By: Annie La
ED 7202, Spring 2012
Table of Contents






•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Statement of Problem
Review of Literature
Statement of Hypothesis
Participants
Instrument(s)
Research Design
Procedure
Results
Discussion
Implication
References
Introduction
Successful reading comprehension increases reading
level (Pang, Muaka, Bernhardt & Kamil, n.d.)
College readiness (ACT, n.d)
 Instructions, research and simple tasks (Mounce, n.d.)
Reading Strategies
 Include fluency, vocabulary and comprehension
(Duncan, 2010)
 Student frustration without application of reading
strategies (Cooper, n.d.)
 Teachers need to model skills and strategies (Brenda,
Buck & Giles, 2009)
Statement of Problem
 Eight million students in the nation read below grade
level (Alliance of Excellent Eduaction, 2006)
 40% are not fluent readers (Begeny, 2011)
 46% of large city public schools in the fourth grade
read below reading level.
 (The National Center for Education Statistics, 2009)
 34% of the Nations public schools in the fourth
graders are below reading level.
 (The National Center for Education Statistics, 2009)
Review of Literature: Current
Instructional Strategy
 Read aloud
 Model reading fluency (Kruse, 2007)

Children learn through interactive read aloud (Campbell,
2001)
 Preview- Predict- Confirm Model (Furtado, 2008)
 Guided Reading
 Small groups working on the same reading strategy
(Thames, 2008)
 Provides structure, instruction and purpose to reading
(Ford & Opitz, 2011)
Pros: Read Aloud
 Increases comprehension of text, build vocabulary and
familiarity with sound
 (Cummins & Stellmeyer-Gerade, 2011)
 Provide students with reading fluency
 (Adamson, Adamson, Anderson, Clausen-Grace, Earnes,
Einarson, … Wooten, 2006)
 Critical questioning through text and talk
 (Beck & McKeown, 2001)
Cons: Read Aloud
 Does not teach reading strategies and skills
 Nonsense Word Fluency: phonetics and decoding
(Cummings, Dewey, Latimer & Good III, 2011)
 Prevents beginning readers from reading
independently
 Lost of interest
 Comfort of read aloud
(Kruse,2007)
Pros: Guided Reading
 Students become independent readers
 (Ford & Opitz, 2011)
 Build comprehension strategies through model and
practice
 (Ferguson & Wilson, 2009)
 Increase reading comprehension, accuracy, fluency and
vocabulary
 (Ford & Opitz, 2011)
 Gain skills in word recognition, reading texts and writing
 (Santa & Hoien, 1999)
Cons: Guided Reading
 The strategies taught in guided reading are redundant
and can be seen in other lessons throughout the day.
 Reading skills and strategies are taught as part of a
lesson within the curriculum
 (Ferguson & Wilson, 2009)
Theorists & Practitioners
 Francis Galton: mental measurement
 Lewis Terman- intelligence test in 1922

(Cadenhead, 1987)
 Fountas & Pinnell: A-Z text gradient

(Thomas, n.d.)
 Guided Reading:
 Emmett Betts- directed reading activity in 1946
 Lillian Gray and Dora Reese- guided reading questions

(Ford & Opitz , 2011)
Statement of Hypothesis
 Providing one group of six - fourth grade students in
P.S. X, Brooklyn, NY with guided reading instruction
for 40 minutes, every morning, four days a week for
six weeks, will increase students’ reading level as
measured by Fountas and Pinnell’s running record.
 Having the second group of six - fourth grade
students in P.S. X, Brooklyn, NY without guided
reading instruction, every morning, four days a week
for six weeks, will not increase students’ reading level
as measured by Fountas and Pinnell’s running record.
Participants
 Two focus groups
 Group 1: extra guided reading in the morning
 Group 2: does not receive guided reading in the morning
Research Design
 Quasi-Experimental Design
 Non-equivalent control group
 Two groups
 Groups randomly assigned but individuals are not


