The Use of Computerized Leveled Readers on Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary and Fluency
Jessie Fishel
Research Paper 2
Wichita State University
Spring, 2011
CI 804
Abstract
This paper is a review of the use of leveled reading using a computer program within a multi-grade classroom setting. This research used fluency, reading level accuracy, comprehension, and number of sight words acquired to measure reading growth. The participants of this research included eight special education fourth graders. Four students were a controlled group their lessons were set up: 10 minutes phonic work, 10 minutes writing, 10 minutes group leveled read aloud, and 10 minutes independent reading. Four students were an uncontrolled group their lessons were set up: 10 minutes phonic work, 10 minutes writing, 10 minutes computer lead leveled read aloud, and 10 minutes independent computerized recorded/reading. The students that participated in Raz-kids gained an average of 1 ½ reading levels more in 4 months and doubled their reading retention of sight words. There were also slight gains to reading fluency and no discernable effects to comprehension. The best part of this program was that the results were measurable and the students enjoyed reading with the program. Many students requested the website address and passwords so they could read the books at home or in their grade level teacher’s classroom. Three other teachers have since adopted the program for their own classroom’s use. This program also allowed each student to be read to independently and through the recording feature allowed myself, the classroom teacher, and the parents to review stories read out loud.
The Use of Computerized Leveled Readers on Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary and Fluency
Special education teachers have the challenge of finding reading programs that can meet the needs of their unique and diverse classroom. A curriculum for an adaptive elementary classroom must meet the needs of students K-5th grade on various grade levels. The curriculum should meet the teacher’s need for phonic, comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and phoneme awareness. The curriculum must be easy to manage. It’s effectiveness must be measurable for the purposes of collecting data for Individual Educational Plans (IEP’s). Lastly, the program should encourage student participation. The reason for searching out a more effective reading method is to meet the high demands of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. The act had four core principles: stronger accountability for results from teachers and schools, More freedom for states and communities on how they use federal education funds, a more pronounced emphasis and importance for teachers using proven education methods to make greater gains in their classroom, and giving parents choices such as moving their children to other local schools if the school the students attend doesn’t meet these high standards or the school provides supplemental educational services such as tutoring to help students achieve (http://www2.ed.gov/nclb). What are some effective ways to incorporate effective strategies into the classroom?
Review of the Literature[CE1]
This literature review is a study of research relating to the use of leveled reading groups in elementary schools. The primary objective of this review was to study the effects of leveled reading on students’ fluency, comprehension, and reading motivation. This research was conducted to review trends on which methodology was successful verses which ones were unsuccessful when using leveled reading in the classroom. Is leveled reading more successful when students participate on a group level or an individual level?
Small Group Leveled Reading
When teachers introduce leveled reading to their students, there are typically two different ways they set up the instruction. A popular method is to split the class into small groups of four-five students. Usually the group the teacher reads with is homogeneous group based off the students reading fluency levels[CE2] [J3] . The teacher divides the class into three different reading levels (students reading below grade level, students reading on grade level, and students reading above grade level. Often the small group is assigned identical books and the teacher will have the students in the group read round-robin-style or in pairs[J4] [CE5] . An advantage to using small groups is that the teacher has a chance to hear every student read in class and the students are not pressured to read to the entire class as a whole. The small group atmosphere allows for more teacher student discussions, and fewer distractions. Many teachers find that by dividing the students among reading levels, their lowest group often has most of their special education and ELL learners (Galloway-Bell, S 2003). When teachers use leveled reading groups, they often use whole group time to teach reading comprehension and phonics, and create centers to reinforce word sorts, word families, and sight word games (Black, Bogusz, & Porter, 1999). Many students enjoy participating in the reading groups and gain confidence in their reading abilities (Amstrong, Campos, & Johnson, 2001; Galloway-Bell, 2003). Many teachers voice concerns about how they feel that sometimes this grouping holds kids back from their full potential as students naturally learn to read at their own pace.
