blalock_ action research proposal...

Running Head: LITERATURE DISCUSSION GROUPS IMPROVE READING COMPREHENSION

Literature Discussion Groups Improve Reading Comprehension

Tasha Blalock

East Carolina University

LITERATURE DISCUSSION GROUPS IMPROVE READING COMPREHENSION 2

Abstract

The purpose of this action research study was to determine how talking about text in

group discussions impacts third grade student’s reading comprehension. This quasi-experimental

pre post-test design study included 44 third grade students from two classes. The intervention

group discussed text, while the control group experienced regular instruction. At the conclusion

of this study, the results were analyzed. The equal variance, two-tailed p-value for the pre/post

comprehension test was 0.78 and the MCLASS Reading Assessment was 0.5. Although the

intervention group had a higher mean gain score, the difference was not significant to justify the

intervention.

Keywords: 3rd grade, reading comprehension, discussion groups


Introduction

Meaningful conversations about text have potential to foster reading comprehension.

Research indicates that conversations are a powerful tool to help students understand what they

read and make connections. The purpose of this paper is to present an action research proposal

that aims to explore the research question: “Would talking about text in group discussions impact

third grade students’ reading comprehension more than those who experience regular

instruction?” The research question was chosen to determine whether students talking about

literature with others and having dialogue would make more comprehension gains than students

who experience regular instruction.

After researching the relationship between comprehension and meaningful discussion, the

focus of this action research is to discover whether or not students discussing literature with

others can improve comprehension. Comprehension strategies were researched to discover the

effects of students talking about books with each other. The goal of this research was to have

students use comprehension strategies in their reading. Students talked about their books with

others in small groups and participate in dialogue. They were accountable for completing

assignments and participating in group discussions. Data was collected throughout the year,

including reading assessments to determine student progress and growth. A literature review that

supports the research question follows.

Literature Review

According to Berne and Clark (2008), “There is power in talk to help students construct

meaning about text.” When teachers implement literature discussion groups in their classrooms,

students are engaged and practice using comprehension strategies. It is vital that students practice

intentional talk with their peers to help them become more proficient with strategies as they


encounter challenging text. Students should be taught explicitly how to talk purposefully with

their peers and use discussion about text to improve comprehension (Berne & Clark, 2008).

Learning Clubs

According to Casey (2008), teachers should engage students by using learning clubs to

motivate struggling readers. Learning clubs that are organized around student interests and

needs. It is important for teachers to offer a supportive environment to engage struggling readers.

The data collected in this study included six 80-minute observations, two semi-structured

interviews, a variety of informal conversations, and multiple documents, including lesson plans

and photographs. The class observed consisted of 19 students, 6 being identified as struggling

readers and writers based on reading data. The teacher mentioned in the study (Sharon) devotes a

large amount of class time constructing a safe learning environment to help students become

comfortable with discussions. It is important to create a safe environment to enable all types of

students to feel comfortable with talking about their text in group discussions. Once students felt

safe in the environment, they were able to share information about the text (Casey, 2008).

Scaffold student comprehension of text

Clark and Graves (2005) describe how teachers can scaffold students’ comprehension of

text. Various classrooms are explored, including a fifth grade classroom and a first grade

classroom. Recent studies of classroom reading instruction have found that, although scaffolding

is widely used by some of the best teachers, it is not a characteristic for most teachers.

Comprehension instruction of any sort is much less frequent than it should be. Clark and Graves

believe that it’s important that teachers direct the discussion but to not dominate it. Teachers

should leave plenty of room for student input; the students are the ones who do most of the

talking and thinking, and they respond at some length. Finally, students should listen to one


another and build on one another's responses as they construct meaning for the text. Therefore,

it’s important for students to talk about text to comprehend what they have read.

Group discussions about text

Conversations are a powerful tool to help students understand what they read and make

text-to-self connections. Griffin (2010) describes a lesson that provides students with strategies

to support conversations about texts. In this lesson, students learned how to determine which

ideas work best to inspire a conversation, how to stay focused on a particular idea, and how to

talk with other students in a way that leads to deeper thinking. Students conclude the activity by

reflecting on how their ideas changed or grew as a result of the discussion. Students are taught

how to discuss text with others and the importance of listening to the opinions of other students

and responding by looking at them when talking. According to Griffin (2010), good readers

come up with ideas about books and benefit from sharing those ideas with others.

Griffin (2010) describes instructional conversations as being discussion-based lessons

geared toward creating richly textured opportunities for students’ conceptual and linguistic

development. Goldenberg (1992) describes how instructional conversations are used to guide

reading comprehension lessons and activities with small groups of elementary-age students.

The teacher used text that the students could relate to personally and were able to discuss.

Students were able to share ideas and concepts with others in their class.

Hall (2012) describes a study that examines how sixth grade students’ discussions about

texts and comprehension strategies looked similar and/or different based on their identities as

readers and their reading levels. This mixed-methods study was conducted over a period of 12

weeks. Three sixth grade social studies teachers and one of their classes participated. Four types

of data were collected in each classroom: (a) the Gates–MacGinitie, Fourth Edition, test of


reading achievement, (b) the Reader Self Perception Scale, (c) biweekly field observations, 78

total, to ensure fidelity of the instruction and observe students as they engaged with the

instruction, and (d) 144 small group discussions that were audiotaped and transcribed to examine

the discourse in the small group conversations. Two middle schools, in two different districts,

located in the rural South participated. Both schools had failed to make adequate yearly progress

in reading in the previous 4 years. The first school, Mill Creek, had 681 students, with the

average sixth grade class containing 18 students. The second middle school, Ok Grove, had 921

students, with the average sixth grade class containing 25 students.

