1

PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE:

PREPARING STUDENTS FOR 21ST CENTURY

LITERACY SKILLS

 

  ANN FESENMYEREDTL 692/694

DR. MARIANNE LOVIK-POWERS

2

Abstract

___________________________________________________________________

At the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year the teachers in the district were

challenged to address one problem in their classroom or attempt something new in their

classroom. There were many ideas that were given to us and times set aside that we might

brainstorm with others on our teams to identify an issue. I have struggled with our

intervention program that we have had in place for five years, not because of the extra time

but because of the lack of success from the students while I have invested so much time for

planning and remediating.

The intervention time is called Learning Lab and students were placed in learning labs

based on their prior year’s PSSA scores and sometimes if they were failing in their core

classes. The idea behind Learning Labs was to remediate the students so that they would

become proficient on the PSSA. Our school has never made AYP without a condition and is

in School Improvement II. The problem was that all of the core teachers were assigned a

group of students and asked to be creative in designing lessons that would satisfy the goal.

The math and science teachers taught math and the history and ELA teachers taught

reading. We were told that everything had to be individualized for the learners. Another

problem was that so many of the students needed both math and reading interventions and

content teachers did not feel adept at designing reading lessons because they were not

reading teachers. Intervention and remediation became a game time for most and only a

few received the instruction they needed.

I decided to embark on this problem by attempting to come up with a solution that

would work for any teacher, not just the reading teachers. I researched some different

3

intervention programs and settled on two very different styles. I brought in the past SRA

Reading Laboratory, mine was printed 1989 and still in the original carton, never opened.

It was given to me by a retired teacher. The present program that I decided to use was the

Reading Assistant Technology program. I decided that the students that were in my

experimental group would participate in a strategic, systematic approach as opposed to the

other classes who were picking and choosing reading passages, or allowing the students to

be on the computer playing “intervention games”. Both of the programs had been

researched.

At the beginning of the year, I presented my idea to my administrators and was

given the go-ahead for the action research. Each of the participants was given permission

forms and explanations for the research. They took the first diagnostic assessments and

then began their individualized remediation instruction plans. They were part of a rotation

of interventions and given formative assessments weekly so that their plans could be

altered. At the end of ten weeks the students were assessed again and the results were

documented.

As a result of this project, I learned that the students who were in the experimental

groups appeared to perform slightly better on the assessments than the students who were

in the control group. I will continue this research throughout the remainder of the 2012-

2013 school year before I present my findings to my administrators. If the results remain

as positive as the first ten weeks, after comparing the 2013 PSSA scores between the

experimental and control groups, I will present my results and recommend that we invest

in a more updated version of the SRA Reading Lab and invest in more licenses of the

Reading Assistant program so that each of the content teachers can be trained to

4

incorporating these programs into the learning lab. I would surmise that if these programs

were used with the same fidelity as my research that we would have fewer students who

would need remediation each year. The result might be that implementing a systematic,

strategic remediation program would impact the AYP results for our school.

5

Table of Contents

Abstract 2-4

Chapter 1 Introduction 6-11

Chapter 2 Literature Review 12-20

Chapter 3 Method of Research 21-26

Chapter 4 Collection and Analysis of Data 27-35

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Reflections 36-41

References 42

Appendix 43-46

6

“Past, Present, Future: Preparing Students for 21st Century Literacy Skills”Chapter 1

Ann FesenmyerEDTL 692

______________________________________________________________________

Introduction

I have had the privilege of working in many areas of education since my

undergraduate graduation. I have also had the opportunity to work under some varying

philosophies. I began in a Montessori school. I also taught in a Catholic school. Then, I

worked as an abstinence educator in the schools. I always found myself gravitating to the

struggling students. When I was fortunate enough to obtain a position in the public

schools, once again, I worked with the struggling students.

My school has a 42% economically disadvantaged population. Many of the students

are from homes of six to seven generations of welfare and education is not valued. Many of

my students read two to four grade levels below eighth grade. I am in a co-teaching

environment. My classes are heterogeneously grouped with a high concentration of

struggling readers included. Student growth is very important to me and I constantly

monitor student learning and hold the students and myself accountable. I conference and

set goals with them so that they are aware. Each has an individualized folder that contains

their data and the skills they need to practice. This year, I will work with approximately

sixty students.

My administrators are working to create a positive learning environment so that

students can achieve. They adjust teacher’s schedules and students’ schedules so that the

students can participate in additional intervention classes. During the 2012-2013 school

7

year, I will be teaching an extra intervention class at the beginning of the day. The class has

been in place for about five years now. We have called this intervention class a Learning

Lab, so for the purpose of this, it will be referred to as that throughout the remainder of this

project. I truly believe in this concept and believe that it can improve student test scores

and student growth.

The idea of the Learning Lab is to target struggling students who are Basic and

Below Basic on the PSSAs and provide them with small group interventions in reading and

math. Each of the teachers on the team is assigned a group of students and given freedom

to choose what and how they want to teach. For whatever reason, Learning Labs have not

proven to be very successful.

Observation

I have been frustrated with this program because I do not feel that it is being used to

the fullest capacity. Every day that we have Learning labs, the teachers dread the period; I

am including myself in that. Even though we have to do lesson plans, I always feel that I am

rushing around at the last minute trying to choose something that the students will benefit

from. Learning labs become another prep for us and I often spend more time trying to

locate materials that we can use for learning labs than I spend preparing to teach my five

other classes. I am thankful for all of the on-line resources and written resources that are

available to teachers. I can pick and choose a plethora of materials that are created on

different levels. I would like to use something that the students would be able to work

independently on skills and then free up my time to do one- on- one intervention. I would

like to see the twelve extra hours of instruction per month really make a difference to these

8

struggling students. I think that if the teachers were given a program to use, there would

be a greater chance that students would achieve.