Individuals based on reading level: J/K/L
Groups may include IEP and ELL learners
 Symbol Design: O X1 O
OX O
(O) Pre-test, (X ) Treatment for Group 1, (X ) Treatment for
Group 2, (O) Post-test
2

1
2
Threats to Internal Validity
 History
 Maturation
 Testing/ Pretesting
 Instrumentation
 Mortality
 Statistical Regression
 Selection-Maturation Interaction
Threats to External Validity
 Ecological Validity
 New York City public schools
 Multiple Treatments
 An increase in guided reading throughout the day/week
 Novelty Effect
 Guided reading books online
Procedure
 Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System:
Level K
 Pre-Test: January
 Post-Test: March
 Accuracy scores:
 95%-100%- independent level K, re-tested level L
 90%-95%- guided reading level K
 Below 90%- re-tested level J
Pre-Test/ Post-Test Results
Non-Treated Group Test Scores
Treatment Group Test Scores
120
100
80
60
January Pre-Test
March Post-Test
40
20
0
F & P Accuracy Test Scores: Level K
F & P Accuracy Test Score: Level K
120
100
80
60
January Pre-Test
March Post-Test
40
20
0
2
3
5
6
7
11
1
Students
Descriptive Statistics
Pre-Test
Mean
85.500
4
8
9
10
12
Students
Post-Test
88.667
3.70%
Descriptive Statistics
Pre-Test
Mean
87.667
Post-Test
92.833
5.89%
Survey Analysis and Correlation
 Post Test Scores
 Pre-Test Scores
120
90
80
70
.rxy= 0.229
60
50
Students
40
Linear (Students)
30
20
10
0
Post- Test Accuracy Score: K
Pre-Test Accuracy Score: K
100
100
80
.rxy=0.797
60
Students
40
Linear (Students)
20
0
0
2
4
6
Frequency of Time Spent Reading Outside of School
Student
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
x
4
5
1
4
4
4
3
5
2
3
5
4
y
78
94
71
82
89
92
93
90
91
91
74
94
0
2
4
6
Frequency of Time Spent Reading Outside of School
Student
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
x
4
5
1
4
4
4
3
5
2
3
5
4
y
91
97
68
90
90
95
92
99
87
92
90
98
Bell Curve
Pre-Test
Mean: 86.583
SD: 8.163
Var: 66.629
Post-Test
Mean: 90.75
SD: 8.058
Var: 64.932
Discussion & Implications
 Additional guided reading instruction increases
reading level
 Treatment group V.S. Non-treatment group: 5%
increase
 Further research is needed
 Extended period of time
References













ACT. Reading between the lines: what the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Retrieved from
http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FF204E0B-65B5-4DD4-9FAEEE0C99ACB370/0/ACTReportSummary.pdf
Adamson, P., Adamson, B., Anderson, L., Clausen-Grace, N., Earnes, A., Einarson, C., … Wooten, A. (2006).
Read and write it out loud!: Guided oral literacy strategies. School Library Journal, 52, 90.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2006, February). Adolescent literacy [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from
http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F62A486B-B05E-48F6-9503F2A129416D28/0/AdolescentLiteracyFactSheet.pdf
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2001). Capturing the benefits of read-aloud experiences for young children. The
Reading Teacher. 55 (1), 10-20.
Begeny, C. (2011). Effects of the helping early literacy with practice strategies (HELPS) reading fluency
program when implemented at different frequencies. The School Psychology Review, 40 (1), 149-57.
Brenda, B., Buck, K., & Giles, R. (2009). First-grade reading gains following enrichment: phonics plus
decodable texts compared to authentic literature read aloud. Reading Improvement, 46(4), 191-205.
Cadenhead, K. (1987). Reading level: A metaphor that shapes practice. The Phi Delta Kappan, 68(6), 436441.
Campbell, R. (2001). Read-alouds with young children. International Reading Association, 114.
Cooper, D. (n.d.). Stopping reading failure: Reading intervention for upper-grade students. Retrieved from
http://www.beyond-the-book.com/strategies/strategies_012506.html
Cummings, K., Dewey, E., Latimer, R., & Good III, R. (June 2011). Pathways to word reading and decoding:
The roles of automaticity and accuracy. The School Psychology Review, 40 (2), 284-295.
Cummins, S., & Stellmeyer-Gerade, C. (2011).Teaching for synthesis for informational texts with readalouds. Reading Teacher, 64(6), 394-405.
Duncan, P. (2010). Instilling a lifelong love of reading. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46 (2), 90-93.
English Language Arts [Chart]. (2011). Retrieved from New York City Department of Education Web Site:
http://schools.nyc.gov/daa/test_info/default.asp
References