Findings indicated that students who self-identified as high-performing readers talked

about texts and strategies in ways that were different from students who self-identified as being

average or low-performing readers. These differences remained regardless of students’ assessed

reading levels. The students that were identified as high-performing readers discussed using

comprehension strategies as a way to clarify or deepen their knowledge of content and to support

their interpretations of text. They also selected strategies based on what they believed would best

help them address their specific comprehension problems. This study shows that students of

varying reading abilities may need more or less support when applying comprehension strategies

and discussing texts than teachers might assume. Students did not always engage with texts and

strategies in ways that aligned with their current grade-level reading abilities. Some students

engaged with texts and strategies in ways that were more complex than what might typically be

expected based on their current reading level, whereas others engaged in ways that were less

complex than what might be expected.


Literature Circles

A research study was conducted about literature circles at the University of Brighton.

According to King (2001), the role of talk is a way of developing children’s meaningful

interactions with literary texts. Research indicates that when children are engaged in small group

discussions, they are able to express affective responses to their reading that contribute to an

understanding of the text. Teachers should not be seen as the expert reader having all the right

answers, but should lead by following. Teachers should model discussions and then transfer the

control of talk to the group. Students should be seen as active participants in discussions.

Comprehension Strategies

According to Mckeown, Beck, & Blake (2009), too many students have limited ability to

comprehend texts. The content instruction for this article focused on student attention on the

content of the text through open, meaning-based questions about the text. In strategies

instruction, students were taught specific procedures to guide their access to text during reading

of the text. The research for this article involved a two-year study. In this study, standardized

comprehension instruction for representations of two major approaches was designed and

implemented. The effectiveness of the two experimental comprehension instructional approaches

(content and strategies) and a control approach were compared. Lessons for the control approach

were developed using questions available in the teacher's edition of the basal reading program

used in the participating classrooms. Student participants were all fifth graders in a low-

performing urban district. The results from the assessments were consistent from Year 1 to Year

2. Records of the lessons were examined, and differences in amount of talk about the text and

length of student response also favored the content approach.


According to McLaughlin (2012), ten principles are proposed to examine the essentials of

teaching reading comprehension. Topics explored include the nature of reading comprehension

and the roles of good readers and influential teachers. When implementing group discussions in

classrooms, teachers require “perseverance, some flexibility, a bit of humor, and a lot of caring”

(McLaughlin, 2012). In the end, the great reward is observing the students comprehending to

their greatest potential. Teachers should make sure that the classroom is full of accountable talk,

listening, reading, and writing. When students are engaged as readers, they achieve because they

want to comprehend the text. Students that are engaged use cognitive skills to understand and

they share important information by talking with teachers and peers. Engaged readers read for

enjoyment and have positive attitudes about reading.

Wells (1990) describes the importance of talking about text and states that the learning

and teaching of literacy can be described in terms of an apprenticeship model. Five modes of

engagement are distinguished: performative, functional, informational, recreational, and

epistemic. Through talk about texts of numerous types, children are introduced to ways of

engaging with texts that are appropriate. Teachers are encouraged to engage in a collaborative

inquiry that involved making video recordings in their own classrooms. These then become texts

of classroom practice.

Overall, it is fundamentally important for students to have meaningful conversations

about the text to fully comprehend what they have read. After reading various literature articles

about comprehension and meaningful discussion about text, the focus of this action research is

the question, “Would talking about text in group discussions impact third grade students’ reading

comprehension more than those who experience regular instruction?” The methodological details

of the proposed study follow.


Methodology

This action research project was a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest comparison group

design. The comparison’s class was Mrs. Rich’s third grade class and the researcher’s 3rd grade

class was the group that received intervention. The intervention class participated in group

discussion of text with the expected outcome of improving comprehension. There was pre and

post test data on reading comprehension gathered for both groups.

The independent variable was the type of comprehension instruction. The first level was

traditional instruction and the second level was discussion about text. The dependent variable,

reading comprehension, was operationally defined as a score on the pre/post test assessment.

Figure 1: Independent Variable: Group Discussion of Text

Participants and Setting

The research took place in two third grade classrooms. The school is located in Granville

County with less than 350 students currently enrolled.

The comparison group was Mrs. Rich’s class and the researcher’s class was the

intervention group. This is the researcher’s sixth year teaching in Granville County Schools. The

Intervention Students: Discussion groups talk about text

Comparison Students: Reading Response Notebooks

Dependent Variable:Reading Comprehension Instruction

1. Researcher Log observations2. Pre/Post Test on Reading Comprehension3. MCLASS Reading Assessment

1. Pre/Post Test on Reading Comprehension2. MCLASS Reading Assessment


researcher has previously taught fourth grade for four years. This is the second year the

researcher has been teaching third grade. The other third grade teacher, Mrs. Rich, has taught

third grade for seven years in Granville County.

There were 44 third grade participants in this study. There are currently 24 students in the

researcher’s classroom consisting of 11 boys and 13 girls. There are 7 African American

students, 1 Hispanic student, and 16 Caucasian students in the researcher’s classroom.

The comparison teacher has 20 students in her classroom. There are 9 boys and 11 girls

in her classroom. There are 5 African American students, 2 Hispanic students, and 13 Caucasian

students in her classroom.

Intervention

The method of having students talk about text to improve reading comprehension in

literature circle groups as described by King (2001) was used in this research project. Group

discussion is a way of developing children’s meaningful interactions with literacy texts. The

students met in literature groups consisting of five to six students per group. The purpose of the

discussion groups was to facilitate engagement in discussions about text. The groups consisted of

heterogeneous reading levels.

