Effects of READ 180 on Reading
Comprehension for Eighth-Grade Students
Samantha L. Peek
Valdosta State University
An action research project submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the Education Specialist Degree
in Exemplary Teaching at Valdosta State University.
ABSTRACT:The purpose of this study was to determine if the use of READ 180
increased reading comprehension scores of eighth grade students. It also
examined how READ 180 affected students’ attitudes about reading and
participation in reading. Eighth grade at-risk students (N = 17) from a rural and
low-income county participated in the study. Traditional reading methods were
implemented the first 4 weeks of the study and READ 180 was implemented for
the next 4 weeks. Results were determined using the pre and post scores from the
Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI), Scholastic Reading Counts (SRC) quizzes,
and attitudinal surveys. Gains were made in Lexile scores (M = 27.27), reading
participation, and students’ attitudes were improved during READ 180
instruction.
Area of Focus
Serious reading problems exist among adolescent learners, as evidenced by declining
national reading scores and increased dropout rates (Boiling & Evans, 2008). More than eight
million American adolescents cannot read or comprehend what they read at a basic level
(Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). Each day, more than 7,000 students drop out of high school because
they lack the basic literacy skills needed to be successful. This is a national issue of great
importance for students and for society.
Reading comprehension is the ability to understand what someone reads. Reading
comprehension is critical in teaching reading but many other aspects are associated with reading
success such as motivation and attitude. Reading comprehension affects all content areas. If a
student cannot read, he or she will have trouble in all aspects of the life. A student needs to know
how to read to function effectively in everyday life such as driving, shopping, and working.
Comprehension difficulties are complex and related to inadequate vocabulary or conceptual
knowledge, weak reasoning or inferential skills, or an inability to apply active comprehension
strategies. (Roberts, Torgensen, Boardman, & Scammacca, 2008) identified five categories of
reading that are critical: word study, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and motivation. Many
older struggling readers have a problem with more than one component of reading. Although
much research has focused on reading at the elementary level, little research has been done on
Reading performance at the middle-school level and even less at the high-school level.
1
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
In 2007-2008 school terms, eighth-grade students in the school system where the research
was conducted scored below the state’s average in Reading, English/LA, Social Studies, and
Science; however, students scored above the state’s average in Math. Directives under No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 were designed to concentrate educational efforts on improving
Reading and Math scores across the nation. Local administrators analyzed eighth-grade Criterion
Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) scores and ninth-grade End-of-Course Test (EOCT)
scores (Georgia Department of Education, 2008). Administrators tied Social Studies and Science
scores to low Reading scores because students who scored low on the Social Studies and Science
section of the CRCT also scored low in reading comprehension.
The high school where this research took place was evaluated by the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Quality Assurance Review Team in 2003. The
committee suggested that the school develop reading interventions for all high school students
scoring below grade level. One goal of this school was to meet and exceed the state and Regional
Educational Services Agency (RESA) averages on all standardized tests. To achieve this goal,
teachers needed to focus on reading comprehension and media literacy, which are the two areas
weighted most heavily in Reading. One of the main areas identified for improvement for the
school system was to increase success for students who were considered at-risk and special
education, and to decrease the dropout rate. Students were considered at-risk if they had failed
more than one grade, had low attendance, and had failed standardized tests such as CRCT.
The school system where the research was conducted was observed by SACS in 2008 but
reports were not specific to each school’s needs. Instead, the SACS accreditation report was
directed to the entire school system, and was not split into specific suggestions for the primary,
elementary, or high school. The SACS Quality Assurance Review Team suggested
implementation of strategies that focus on subgroup needs to reduce gaps in student
achievement. Subgroups with lower student achievement in Reading, Science, and Social Studies
included Black, Males, Students With Disabilities, and Economically Disadvantaged.
Disaggregated school-level data on the CRCT and 9th-grade Literature and Composition EOCT
showed gaps in Reading education (Georgia Department of Education, 2008). On the CRCT,
analysis for subgroups showed gaps and indicated areas of concern. On the Literature and
Composition EOCT, similar gaps in failure.