______________________________________________________________________________

Purpose

The purpose of my research is to explore the idea of using a combination of research-

based programs to conduct the Learning Lab interventions as opposed to the way that we

have been teaching them since the inception. We have conducted a “cafeteria-style” of

teaching these labs for the past five years. We have analyzed the data and then targeted

skills the students needed, then found different resources to reinforce the skills. The

history and science teachers also become reading and math intervention teachers. Often,

they rely on the reading teachers to give them materials. They do not feel comfortable

teaching reading so their intervention classes become a place to play games or do

worksheets. Learning Lab intervention classes offer the struggling students an extra

twelve hours per month of targeted reading intervention. I think that there should be a

better success rate than what we have experienced.

Research Question

Will implementing a combination of strategic intervention research-based programs impact

student achievement as measured by performance on reading benchmarks?

9

Variables

The independent variable in this research project will be the use of two strategic

intervention curriculums. For this project, we will use the SRA program and Reading

Assistant program. Each is designed to allow the student to work at his/her own pace on

his/her instructional level. Each is also designed so that the student can work

independently, which will allow me the time to work with individual students. The

dependent variable will be the students’ achievement. The student’s achievement will be

measured from the first to the second 4Sight assessment which are given in September and

December and the GRADE assessment given in September and December.

Context

The study will be conducted at Floyd C. Fretz Middle School which is located in

Bradford, Pennsylvania. The students who participate in this study will all live in McKean

County. The population of Bradford has steadily decreased over the years to about eight

thousand people according to the 2009 census data. There is little ethnic diversity in the

area with approximately ninety- eight percent of the population is comprised of white and

two percent African American, Hispanic and Asian.

The median income according to the 2009 census was thirty-five thousand dollars per

year. However, there is a large population of generational poverty located in the city and

surrounding townships; some families have received welfare benefits as far back as the

sixth generation. The county assistance office is located in Bradford hence, several families

who move in and out of Bradford often.

10

There are approximately twenty-two hundred students in the Bradford Area School

District. There are four buildings that house the students. The Primary building has Pre-K

though 2nd with about 500 Students. The Intermediate building- grades 3-5 has roughly

500 students. The Middle School is comprised of grades 6-8 with approximately 600

students and the High School-9-12 also has about 600 students. The district has a fifty-one

percent economically disadvantaged population. Forty –Two percent of the students at the

middle school are classified as economically disadvantaged. There are about seventy-five

students at the middle school with an IEP. This year I will have approximately twenty of

those students in my classes.

All of the students who score Basic or Below Basic on the PSSAs are scheduled into

a Learning Lab. There are usually fifty to sixty students who need reading intervention in

eighth grade. I anticipate that I will have fifteen students in my Learning Lab who will

participate in this study. There will be approximately fifteen students in the control group

also. I will gather data from my study and compare it to the other fifteen students’ data in

the control group to make my final determination.

Significance

The information that I am able to gather will benefit the teachers and administrators.

Because the teachers struggle with the Learning Lab prep, I hope to gain insight into the

benefits of using structured programs. The argument with administration has always been

that the Learning Lab should be individualized; therefore, it would be difficult to have a

structured program. It is my intent that the students would have a greater success rate of

achievement when the teacher can provide and individualized one-on-one instruction

11

while the students work through strategic intervention curriculums. I also believe that the

students who participate in the study will have a positive atmosphere that is conducive to

achievement because the materials are research- based and not just a “mish- mash” of

materials gathered for that particular day.

12

“Past, Present, Future: Preparing Students for 21st Century Literacy Skills”

Literature Review-Chapter 2

Ann Fesenmyer

It is beyond me how a student can get to the 8th grade and not be able to read above

a 2nd or 3rd grade level! I see it every day and those are the students that I work with year

after year. Reading interventions are important to every facet of education. Students who

struggle with basic reading skills are not successful as students. Our school has a

mandatory scheduled reading intervention in place called Learning Labs. Students who

score Below Basic or Basic on the PSSA are automatically scheduled into these classes. The

purpose is to provide interventions to struggling students. The idea is simple; however, we

are not producing results. Implementing a combination of strategic intervention research-

based programs will impact student achievement measured by performance on the reading

benchmarks.

Year after year our students have been placed in a Learning Lab intervention, and

year after year the intervention fails. Typically, the content area teachers are responsible

for the materials that are used in Learning Labs. It sounds easy, locate reading materials

that meet the individual needs of the students and teach them to read. The problem is that

secondary teachers are not confident that they are reading teachers therefore, the twelve

extra hours per month of intervention time is spent on ineffective teaching.

13

The” No Child Left Behind” law brought about many changes in education. “The act

was the first major move by the education field to promote evidence based programs”

(Taylor, 2007) The NCLB “increased pressure on schools to improve student achievement.”

(Dahlkemper 2003) “The law requires schools to adopt new programs based on rigorous

research that proves they are effective.“ (Dahlkemper, 2003) According to the US

Department of Education, “scientifically based research applies rigorous, systematic, and

objective procedures to evaluate whether a program is successful”. (Dahlkemper, 2003)

Using programs in schools that are backed up with scientific evidence is new to the field of

education but is becoming more widespread. US Department of Education, Russ

Whitehearst, Head of the Institute of Education Sciences, claimed that in the past, schools

relied on hunches. They may have chosen programs that were recommended because

there was a personal connection with some employee. It was a game of chance. He says

that now is not the time to gamble on curriculum selection, now is the time to make wiser

choices. Under the NCLB,” there are consequences for schools who fail to make gains.”