The gradual release model as described by King (2001) was used when teaching students

how to respond in group discussions. The researcher modeled in December how students will

participate in group discussions. The researcher taught students the appropriate behaviors to

display when talking about text with other students. The researcher taught students explicitly

how they should listen to one another and build on one another’s responses as they jointly

construct meaning of text. The researcher then gradually released responsibility with students

and had them take a leadership role in discussions (Casey, 2008).


Behavior guidelines were set with students. To set behavior guidelines, the researcher

asked students, “How do we act when we listen to or discuss a story?” Some key guidelines for

students are to listen to each other and the teacher, accept each other’s ideas, sit quietly and listen

when someone else is talking, and to not interrupt each other. These behavior guidelines were

written on chart paper and displayed in the classroom.

To model what a meaningful group discussion looks like, the researcher placed a group

of students in the center of the room and modeled a group discussion. The students were invited

to discuss chapters in a book. Students were prompted with questions when necessary. The class

then discussed what worked well, then set one goal that could improve the discussion. The

researcher explained that after reading the chapters in the book, students would create their own

discussion questions. Emphasis was spent on the importance of finding evidence in the book to

support responses. The researcher asked the students to find the pages that support predictions

and record these in their journals.

The intervention began on January 20, 2015 and ended on March 5, 2015. Students met

in the same groups two times a week. When students met in the intervention groups, they read

two chapters from a book for twenty minutes. The groups were heterogeneously grouped based

on student choice. The groups chose the book to discuss in the small groups. The books they

chose from include Holes by Louis Sachar, Chocolate Fever by Robert Kimmel Smith, Ralph S.

Mouse by Beverly Clearly, and Stone Fox by John Reynolds Gardiner.

After reading their chosen book for twenty minutes, the students discussed the book in

groups for twenty minutes. Each student in the group created five questions to share for the

discussion. Each group member had the opportunity to share the questions and then discuss the


text. The students share their discussion questions to the group and responded with citing

evidence from the text.

Date InterventionJanuary19-23

Pretest using passage “Hummingbird and Crane”Beginning MCLASS Reading Assessments

January19-23

Week 1 of InstructionStudents chose their books/Groups assigned

January26-30

Week 2 of InstructionGroup Discussion of text and reading passages/Review of group

guidelinesFebruary

2-6Week 3 of Instruction

Group Discussion of text and reading passages/Reading Strategies (Sticky-notes)

February9-13

Week 4 of InstructionGroup Discussion of text and reading passages/Reading Strategies

February16-18


March2-5


March2-5

Post test using passage “Peter Possum’s Playful Trick”MCLASS Reading Assessments


Figure 2 Intervention Timeline: This timeline shows the dates of the discussion groups.

The students filled out a self-reflection sheet evaluating their participation in group

discussion (see Appendix C). Students answered comprehension questions about the chapters as

an assessment to determine if they comprehend what they read and if they observed deeper

meanings. After eight weeks, students took a reading comprehension post-assessment consisting

of five questions to determine whether talking about text in group discussion improves reading

comprehension. The post-assessment included six multiple-choice questions that students

answered (Appendix B).

Data Sources and Data Collection Procedures

Three sources of data were utilized in the research study: a pretest and posttest

comprehension assessment, a researcher log, and MCLASS reading assessments. These three

sources of data were used to determine student growth when talking about text in group

discussion.

Pre/posttests were administered to students. A pretest that includes comprehension

questions from the North Carolina Common Core Standards was used during the first week of

intervention instruction (see Appendix A). The pretest includes six multiple-choice questions and

the posttest consists of five multiple-choice questions. The passages may take from thirty

minutes to one hour to complete. The same pretest and posttest was given to the comparison

group. Comprehension questions from MCLASS reading assessment were used to compare the

results from the beginning of the year to the end of the year.


The researcher log was used to record observations and reflections during the survey (see

Appendix C). Things included in the research log include reflections, student reactions to

intervention, insights, possible changes that should be made, and researcher observations. After

students met in discussion groups, they answered a self-reflection sheet on how they feel they

participated in the group discussion. Located in the appendix at the end of this proposal is the

self-reflection sheet that students completed describing their participation in group discussions

about text.

Data Analysis

Since the research is a quasi-experimental pre-posttest study, an independent samples t-

test will be used to determine the difference in the mean gain scores of both groups of students

on the reading comprehension pre and posttest scores. A quantitative analysis was completed

with the pre and posttest results. The mean gain scores were recorded onto a Del Siegel

spreadsheet, which calculated the mean and standard deviation for each group using an

independent samples t test. The intervention class was given a code of one, whereas the control

group was labeled with a two in order to show the difference between the group’s scores in the

spreadsheet. The change score, which is the difference between the first assessment and the

second, was entered on the spreadsheet for both groups. Another component of the quantitative

analysis is the MCLASS reading assessment scores, which will be compared for both groups pre

and post intervention. A qualitative analysis will be completed as well in order to compare the

mean change scores for both groups, pre and post intervention.

Validity and Reliability or Trustworthiness

Location is one threat to validity because the participants will be in two different

classrooms. The particular locations in which data is collected and the intervention is carried out


may create alternative explanations for results. Testing is a threat to validity because the data is

collected over a period of time and if the subjects have substantial improvement in the posttest

compared to the pretest scores, it may be concluded that the improvement is due to the

intervention. Another threat is the mortality threat to internal validity. Students may be

transferred to other schools and new students may arrive during the study. Data collector bias is a

threat because when collecting and analyzing data, the researcher may view and record data in

ways that favor the hypothesis without meaning to do so.

