DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter Five outlines the summary and conclusions of the present action research study that explored the effect that strategy group differentiation had on the development of accuracy, fluency, and comprehension skills of first graders. The present study used a quantitative action research approach that allowed the teacher researcher to gather and analyze data based on a pretest, field notes, running records, and a posttest to determine if strategy group differentiation increased the accuracy, fluency, and comprehension rates of first grade students.
The teacher-researcher observed that the literacy rate of students varies greatly within a single first grade classroom annually, which led to the problem of practice identified for this study (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008). An estimated 17% of students perform below grade level in reading before reaching fourth grade (Eckert, Dunn, & Ardoin, 2006). Due to the significant role that reading plays in the academic success of students in all subject areas, differentiation is a vital tool in the classroom (Fitzgerald, 2016). After identifying the problem of practice, the following research question guided the present study: What effect does strategy group differentiation during literacy have on accuracy, fluency, and comprehension development? This research question addresses the overall purpose of the present study and contributes to the academic success of
strategy group differentiation increased the accuracy, fluency, and comprehension for first grade students.
The present study was conducted with 17 diverse student participants in a first- grade public school classroom. The pre and post data were collected from the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System test. The pretest was given to individual students during week one. Data from the pretest was used to form baseline data and to determine individual needs for student instruction (Tomlinson, 2005). Over a four-week period, the teacher researcher grouped students and used a variety of literacy strategies targeted at increasing accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. The strategies were established by Boushey and Moser (2009) in their CAFÉ framework. The posttest was given to individual students during week six.
Results Relating to Existing Literature
The current action research study is grounded in studies on differentiation and balanced literacy. Byrd (2015) stressed the importance of teachers modeling reading strategies to students in balanced literacy to increase reading skills and Nathanson and Nathanson (2004) stressed the importance of the teacher using materials that the students are interested in and that are within the student’s Zone of Proximal Development when modeling. Throughout the course of this study, the teacher researcher explicitly modeled reading strategies based on the needs and the interests of the individual student and the instructional reading level of the student (Fountas & Pinnell, 2008). Instruction was differentiated based on the sole need of each individual student and what the student needed to progress reading levels (Tomlinson, 2005).
The teacher-researcher explored student overall performance in accuracy, fluency, and comprehension as well as reading level growth based on the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System. The teacher researcher was able to determine that 94% of students increased their accuracy, 94% of students increased their fluency, and 100% of students increased their comprehension through use of multiple sources. In addition, 14 of 17 student participants advanced in their reading level. Of the three students that did not move up reading levels, the students did increase their scores in all literacy
elements including accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. Though all students increased in each component, no data indicated that accuracy influenced the outcome on fluency or comprehension (Fountas & Pinnell, 2008); however, data showed that if a student had a low fluency score, his or her comprehension score was also low (Spear-Swelling, 2006).
The teacher-researcher helped students make goals for their reading prior to the study to intrinsically motivate students as recommended by Dewey, who encouraged self- reflection (Mason et. al., 2016; Sutinen, 2013). This strategy was to help students who did not have a desire to read, find that desire so they would read at home and in spare time throughout the day. Thorndike and Kilpatrick both stressed the need for goal-setting (Sutinen, 2013) due to the direct impact that motivation has on success (Fountas & Pinnell, 202). Students were also motivated through reader’s theatre, which increased their literacy skills (Griffith & Rasinski, 2004) and by being able to choose books that are appealing to the interests of the student (Spear-Swelling; Reis et. al., 2007).
Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences notes that students have different things that they are good at, which aligns with their interests and learning styles
thinking style (Tomlinson, 2014) and Bloom created a taxonomy that listed different levels of thinking for students (Tomlinson, 2014). Because all students are vastly different, Tomlinson (2005) stressed the need for differentiation within the classroom to meet the needs of the low and above level students. Differentiation during strategy group instruction aided in the development of accuracy, fluency, and comprehension, as
indicated by the data collected for this study (Fountas & Pinnell, 2012; Begeny & Silber, 2006; Wasik, 2008; Byrd, 2015).
Repeated reading, or rereading, was a strategy that the teacher-researcher used for all literacy components (Strickland, Boon, & Spencer, 2013) along with shared reading that scaffolded instruction according to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (Tzuo, 2007; Stahl, 2012). Several strategies were used to build reading fluency, particularly silent reading (Reutzel & Juth, 2014) and oral reading (Hale et. al., 2011). Furthermore, student participants read with friends and had conversations about reading strategies and books. Vygotsky stressed the importance of social interactions for learning to occur (Tzuo, 2007).
The teacher-researcher modeled various comprehension strategies for students (Byrd, 2015; Salmeron-Vilchez, 2014). Kucer (2014) recommended using the strategy of retelling to increase in comprehension. The teacher-researcher modeled this strategy and it was a strong strategy for students who needed to increase their comprehension level. Furthermore, the teacher-researcher ensured that the book that was being read or used for modeling was familiar to student participants so that they could relate it to their life and understand the content of the book as recommended by Jean Piaget (Izuo, 2007).
The teacher-researcher used many strategies during strategy groups to increase the accuracy, fluency, and comprehension rate of students. The increase in scores from the pretest to the posttest indicates that strategy group differentiation had a positive effect on the reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension of students in that all students showed progress within these elements.
Practice Recommendations
Differentiation has been the focus of academic discussion for years; however, it is often not implemented in classrooms despite numerous research studies proving that it is best practice (Tomlinson, 2005). After completing this study, it is recommended that differentiation be implemented in all classrooms and for all subject areas, especially in reading. Differentiation allows the teacher to meet the student on his or her individual level and work within the Zone of Proximal Development of the student (Tomlinson, 2005).