(Taylor, 2007) Because of this, it is imperative that schools choose research-based

programs that are proven to be effective. I believe that the design of our Learning Labs

fails in this area and this is a possible reason that we are still failing our students.

It has been a contention of the teachers from the inception of Learning Labs that

mandatory intervention classes without professional development for the intervention

facilitators would be futile. The reading teachers have a plethora of reading resource

materials that reinforce skills. The reading teachers have knowledge of the reading skills.

The content area teachers do not feel qualified to teach these interventions. They are still

14

of the mindset that they are not reading teachers. For years we have heard these

statements. The reading

teachers believe that the content teachers are the best non-fiction source of reading that

the students can be exposed to. The content teachers maintain that they are not reading

teachers. It is not actually teaching reading but teaching children to read their content that

we are asking.

Until we can overcome this major obstacle, we will not have the success that we need to

improve student achievement.

In addition, the content teachers struggle with the concepts that need to be taught.

Just because they can read themselves doesn’t mean they can teach students to read. A

strategic, systematic program would enable the content teachers to become more effective

in their Learning Lab instruction. Short of making the Learning Lab groups larger and

reading teachers teaching all reading and content teachers monitoring the students who

don’t need reading interventions, the problem has not been solved. The purpose of the

Learning Lab is to provide small group instruction to struggling learners. The

administrators have purchased any materials that the teachers have requested and each

student is exposed to not only different teaching styles, but different reading programs.

For example, in 8th grade we have the PSSA Coach, Ladders to Success, PSSA Workout, PSSA

Common Core and then one teacher uses Scholastic online resources, one teacher uses

edhelper.com, one teacher uses SCOPE magazines and the list of different program goes on.

None of the programs that we have is used with fidelity. Each has different components

and each teacher uses different materials and language. It is my belief that we lack a

15

consistent, systematic program and that is the reason that we are not successful with our

interventions.

Our District has purchased several programs but for the purpose of my research

there are two specific research-based programs that, when used with fidelity and in

conjunction with another reading program, have been successful in improving academic

achievement. My intention is to prove to the administration and my colleagues that

everyone is a stakeholder in the success of our students and using research-based

programs consistently and systematically will improve our students’ academic success

The first program that I intend to use for my experimental group is the SRA Reading

Laboratory. The program has been used since the 1950s in schools across the country. It

was developed by Don Parker, an educator who received his Master’s Degree in Psychology

and his Doctorate from Columbia University. His philosophy was that students learn

different and at different paces. He coined the phrase “multi-level learning” and used it in

his lectures across the country. The premise behind multi-level learning was “to let each

student start where he is and move ahead as fast and as far as his learning rate and

capacity would let him.” (McGraw Hill) Parker spent fourteen years researching and

developing learning systems that supported his multi-level learning philosophy.

His first job was in a rural school district that had no money to spend. “Necessity is

the mother of invention”, and invent he did. He was familiar with a workbook series that

contained ten different levels and was very inexpensive, one dollar per workbook. He

knew that the series components were all very similar but different levels so he worked

diligently at cutting

16

apart the pages and gluing them to folders. Each day the students could complete a folder

and pass it on to another student. Written work was completed on a separate piece of

paper and

the folders were reusable. He also created answer keys so that the students were able to

correct their work (to lessen his load). He was working with students individually while

his other students were working independently. Parker used an old tomato box to hold all

of his folders.

To avoid embarrassing his students, Parker avoided using grade levels on the

folders. He used a system of ten colors to code the levels. He made his students

accountable by having them keep track of their progress on a chart and then when they

maintained high comprehension, vocabulary and word analysis scores they were able to

move to another color. Parker noticed that his students were engaged and motivated and

that their test and retest results were showing measureable gains. His colleagues began to

notice the changes and wanted him to teach them how to implement his program. Students

who were participating in the multi-level learning system after three months in different

grades were showing gains one year and some even showed gains of three years.

His work did not go unnoticed. He was chosen by the University of North Carolina

to open a reading lab and teacher training center. He was also given the title of “state

reading consultant”. After employing the help from PTAs and women’s groups to help him

create the individualized reading labs, it was suggested to get his work published. In 1955,

after several rejections, a small Chicago publisher, Science Research Associates gave him

the chance that he was looking for. It took him several meetings to persuade the publisher

17

to get on board. The first print was released in 1957 and in one year from the publication

date, the millionth copy was printed.

The SRA Reading lab provides high interest fiction and non-fiction stories. Each

story contains multi-level comprehension questions about the selection. The types of

questions include drawing conclusions, compare and contrast, cause and effect, main idea,

and context clues. There is also a section containing word study exercises. Students

complete a diagnostic test at the beginning of instruction which allows the teacher to

correctly place the student into the program. From there, the students work independently

to advance through the program levels. The program is designed so that students have

immediate feedback. I believe that this keeps the students motivated. Students will track

their progress to be accountable for their learning. They will be identified through

conferences and appropriate interventions for specific skills will be addressed and then re-

tested. The students will decide when they feel that they are ready to advance to the next

color after meeting the criteria for mastery.

I looked on the What Works Clearinghouse site to check the effectiveness of the SRA

Reading Program. At first I was disappointed in the results that were reported. According

to the research, the SRA reading program offered no discernible effects overall. However,

there were certain components that offered a one to six percentile point growth. I learned

through reading more of the report that the results were reported when using the program

alone. The SRA program has changed over the last fifty years and has added more

components for interventions. My study will be particular to the SRA Reading Laboratory

and the What Works Clearinghouse does not have any defined studies on the Laboratory,

yet. However, I did check the SRA site reviews and there are some schools that use the

18

program that have written positive reviews with claims from individual teachers that class

academic performance has increased since using the program.