Individual Leveled Reading
Since the 1950’s many schools began to incorporate time in the day for students to read books silently on their own also known as self-selected reading (SSR). By the 1980’s, many programs had been designed to help teachers teach students to read books that are not above or below their current reading level. Such programs as Accelerated Reader, Lexile, Reading A-Z, Four-Blocks literacy model, and Raz-kids are a product of teachers expressing a need to help match students with books they can easily read without frustration[CE6] [J7] . Teachers find in their research that children view reading more positively when they are able to choose their own books to read instead of being assigned a book as a part of a group (Institute of Education Sciences, 2010). All of the cases reviewed as a part of this study showed that students made reading fluency gains (Holmes, & Brown, 2003; Armstrong, Campos, & Johnson, 2003), but standardized test results did not show a greater impact on comprehension (Holmes, & Brown, 2003). Most teachers who practice individualized reading in their classrooms designed their flex groups to cover reading, phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension strategies (Ecklund, & Lamon, 2008). Many of the cases reviewed during this literature review used the program Accelerated Reading to track the students fluency and comprehension growth[CE8] (Holmes, & Brown, 2003; Armstrong, Campos, & Johnson, 2003, Ecklund, & Lamon, 2008)..
Literature Review Conclusion
Leveled reading is an important part of a balanced differentiated literacy program. Leveled reading has been used for both independent reading time and guided reading. Leveled reading can be done with groups or with individual students. Fluency and reading enjoyment are the two biggest gains with leveled reading, but teachers need to supplement their reading program with other strategies to reinforce comprehension growth in their students.
Research
The school where the program is being evaluated is Wiley Post Elementary in Oklahoma City. More than 90% of the student body is considered At-risk. Fewer than 40% of students are considered proficient in reading and/or math. The students evaluated are part of the schools special education pullout program. 8 fourth graders were evaluated during this study. All 8 students are labeled Learning Disabled by the school district. These students are considered the teacher’s lowest readers. Most of their non-identified peers are at the early fourth grade reading level. Many of the students lacked knowledge of basic sight words and reading is not considered a priority in the home environment. Teachers often look to special education teachers for help in finding effective teaching techniques or programs, when a program helps the lowest students in the school it is often found to be effective in promoting classmates in the non-identified programs as well. For this study four students were used as a control group and another four students were in the uncontrolled group that used a computerized leveled book program called “Raz-kids”.
The areas to examined and measured with this program will include comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency. Comprehension will be evaluated using the comprehension quizzes that are built into the Raz-kids program over the various books that the students have read. Once a month the students vocabulary will be measured using the 220 word Dolch list comprised of common words that are most often found in children’s literature. Once a month fluency will be measured using fourth grade fluency passages from the AIMS website used widely in our school system. Student perceptions of the reading will be evaluated using a quiz at the beginning of the program and at the end of the program.
The Findings
Control group
Control group was comprised of four fourth grade male students. Instruction was 40 minutes and 5 days a week. Students were assigned to silently read books from the classroom library 10 minutes, participate in a shared book for comprehension lessons 10 minutes, phonics and sight word practice for 10 minutes, and writing for 10 minutes.
Student A
In November 2010 Student A began reading on level E (1.2), had already mastered all 220 sight words, read 84 word correct per minute (wcpm), and he earned an average of 97% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student A had gained 8 reading levels and was reading on a level M (2.6), he had retained his knowledge of all 220 sight words. Student A gained 21 words on the fluency scale reading 105 wcpm. Student A comprehension level dropped to 46%.
Student B
In November 2010 Student B began reading on level J (1.6), had mastered 92 sight words, read 84 words correct per minute (wcpm), and he earned an average of 85% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student B had gained 4 reading levels and was reading on a level N (2.8), he learned all of the 220 sight words. Student B gained 8 words on the fluency scale reading 92 wcpm. Student B comprehension level dropped to 80%.
Student C
In November 2010 Student C began reading on level C (late K), had mastered 35 sight words, read 20 words correct per minute (wcpm), and he earned an average of 87% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student c had gained 2 reading levels and was reading on a level E (1.2), he learned 43 sight words. Student c dropped 1 word on the fluency scale reading 19 wcpm. Student c comprehension level rose to 93%.
