Improving Reading Comprehension Through Vocabulary Prep

1. Improving Reading Comprehension Through Vocabulary Prep Eric C. Powell, ED 7201/02, Fall 2011/Spring 2012

2. Table of Contents • Statement of the Problem • Current Methodology • Theoretical Basis • Review of Related Literature • Statement of Hypothesis • Experimental Design • Threats to Validity • Statistical Analysis • Sources

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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)

6. 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)

7. 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 [2ndgraders] (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005)

8. 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.

9. Experimental design • Pre-Experimental/Quasi-Experimental – • Two non-randomly selected groups • Designated treatment group (X1) • Control group (X2)

10. 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)

11. 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)

12. Pre-Treatment/Post-Treatment Scores (Subject Group)Average increased 0.9 Points

13. Pre-Treatment/Post-Treatment Scores (Control Group)average increased 0.1 Points

14. Relationship between test scores and self-assessment of reader confidence in treatment group(0.349015=Low/fair Correlation)

15. Relationship between test scores and self-Initiated Dictionary Use in treatment group(0.884985=High Correlation)

16. Relationship between test scores and Parental Reading as a child in treatment group(0.416463=Low/Fair Correlation)

17. Relationship between test scores and regular library usage in treatment group(0.806478=High Correlation)

18. Relationship between test scores and self-assessment of reader confidence in Control group(-0.23837=Low Correlation)

19. Relationship between test scores and self-Initiated Dictionary Use in control group(0.690066=fair/High Correlation)

20. Relationship between test scores and Parental Reading as a child in control group(0.790569=Fair/high Correlation)

21. Relationship between test scores and regular library usage in control group(0.806478=High Correlation)

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. References • Roessing, 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