The second program that I will use to complete the research and answer my

question will be the Reading Assistant program. The software program uses “speech

recognition technology to strengthen fluency, vocabulary and

comprehension.”(gemmlearning.com) Reading Assistant is an on-line program that has

more than three hundred leveled reading passages that are aligned to the Common Core

Standards. Students are able to make choices between fiction and non-fiction selections

that support the content area curriculum. There is a range of reading levels that utilizes

Gemm Learning to customize the program for the student’s difficulty level and adjust it

accordingly.

The way that it works is that the students listen to a model fluent selection and then

they preview a list of vocabulary words. After they finish the preview, they read orally into

a microphone and the reading assistant “listens” and monitors. When the students show

any sign of difficulty, the program will intervene. Students read the selections a minimum

of three times but may read them several times to build confidence or raise their scores.

After reading, the students are assessed on comprehension to determine their level of skill.

The program monitors their words correct per minute and will generate a list of words that

were troublesome. The program provides a visual clue to help read the word. If the

student does not self-correct, the program will intervene and correct. After reviewing their

individualized word list, they play back their reading so that they hear themselves. The

selections contain

19

illustrations and are often science or social studies related to build background knowledge

which allows the students to read common vocabulary from different contexts. Reading

Assistant is considered to be an on-line tutor for every student who uses the program.

“Students receive individualized reading coaching every time they use the software,

making the most of each instructional minute.” (scilearning.com)

Another important feature that the Reading Assistant program offers is the Progress

Tracker. This is an invaluable tool for the teacher. While the program gives the student

immediate feedback, it is monitoring and recording the data for the teacher. Progress

Tracker enables the teacher to have individual student data and group data. It provides

“action-oriented” (Scientific Learning Corporation, 1996-2010) information on the student,

class, or a group. The Progress tracker analyzes the data and then provides “diagnostic and

prescriptive” (Scientific Learning Corporation, 1996-2010) information to aid the teacher

in the “what next?” phase. The program also provides recommendations for individual

interventions.

Reading Assistant is one of the components in the “Fast ForWord” reading series.

According to the What Works Clearinghouse, eight studies were completed which included

two thousand students from the ages of five to seventeen. In reading fluency and

comprehension the Improvement Index ranged from eight to seventeen percentage points

and in “general literacy achievement a range from -1 to +9 percentile points. In the Rate of

Effectiveness category, reading fluency and comprehension demonstrated “potentially

positive effects” on student achievement. (US Dept. of Ed, August 2010)

Implementing a combination of strategic intervention research-based programs will

impact student achievement measured by performance on the reading benchmarks.

20

To be effective in our Learning Lab interventions, consistent and systematic programs that

show evidence of effectiveness on impacting student achievement need to be used with

fidelity. Integrating the “past”-- SRA Reading Lab and the “present”-- Reading Assistant

technology based intervention program, allows the students to move forward and

embrace21st Century Literacy skills needed to succeed.

21

Chapter 3- Methods

EDTL692

Ann Fesenmyer

Participant Selection

The students who will participate in this research study will be the lower end of the

Basic and Below Basic students as classified on the 2012 PSSA. Approximately 90% of

these students have an IEP in place. The participants attend Floyd C. Fretz Middle School in

Bradford, Pennsylvania and are students in the 8th grade. Students will be selected based

on their performance on the PSSA assessment, their PVAAS growth, and their projected

performance for 2013 on the PSSA. There will be approximately 30 students involved

overall. One half of the students will be the control group. I anticipate a higher male

population as compared to past classes of struggling readers. I also expect that at least

50% of the students participating will also be classified as economically disadvantaged.

Safeguards

I expect that there will be minimal risk with this study. Students who will be

participating have been a part of Learning Lab instruction since they became Middle School

students. They are aware of the expectations in the classes. The only risk that I can foresee

is the degree of comfort with the teachers with whom they would be working. This is no

different than what they would feel on any given day. Often, struggling students will attach

themselves to one teacher and work very well. However, if they have to work with another

teacher or aid, they will not do as well or refuse.

22

The students who will be participating will be given an “Informed Consent” paper. I

will be explaining to them the purpose of the research and they will be aware that the

paper needs to be signed before they can participate. Because they are under 18, they fall

under the category of minor for the protection of human subjects. Therefore, a consent

form will also be distributed to the parents or guardians of the minors for their approval.

Any paperwork that is a mandatory part of the study will be submitted to the Lock

Haven University IRB. This includes a formal cover sheet and proposal narrative, a letter of

agreement signed by the district superintendent, Mrs. Katherine Pude (Appendix 2), a

letter of agreement signed by the Middle School principal, Mrs. Tina Slaven (Appendix 3)

and a copy of the consent forms that will be used for the participants and their

parent/guardian (Appendix 1).

Students will be kept anonymous and no one will be identifiable except by me. Each

student who participates will be given a code number that will correspond with his/her

data. Individual data will be destroyed at the end of the 2012-2013 school year. Any

parents who desire to know the outcome of his or her student will be privy to that

information only. Overall data will be used to assess the obtaining of specific strategic

curriculums as outlined in Chapter 1 in the event of remarkable success.