Student D
In November 2010 Student D began reading on level C (late K), had mastered 83 sight words, read 29 words correct per minute (wcpm), and he earned an average of 79% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student D had gained 3 reading levels and was reading on a level F (1.3), he learned 176 sight words. Student D gained 9 words on the fluency scale reading 38 wcpm. Student D comprehension level rose to 80%.
Uncontrolled group
The uncontrolled group was comprised of four 4th grade male students. Instruction was 40 minutes 5 days a week. Students spent 10 minutes listening to leveled books read to them through Raz-kids. Students then spent 10 minutes recording themselves reading the computerized leveled books, then 10 minutes working with words through phonics and sight words, and 10 minutes writing.
Student E
In November 2010 Student E began reading on level H (1.5), had mastered all 220 sight words, read 103 words correct per minute (wcpm), and she earned an average of 94% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student E had gained 8 reading levels and was reading on a level P (2.8), she learned all 220 sight words. Student E gained 8 words on the fluency scale reading 111 wcpm. Student E comprehension level dropped to 70%.
Student F
In November 2010 Student F began reading on level E (1.2), had mastered 40 sight words, read 34 words correct per minute (wcpm), and he earned an average of 43% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student F had gained 5 reading levels and was reading on a level J (1.8), he learned all 220 sight words. Student F gained 13 words on the fluency scale reading 47 wcpm. Student F comprehension level rose to 70%.
Student G
In November 2010 Student G began reading on level C (late K), had mastered 34 sight words, read 23 words correct per minute (wcpm), and he earned an average of 81% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student G had gained 4 reading levels and was reading on a level G (1.4), he learned 115 sight words. Student G gained 4 words on the fluency scale reading 27 wcpm. Student G comprehension level rose to 84%.
Student H
In November 2010 Student H began reading on level E (1.2), had mastered 40 sight words, read 66 words correct per minute (wcpm), and he earned an average of 67% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student H had gained 5 reading levels and was reading on a level J (2.8), he learned 220 sight words. Student H gained 14 words on the fluency scale reading 80 wcpm. Student H comprehension level dropped to 60%.
Comparing Results to Literature Reviewed
This research had very similar results to the information listed in the above mentioned literature reviews. The students that participated in the individual reading groups made greater gains than those that relied mostly on small group reading alone. Like the reviews, this study showed gains in reading levels, fluency, and sight word recognition. Like the other reviews the study showed that simply spending more time reading books, being a better word decoder, and being able to read the words easily did not have an impact on reading fluency. This research had a unique aspect to it that I was not able to compare with other case studies: the introduction to the use of technology to engage the students as well as record the students student’s progress with the program. It took many hours of searching, but the universities research article finders had no case studies relating to the use of computerized leveled book software, which I found in interesting as more and more textbook companies are beginning to offer online leveled reading programs and online textbooks as well (companies: Houghton Mufflin Harcourt and Scott Foresman Reading Street).
Limitations
This study was done with a small group of students of mixed abilities and mixed special needs. Not every teacher has access to this technology, or enough classroom computers to implement the technology easily in the classroom on a day-to-day basis. No Child Left Behind tests place a greater emphasis on student’s comprehension level than their reading level and reading fluency. To see statistical gains on the standardized testing the program will need to have a large impact on comprehension. It would also be helpful to measure the other online reader programs to evaluate differences between the different companies and the supporting material in their curriculum that may address best practices to use when implementing their program within the classroom setting.
Future research questions to study further
The most frustrating part of the results was the lack of progress made in the area of reading comprehension. The two students with the best reading fluency did the worst in terms of reading comprehension, likewise the students with the worst fluency scored the highest in comprehension. Further questions to be studied better in the future: What would be better methods to improve reading comprehension? Should reading fluency speed trump word accuracy in measuring reading ability? What results would this program have on non-learning disabled students? Would the results be similar when used with different grade levels?