Findings/Results

Quantitative Data Analysis

For the quantitative analysis, the growth data was entered into an equal variance

independent samples t-test. One spreadsheet was completed for the pre and posttest data (See

Appendix E) and another for the MCLASS Reading Assessment (See Appendix F). The mean

gain scores were recorded onto the Del Siegel spreadsheet. After the change scores were

documented, the spreadsheet calculated the mean and standard deviation for each group using an

independent samples t test.

At the conclusion of the study, the results of the comprehension pre/post tests were

analyzed. The analysis was used to determine if discussion of text improves reading

comprehension. The study was calculated using the mean gain scores of both quantitative data

tests. The intervention group consisted of 24 students and the comparison group of 20 students.

For the intervention group, n=24. For the comparison group, n=20. The intervention group had a

higher mean growth of 19.54 with a standard deviation of 28.41. The comparison group had a

mean growth of 17.2 with a standard deviation of 26.22. Although the intervention group had a

higher mean gain score, the difference was not significant to justify the intervention.


Intervention Group – Group 1

Comparison Group – Group 2

Mean Gain Standard Deviation (SD)


Pre/Post Comprehension Test

19.54 28.41 17.2 26.22

Mean Gain16

16.517

17.518

18.519

19.520

Intervention GroupComparison Group

Pre/Post Test Comprehension Test

Figure 3: Table and Bar graph with analysis of quantitative data for intervention and comparison groups. Mean Gain scores for Pre/Post comprehension test.

The equal variance, two-tailed p-value for the pre/post comprehension test was 0.78. For

a p-value to determine significance due to intervention the value must be less than 0.05. The

value is greater than 0.05 and therefore the higher growth scores from the intervention group

cannot be attributed to the intervention. The effect size for the comparison group on the pre/post

comprehension test was 0.16. According to Cohen, this is considered to be a small effect. A

small effect size does not change the results of the intervention.

At the conclusion of the study, the results of the MCLASS Reading Assessment were

analyzed. The analysis was used to determine if discussion of text improves reading

comprehension. The growth of this study was calculated using the mean gain scores to determine

growth of reading level. For the intervention group, n=24. For the comparison group, n=20. The

intervention group had a higher mean growth of 0.41 with a standard deviation of 1.25. The

comparison group had a mean growth of 0.2 with a standard deviation of 1.4. Although the


intervention group had a higher mean gain score, the difference was not significant to justify the

intervention.

Mean Gain0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Intervention GroupComparison Group

MCLASS Reading Assessment

Figure 4: Table and Bar graph with analysis of quantitative data for intervention and comparison groups. Mean Gain scores for MCLASS Reading Assessment.Qualitative Data Analysis

The teacher as researcher for the intervention class kept a researcher log during the

intervention process. The researcher log included observations, wonderings, and reflections. The

notes from the researcher log were then used to analyze for common topics throughout the study

when relating discussing text to improving reading comprehension. One common topic

throughout the study was how students continued to go back to the text to validate their

discussion points. They used sticky notes in their groups to cite evidence from the text.

The researcher observed the groups discussing the text and described these observations

in her researcher log. When observing group 3 while reading the book Holes, the researcher

noticed how they were all curious about why Stanley was arrested. The students wrote down

their predictions on what they think he did to get arrested. Lauren predicted that he took

Intervention Group – Group 1

Comparison Group – Group 2

Pre/Post Comprehension Test



0.41 1.25 0.2 1.4


something that didn’t belong to him. The researcher noticed while meeting in groups that

students were using reading strategies and predicting what their books were about. In group 4

with the book Ralph S. Mouse, Crystal asked her group why they think the book is called Ralph

S. Mouse. The students said that they think that’s the character’s name and he’s a mouse. The

students predicted from the cover that he would get trapped in places such as the basket on the

book cover.

When observing the four literature groups, the researcher was impressed with how well

they did in their first discussion groups. The students stayed on task and were discussing the text.

The researcher had students reflect on what went well during group discussion today and what

they need to improve on for next time. The consensus of the class was that talking about the

book helped them understand the book. When the researcher asked them why, David said,

“When I had a question about something in the book, my group was able to help me understand

the book!” Students mentioned that there were words they didn’t know and they were able to

figure out the meaning of these words with their groups. For example, the students in the group

“Stone Fox” had trouble with the word Wyoming and Jacob explained how it was a state. The

researcher decided then to focus on using context clues to determine the meaning of unknown

words.

The researcher had to speak to group 2 about voice level. She stated the importance of

being respectful when others are talking and to not talk when someone else is talking. The

researcher decided to incorporate a talking stick and would keep a chart of behavior guidelines

for groups on the wall. Students that have the talking stick will be able to discuss the text and ask

questions. When someone would like to answer the question and continue the discussions, the

student will be given the talking stick. This helped with students talking over each other. This


also reminded students the importance of listening when someone else is talking and to be

mindful of being respectful towards each other. David did a great job discussing the text and

answering the questions using the passage. For example, he said, “The answer to number 2 was

C because when someone struts, they think that they are important. In the story, Max moved

down the hallway in his new clothes and he thought that he was special.” The students were able

to use background knowledge when discussing the text.

The researcher spent time observing each group and noticed how students wanted to use

sticky notes when answering the questions and as a way to write down key discussion notes to

share with their group. The sticky notes really benefited all students and provided evidence for

the answers they had in the passage. On day three of interventions, the researcher noticed Cody

and Katie providing evidence to the text. For example, Cody said that the answer to number one

was D because “When you say something is a big deal, that means that it is very important. I

found this answer in paragraph 2.”The teacher as researcher noted how he went to the passage to

answer the question and provided textual evidence. After reviewing the answers to the

comprehension passages that the students in the class answered as a group, the researcher

realized that all of the students made a 5/5 besides one student that got three questions correct.