23

Timeline

The study will be divided into Reflective Action Research I- which takes place in the

2012 Summer Session II ending July 27. Reflective Action Research II—putting this plan

into action will take place during the 2012 Fall session beginning in August and ending in

December. These dates coordinate within the four Benchmark assessments that all 8th

graders at Fretz Middle School are required to take. A sample of the projected timeline

follows:

Summer Session II

July 1, 2012: Submit “ Area of Focus”—Chapter 1

July 8, 2012: Submit “Method”—Chapter 3

July 11, 2012: Submit all mandatory IRB forms including certificate and consent

forms

July 27, 2012: Submit “Literature Review” Chapter 2

Fall Session

September-October 2012

Obtain permission forms from students and parents/guardians

Assess students using Study Island Benchmark 1 and Reading Lexile 1

Conduct strategic interventions using research-based curriculums based on data

from benchmarks Study Island Benchmark and Reading Lexile 1

24

November 2012

Assess students using reading Benchmark Assessments Study Island Benchmark 2

and Reading Lexile 2

December 2012

Compile data, interpret data, formulate conclusions and present research findings to

district administrators, colleagues, Lock Haven University, and parents (if desired).

Treatment/Intervention

Beginning on September 10, 2012, the students who will be participating in this

research will have been selected and placed into the control group and the experimental

group. By this time, the students will have completed the first reading Lexile and Study

Island Benchmark assessment. The students will be introduced to the SRA reading kit and

the Reading Assistant technology program. The programs that were selected each have

similar components, each assesses reading comprehension skills, each allows the student

to work at his/her own pace, each provides immediate feedback. The difference is that one

is a paper and pencil curriculum and the other is a computer based curriculum. Each

Learning Lab day, the students will have a ten minute whole group lesson and then be

instructed to work on their SRA or Reading Assistant program. I will be working with

individual students reinforcing and re-teaching skills that are needed as determined from

the Benchmark assessments. At the end of five consecutive Learning Lab days, quantifiable

25

data will be collected and analyzed to determine further instruction. Students will

participate in individual conferences (interviews) that will allow them to evaluate their

own performance and set goals for future assessments. Students’ identity will be kept

confidential when discussing overall performance.

Data Collection

Data Tables will be used to gather qualitative data. Students will have a data folder

that will contain their particular information and remediation materials. They will have

and individual table that will keep track of their quantitative results. I will have an overall

collection table. The following is an example of a student collection and overall data

collection table:

Student Data Collection Table (per individual assessment date)

Date Making Inferences/Drawing Conclusions

Main Idea Date Summarizing Literary Elements

Sight WordLevel(1-8)

26

Overall Data Collection Table (per number of participants)

Student ID #

Date Making Inferences

Main Idea

Context Clues

Summarizing Literary Elements

Sight Word (1-8)

Growth(Y/N)

Overall data will be collected and evaluated to determine if the students are showing

any growth. There will be approximately ten weeks of instruction before the final

Benchmark assessments that will be used to determine the outcome of the research

question “Will implementing a combination of strategic intervention research-based

programs impact student achievement as measured by performance on reading

benchmarks?”

27

Reflective Action Research-- EDTL 694Ann Fesenmyer

Chapter 4

On September 5th, 2012, fifteen of the 8th grade students at Fretz Middle School

participated in the first phase of the Action Research Project in the hope of answering the

question “Will implementing a combination of strategic intervention research-based

programs impact student achievement as measured by performance on reading

benchmarks?” It is my intention to explore the programs and document student

performance using formative assessments to progress monitor. Each of the students who

have been selected are enrolled in the Reading Assistant program which is a technology-

based reading intervention program, and the SRA Reading lab which is a paper and pencil

individualized program. They are receiving ten minutes of a whole group instruction and

twenty minutes of individualized or small group instruction on skills areas daily. At the

end of the specified time period, it is predicted that student achievement will be impacted

based on the use of strategic, systematic research- based programs.

The students participating in this project are the lowest academic performing

students as per measured by the 2012 PSSA and the PVAAS predictor. The first assessment

that was given to the students was the Scholastic Reading Inventory. This assessment

measures the individual student reading level based on his reading lexile. The assessment

contains questions using vocabulary at different grade levels. The assessment

automatically adjusts grade levels based on student understanding of the vocabulary and

28

gives recommended reading materials based on student interest and academic

instructional level. As you can see in Chart 1- Reading Lexile, the numbers represented by

the blue on the chart are the lexile numbers before interventions. All of the students are

performing below a sixth grade instructional reading level. The numbers in red are a

graphic representation of student performance after ten weeks of reading interventions

using the Reading Assistant program and the SRA Reading Lab. It is evident that there has

been a minimal effect on student performance of the reading lexile after the ten weeks of

instruction. However, considering the students that are receiving the interventions, small

growth steps are to be celebrated.

The other assessment that I used to measure academic performance is the

Study Island Reading Benchmark. The best way to represent this assessment is to break

down the individual skills that are assessed. The skills that are measured for reading

comprehension are Main Idea, Making Inferences, Context Clues, and Summarizing.

Making Inferences is the major skill for this level. Students should perform better on the

Main Idea section of the assessment because it is the skill for seventh grade mastery.

Context Clues are typically problematic for struggling students because of the lack of basic

reading skills and lack of prior knowledge. Likewise, Summarization is a skill that is very

difficult for this learner. They often do not have the comprehension or word knowledge to

be able to master summarizing longer text. Each of these skills is represented on a separate

graph so that it is easier to read the results. These are also color coded with the blue

representing the first assessment score and the red representing the second assessment

after ten weeks of instruction.

