Presented by Alexandra Allman May 2

1. The Effects of Small Group Intervention (specifically teaching QAR) on the outcome of SOL (Standards of Learning) test scores. Presented by Alexandra Allman May 2

2. Introduction This is my first year teaching 3rd grade. This is considered a “testing year.” I had spent my first 6 years at this particular elementary school in Prince William County teaching 2nd grade. The pressures and the way we are expected to teach are different from my previous experience. I found myself on a team of 5 teachers with only one teacher who had previously taught 3rd grade. We were learning and experiencing something new together.

3. Rationale • All of my students came to 3rd grade reading on a level 28 or above (DRA II). They had all passed the PALS (VA reading test) except for one student who was identified for difficulties with spelling. Throughout the year a portion of my students were not doing well with short readings and comprehension questions. • I was using whole group lessons and guided reading lessons that followed our curriculum and pacing guide.

4. Rationale • SOL (standards of learning) benchmarks are administered throughout the year and I noticed a group of students whose scores were consistently low and they were not making improvements. • I feel there is so much pressure for the students to pass and for the teachers to make sure this happens. I had to find a new way to help these students comprehend better and be able to answer multiple choice questions at a higher passing rate.

5. Research Questions • Will providing explicit instruction and modeling of reading strategies for fiction and nonfiction text three times a week for 15-20 minutes in a small group setting improve comprehension and students’ test scores? • Is QAR an effective reading strategy to use when trying to improve reading comprehension and test scores?

6. Relevant Literature • Wilson and Smetana (2009): If the students are aware of their cognition they will be able to locate the information that is needed to answer a question. They present the idea of QAT (Questioning as Thinking). This idea consists of Think-Alouds (Davey, 1983), QAR (Question Answer Relationships) (Raphael, 1986), and Self-Questioning. • Raphael and Au (2005): Over half of the questions on state and/or national tests will require higher level thinking. The questions will call for integration, interpretation, critique, and evaluation of the texts they read during tests. QAR will provide teachers an approach for teaching reading comprehension and the students with a common language.

7. Relevant Literature (cont.) • QAR: • Right There – The answer can be found in the text. • Think and Search – The answer can be found in the text but the reader will have to put together different parts of the text to identify the answer. • Author and Me – The answer is not in the text and the reader will need background knowledge to answer the question. • On My Own – The answer is not in the text and the reader needs to use what they already know and previous experiences or ideas to answer the question. Sometimes the reader will have to make a connection or an inference.

8. Relevant Literature (cont.) • Ezell, Kohler, Jarzynka, and Strain (1992) conducted a study that investigated using QAR with third grade students. Results - showed that low-achieving children improved across the first three types of questions (“Right There,” “Putting it Together,” and “Author and You”). • Boushey and Moser (2009) created a research-based guide and listed key strategies that will support students’ comprehension when reading. They state that readers who are actively involved in reading ask themselves questions before, during, and after reading a selection. This will increase their comprehension. They also suggest using Raphael’s (2005) QAR strategy.

9. Relevant Literature (cont.) • Foley (2011) conducted a study of kindergarten through third grade on the use of an instructional strategy called CSI (Comprehension Strategy Instruction). It begins with explicit instruction and modeling by the teacher, then scaffolding, and then releasing the responsibility to the student. A few of the strategies include think alouds and questioning which relate to QAR. • Hall, Sabey, and McClellan (2005) investigated the effects of a program where teachers explicitly give instruction on expository text comprehension in a small group setting. The results of the study showed that the small group instruction improved the students’ comprehension over the students who did not receive small group instruction.

10. Relevant Literature (cont.) • O’Connor, Harty, and Fulmer (2005) conducted a study of three tiered intervention of kindergarten through third grade. It was provided for students who were at risk for reading problems, whose achievement fell below average, and who were making little progress. Tier 2 interventions were done in small groups three times a week. Tier 2 worked for two thirds of the students .

11. Research Methods: Participants • Student A: male, African American, DRA level 30, does not appear motivated in the classroom and does not complete all of his work, Jan. SOL Benchmark 14/35 (5/35) • Student B: female, Afghani (not ESL), DRA level 34, puts effort into work, Jan. SOL Benchmark 14/35 (13/35) • Student C: female, African American, DRA level 38, average student, Jan. SOL Benchmark 8/35 (16/35) • Student D: female, African American, DRA level 30, takes longer than the average student to complete work, Jan. SOL Benchmark 19/35 – had been getting relatively the same scores all year

12. Research Methods: Materials • i-Openers Series (Celebration Press: Pearson Learning Group) • Nonfiction Passage with Graphic Organizers for Independent Practice Grades 2-4, by Alice Boynton and Wiley Blevins • i-test: Interactive Achievement Program

13. Research Methods: Procedure • Study took place March 13 – present • March 13 – Presented QAR with whole class using The Lotus Seed. The lesson was taken from Reading with Meaning, by Debbie Miller. I introduced the vocabulary for QAR and the students asked questions before, during, and after reading. We answered the questions and color coded them.