Students such as Catherine and Jessica, who normally struggled when answering comprehension

questions, were able to get the correct answers when discussing the questions in groups. The

researcher also noticed how students verified their answers when reading the passages. For

example, Lauren stated that the answer for question A was the ship moved slowly back and forth

because she found the answer in paragraph 1. She was able to share the paragraph with her group

members. She stated, “The ship moved like her grandma’s rocking chair,” means that the ship

was moving. She then said that rocking chairs move back and forth like a ship.


At the conclusion of interventions, students shared why they think talking about the text

improves comprehension. When discussing what has helped them in groups, Catherine said, “I

was able to answer questions by talking out the answers with my group.” She explained how it

helped her having to explain the answers. She realized that she would have answered the

question wrong but after discussing the answer with her group, she was able to make sure the

answer was correct. Many students continued using this strategy when taking the post-

assessment because they wrote an explanation of why they chose the answer.

Discussion/Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to determine whether talking about text in group discussion

improves reading comprehension. Implementing discussion groups in a classroom can have a

positive effect on comprehension. Students are able to make deeper connections to the text and

listen to each other. Students can develop on each other’s responses in a literature discussion.

The instruction moves from teacher-led to student-led. The researcher anticipated that the data

would confirm that the intervention group would have a greater mean gain in scores on the pre

and posttest, as well as on the beginning and end MCLASS Reading Assessment. This greater

mean gain would be due to the use of talking about text in group discussions. The researcher

began the intervention by training students on how to implement a discussion group. Then, the

researcher gradually released and gave students the opportunity to take control over the learning

process and collaborate in group discussions. According to the data analyzed, the results of the

study do not support the researcher’s belief that talking about text improves reading

comprehension. The intervention group had a higher mean gain score on the posttest but not of

significant value to attribute the gains to the intervention used.


Prior to implementing the intervention, the researcher investigated the effects of group

discussion on improving reading comprehension. According to King (2001), the role of talk is a

way of developing children’s meaningful interactions with literary texts. Research indicates that

when children are engaged in small group unstructured talk, they are able to articulate affective

responses to their reading that contribute to an understanding of the text. Berne and Clark (2008)

state that there is power in talk to help students construct meaning about text. Positive results

have occurred when teachers implement literature discussion groups in their classrooms. Peer

discussion groups are intentionally arranged to be practice sites for comprehension strategy use.

As students engage authentically and meaningfully in peer discussions about books, they also

practice comprehension strategy use.

The outcome for the researcher involved a positive research experience that will enable

the researcher with strategies for improving reading comprehension by students talking about

text in group discussion. The researcher became more aware of various research describing how

group discussion improves reading comprehension and apply the learning to future teaching and

instruction. Although the intervention wasn’t deemed significant, the researcher will continue

small group discussions to talk about text because there was evidence of a greater mean gain

score with the intervention class. Additionally, the method and results from the research will be

shared with other teachers in order to facilitate effective reading comprehension strategies.

Limitations

There were a variety of limitations that could have obstructed the effectiveness of the

intervention. These limitations include study length and sample size.

The first limitation of this study was the study length. There were eight days of

instruction missed in February, which contributed to the intervention not occurring for two


weeks. The results from the study may have varied if the valuable instruction time wasn’t lost.

Further research would need to be done to determine if a longer length study would change the

results.

The second limitation was the sample size. The sample size for this study was 44

students. Since the sample size was small, there may not have been enough data to demonstrate

enough mean growth. There were two groups of third grade classes used for this study. The

intervention group of 24 students was used for data collection and the group of 20 students in the

control group was used for the comparison class. Both groups of students were in the third grade.

However, the two teachers had different levels of experience with different teaching styles. The

growth could be attributed to the teaching styles and classroom environment.

Implications for Educators

Although the results for this study did not show a significant gain with the intervention

used, research has shown that discussion of text has improved comprehension. Educators can

benefit from having students discuss text in groups. According to Berne and Clark (2008), there

is power in talk to help students construct meaning about text. Positive results have occurred

when teachers implement literature discussion groups in their classrooms. As students engage

authentically and meaningfully in peer discussions about books, they also practice

comprehension strategy use. Positive observations were observed on the researcher log about

how students improved in reading comprehension when discussing the text with their groups.

The intervention can be changed to show a gain with the intervention. For one thing, the

study could be implemented over a longer period of time. If the study began in September, more

time would be given to show significant gain. Also, the time length could be longer to allow

students more time to practice using the strategy. Through use of this intervention model,


educators will be able to provide students with support on using group discussions to improve

reading comprehension.

Future Directions for Research

Since the results from this study did not show a positive significant difference between

talking about text in group discussions and traditional methods, there are opportunities for more

research in this area. Studies need to be done including a much larger sample size and more

diverse populations. Additional studies will need to be done to determine if different results

would occur. Further studies will need to be done to see if the intervention group will

significantly outscore the control group.

Reflection

As I reflect on my journey throughout my action research study, I am amazed at how

much I have grown as a researcher and a teacher. As a researcher, I learned about IRB and

proper procedures needed to gain permission to begin my research. This included a parent

consent letter and IRB documents (Appendix G-I). As a teacher, I have grown by using

researched based strategies to increase comprehension in my classroom. I also grew as a leader

in my school because I was able to share the results from my action research study with my

colleagues.