References:
Armstrong, N., Campos, J., & Johnson, B. (2001, May). Increasing student reading fluency through the use of leveled books [Thesis research]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED452520.pdf
Black, T. C., Bogusz, G. T., & Porter, A. M. (1999). Improving reading fluency through the use of multiple reading strategies [action research]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED438516.pdf
Ecklund, B., & Lamon, K. M. (2008, December). Improving reading achievement through increased motivation, specific skill enhancement, and practice time elementary students [Action research]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503058.pdf
Evidence [Magazine article]. Retrieved from Council for exceptional children website: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.wichita.edu/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.44
Freidus, H. (2010, August). Finding passion in teaching and learning: Embedding literacy skills in content-rich curriculum [research article]. Retrieved from The New Educator website: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.wichita.edu/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.44
Galloway-Bell, S. (2003, May). A review of the literature: The effectiveness of leveled reading groups in improving oral proficiency and comprehension to first grade students [literature review]. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED479119.pdf
Holmes, T., & Brown, C. L. (2003). A controlled evaluation of a total school improvement process, School Renaissance [empirical research]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED474261.pdf
Institute of Education Sciences. (2010, August). Accelerated Reader [U.S. Department of Education]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED511267.pdf
Institute of Education Sciences. (2007, July 9). Class wide peer tutoring [US Department of Education]. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/WWC_CWPT_070907.pdf
Institute of Education Sciences. (2007, July 2). Wilson Reading System [U.S. Department of Education]. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/WWC_Wilson_Reading_070207.pdf
Jasmine, J., & Schiest, P. (2009, November/December). The effects of word walls and word wall activities on the reading fluency of first grade students [article]. Retrieved from Reading Horizons website: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.wichita.edu/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.35
Jitendra, A. K., Burgess, C., & Gajria, M. (2011, Winter). Cognitive strategy instruction for improving expository text comprehension of students with learning disabilities: the quality of
Ludlow, B. C., Reutzel, D. R., Sudweeks, R., Smith, J. A., & Fawson, P. C. (1982-2006). Examining the reliability of running records: attaining generalizable results [The journal of Educational research]. Retrieved from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.wichita.edu/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.44
Pavonetti, L. M., Brimmer, K. M., & Cipielewski, J. F. (2000, November). Accelerated Reader: what are the lasting effects on the reading habits of middle school students exposed to accelerated reader in Elementary grades? [Empirical research]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ PDFS/ED456423.pdf
Poplin, M., Rivera, J., Durish, D., Hoff, L., Kawell, S., Pawlak, P. Straus, L. (2011, Fall). Highly effective teachers in low-performing urban schools [Phi Delta Kappan magazine]. Retrieved from Phi Delta Kappan website: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.wichita.edu/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.44
Reichardt, R. (2001, April). Reducing class size: choices and consequences [research article]. Retrieved from Mid-Continent Research for Education and A learning website: http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/PolicyBriefs/ 5012PI_PBReducingClassSize.pdf
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2009, January). Effective beginning reading programs. In Effective beginning reading programs: a best evidence synthesis [Best Evidence Encyclopedia]. Retrieved from John Hopkins University, School of Education's Center for Data driven Reform in Education (CDDRE) website: http://www.bestevidence.org/word/
begin_read_Jan_26_2009.pdf
Toro, A. (2001, July). A comparison of reading achievement in second grade students using the accelerated reading program and independent reading [emperical research]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ ED455510.pdf
Appendix
Jessie Fishel
Research Paper 2
Wichita State University
Spring, 2011
CI 804
Abstract
This paper is a review of the use of leveled reading using a computer program within a multi-grade classroom setting. This research used fluency, reading level accuracy, comprehension, and number of sight words acquired to measure reading growth. The participants of this research included eight special education fourth graders. Four students were a controlled group their lessons were set up: 10 minutes phonic work, 10 minutes writing, 10 minutes group leveled read aloud, and 10 minutes independent reading. Four students were an uncontrolled group their lessons were set up: 10 minutes phonic work, 10 minutes writing, 10 minutes computer lead leveled read aloud, and 10 minutes independent computerized recorded/reading. The students that participated in Raz-kids gained an average of 1 ½ reading levels more in 4 months and doubled their reading retention of sight words. There were also slight gains to reading fluency and no discernable effects to comprehension. The best part of this program was that the results were measurable and the students enjoyed reading with the program. Many students requested the website address and passwords so they could read the books at home or in their grade level teacher’s classroom. Three other teachers have since adopted the program for their own classroom’s use. This program also allowed each student to be read to independently and through the recording feature allowed myself, the classroom teacher, and the parents to review stories read out loud.