In 2005, administrators and faculty from the school system where the research was
conducted traveled to Atlanta, Georgia searching for a program to decrease dropout rates, aid in
closing the gaps in subgroups, and improve Reading scores on CRCT and ninth-grade Literature
and Composition EOCT. READ 180 was purchased in the summer of 2005 for the high school
were the research was conducted to improve reading skills for struggling readers by providing
intense, individualized instruction. However, READ 180 was not implemented until January of
2006 due to technology difficulties. Though it appears that the READ 180 program has had some
positive effects, the school needed to know whether this program positively affected subgroup
achievement.
Review of the Literature
According to Klecker (2006), there was a strong positive relationship between female
students and reading achievement. Males scored lower on reading achievement, which indicated
a gap between females and males in the area of reading. Klecker (2006) suggested that a more
careful look at males and reading across PreKindergarten through grade 12 is needed. However,
the biggest gap in reading education is between White and minority students. Minority students
include Black, English Language Learners (ELL), Hispanics, and Asians. White students
2
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
outscored minority students in the area of reading. Socioeconomic status (SES) also plays an
important role in a child’s achievement. SES is defined by education level, occupation, and
income (Yeung & Conley, 2008). Material deprivation and family stressors are the most
common elements that are found in low-achieving students. Yeung and Conley (2008) reported
that the Black-White gap was evidenced at every income level.
Roberts et. Al (2008) found that students with learning disabilities typically have very
low reading skills. Motivation and failure play a huge role in students with learning disabilities’
academic careers. They either lack sufficient teaching of the basic skills, or have had sound
instruction but continue to have difficulty with reading comprehension.
Ediger (2004) described a number of factors that influence success in reading, which are
all addressed through the READ 180 program such as a wide variety of reading materials,
interest, meaningful texts, and student selection. Students select books because the titles catch
their attention and stimulate their interest. As a result, they are more likely to engage in sustained
reading. Ediger believed that choices build ownership and motivation. Ediger (2004) and Biggs,
Homan, Dedrick, Minick, & Rasinski (2008) showed that time spent reading natural, meaningful,
and connected text results in increased knowledge, fluency, word recognition, and overall
reading and listening comprehension.
According to Hasselbring and Bausch (2006), the READ 180 program directly addresses
individual needs through adaptive and instructional software, high-interest literature, and direct
instruction every day in reading and writing skills for a total of 90 minutes. Scholastic Research
and Evaluation (2002) claimed that READ 180 increased a student’s Lexile score by 50 to 100
points in a year, which means at least one grade level, through interactive techniques. READ 180
is claimed to be effective for delayed and failing readers, students with disabilities, special
education students and English-language learners.
In the past, middle school reading teachers have used many different strategies such as
traditional lectures, silent reading, and note-taking. Trudel (2007) stated that motivation was the
key for students to become actively engaged. That researcher found that providing struggling
adolescents with clear goals for a comprehension task and giving feedback on progress led to
increased self-efficacy and greater use of comprehension strategies. Computers offered students
more control in terms of support, pace, and active processing text.
Biancarosa and Snow, (2004) listed 15 elements that were effective in adolescent literacy
programs which included instruction, technology, motivation, assessment, and training or
professional development. READ 180 addresses many of those elements. Technology is a
component that is used for motivation and self-directed learning in READ 180. The main focus
of the READ 180 program is direct, explicit comprehension instruction by using effective
instructional principles that are embedded in diverse texts and content. Intensive writing is a key
component in the program. Ongoing formative assessments and summative assessments of
students and the program are to be completed on a regular basis, and professional development is
provided for READ 180 teachers.
Research Purpose
The SACS Quality Assurance Team 2003 recommended that reading interventions be
implemented for all high-school students who score below grade level. The School Improvement
Plan included the goal of improving reading scores and decreasing dropout rates. Therefore, this
study examined the READ 180 program to assess its effectiveness in addressing these goals. The
purpose of this study was to determine the effects of READ 180 on students’ reading
achievement and attitudes toward reading.
3
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
Research Questions
Research question 1. Does READ 180 improve eighth-grade students’ reading
comprehension?
Research question 2. Does READ 180 improve eighth-grade students’ attitudes toward
reading?
Research question 3. Does READ 180 improve eighth-grade students’ participation in
reading?