I began this research study with hopes that the information I found will benefit other

educators with knowledge on how to improve reading comprehension. I am a third grade teacher


and the students in my classroom take a Read to Achieve test weekly. I researched ways to

improve comprehension and discovered that when students discuss text, they are able to

understand what they have read. I wanted to discover strategies that I can use in my classroom

and share with other educators to improve reading comprehension.

My focus for this research paper was to determine whether talking about text improves

reading comprehension. The reason I chose this focus was because I noticed in Guided Reading

groups how discussing the books allowed students to understand what they read and they were

able to comprehend the text. After reflecting on their improvements in comprehension, I

wondered if the reason they improved in comprehension was because they were able to discuss

the books with others.

When beginning my research paper, I reviewed literature and became acquainted with

what research says on discussion of text to improve reading comprehension. I then decided on

the intervention process to use. When observing the students in groups discussing text, I noticed

immediately how they referred back to the text when explaining their answers. They interpreted

the text and comprehended what they have read. I have observed after the intervention that many

students show evidence and write their wonderings when answering comprehension questions.

They reflect on similar questions that they asked in their discussion groups.

Overall, it was evident how students used the strategy and improved as readers. I am

excited as an educator to view the growth students have made and will continue having students

talk about the text in group discussions.


References

Berne, J., & Clark, K. (2008). Focusing literature discussion groups on comprehension

strategies. The Reading Teacher, 62(1) , 74-79. doi:10.1598/RT.62.1.9

Casey, H.K. (2008) Engaging the disengaged using learning clubs to motivate struggling

adolescent readers and writers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(4), 284-294.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40058130

Clark, K. F., & Graves, M. F. (2005). Scaffolding students' comprehension of text. The Reading

Teacher, 58(6), 570-580. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/docview/203280856?accountid=10639

Griffin, E. (2010). Talking about books to improve comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 64(1),


http://www.jstor.org/stable/27867529

Goldenberg, C. (1992). Instructional conversations: Promoting comprehension through

discussion. The Reading Teacher, 46(4), 316-326. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20201075

Hall, L. (2012). The role of reading identities and reading abilities in students’ discussions about

texts and comprehension strategies. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(3), 239-272. doi:

10.1177/1086296X1244537

King, C. (2001). “I like group reading because we can share ideas”: The role of talk within the

literature circle. Literacy, 35(1), 32-36. doi: 10.1111/1467-9345.00157

Mckeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension.

Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218–253. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.3.1

McLaughlin, M. (2012). Reading comprehension: What every teacher needs to know. The

Reading Teacher, 65(7), 432–440. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01064

Wells, G. (1990). Talk about text: Where literacy is learned and taught. Classroom Inquiry,

20(4), 369-405. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1179876.

doi:10.2307/1179876


Appendix AReading Comprehension Pre-Test

“Hummingbird and Crane” retold by David Borgenicht

Hummingbird and Crane were always arguing. If it wasn’t one thing, it was another, but it usually came down to this: Crane thought that she owned the river, and Hummingbird thought that she did. They agreed to settle matters once and for all in a great race. “We will race for four days,” said Crane, sounding superior, “and on the fourth day, whoever reaches the dead tree at the bank of the river first will own all the water in the river.” Hummingbird buzzed in agreement. She knew that she was faster than Crane, even though she was smaller. But she didn’t realize that Crane had more energy, and could fly for days without resting. The time came for the race, and off they flew. Crane immediately took off into the air at full speed. Hummingbird took her time, flitting from flower to flower, tasting each blossom as she pleased. She knew that she could overtake Crane at any time. When Crane was way ahead, Hummingbird decided to pass her. She buzzed by, almost clipping Crane in the head. Hummingbird flew out of sight. I will never win this way, thought Crane. But Crane didn’t have to worry for long. Hummingbird had found a colorful field of wildflowers, and was tasting every one. Crane flew past again. Not long after, however, Hummingbird overtook Crane once more. Night was coming, so Hummingbird rested and slept in a patch of bluebells. But Crane travelled all night. She was long past Hummingbird’s


resting spot when Hummingbird woke the next day. Hummingbird was so swift that she caught up with Crane by the time the sun had reached the sky’s midpoint. She kept her lead–until she found more flowers. Then Crane passed her. After a time, Hummingbird passed Crane again. The race went on like this until the eve of the fourth day, when Hummingbird rested again. I have no need to worry, she thought to herself. Even though it is almost the fourth day, I will beat Crane in the morning. So she slept soundly. The next morning, when Hummingbird woke, she fluttered casually toward the dead tree across the river. After stopping once more, Hummingbird reached the tree–and found Crane sitting below it. “All of the water is now mine,” said Crane. And she went to drink in her river. From then on, Hummingbird drank only from the flowers she passed. And it is still that way today.

Reading Comprehension Pre-Test

“Hummingbird and Crane” Questions

1. At the beginning of the selection, what did Crane and Hummingbird spend most of their time doing? A. Disagreeing with each otherB. Traveling from place to placeC. Drinking from the riverD. Planning races

2. Why did Hummingbird accept Crane’s invitation to race? A. Hummingbird knew Crane would stop.B. Hummingbird knew Crane would eat flowers.C. Hummingbird knew she could fly faster. D. Hummingbird knew she had more energy.

3. Based on the selection, Crane sounded superior when she announced the race. Why did she feel superior? A. Crane thought she was smarter than Hummingbird.


B. Crane thought she was larger than Hummingbird. C. Crane thought that Hummingbird would not want to race. D. Crane thought she was certain to beat Hummingbird.

4. What is similar about Crane and Hummingbird? A. They both want to own the river.B. They are both worried. C. They are both fast. D. They both want to rest.