The Use of Computerized Leveled Readers on Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary and Fluency
Special education teachers have the challenge of finding reading programs that can meet the needs of their unique and diverse classroom. A curriculum for an adaptive elementary classroom must meet the needs of students K-5th grade on various grade levels. The curriculum should meet the teacher’s need for phonic, comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and phoneme awareness. The curriculum must be easy to manage. It’s effectiveness must be measurable for the purposes of collecting data for Individual Educational Plans (IEP’s). Lastly, the program should encourage student participation. The reason for searching out a more effective reading method is to meet the high demands of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. The act had four core principles: stronger accountability for results from teachers and schools, More freedom for states and communities on how they use federal education funds, a more pronounced emphasis and importance for teachers using proven education methods to make greater gains in their classroom, and giving parents choices such as moving their children to other local schools if the school the students attend doesn’t meet these high standards or the school provides supplemental educational services such as tutoring to help students achieve (http://www2.ed.gov/nclb). What are some effective ways to incorporate effective strategies into the classroom?
Review of the Literature[CE1]
This literature review is a study of research relating to the use of leveled reading groups in elementary schools. The primary objective of this review was to study the effects of leveled reading on students’ fluency, comprehension, and reading motivation. This research was conducted to review trends on which methodology was successful verses which ones were unsuccessful when using leveled reading in the classroom. Is leveled reading more successful when students participate on a group level or an individual level?
Small Group Leveled Reading
When teachers introduce leveled reading to their students, there are typically two different ways they set up the instruction. A popular method is to split the class into small groups of four-five students. Usually the group the teacher reads with is homogeneous group based off the students reading fluency levels[CE2] [J3] . The teacher divides the class into three different reading levels (students reading below grade level, students reading on grade level, and students reading above grade level. Often the small group is assigned identical books and the teacher will have the students in the group read round-robin-style or in pairs[J4] [CE5] . An advantage to using small groups is that the teacher has a chance to hear every student read in class and the students are not pressured to read to the entire class as a whole. The small group atmosphere allows for more teacher student discussions, and fewer distractions. Many teachers find that by dividing the students among reading levels, their lowest group often has most of their special education and ELL learners (Galloway-Bell, S 2003). When teachers use leveled reading groups, they often use whole group time to teach reading comprehension and phonics, and create centers to reinforce word sorts, word families, and sight word games (Black, Bogusz, & Porter, 1999). Many students enjoy participating in the reading groups and gain confidence in their reading abilities (Amstrong, Campos, & Johnson, 2001; Galloway-Bell, 2003). Many teachers voice concerns about how they feel that sometimes this grouping holds kids back from their full potential as students naturally learn to read at their own pace.
Individual Leveled Reading
Since the 1950’s many schools began to incorporate time in the day for students to read books silently on their own also known as self-selected reading (SSR). By the 1980’s, many programs had been designed to help teachers teach students to read books that are not above or below their current reading level. Such programs as Accelerated Reader, Lexile, Reading A-Z, Four-Blocks literacy model, and Raz-kids are a product of teachers expressing a need to help match students with books they can easily read without frustration[CE6] [J7] . Teachers find in their research that children view reading more positively when they are able to choose their own books to read instead of being assigned a book as a part of a group (Institute of Education Sciences, 2010). All of the cases reviewed as a part of this study showed that students made reading fluency gains (Holmes, & Brown, 2003; Armstrong, Campos, & Johnson, 2003), but standardized test results did not show a greater impact on comprehension (Holmes, & Brown, 2003). Most teachers who practice individualized reading in their classrooms designed their flex groups to cover reading, phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension strategies (Ecklund, & Lamon, 2008). Many of the cases reviewed during this literature review used the program Accelerated Reading to track the students fluency and comprehension growth[CE8] (Holmes, & Brown, 2003; Armstrong, Campos, & Johnson, 2003, Ecklund, & Lamon, 2008)..