Definition of variables
READ 180. READ 180 (Scholastic Research and Evaluation, 2002) is an intensive
reading intervention program that is designed to improve reading skills in struggling readers
through rotations to three different groups (small-group, independent reading, and computer).
Reading comprehension. Reading comprehension is defined in this study as how well
students understood what they were reading based on their scores measured by Scholastic
Reading Inventory.
Lexile score. Lexile score is a measurement of reading abilities based on the Lexile
Framework for Reading (Scholastic Research and Evaluation, 2002) nationally-accepted scale
designed to measure text and reading abilities. The score results from administering a test for
both recognition and comprehension of text.
Attitude toward reading. Students’ attitudes toward reading in this study was their
perceptions of reading based on survey responses (see Appendix A).
Participation. Participation was defined in this study as students being on-task during
instructional time, actively listening, and contributing to instruction at the appropriate time.
Participation was measured using Scholastic Reading Counts (SRC) reports that indicated when
students took a novel test and a teacher made participation checklist that indicated when a
student was on-task and participating in class.
Methods
Participants
Participants in this study came were 17 eighth-grade students from a rural and lowincome county that is composed of four small communities that did not pass the Georgia
Criterion Referenced Competency Test (CRCT). Participants’ ages ranged from 12 to 16.
According to the 2007-2008 State of Georgia Report Card (Georgia Department of Education,
2008), there were 460 students enrolled in grades 8 thru 12 at the high school where the research
was conducted. Student racial background was 60% White, 39% Black, and 1% Hispanic. Based
on eligibility for the free and reduced lunch program, the percent of students coming from lowincome households was 55% which indicated that more than half of the student population lives
in poverty. Students in the class were termed as at-risk when meeting at least one of the
following requirements: failed CRCT the previous year, low academic averages, or failed one or
more grades. Other items that were looked at were attendance and behavior records.
Table 1
Grade 8 Students Not Meeting Standards on 2007-2008 Reading CRCT by Subgroup
Group
Black
White
Male
4
School Percent
19
2
12
State Percent
9
3
8
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
Female
Students with Disabilities
Students without Disabilities
Economically Disadvantaged
Not Economically Disadvantaged
6
36
5
10
6
5
28
4
10
3
Eighth-grade Reading CRCT scores for the school where the research was conducted and
the state of Georgia for 2007-2008 are in Table 1. Black students at the high school where the
research was conducted were below the state percent while White students were above the state
average. Male and female students scored below the state average with the males having the
biggest difference. Students with disabilities had the highest percentage that did not pass the
CRCT for the school and state, while students without disabilities were close to the same.
Economically disadvantaged students who did not meet the requirement were the same for the
school and state. Students who were not economically disadvantaged had a higher percentage of
students that did not pass when compared to the state. According to Table 1, there were gaps in
Eighth-grade CRCT scores that needed to be addressed.
The only adult participating in this study was the teacher-researcher. Qualifications
include 7 years of teaching experience with 3 years teaching Reading to specifically at-risk
students.
Intervention
Students participated in traditional instruction focused on main idea and details for 4
weeks. This period was then followed by READ 180 instruction on reading comprehension and
vocabulary skills for 4 weeks. At the beginning and end of each instructional treatment, students
completed a SRI Lexile test on the computer. At the beginning and end of the 4th and 8th weeks,
the researcher administered the reading attitude survey to participants.
Throughout both treatments, students read independently, selecting from 474 paperback
books and 60 audio books with CDs. These book levels ranged from Below Reading (BR) to
1300L (Lexile). When a student completed his or her book, he or she took the book’s SRC quiz
on the computer to test how well they had comprehended the book.
At the end of the study, the researcher pulled the SRC report to compare the number of
book quizzes taken before and during the intervention. The number of book quizzes was used to
compare reading participation and comprehension during the control phase and intervention
phase.
For the first 4 weeks, students were taught main idea and details using traditional
methods such as lecture, note-taking, and multiple-choice question worksheets. Students were
allowed to check out books to read during free time and at home. Once a student finished reading
his or her book, he or she completed (SRC) reading comprehension quiz.