16. Research Methods: Procedure • Starting March 19, I met with the group of four students 3 days (Tues. Wed. & Thurs.) a week for 20 minutes. • Tuesday: Think Alouds/Questioning - We read iOPeners. I would model asking questions and students would ask their own questions. • Wednesday: Think Aloud/QAR – We used previous benchmarks or i-tests. I would model answering the multiple choice questions using QAR. • Thursday: Students would read a passage from Nonfiction Passage with Organizers for Independent Practice Grades 2-4. They would independently read and answer the questions. We would then go over it and students explained how they used QAR.

18. Student A’s Outcomes

19. Student B’s Outcomes

20. Student C’s Outcomes

21. Student D’s Outcomes

22. Preliminary Findings • Student A became more successful in the small group setting. However, his scores did not improve very much when he took a computer test. • Student B’s benchmarks improved slightly throughout the year and improved again in March. However she only had about half of the questions correct on her recent i-test. Her small group setting quizzes went up except for the one we took the week after spring break.

23. Preliminary Findings • Student C was chosen for this study because she was not close to passing the benchmarks and then had a significant drop in January. She did pass her March benchmark. However, in the small group settings she did not show much improvement. • Student D has not shown much improvement in the classroom all year and this continued in the small group setting. She did increase her benchmark scores, but only slightly.

24. Discussion • I had been working with these students in small groups prior to March. My official study began in March with a focus on the QAR. • These students also meet with a reading resource teacher every day/every other week for 20-25 minutes. • They also have after school tutoring that began at the beginning of March. Language arts is once a week. • These students have been recommended for intervention in both language arts and math. • Final Outcome – SOL Test in May

25. Discussion • I feel I gained more from observation than from actual test scores. • Student B seemed to grasp the concept of QAR immediately and often shared her answers and what type of question it was. • Student A was not going back to find his answers the first couple of weeks, but in April he started applying it more. However, he gives up easily when he can’t figure it out. He’ll look briefly, but if it is not a right there or a think and search that is in the same paragraph he will just guess. • Student C and D really struggled with locating and identifying answers. Both had difficulty understanding what the questions were asking (i.e. where versus when).

26. Reflection • As a teacher researcher • Taking notes during each interaction helps when planning the next lesson as well as completing results. • I observed students other than my small study group applying QAR and I continued to use this in whole group lessons. • A month or two is not long enough to conduct this study. I will begin this project at the beginning of the year and create flexible groups based on observations and benchmark scores.

27. Reflection • As a teacher leader • Assist teachers on using QAR and support small group instruction. • My data moderately supports the use of QAR. • Research and study other strategies to share with the teachers.

28. References • Boushey, G. & Moser, J. (2009). The café book: Engaging all students in daily literacy assessment & instruction. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers. • Boynton A. & Blevins, W. (2005). Nonfiction passage with graphic organizers for independent practice: Grades 2-4. New York, N.Y: Scholastic • Davey, B. (1983). Think aloud: Modeling the cognitive processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 27, 44–47. • Ezell, H. K., Kohler, F. W., Jarzynka, M., & Strain, P. S. (1992). Use of peer-assisted procedures to teach QAR reading comprehension strategies to third-grade children. Education and Treatment of Children, 15(3), 205-227. • Foley, L. S. (2011). Exploring K-3 teachers’ implementation of comprehension strategy instruction (CS) using expectancy- value theory. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 195-215.

29. References • Hall, K. M., Sabey, B. L., & McClellan, M. (2005). Expository text comprehension: Helping primary-grade teachers use expository texts to full advantage. Reading Psychology, 25, 211-234. • Miller, D. (2002). Reading with meaning: Teaching comprehension in the primary grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. • O’Connor, R. E., Harty, K. R., & Fulmer, D. (2005). Tiers of Intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities,38(6), 532-538. • Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516–522. • Raphael, T. E. & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 206- 220.

30. References • Wilson, N. S. & Smetana, L. (2009). Questioning as thinking: A metacognitive framework. Middle School Journal, November, 20-27. • Wishinsky, F. (2005). iOpeners: Could we live on the Moon? Parsippany, NJ: Pearson Learning group.