Literature Review Conclusion
Leveled reading is an important part of a balanced differentiated literacy program. Leveled reading has been used for both independent reading time and guided reading. Leveled reading can be done with groups or with individual students. Fluency and reading enjoyment are the two biggest gains with leveled reading, but teachers need to supplement their reading program with other strategies to reinforce comprehension growth in their students.
Research
The school where the program is being evaluated is Wiley Post Elementary in Oklahoma City. More than 90% of the student body is considered At-risk. Fewer than 40% of students are considered proficient in reading and/or math. The students evaluated are part of the schools special education pullout program. 8 fourth graders were evaluated during this study. All 8 students are labeled Learning Disabled by the school district. These students are considered the teacher’s lowest readers. Most of their non-identified peers are at the early fourth grade reading level. Many of the students lacked knowledge of basic sight words and reading is not considered a priority in the home environment. Teachers often look to special education teachers for help in finding effective teaching techniques or programs, when a program helps the lowest students in the school it is often found to be effective in promoting classmates in the non-identified programs as well. For this study four students were used as a control group and another four students were in the uncontrolled group that used a computerized leveled book program called “Raz-kids”.
The areas to examined and measured with this program will include comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency. Comprehension will be evaluated using the comprehension quizzes that are built into the Raz-kids program over the various books that the students have read. Once a month the students vocabulary will be measured using the 220 word Dolch list comprised of common words that are most often found in children’s literature. Once a month fluency will be measured using fourth grade fluency passages from the AIMS website used widely in our school system. Student perceptions of the reading will be evaluated using a quiz at the beginning of the program and at the end of the program.
The Findings
Control group
Control group was comprised of four fourth grade male students. Instruction was 40 minutes and 5 days a week. Students were assigned to silently read books from the classroom library 10 minutes, participate in a shared book for comprehension lessons 10 minutes, phonics and sight word practice for 10 minutes, and writing for 10 minutes.
Student A
In November 2010 Student A began reading on level E (1.2), had already mastered all 220 sight words, read 84 word correct per minute (wcpm), and he earned an average of 97% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student A had gained 8 reading levels and was reading on a level M (2.6), he had retained his knowledge of all 220 sight words. Student A gained 21 words on the fluency scale reading 105 wcpm. Student A comprehension level dropped to 46%.
Student B
In November 2010 Student B began reading on level J (1.6), had mastered 92 sight words, read 84 words correct per minute (wcpm), and he earned an average of 85% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student B had gained 4 reading levels and was reading on a level N (2.8), he learned all of the 220 sight words. Student B gained 8 words on the fluency scale reading 92 wcpm. Student B comprehension level dropped to 80%.
Student C
In November 2010 Student C began reading on level C (late K), had mastered 35 sight words, read 20 words correct per minute (wcpm), and he earned an average of 87% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student c had gained 2 reading levels and was reading on a level E (1.2), he learned 43 sight words. Student c dropped 1 word on the fluency scale reading 19 wcpm. Student c comprehension level rose to 93%.
Student D
In November 2010 Student D began reading on level C (late K), had mastered 83 sight words, read 29 words correct per minute (wcpm), and he earned an average of 79% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student D had gained 3 reading levels and was reading on a level F (1.3), he learned 176 sight words. Student D gained 9 words on the fluency scale reading 38 wcpm. Student D comprehension level rose to 80%.
Uncontrolled group
The uncontrolled group was comprised of four 4th grade male students. Instruction was 40 minutes 5 days a week. Students spent 10 minutes listening to leveled books read to them through Raz-kids. Students then spent 10 minutes recording themselves reading the computerized leveled books, then 10 minutes working with words through phonics and sight words, and 10 minutes writing.
Student E
In November 2010 Student E began reading on level H (1.5), had mastered all 220 sight words, read 103 words correct per minute (wcpm), and she earned an average of 94% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student E had gained 8 reading levels and was reading on a level P (2.8), she learned all 220 sight words. Student E gained 8 words on the fluency scale reading 111 wcpm. Student E comprehension level dropped to 70%.