In the READ 180 intervention (weeks 4-8), students participated in a group of three to
five students according to their Lexile score. During the 4 weeks of intervention, students rotated
to three stations (independent reading, small group, and computer station) every 20 minutes. In
the independent reading station, students chose a leveled book. Students read their book for the
20 minutes while taking notes on their reading log. If a student finished his or her book, students
completed the SRC comprehension quiz. In small group, students worked one-on-one with the
researcher. The researcher used the READ 180 teacher edition to teach reading comprehension
and vocabulary skills. Students used the READ 180 student edition to complete the reading
activities in small group. In the computer station, students worked on the READ 180 software
5
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
focusing on comprehension and vocabulary skills. On the computer, students were required to
complete the reading zone that contained comprehension activities, word zone that contained
context clues activities, and the success zone that contained both comprehension and context
clues activities.
Data Collection Techniques
Several sources of measurement were used to determine the effect of the READ 180
program on each student’s reading comprehension, attitude, and participation.
Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI). SRI was developed by Scholastic as part of the
READ 180 program. Three groups composed of the Cognition and Technology Group at
Vanderbilt University, the Orange County Literacy Project in Florida, and the development staff
at Scholastic (Scholastic, 2002) established validity and reliability as part of their research. The
SRI consists of varied number of comprehension multiple-choice questions presented in an
online format. Items assess comprehension and vocabulary and scores are reported as Lexile
scores. The instrument was administered to all participants in this study as pretest and posttest
and also at the end of week 4 of the intervention. Mean Lexile scores from the control period will
be compared to mean Lexile scores from the treatment period using a t-test to determine whether
there is any significant difference between the means of score before the intervention and after
the intervention.
Scholastic Reading Counts (SRC) electronic novel quizzes. SRC quizzes were developed
by Scholastic as part of the READ 180 program. The developers also provided construct
validity. The instruments were administered online to all participants before and during
intervention. SRC quizzes consist of 10 comprehension multiple-choice questions based on the
individual book that the student read. Items assessed comprehension after students read a novel
independently. In addition to providing a measure of reading comprehension, the program
provided a report showing the number of novels a student completed and comprehension scores
over the 4-week period. Results were compared by the researcher to determine the number of
novels a student read before intervention and during intervention to determine participation. SRC
quiz results were also used to measure comprehension.
Reading Attitude Survey. The Reading Attitude Survey was developed by the researcher
(see Appendix A). The instrument was administered to all participants before and after
intervention. The survey was presented to three other researchers to establish construct validity.
The survey consisted of 10 “yes,” “no,” or “sometimes” questions assessing students’ attitudes
toward reading. Responses were reported as tally marks. Students marked the answer that
described their attitude toward the statement. Results were compared by the researcher to
determine student attitudes before and after intervention.
Field Journal. The Researcher developed a field journal before the intervention. During
the intervention, the researcher wrote extensive notes describing student behaviors and other
relevant information. Notes were written on a daily basis when students were completing the
lesson, rotations, and participation. The journal provided a qualitative measure to help explain
why the intervention was or was not effective. It was analyzed for patterns and abnormalities in
data.
Results
The research was conducted to determine the effects of READ 180 on comprehension of
eighth-grade students. During the control phase, 17 students participated in traditional reading
instruction. The same students rotated from whole group instruction to three different stations:
software, independent reading and small group instruction, on a daily basis during the 4 weeks of
6
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
the intervention phase. Three data collection instruments were used to examine the effectiveness
of the intervention.
Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) Lexile scores from the control phase (beginning to
mid-point Lexile scores) were compared to those of the intervention phase (mid-point to ending
Lexile scores) to determine if students’ comprehension increased. Students’ growths in Lexile
scores from the control phase were compared to those of the intervention phase. Means from the
control phase (M = 8.12) were compared to the means from the intervention phase (M = 35.88)
growth were compared. Students’ Lexile scores during the control phase (traditional instruction)
and intervention phase (READ 180 instruction), growth in Lexile scores from the control phase
and the intervention phase, and Lexile scores’ means for the control and intervention phase are
given in Table 2.
