for each teacher.
3. Conducted 80 observations, 5 of each teacher – used 20% for interrater reliability.
4. Analyzed data using the constant comparative method, inferential statistics.
Determining Achievement Level
Reading Achievement
Level
ITBS National Percentile
Norms
CBM National Percentile Norms
High Achiever (H) 90-99 90-99
Average Achiever (A) 40-60 40-60
Low Achiever (L) 1-30 1-25
Table 3.6
Interrater ReliabilityQuestions
AskedStrategy
Instruction
Strategy Codes
Pre-discussion
Strategy Codes
Post-discussion
Whole Group
Total (N=16) .64 .86 .87 .97 SEM-R Classes (N=9) .59 .91 .95 1.0
Control Classes (N=6) .70 .79 .74 .92
Conferences
Total .84 .72 .81 .93 High .84 .67 .80 .93
Average .81 .67 .84 .96
Low .85 .83 .79 .91 Table 3.9
Research Question #1 Do types of reading strategy
instruction differ in treatment and control classrooms?
Analysis
Constant comparative methodDescriptive StatisticsIndependent samples t-test
Results for RQ 1: Methods
Control classrooms frequently used: Round Robin reading, test preparation, guided reading, worksheets, and novels.
SEM-R classrooms used: read-alouds, supported independent reading, and conferences.
Constant Comparative Method
Results for RQ1: Higher Level Questions Used in Whole Group Instruction
Treatment Classes 68%
Control Classes 54%
Descriptive Statistics
Results for RQ1: Higher Level Questions Used in Whole Group Instruction
There was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of higher order strategy questions used between treatment and control classrooms at [Z = 2.882, p<.01] within the elementary sample. The difference in the proportion of higher level strategy questions used at the middle school level was not significantly different [Z = -1.589, ns] in the two conditions.
Proportion Comparison
Results for RQ 1: Minutes ReadControl Classrooms (M = 10.80, SD = 3.82) Treatment Classrooms (M = 35.68, SD = 5.94)
These differences were significant (t = -9.604, p = .01) indicating that students in the treatment classrooms spent about 3 times as many minutes reading than students in control classrooms.
Inferential: t-test
TreatmentControl
Experimental Condition
40
30
20
10
Mea
n N
umbe
r of M
inut
es R
ead
per C
lass
95% Confidence Intervals of Minutes Read
M = 35.68 minutes
M = 10.80 minutes
Research Question #2a Is there a difference between reading
comprehension strategy questions used with students of high, average, and low reading achievement levels?
AnalysisConstant comparative methodRepeated-measures Anova
Results for RQ2a: Differentiation in Control Classrooms
Grouping was used occasionally
Curricular modification (assignment, materials, etc.) was made once
Questioning was the same for all at the middle school, varied in two elementary classrooms
Constant Comparative Method: Open & Axial Coding
Lower Level Questions
Higher Level Questions
Achievement N M SD M SD
High 10 10.24 8.33 27.30 10.56
Average 9 10.86 4.98 27.64 9.39
Low 9 13.89 8.65 30.04 15.74
Total 28 11.66 7.32 28.33 11.90
Strategy Questions in SEM-R Classrooms
Table 4.6 Inferential: Repeated-measures Anova
LowAverageHigh
Achievement Level
35
30
25
20
15
10
Estim
ated
Mar
gina
l Mea
ns
Higher Level Strategies
Lower Level Strategies
Results for RQ2a: Questioning Patterns in Conferences
Wilks’s Λ = .36, F (1, 25) = 44.50, p <.005.Cohen’s d = .86 (large effect size)
These results indicate that the mean for teachers’ use of higher level questions was significantly higher than the mean for teachers’ use of lower level thinking questions across all achievement levels in SEM-R classrooms. The absence of an achievement by strategy interaction shows that strategy patterns were consistent across all three achievement levels.
Inferential: Repeated-measures Anova
Results for RQ 2a: Differentiation in SEM-R Classrooms
Though there is certainly differentiation going on in SEM-R classrooms due to the fact that no two reading conferences were the same, the differentiation is not necessarily providing more challenging instruction to talented readers than that which is provided to all readers.
Research Question #2bIs there a difference between reading comprehension strategy instruction used with students of high, average, and low reading achievement levels?
Descriptive StatisticsOne-way Anova Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test
Analysis
Results for RQ2b: Minutes Spent Conferencing with Students of High, Average, and Low Reading Achievement
Number of Minutes
Achievement N M SDHigh 10 7.41 2.38Average 9 8.09 2.72Low 9 7.99 2.10
28 7.83 2.35Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics
Results for RQ2b: Length of Conferences
A one-way ANOVA was conducted and it was determined that the conferences with students of high, average, and low reading ability were not significantly different in length [F (2,27) = 0.24, p = .79].
M = 7.83 minutes (SD = 2.35) minutesInferential: One-way Anova
Results for RQ2b: Prevalence of Lower and Higher Level Strategy Instruction Observed in Conferences
Reading Strategy High Avg. Low χ2 (2)
Lower Level Strategies
7 6 15 5.24
Higher Level Strategies
7 12 25 11.77*
* p < .01, Cohen’s d = .86
Table 4.10 Chi-Square Goodness of Fit
Research Question #3 What types of reading comprehension
strategy instruction are embedded into SEM-R individual reading conferences for students of differing achievement levels?
AnalysisConstant comparative method
Results for RQ3: Higher Level Strategies Used Frequently with Readers of All Achievement Levels
Treatment Making inferences:
character analysis Making
connections: text to self connections
Metacognition: monitoring
Control Making
Inferences Synthesis Metacognition
Constant Comparative Method: Open & Axial Coding
Treatment Visualizing Questioning
Control Visualizing Questioning
Results for RQ3: Higher Level Strategies Used Infrequently with Readers of All Achievement Levels
Constant Comparative Method: Open & Axial Coding
Low/Average Metacognition:
monitoring Questioning:
primarily used with low achieving elementary readers
Results for RQ3: Higher Level Strategies Used Frequently with Readers of Certain Achievement Levels
Talented Synthesis: theme Metacognition:
challenge Making
connections: self to text connections
Constant Comparative Method: Open & Axial Coding
Implications With proper training, teachers are able to
integrate high levels of questioning in reading strategy instruction and the SEM-R should be recognized as a valuable teaching method in the instruction of learners of varying ability levels.
Teachers may need additional training to adequately challenge talented readers.