Student F
In November 2010 Student F began reading on level E (1.2), had mastered 40 sight words, read 34 words correct per minute (wcpm), and he earned an average of 43% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student F had gained 5 reading levels and was reading on a level J (1.8), he learned all 220 sight words. Student F gained 13 words on the fluency scale reading 47 wcpm. Student F comprehension level rose to 70%.
Student G
In November 2010 Student G began reading on level C (late K), had mastered 34 sight words, read 23 words correct per minute (wcpm), and he earned an average of 81% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student G had gained 4 reading levels and was reading on a level G (1.4), he learned 115 sight words. Student G gained 4 words on the fluency scale reading 27 wcpm. Student G comprehension level rose to 84%.
Student H
In November 2010 Student H began reading on level E (1.2), had mastered 40 sight words, read 66 words correct per minute (wcpm), and he earned an average of 67% on comprehension tests. In March 2011 Student H had gained 5 reading levels and was reading on a level J (2.8), he learned 220 sight words. Student H gained 14 words on the fluency scale reading 80 wcpm. Student H comprehension level dropped to 60%.
Comparing Results to Literature Reviewed
This research had very similar results to the information listed in the above mentioned literature reviews. The students that participated in the individual reading groups made greater gains than those that relied mostly on small group reading alone. Like the reviews, this study showed gains in reading levels, fluency, and sight word recognition. Like the other reviews the study showed that simply spending more time reading books, being a better word decoder, and being able to read the words easily did not have an impact on reading fluency. This research had a unique aspect to it that I was not able to compare with other case studies: the introduction to the use of technology to engage the students as well as record the students student’s progress with the program. It took many hours of searching, but the universities research article finders had no case studies relating to the use of computerized leveled book software, which I found in interesting as more and more textbook companies are beginning to offer online leveled reading programs and online textbooks as well (companies: Houghton Mufflin Harcourt and Scott Foresman Reading Street).
Limitations
This study was done with a small group of students of mixed abilities and mixed special needs. Not every teacher has access to this technology, or enough classroom computers to implement the technology easily in the classroom on a day-to-day basis. No Child Left Behind tests place a greater emphasis on student’s comprehension level than their reading level and reading fluency. To see statistical gains on the standardized testing the program will need to have a large impact on comprehension. It would also be helpful to measure the other online reader programs to evaluate differences between the different companies and the supporting material in their curriculum that may address best practices to use when implementing their program within the classroom setting.
Future research questions to study further
The most frustrating part of the results was the lack of progress made in the area of reading comprehension. The two students with the best reading fluency did the worst in terms of reading comprehension, likewise the students with the worst fluency scored the highest in comprehension. Further questions to be studied better in the future: What would be better methods to improve reading comprehension? Should reading fluency speed trump word accuracy in measuring reading ability? What results would this program have on non-learning disabled students? Would the results be similar when used with different grade levels?
References:
Armstrong, N., Campos, J., & Johnson, B. (2001, May). Increasing student reading fluency through the use of leveled books [Thesis research]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED452520.pdf
Black, T. C., Bogusz, G. T., & Porter, A. M. (1999). Improving reading fluency through the use of multiple reading strategies [action research]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED438516.pdf
Ecklund, B., & Lamon, K. M. (2008, December). Improving reading achievement through increased motivation, specific skill enhancement, and practice time elementary students [Action research]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503058.pdf
Evidence [Magazine article]. Retrieved from Council for exceptional children website: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.wichita.edu/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.44
Freidus, H. (2010, August). Finding passion in teaching and learning: Embedding literacy skills in content-rich curriculum [research article]. Retrieved from The New Educator website: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.wichita.edu/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.44
Galloway-Bell, S. (2003, May). A review of the literature: The effectiveness of leveled reading groups in improving oral proficiency and comprehension to first grade students [literature review]. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED479119.pdf
Holmes, T., & Brown, C. L. (2003). A controlled evaluation of a total school improvement process, School Renaissance [empirical research]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED474261.pdf