Table 2
Comparisons of Lexile Scores Before and After READ 180
Traditional Instruction Lexile Scores
READ 180 Lexile Scores
Student
Beginning
Mid-point
Growth
Mid-point
Ending
Growth
A
730
752
22
752
810
58
B
779
782
3
782
798
16
C
798
798
0
798
808
10
D
603
606
3
606
748
142
E
545
558
13
558
620
62
F
502
502
0
502
572
70
G
561
562
1
562
565
3
H
800
807
7
807
822
15
I
483
490
7
490
529
39
J
749
752
3
752
756
4
K
707
711
4
711
723
12
L
637
669
32
669
722
53
M
727
742
15
742
803
61
N
852
854
2
854
858
4
O
560
562
2
562
571
9
P
518
518
0
518
519
1
Q
134
158
24
158
209
51
Means
628.53
636.65
8.12
636.65
672.53
35.88
Students’ growth in Lexile scores from the control phase were compared to the students’
growth in Lexile scores from the intervention phase to determine if the students’ comprehension
increased. Means and standard deviations are given in Table 3. The READ 180 growth in Lexile
mean score (M = 35.88) was significantly higher than the mean growth for traditional instruction
(M = 8.12). A mean gain of 27.27 was demonstrated. The improvement was statistically
significant (p = 0.00).
Table 3
Student’s Growth in Lexile Scores During Traditional Instruction and READ 180
Groups
N
M
SD
Mean Gain
t-value
p
7
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
Traditional
17
8.12
9.71
27.27
-0.62
0.00**
READ 180
17
35.88
36.98
*p<.05; **p<.01
Scholastic Reading Counts (SRC) Quiz scores from the control phase were compared to
the intervention phase to determine if students’ comprehension increased. During the control
phase, the total number of books that was passed was 6. During the intervention phase, the total
number of books passed was 27. The difference in the number of books that were passed during
the control phase and the intervention phase was 21. The number of books that each student
passed with a 70 or better are given in Table 4.
Table 4
SRC Quiz Scores during Traditional Instruction and READ 180
Student
Control Phase
Intervention Phase
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
2
1
3
O
0
1
P
Q
1
0
2
1
Total
6
27
The researcher administered pre and post surveys to determine if READ 180 had an
effect on students’ attitudes toward reading. Students responded by answering “yes”, “no”, or
“sometimes” to each survey question. The percentage of students that answered “yes”, “no”, or
“sometimes”, and the means for each survey question is given in Table 5.
Table 5
Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Reading Attitude Survey
Pre-Survey Results
No
Sometimes
Yes
1. Do you like reading
books?
32%
51%
17%
46%
26%
28%
2. Do you like reading
magazines?
49%
25%
26%
52%
23%
25%
8
Yes
Post-Survey Results
No
Sometimes
Survey Questions
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
3. Do you like reading
the newspaper?
15%
52%
33%
26%
39%
35%
4. Do you think reading
is helpful in life?
89%
2%
10%
100%
0%
0%
5. Do you find reading
fun?
11%
61%
28%
39%
4%
57%
6. Do you like to read
aloud?
2%
87%
11%
41%
32%
27%
7. Do you like reading
passages online?
54%
6%
40%
72%
3%
25%
8. Do you like listening
to someone else read?
9%
72%
19%
38%
44%
18%
9. Do you like to read in
your spare time?
17%
54%
29%
20%
38%
42%
18%
40%
42%
36%
35%
29%
30%
45%
26%
47%
24%
29%
10. Do you find reading
easy?
Means
The results of the reading attitude survey showed that after READ 180 instruction, the
majority of students attitudes toward reading improved. When asked if the student liked reading
books, there was an increase of 14% of students that stated “yes”. At the end of the intervention
phase, 100% of students found reading to be important, an increase of 11%. The mean
percentage of students that answered “yes” to all questions increased from 30% after the control
phase to 47% after the intervention phase. After the intervention, evidence from the reading
attitude survey supports a conclusion that READ 180 improved students’ attitudes toward
reading.
Discussion
Conclusions
The study was conducted to determine the effects of READ 180 on eighth-grade
students’ reading comprehension, attitudes toward reading, and students’ participation in
reading. During the research, students’ Lexile scores improved, which provides support for
Scholastic Research & Evaluation (2002) studies that stated that students’ scores would increase
through the use of interactive techniques. According to Sporer et. al (2009), students involved in
interactive groups outperform students who are taught by traditional methods only. The results of
the study showed a statistically significant (p < .05) improvement, a growth in students’ Lexile
scores was noted from the end of the control phase (M = 8.12, SD = 9.71) to the end of the
intervention phase (M = 35.88, SD = 36.98). The intervention was beneficial to the students.