29

The Study Island Benchmark is not adjustable to instructional level. All students

take this assessment at the 8th grade level. It is not uncommon for the students to score

very low on this benchmark assessment because they do not perform on grade level and

these targeted students are two or more grade levels below at the beginning of this

research. The first benchmark is even difficult for students who do not struggle. The

difference is that struggling readers do not show growth as quickly as students who do not

struggle. By the time students get to this level, it is difficult to revert back to teaching

phonics to help them learn to read.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 150

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Reading Lexile

1st Assessment2nd Assessment

30

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 150

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Main Idea/Supporting Details

1st Assessment2nd Assessment

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 150

1

2

3

4

5

6

Making Inferences

1st Assessment2nd Assessment

31

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 150

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Context Clues

1st Assessment2nd Assessment

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 150

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Summarizing

1st Assessment2nd Assessment

32

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 150

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Literary Elements

1st Assessment2nd Assessment

33

Analysis of Data

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reading Lexile (Chart 1)

The Reading Lexile score can be correlated to instructional grade level and is used

as a data point to guide instruction. Scores of 350 to 675 correlate to a 2nd to 3rd grade

instructional level. The 700 to 950 range is converted to a 4th to 6th grade instructional

level. For my students to function on grade level their lexile scores would need to range

from1000 to 1075. It is expected that Special Education students would show gains of

approximately 75 points after instruction. Overall, 93% of the participants demonstrated

growth from the first to the second Lexile Benchmark assessment after receiving 10 weeks

of systematic and strategic interventions.

Main Idea(Chart 2)

Chart 2 is a representation of the 7th grade skill, Main Idea and Supporting Details.

To assess this skill, participants took a ten question Study Island assessment in September

and a second Main Idea assessment in November. Ten out of the fifteen participants

demonstrated growth for a 67% increase. Two students decreased for 13% and three

demonstrated no change in ten weeks of instruction. Main Idea is the focus of the 7th grade.

This skill is taught and mastery is the expectation to succeed on the 7th grade PSSA. About

40% of the 7th grade PSSA has questions that center around the main idea and common

core central theme. When students get to the 8th grade level the main idea of the passages

is not as clear. Often they need to make inferences about the main idea.

34

Making Inferences (Chart 3)

Making Inferences is the skill that is the focus of 8th grade. This is the level where

students are required to make inferences about the different Literary Elements in addition

to general inferences and drawing conclusions. About 50% of the 8th grade PSSA consists of

inference questions. This analysis level is practiced throughout the year with the

expectation of mastery by the end of the school year. This skill typically is difficult for the

students because it requires not only clues from text but prior knowledge. Many 8th

graders have limited background knowledge. Eight of the fifteen participants

demonstrated growth which is 53% of the students. Two students decreased for 13% and

five or 33% showed no change.

Context Clues (Chart4)

Chart 4, Context Clues, encompasses not only using the clues from text but also

word-solving skills such as using affixes to determine meanings of words. This is a difficult

skill because the students may master a grade level, however, the next grade level

introduces new vocabulary and the students are required to use the skills for the next level.

Participants took a ten question Study Island assessment that evaluated their word solving

skills in September and a second assessment in November. The first assessment is

represented by the red color on the chart and the second by the blue. Nine out of fifteen

students, or 60% of the students, showed some improvement. On the contrary, two of the

fifteen participants dropped by one question. Perhaps the most disappointing of the

numbers is that four of the fifteen, or 27% of the students showed no growth in the ten

weeks of instruction.

35

Summarizing(Chart 5)

Summarizing is a necessary skill at this level so that students can begin the process

of writing research papers. Students took a ten question Study Island assessment in

September represented in red and a second Study Island assessment in November

represented in blue. From the first assessment to the second assessment, 60% of the

students demonstrated some growth, one student dropped by one question, and five of the

fifteen students or 33% showed no improvement.

Literary Elements (Chart 6)

Understanding literary elements in 8th grade is more on an analysis level than

identification of the elements. There is often a mix of identification and analysis questions.

The students took a ten question Study Island assessment in September, represented by

the red in the chart, and a ten question Study Island assessment in November, represented

by the blue in the chart. Seven out of the fifteen participants or 47% demonstrated some

growth, three out of the fifteen, or 20% decreased their score, and five out of the fifteen

showed no improvement.

36

Chapter 5

Interpretation of Data

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reading Lexile

Student 01 demonstrated significant gains, actually 880 points from his first to his

second Lexile Benchmark assessment. While I would like to take credit for this remarkable

gain, realistically, I believe his first attempt was not indicative of his true ability. Student

01 is two to three grade levels below grade level according to Schossler’s, Dolch Sight

Words, and Aims Web probes. In addition, he has also scored below basic on his PSSA and

4Sights. Taking other factors into consideration to evaluate this student, when he works

independently, he tends to guess to be finished with his work. I concluded that this

behavior was a pattern and on the second lexile I made accommodations for him to take

this assessment in a room without other students and with an adult present. His 2011-

2012 school year final lexile was 0. I believe that there is a significant growth in this

student from the beginning of the 2012 school year based on observation in the classroom

and I attribute this success to his intense interventions and his increased independent

reading time. After completing an Interest Survey, I have capitalized on his likes and

dislikes and have found several books that are at his instructional level as well as his

interest level. Since September, he has read and comprehended six books. To be secure in

his success, I will be watching him closely on his third and fourth Lexile.

37

On the other hand, student 02 has an MR diagnosis. His first score of 53 was

indicative of his performance. He is a student who has many programs in place to help him

succeed. I was elated at his 400+ point growth. I can conclude that his interventions are

rigorous and allowing him to experience some success. My goal for this student is to raise

his Lexile to 800-900 this year. This would enable him to read on a 7thth grade level which

would classify him as literate and he would be able to read the newspaper, directions and

with help, textbooks.