5. How did Crane feel when Hummingbird passed her the first time? A. determinedB. excitedC. hopelessD. startled

6. What was the author most likely trying to show in this selection?A. Why Hummingbird and Crane became enemiesB. Why hummingbirds and cranes live where they do.C. Why hummingbirds and cranes fly quickly.D. Why Hummingbird and Crane had an exciting race.

Appendix B

Reading Comprehension Posttest

“Peter Possum’s Playful Trick” by Margaret Chaplin Campbell

Peter Possum* opened one eye. The sun was setting. “Time to get up,” said Peter Possum. He opened both eyes and gazed about. Everything looked upside down. That was because Peter Possum sometimes hung upside down. He would wrap his long tail around a tree branch and let his head hang down. Peter Possum pulled himself up to the branch and unwrapped his tail. He was right side up again. Now everything looked just right. He climbed down the tree trunk. “I’m hungry,” he said. “What do I want today? Not eggs. Not insects. I feel in the mood for some garbage.” Off he started toward the Laceys’ garbage can. Mrs. Lacey was a good cook. Her table scraps were delicious. “Watch out for Old Dog Tiger,” Peter told himself. “Watch out for Peter Possum,” Old Dog Tiger was saying to himself. “Protect the garbage can from Peter Possum.” Old Dog Tiger hid behind the garbage can and waited as Peter Possum came hurrying along as fast as he could. “I’m in the mood for a ham sandwich,” said Peter Possum. Old Dog Tiger watched and waited. “I’m in the mood for a possum sandwich,” thought Old Dog Tiger. Rattle, rattle. Peter Possum started pushing the lid from the can. Old Dog Tiger leaped out. “Snarl! Ruff!


Growl!” “Oh! Oh!” yelled Peter Possum. “What can I do? Old Dog Tiger is too close. I cannot run. I cannot hide. I cannot even climb.” PLOP! Peter Possum flopped over on the ground. He lay very still. He did not move when Old Dog Tiger sniffed him. He did not open his eyes. He did not make a single sound. “Look what I’ve done,” said Old Dog Tiger. “I scared that possum to death. I’ll get my master. He will be proud of me.” Off he ran. Peter Possum opened his eyes. Old Dog Tiger was gone. Peter Possum laughed. “I fooled him with my playful trick,” he said. “I pretended to be dead. That’s called ‘playing possum.’ I am very good at it.” Away he trotted, safe and sound and very much alive.

Reading Comprehension Posttest

“Peter Possum’s Playful Trick” Questions

1. What is the main purpose of this selection? A. To give the reader scientific information B. To persuade the reader to give food to possumsC. To teach the reader how to protect garbage cans from possums D. To entertain the reader with an enjoyable story about a possum

2. What is this selection mostly about? A. Peter Possum going to the garbage can looking for food B. Peter Possum saving himself from Old Dog Tiger by tricking him C. Old Dog Tiger hiding behind the garbage can waiting for Peter Possum D. Old Dog Tiger running home to tell his master that he scared Peter Possum to death

3. Which statement lets the reader know that this is a make-believe story? A. Peter Possum climbed down the tree trunk.


B. Peter Possum said, “I’m hungry. What do I want today?” C. Peter Possum started pushing the lid from the can. D. Peter Possum lay very still on the ground.

4. How would Peter Possum most likely describe himself when he pretends to be dead? A. Angry B. Careless C. Clever D. Sad

5. Which word best describes Old Dog Tiger as he runs to tell his master that he scared the possum to death?A. Angry B. Curious C. Happy D. Lonely

Appendix C

Self-reflection on Participation in Discussion Groups

Name _____________________________

Date _____________________________

1. Was I prepared for the group discussion? In what ways was I prepared?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________


2. How did I contribute in group discussion?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

3. How did I use the text to support my ideas? Give examples.

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

4. How did I listen to and value the ideas of other students? Give examples.

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

5. What went well in the group discussion today?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

6. What are some things that I can work on for the next group discussion?

________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Appendix D

Appendix D: Researcher’s Observation Log

Date Lesson Content

Observations(Objective)

Reflections(Subjective)

Next Steps


Appendix E

Pre/Post Test Spreadsheet by Del Siegle


Appendix F

MCLASS Data Spreadsheet by Del Siegle


Appendix GConsent Form-InterventionDear Parent/Guardian,


As part of my Master’s of Reading Education degree requirements at East Carolina University, I am planning an educational research project that will help me learn more about the impact talking about text in group discussions have on third grade students’ reading comprehension.

The fundamental goal of this project is to improve reading comprehension. I have investigated an effective instructional practice, group discussions, that I will be implementing during reading instruction in January 2015. I am going to track student improvement during reading instruction for 6 weeks. Reading assessments, Researcher Log, and MCLASS reading data will allow me to track student progress. I will be comparing the scores of the students in this class who receive this intervention to the scores of the students in another class who receive the lessons using a differing instructional technique. This project has been approved by my instructor at ECU, Dr. Elizabeth Swaggerty, and the ECU Institutional Review Board.