Does READ 180 improve eighth-grade students’ attitudes toward reading? According to
the attitudinal survey, students’ attitude toward reading improved after the use of READ 180. At
the end of the survey, all students found reading to be helpful in life. On all survey questions that
asked if a student liked something dealing with reading, the responses were low at the beginning
of the research. After the use of READ 180, all responses improved with the percentages of
9
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
“yes” answers increasing. Also, the percentages of “no” answers decreased. According to the
researcher’s field journal, students volunteered more often to read aloud in class and did not
respond negatively when asked to read. According to Ediger (2004) and Biggs et. al (2008), time
spent reading natural, meaningful and connected text results in increased knowledge, fluency,
word recognition, and overall reading and listening comprehension. During the intervention
phase, students asked if they could have more time to read their book, which tied back to natural,
meaningful and connected texts.
Does READ 180 improve eighth-grade students’ participation in reading? According to
the data, students’ participation increased during the use of READ 180. The total number of
books that were read and passed before the use of READ 180 was six. During the use of READ
180, the number of books that students read and passed increased by 21 books, for a total of 37
books. Students read more than six times as many books during the use of the READ 180
program. According to the researcher’s field journal, students checked out books to take home
and complete reading. Students volunteered more to read than before the intervention. Many
students shared more of what they read and set goals on how many books they would pass before
the ending of the semester. Trudel (2007) stated that two important keys in reading are
motivation and immediate feedback. READ 180 software allowed immediate feedback and
motivated students, providing support for Trudel’s study (2007).
At the end of the intervention phase, many eighth-grade teachers approached the
researcher about the participants doing better in their classes, especially their Science and Social
Studies class. The teachers who approached the researcher stated that the students were
volunteering to read and answer questions more in their classes.
Significance/Impact on Student Learning
In the eighth grade, students should be reading on at least a 950 to a 1000 Lexile
according to the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI). However, many students enter the eighthgrade below or far below that mark. Without intervention, many of these students become termed
as “at-risk,” meaning they are very likely to drop out due to the cycle of failure that is repeated.
During the intervention phase, students’ Lexile scores increased. When students’ Lexile scores
increased, students attitudes improved toward reading and participation increased. According to
the researcher’s field notes, students set goals in class. When the students realized that they could
achieve their goals, they came out of the cycle of failure and started expecting more than failure.
As noted in the researcher’s journal, students finally began to smile when reading or when
reading was mentioned. Students volunteered more when asked to read aloud in class and the
effect carried over to other subjects. The students read more in other classes and wanted to
answer more questions in their Science and Social Studies classes. The students also asked more
questions when they did not understand. At the end of the intervention phase, students begged
for more reading time and to take books home. Many students stayed after school to read their
novels and complete their quizzes.
Factors that Influenced Implementation
There were many factors that influenced implementation of this study. The main factor
was time. During the intervention phase, there were two holidays that pushed the research back 3
days. One early release day occurred during the intervention phase, meaning that one day was
lost. The students had to complete the Lexile tests later than originally set by the researcher.
Homecoming activities such as dressing up, decorating halls and floats, played a role in the
research by taking time away from reading activities. Also, the H1N1 epidemic had an effect on
10
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
on attendance during the study. Attendance was low during the study which meant students lost
time reading books and instruction.
Implications and Limitations
The findings of this study were mostly positive; therefore, the researcher will continue to
use READ 180. All students improved their Lexile score from the beginning of the study to the
end. During the control phase (traditional instruction), most students made little or no gain in
Lexile scores; however, during the intervention phase (READ 180), all students showed growth.
The researcher was asked to present the findings of this study to the Board of Education
and the rest of the school. The researcher was also asked to share with other teachers strategies
from the READ 180 program that can be used in their classrooms to improve reading
comprehension in their subjects. Administrators also noted that the dropout rate has decreased
from the time that the READ 180 was purchased. Of the first students who participated in READ
180, 85% are still enrolled at the school where the research was conducted. Also, schools from
surrounding counties recently called to make arrangements to observe the READ 180 classroom.