Of the fifteen participants in this study, student 04 was the only one who dropped

on her Lexile score. It is not uncommon for students to drop a few points on the Lexile

when they are scoring above their grade level; however, this was not expected from

student 04. I conferenced with this student after receiving this information and learned

that her morning did not begin on a very positive note. She had been bullied on the bus,

which carried into to cafeteria at breakfast. Student 04 is a student who receives Special

Education services. At a different time and a different setting, I will have her take this

again.

Main Idea

When students get to the 8th grade level the main idea of the passages is not as clear.

Often they need to make inferences about the main idea. To highlight a few of the students,

student 04 has again dropped her score. She had nothing significant to report about

factors, but dropping by 1 question doesn’t alarm me this early in the year, especially

38

because she chose the distractor. Student 07 decreased his score by a question also. After

conferencing with this student, he reported that he didn’t read the question.

The numbers that frustrate me are the three participants who showed no change.

Because this is a skill that should have been mastered in 7th grade, I would expect to see all

students demonstrate advancement by at least one question after additional practice,

instruction and some strategies to help them figure it out, such as looking for similar words

throughout the passage or a common theme throughout. Student 04, 07, 08, 12, and 15

will meet for additional practice on Main Idea and be assessed again. Main idea questions

are embedded in the non-fiction section of the assessments. Non-fiction is always a

targeted area in our district; we tend to score low on this section across the board. The

students will have additional instruction time because Main Idea is a learning target for the

third marking period. I would expect that by the end of the marking period, these five

students should be able to get 80% of the main idea questions correct.

Making Inferences

The skill for 8th grade, making inferences requires the students to read critically and

recall information that they have stored away, background knowledge. This is very difficult

for the students who are participating in this research. Many of these participants lack the

reading skills and do not have sufficient background knowledge not to mention, 8th graders

are still very literal thinkers. To mention a few of the participants in this study, students

01 and 09 began with zero questions correct on the 8th grade level inference assessment

and in ten weeks increased to one question. Student 04 has demonstrated no growth on

the making inference assessment. This was not a surprise because she struggles with this

39

skill in her daily classroom work. Students 02, 04, 06, 11, and 13 will be in a small

intervention group that will practice using below grade level material to master the skill

and will gradually be introduced to grade level materials that they will have to use the

same strategies they have been practicing, they will be assessed again after three more

weeks of instruction.

Context Clues

The skill does not appear to be that difficult. I would expect that by the time the

students reach 8th grade that they have sufficient word-solving skills using affixes to change

the meanings of words and recognizing multiple meaning words. Six of the fifteen students

decreased their score or showed no improvement. I looked at the Reading lexile scores to

see if there was any correlation in this area.

Since the lexile relies heavily on word solving I would expect that there should be a

relationship. Student 02 had a significant gain in his lexile and also raised his Context Clue

score. Student 03 also had large gains on the lexile but did not show any improvement in

his Context clue assessment. However, student 03 had 40% of 8th grade vocabulary correct

to begin with. Student 04 dropped on her lexile and decreased her Context Clue

assessment score by one question. Even though student 07 raised his lexile score

minimally, his second Context Clue assessment nearly doubled. Student 09 began with zero

questions correct and increased by three questions; she also increased her instructional

reading level from 2nd to 3rd grade, according to the Lexile conversion chart. Student 12

decreased his Context Clue assessment by one question even though he increased his lexile.

The increase in his lexile does not change his instructional level, though, so I would

40

postulate that any word rich assessment given on a grade level would be difficult for

student 12.

Summarizing

Summarizing is a 5th marking period learning target. The 8th grade PSSA has very

few summarizing questions and therefore, we save this skill for the end of the year to

prepare the students to enter 9th grade. The 9th grade is the year that the students in our

district learn to do extensive research and summarizing is imperative for this research

skill. The scores were an indication of the lack of stress that is placed on this skill prior to

8th grade. While students summarize short pieces of text, it is not expected that they have

mastered summarizing by the beginning of 8th grade. 40% of the students showed no

improvement or decreased their score but with the exception of student 15, all of the

students were at or below 50% mastery of this skill. Student 04 again, did not show any

growth. In fact, on four of the five assessments given, student 04 showed no gains. Because

of this data, I will be recommending re-visiting the IEP to make sure that she is receiving

the interventions that she needs.

Literary Elements

It is expected that students who reach 8th grade would have mastered the

identification of Literary Elements so that they would be able to progress into the analysis

of the elements. On the contrary, some of these participants are still struggling with the

identification. As you can see, student 04 was one of the two lowest on the first assessment

41

with two questions correct and on the second assessment increased her score by one. This

assessment was the only one in which she increased her score.

Students 05, 10, 11, 13, and 15 demonstrated no growth on Literary Elements.

Students 11 and 13 also did not increase their Making Inferences score which leads me to

believe that the issue is making inferences about the Literary Elements. Student 14 had a

decrease in his Making Inference and his Literary Element second assessment. More than

half of the participants showed no gains; therefore, analyzing the Literary Elements will be

a focus for the next marking period. Even though student 15 did not increase his score, he

remained at 70% comprehension. His intervention will not be as intense as the others. I

expect him to be able to master Literary Elements with classroom instruction and review in

Learning Lab.