I am asking permission to include your child’s progress in my project report. Your child will not be responsible for “extra” work as a result of this project. The decision to participate or not will not affect your child’s grade. I plan to share the results of this project with other educators through presentations and publications to help educators think about how they can improve reading instruction in their own classrooms. I will use pseudonyms to protect your child’s identity. The name of our school, your child, or any other identifying information will not be used in my final report. Please know that participation (agreeing to allow me to include your child’s data) is entirely voluntary and your child may withdraw from the study at any point without penalty.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at school at 919-528-0033 or email me at [email protected]. You may also contact my supervising professor at ECU, Dr. Elizabeth Swaggerty, at [email protected], 252.328.4970. If you have questions about your child’s rights as someone taking part in research, you may call the Office of Research Integrity & Compliance (ORIC) at 252-744-2914 (days, 8:00 am-5:00 pm). If you would like to report a complaint or concern about this research study, you may call the Director of the OHRI, at 252-744-1971. Please indicate your preference below and return the form by December 19,2014. Your Partner in Education,

Tasha Blalock

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As the parent or guardian of ______________________________________, (write your student’s name)

I grant my permission for Ms. Blalock to use my child’s data in her educational research project regarding reading comprehension and group discussion. I fully understand that my child’s data will be kept completely confidential and will be used only for the purposes of Ms. Blalock’s research study. I also understand that I or my child may at anytime decide to withdraw my/our permission and that my child’s grade will not be affected by withdrawing from the study.

I do NOT grant my permission for Ms. Blalock to use my child’s data in her educational research project regarding reading comprehension and group discussion.

Signature of Parent/Guardian:____________________________ Date___________

Appendix H

Consent Form- Comparison Class


Dear Parent/Guardian, As part of my Master’s of Reading Education degree requirements at East Carolina University, I am planning an educational research project that will help me learn more about the impact talking about text in group discussions have on third grade students’ reading comprehension.

The fundamental goal of this project is to improve reading comprehension. I am going to track student improvement during reading instruction for 6 weeks. Reading assessments and MCLASS reading data will allow me to track student progress.

This project has been approved by my instructor at ECU, Dr. Elizabeth Swaggerty, and the ECU Institutional Review Board.

Your child will serve as the comparison group. Your child will receive instruction as usual and he or she will not be the subject of an intervention. I will compare their scores/assessments with those of the students in the class that will receive an intervention. I am asking permission to include your child’s progress in my project report. The decision to participate or not will not affect your child’s grade. I plan to share the results of this project with other educators through presentations and publications to help educators think about how they can improve reading instruction in their own classrooms. I will use pseudonyms to protect your child’s identity. The name of our school, your child, or any other identifying information will not be used in my final report. Please know that participation (agreeing to allow me to include your child’s data) is entirely voluntary and your child may withdraw from the study at any point without penalty.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at school at 919-528-0033 or email me at [email protected]. You may also contact my supervising professor at ECU, Dr. Elizabeth Swaggerty, at [email protected], 252.328.4970. If you have questions about your child’s rights as someone taking part in research, you may call the Office of Research Integrity & Compliance (ORIC) at 252-744-2914 (days, 8:00 am-5:00 pm). If you would like to report a complaint or concern about this research study, you may call the Director of the OHRI, at 252-744-1971. Please indicate your preference below and return the form by January 8, 2015.

Your Partner in Education,

Tasha Blalock

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the parent or guardian of ______________________________________, (write your student’s name)


I grant my permission for Ms. Blalock to use my child’s data in her educational research project regarding reading comprehension and group discussion. I fully understand that my child’s data will be kept completely confidential and will be used only for the purposes of Ms. Blalock’s research study. I also understand that I or my child may at anytime decide to withdraw my/our permission and that my child’s grade will not be affected by withdrawing from the study.

I do NOT grant my permission for Ms.Blalock to use my child’s data in her educational research project regarding reading comprehension and group discussion.

Signature of Parent/Guardian:____________________________ Date___________

APPENDIX I

IRB Approval Letter


EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITYUniversity & Medical Center Institutional Review Board Office 4N-70 Brody Medical Sciences Building· Mail Stop 682600 Moye Boulevard · Greenville, NC 27834Office 252-744-2914 · Fax 252-744-2284 · www.ecu.edu/irb

Notification of Exempt CertificationFrom: Social/Behavioral IRBTo: Tasha BlalockCC: Elizabeth SwaggertyDate: 1/9/2015

Re:UMCIRB 14-002241 Blalock: Literature Discussion Groups Improve Reading Comprehension

I am pleased to inform you that your research submission has been certified as exempt on 1/9/2015 . This study is eligible for Exempt Certification under category #1 .It is your responsibility to ensure that this research is conducted in the manner reported in your application and/or protocol, as well as being consistent with the ethical principles of the Belmont Report and your profession.

This research study does not require any additional interaction with the UMCIRB unless there are proposed changes to this study. Any change, prior to implementing that change, must be submitted to the UMCIRB for review and approval. The UMCIRB will determine if the change impacts the eligibility of the research for exempt status. If more substantive review is required, you will be notified within five business days.

The UMCIRB office will hold your exemption application for a period of five years from the date of this letter. If you wish to continue this protocol beyond this period, you will need to submit an Exemption Certification request at least 30 days before the end of the five year period.

The Chairperson (or designee) does not have a potential for conflict of interest on this study.

IRB00000705 East Carolina U IRB #1 (Biomedical) IORG0000418IRB00003781 East Carolina U IRB #2 (Behavioral/SS) IORG0000418

http://www.ecu.edu/irb

http://epirate.ecu.edu/app/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity%5BOID%5BCCD99BB33575A2489F8DB8736B0BC56F%5D%5D

http://epirate.ecu.edu/app/Personalization/MyProfile?Person=com.webridge.account.Person%5BOID%5B36DE9F386862D94A845DF8924999C82E%5D%5D

http://epirate.ecu.edu/app/Personalization/MyProfile?Person=com.webridge.account.Person%5BOID%5B58846197468FAB4DB0D81D2142DF8E3F%5D%5D

blalock_ action research proposal...

Documents