With the positive outcomes, there were limitations that affected this study. One limitation
was the short amount of time for the study (8weeks) with only 4 weeks allotted for intervention.
Scholastic (2007) states that READ 180 will help students improved their Lexile by 50 to 100
points in a year. The study was too short to show such a gain. The participants were also enrolled
in a Language Arts class during one block of their day, which could affect their scores. The
researcher set a goal for students to raise their Lexile scores by at least 25 points at the beginning
of the study. Many students worked hard to achieve this goal but the set goal seemed to pose a
problem for some students. If students did not achieve the goal the first time, their confidence
declined. On the other hand, students who achieved that goal seemed not to try as hard because
they had reached the goal that was set. Goals need to be set on an individual basis and not at the
beginning of class when the teacher does not know the students well enough to set the goal.
More research is needed for this study. Although there were many positive findings in
this study, the study should be expanded to include more participants at different grade levels.
The study should also be expanded to include more teachers because teachers play a huge role in
the success of students and programs.
11
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
References
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2004). Reading next; A vision for action and research in middle
and high school literacy. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Biggs, M., Homan, S., Dedrick, R., Minick, V., & Rasinski, T. (2008). Using an interactive
singing software program: a comparative study of struggling middle school readers
[Electronic version]. Reading Psychology, 29(3), 195-213.
Boiling, C., & Evans, W. (2008). Reading success in the secondary classroom [Electronic
version]. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 59-66.
Christle, C., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. (2007). School characteristics related to high school
Dropout Rates [Electronic version]. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 325-339.
Dzaldov, B., & Peterson, S. (2005). Book leveling and readers [Electronic version]. Reading
Teacher, 59(3), 222-229.
Ediger, M. (2004). Challenge in children’s literature [Electronic version]. College Student
Journal, 38(3), 374-376.
Georgia Department of Education. (2008, June). The governor’s office of student achievement:
Clinch County High School Report Card 2006-2008. Retrieved June 28, 2009, from
http://gadoe.org/ReportingFW.aspx?PageReq=102&SchoolId=42992&T=1&FY=2008.
Hasselbring, T., & Bausch, M. (2006). Assistive technologies for reading [Electronic version].
Educational Leadership, 63(4), 72-75.
Klecker, B. (2006). The gender gap in NAEP fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade reading scores
across years [Electronic version]. Reading Improvement, 43(1), 50-56.
Roberts, G., Torgensen, J., Boardman, A., & Scammacca, N. (2008). Evidence-based strategies
for reading instruction of older students with learning disabilities [Electronic version].
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 63-69.
Scholastic Research and Evaluation (2002). Compendium of READ 180 research. A heritage of
research. New York, NY: Scholastic
Sporer, N., Brunstein, J., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students’ reading comprehension
skills: effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching [Electronic version].
Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272-286.
Trudel, H. (2007). Making data-driver decisions: silent reading [Electronic version]. Reading
Teacher, 61(4), 308-315.
Yeung, W. & Conley, D. (2008). Black-white achievement gap and family wealth [Electronic
version]. Child Development, 79(2), 303-324.
12
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2
Appendix A
Reading Attitude Survey
Name ______________________
Reading Attitude Survey
The purpose of this survey is to find out how you feel about Reading. Completion of this survey
indicates informed consent. You may withdraw at any time.
Directions: Place an ‘X’ in the box that best describes your answer to the question.
1. Do you like reading books?
2. Do you like reading magazines?
3. Do you like reading the newspaper?
4. Do you think reading is helpful in
life?
Yes
Sometimes
No
Yes
Sometimes
No
5. Do you find reading fun?
6. Do you like to read aloud?
7. Do you like reading passages
online?
8. Do you like listening to someone
else read?
9. Do you like to read in your spare
time?
10. Do you find reading easy?
Yes
Yes
Sometimes
Sometimes
No
No
Yes
Sometimes
No
Yes
Sometimes
No
Yes
Sometimes
No
Yes
Sometimes
No
Yes
Sometimes
No
Yes
Sometimes
No
13
Novus Scientia Vol. I No. 2