In conclusion, it is evident that these participants are placed in the intervention

groups because of the gaps in reading comprehension. After analyzing and interpreting the

data of each of the tested areas, it appears that the some of students involved in this project

have benefitted from a systematic, strategic approach to teaching learning labs as opposed

to the learning lab instruction in the past that consisted of materials that were gathered

randomly. It is not unusual for this type of student to be inconsistent in the mastery of

skills. For the most part, I was pleased with the results after ten weeks of instruction. I plan

to continue using the programs that were used for the interventions throughout the

remainder of the year to evaluate the effectiveness.

42

References

BeAmazingLearning. (n.d.). Reading assistant. Retrieved from http://www.beamazinglearning.com/reading_assistant.html

Dahlkemper, L. (2003). What does scientifically based research mean for schools?. Sedl letter, XV(1), 1-5.

Deshler, D., & Hock, M. (2006). Interventions for struggling adolescent readers: Sra corrective reading. Retrieved from http://www.adlit.org/article19750

GemmLearning. (n.d.). Fast forward. Retrieved from http://gemmlearning.com/Reading-program/php

McGraw-Hill Companies. (n.d.). History of reading laboratory. Retrieved from http://srareadinglabs.com/data/history_of_reading_labs.pc

Scientific Learning. (1996-2010). Professional development resource guide. (2nd ed.). Scientific Learning Corporation.

Scientific Learning. (2009-2012). Reading assistant software. Retrieved from http://scilearningglobal.com/reading-assistantsoftware/

Scientific Learning. (n.d.). Scientific learning reading assistant. Retrieved from http://www.scilearn.com/products/reading-assistant/

Taylor, L. (2007). Evidence based programs and practices: What does it all mean?. Research review.

U.S. Department of Education, (2010,August). Wwc intervention report:Fast forword. Retrieved from What Works Clearinghouse website: http://www.ies.gov./

U.S. Department of Education, (2010,September). Wwc intervention report:Sra corrective reading. Retrieved from What Works Clearinghouse website: http://www.ies.gov./

43

LHUP- IRB Consent form

CONSENT FORM(Appendix 1)

“Past, Present, Future: Preparing Students for 21 st Century Literacy Skills ”

Primary Investigator: Ann Fesenmyer

Address: Floyd C. Fretz Middle School, 140 Lorana Ave, Bradford, Pa 16701

Phone Number: (814) 362-3508

Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Marianne Lovik-Powers

We invite your child to participate in a study that will determine the effectiveness of using a combination of strategic reading intervention curriculums to improve his/her reading levels and as a result, improve his/her overall academic performance.

Your child has been selected based on his/her performance on the 2012 PSSA, his/her performance on the 2012 Reading Lexile, and his/her performance on the GRADE assessment. It is my belief that with this type of instruction and progress monitoring that will be utilized for data collection, your child’s academic performance on reading comprehension skills will strengthen.

Investigational Procedures

All students at Fretz Middle School in the 8th grade will take the Reading 4Sight Benchmark, a GRADE Benchmark a Reading Lexile assessment and a Study Island Reading Benchmark, . These are required assessments that help us to determine the best type of instruction for your child and where your child is deficient in his/her skills. After your child has analyzed his/her data and conferenced with his/ her teacher(me), the decision will be made to participate in this study. For approximately ten weeks, your child will have strategic reading intervention. He/she will be working on independent research-based reading intervention programs and individualized sight word instruction.

Risks and Benefits

This research project does not pose any more risk to your child than what he/she experiences on a daily basis in the classroom. The benefit of your child participating is that he/she may experience success on his/her next Benchmark assessment and also more

44

confidence in his her reading abilities. However, this study cannot make a promise about either of the preceding benefits.

Privacy of Records

Any information that is learned based on your child and his/her performance will be used responsibly and protected against release to anyone who is not authorized. The results may be published in education literature or in an education forum, but there will be no distinguishing characteristics in the publication that will identify your child.

Payment

Your child will not receive any payments to participate in this research.

Conclusion

Participation in this study is voluntary. You are making the decision whether or not you will allow your child to participate in this study. After reading and understanding the consent form, your signature will confirm that your child may participate. Be advised that at any time during this study, your child may decide to withdraw. During the time of participation, we will disclose to you, any information about the research that is relevant to your child. If you have any questions regarding this study you may contact either investigator on this consent form.

If you have any questions regarding your child’s rights you may contact Dr. Christine Offutt, Chairperson of the Lock haven University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects at (570)893-2400.

Your signed copy will be kept on file for your review at any time.

________________________________________ Date________________(Student Signature)

________________________________________ Date________________(Parent/ Guardian Signature)

________________________________________ Date________________(Primary Investigator Signature)

45

Letter of Agreement from Cooperating Institution

(Appendix 2)

July 8, 2012

To whom it may concern:

I give Ann T. Fesenmyer permission to conduct an Action Research project at Fretz Middle School in the Bradford Area School District. The research will consist of a combination of research- based reading intervention programs including Reading Assistant and SRA to determine the effectiveness on struggling readers and an individualized sight word instruction. This research project will be submitted to Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania to fulfill the criteria necessary for the Master of Education in Teaching and Learning.

Superintendent, Bradford Area School District ________________________________________

Date_________________________

46

Letter of Agreement from Cooperating Institution

(Appendix 3)

July 8, 2012

To whom it may concern:

I give Ann T. Fesenmyer permission to conduct an Action Research project at Fretz Middle School in the Bradford Area School District. The research will consist of a combination of research based reading intervention programs including Reading Assistant and SRA to determine the effectiveness on struggling readers and an individualized word instruction. This research project will be submitted to Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania to fulfill the criteria necessary for the Master of Education in Teaching and Learning.

Principal, Floyd C. Fretz Middle School ________________________________________

Date_________________________