Ferguson, J., & Wilson, J. (2009). Guided reading: It’s for the primary teachers. College Reading Association
Yearbook, 30, 293-306.
Ford, M., & Opitz, M. (2011). Looking back to move forward with guided reading. Reading Horizons, 50(4),
225-240.
Furtado, L. (2008). A read-aloud cross-age service learning partnership using multicultural stories. The
Reading Matrix, 8(2), 96-107.
Kruse, M. (2007). Read- alouds? Think again. School Library Journal, 53(6), 36-37.
Mounce, A. (n.d.). Strategies to teach students reading below grade level. Retrieved from
http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CON
TENTID=9647&CAT=none
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Science. (2009). Trial urban district
snapshot report: Reading 2009. [Data set]. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/dst2009/2010461XN4.pdf
O’Connor-Petruso, S. (2012). Descriptive Statistics Threats to Validity [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
http://bbhosted.cuny.edu/webapps/portal/
Pang, E., Muaka, A., Bernhardt, E., & Kamil, M. (n.d.). Teaching reading: Educational practices series- 12.
International Academy of Education, 6-24.
Prado, L., Lee, P. (2011). Increasing reading comprehension through the explicit teaching of reading
strategies: Is there a difference among the genders? Reading Improvement, 48 (1), 32-43.
Ross, J. (2004). Effects of running records assessment on early literacy achievement. Journal of Education
Research, 97(4), 186-194.
Santa, C., & Hoien, T. (1999). An assessment of early steps: A program for early intervention of reading
problems. Reading Research Quarterly. 34, 54-79.
Thames, D., Reeves, C., Kazelskis, R., York, K., Boling, C., Newell, K., & Yang, W. (2008). Reading
comprehension: Effects of individualized, integrated language arts as a reading approach with struggling
readers. Reading Psychology, 29, 86-115.
Thomas. (n.d.). Fountas and Pinnell- Early literacy experts offer new reading intervention program.
Retrieved from http://www.openeducation.net/2009/05/15/fountas-and-pinnell-early-literacy-expertsoffer-new-reading-intervention-program/
Student Survey
Sample Question:
Part I: Frequencies
Directions: Fill in the lettered box corresponding to your answer.
(1)
Never0 times
(2)
Once
per week
(3)
2-3 times
per week
(4)
4-5 times
per week
(5)
Everyday
1.
I spend time reading outside of school.
1. _______
2.
I spend time reading in school.
2. _______
Part III: Short Response
1.
What are some of your favorite books to read?
_______________________________________________________
Student Surveys Cont.
Sample Question:
Part IV: Background Information
Directions: Fill in completely the lettered box corresponding to your answer.
Example: Answer = a =
=b=
=c=
=d=
=e=
1. Gender:
a. Male
2. Where were you born?
a. USA
b. South/ Central America
c. Europe or Canada
d. Asia
e. Africa
b. Female
1. __________
2. ________
Teacher Survey
Sample Question
Part II: Agree/ Disagree
Directions: Fill in the lettered box corresponding to your answer.
Example:
(1)
Strongly
Agree
(2)
(3)
(4)
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1. My lesson plans are interdisciplinary with reading.
2. I conduct read aloud in my classroom.
1. ____
2. ____