Institute of Education Sciences. (2010, August). Accelerated Reader [U.S. Department of Education]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED511267.pdf
Institute of Education Sciences. (2007, July 9). Class wide peer tutoring [US Department of Education]. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/WWC_CWPT_070907.pdf
Institute of Education Sciences. (2007, July 2). Wilson Reading System [U.S. Department of Education]. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/WWC_Wilson_Reading_070207.pdf
Jasmine, J., & Schiest, P. (2009, November/December). The effects of word walls and word wall activities on the reading fluency of first grade students [article]. Retrieved from Reading Horizons website: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.wichita.edu/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.35
Jitendra, A. K., Burgess, C., & Gajria, M. (2011, Winter). Cognitive strategy instruction for improving expository text comprehension of students with learning disabilities: the quality of
Ludlow, B. C., Reutzel, D. R., Sudweeks, R., Smith, J. A., & Fawson, P. C. (1982-2006). Examining the reliability of running records: attaining generalizable results [The journal of Educational research]. Retrieved from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.wichita.edu/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.44
Pavonetti, L. M., Brimmer, K. M., & Cipielewski, J. F. (2000, November). Accelerated Reader: what are the lasting effects on the reading habits of middle school students exposed to accelerated reader in Elementary grades? [Empirical research]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ PDFS/ED456423.pdf
Poplin, M., Rivera, J., Durish, D., Hoff, L., Kawell, S., Pawlak, P. Straus, L. (2011, Fall). Highly effective teachers in low-performing urban schools [Phi Delta Kappan magazine]. Retrieved from Phi Delta Kappan website: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.wichita.edu/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.44
Reichardt, R. (2001, April). Reducing class size: choices and consequences [research article]. Retrieved from Mid-Continent Research for Education and A learning website: http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/PolicyBriefs/ 5012PI_PBReducingClassSize.pdf
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2009, January). Effective beginning reading programs. In Effective beginning reading programs: a best evidence synthesis [Best Evidence Encyclopedia]. Retrieved from John Hopkins University, School of Education's Center for Data driven Reform in Education (CDDRE) website: http://www.bestevidence.org/word/
begin_read_Jan_26_2009.pdf
Toro, A. (2001, July). A comparison of reading achievement in second grade students using the accelerated reading program and independent reading [emperical research]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ ED455510.pdf
Appendix
Program Goals
Goal #1: Graduates of the program should be able to identify, analyze, and explain (a) successful curricular models and instructional strategies and explore the basis for their success, and (b) curricular and instructional problems impeding the improvement of learning and teaching in classrooms and schools and propose sound solutions.
Goal #2: Graduates of this program should be able to monitor, evaluate, and suggest means to improve instructional practice, including the evaluation of educational outcomes and programs.
Goal #3: Graduates of this program should be able to assume responsibility for the development, implementation, evaluation, and revision of curricula or programs of study in particular disciplines and/or for particular populations.
Goal #5: Graduates of this program should be able to plan and conduct action research using sound theory and appropriate research designs to investigate educational questions related to the improvement of curriculum and instruction.
Goal #2: Graduates of this program should be able to monitor, evaluate, and suggest means to improve instructional practice, including the evaluation of educational outcomes and programs.
Goal #3: Graduates of this program should be able to assume responsibility for the development, implementation, evaluation, and revision of curricula or programs of study in particular disciplines and/or for particular populations.
Goal #5: Graduates of this program should be able to plan and conduct action research using sound theory and appropriate research designs to investigate educational questions related to the improvement of curriculum and instruction.
Reflection
Instead of school districts spending thousands of dollars on reading basal textbooks for my classroom, I really wish the district would invest in some cheap apple laptop computers in a computer cart just for my classroom and a subscription to raz-kids website. The wonderful thing about this site is that it works at my students own reading pace, the stories are actually interesting, students can log in at home to continue reading (and I can monitor what they are working at home, this site records their reading progress so I can share with parents and co-teachers (especially helpful for teachers that share students with special education staff and ESOL staff), and students enjoy using this site. I have used this site for two years, and every year I grow more and more in love with it as I see my students make awesome tangible gains in their reading. In the future, I hope to apply for a grant for a classroom computer cart for my classroom and a subscription to this site, and a math site www.ixl.com that also emphasizes students working individual at their own levels using technology and taking charge of their own learning progress.