Small, strategy groups are also recommended upon completion of this study. Small group instruction is more effective than whole group instruction according to the results of this study and numerous other studies (Al Otaiba et. al., 2011; Wasik, 2008; Byrd, 2015). Wasik (2008) recommends five or fewer students in the group, alignment of instruction with student needs, modeled instruction, and daily small group instruction.
Though no strategy was more effective than others, it is recommended to use the CAFÉ framework established by Boushey and Moser (2009) to find the strategies needed to advance in reading levels for students. The framework is laid out similar to a menu
When teaching reading strategies to students, modeling the strategies desired for student use is recommended and closely monitoring students during groups to detect progress, or lack of progress. This allows for additional strategies to be considered, as needed.
Limitations or Suggestions
There were several limitations for this action research study. First, the sample size was relatively small with just 17 student participants; however, the student participants in the study were linguistically and culturally diverse. Furthermore, the sample came from one classroom in a local public school where all the students live within a 15-mile radius which could have altered the results.
The time frame for the study was limited in that the entire study was concluded within six weeks. Because the time frame was limited, the results could have been inaccurate, and the retention of knowledge and skills is unknown. A longer time frame is ideal so that it can be determined if the students are retaining the knowledge.
The sample consisted of one age group, which included first graders. First graders are typically six years old. This limits the results of the study in that the results can only determine if first graders increase their rate of accuracy, fluency, and
comprehension when strategy group differentiation is implemented within the classroom.
The study focused on the accuracy, fluency, and comprehension levels of students; however, examining the number of reading levels that the students advanced could have been a more promising method to determine student growth. Furthermore,
examining students according to ability levels on an independent basis could have been a more effective method to determine potential effects of the intervention.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research for this type of study should include a larger sample size. A larger sample will allow for more accurate results. Furthermore, the sample should include student participants from different schools so that the sample will be more diverse. This sample was from a local area in which all students were within 15-mile radius. A larger sample consisting of participants from different locations across a district, or even a state could lead to more accurate results.
Future studies could also parse out accuracy, fluency, and comprehension to determine the impact on individual components; however, the focus of this study was on the interrelationship between the three elements. Flexible groupings made it difficult to explore the impact on one factor alone. Furthermore, it would make more sense for future studies to examine the reading level advancement rather than the accuracy, fluency, and comprehension because the scores for each element changes as students advance reading levels.
Moreover, the study should last longer to determine if the results are long-lasting. Four weeks is not enough time to determine if knowledge and skills are retained or if the student continued to grow at the same rate in accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. Finally, the study should include samples of various grade levels and age groups, rather than just first graders, who are typically six years old.
Summary
While trying to increase the reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension of first-grade students, the teacher-researcher determined that strategy group differentiation is an effective strategy and tool. The present study determined that 94% of students increased their scores in accuracy, 94% of students increased their scores in fluency, and 100% of students increased their scores in comprehension. The results of this study are consistent with numerous other studies that support the use of differentiation within the classroom. The goal of all teachers should be the academic success of students, so it is imperative that all teachers use proven best practices, such as differentiation, in the classroom to ensure the academic success of all students.
REFERENCES
Al Otaiba, S., Connor, C. M., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., Meadows, J., & Li, Z. (2011). Assessment data—informed guidance to individualize kindergarten reading instruction: Findings from a cluster-randomized control field trial. The
Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 535-560. doi:10.1086/659031
Ankrum, J. A., Genest, M., & Belcastro, E. (2014). The power of verbal scaffolding: Showing beginning readers how to use reading strategies. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 42(1), 39-47. doi:10.1007/s10643-013-0586-5
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct.
Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386. doi:10.1002/pits.20303
Beecher, M. & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502-530.
Begeny, J. C. & Silber, J. M. (2006). An examination of group-based treatment packages for increasing elementary-aged students’ reading fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 43(2), 183-195. doi:10.1002/pits.20138
Boushey, G. & Moser, J. (2009). The CAFÉ book: Engaging all students in daily literacy and instruction. Stenhouse Publishers: Portsmouth, NH.
elementary school children. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 259-268.
Bursuck, W. D., Munk, D. D., Nelson, C., & Curran, M. (2002). Research on the prevention of reading problems: Are kindergarten and first grade teachers listening? Preventing School Failure, 47(1), 4-9. Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&si d=d06be5f9-01b7-4735-984f-ea9641fff043%40sessionmgr4009&hid=4102 Byrd, B. (2015). Good readers get smart: Reading orientation in a second grade
classroom. Studying Teacher Education, 11(2), 124-142. doi:10.1080/17425964.2015.1045772
Chabot, R. J., Zehr, H., Prinzo, D., & Petros, T. V. (1984). The speed of word recognition sub processes and reading achievement in college students. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(2), 147-161. doi:10.2307/747359
Dana, N. F. & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2014). The Reflective Educator’s Guide to Classroom Research. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Deacon, S., Benere, J, & Pasquarella, A. (2012). Reciprocal relationship: Children’s morphological awareness and their reading accuracy across grades 2-3.
Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 1113-1126. doi:10.1037/a0029474
Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the
Eckert, T. L., Dunn, E. K., & Ardoin, S. P. (2006). The effects of alternate forms of performance feedback on elementary-aged students’ oral reading fluency. Journal
of Behavioral Education, 15(3), 148-161. doi:10.1007/s10864-006-9018-6
Fitzgerald, P. (2016). Differentiation for all literacy levels in mainstream
classrooms. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 24(2), 17-25. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12& sid=0a908b72-df93-4c88-a2dd-d20e34e31441%40sessionmgr4003&hid=4208 Fountas, I. C. & Pinnell, G. P. (2008). When readers struggle: Teaching that works.
Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
Fountas, I. C. & Pinnell, G. P. (2012). Guided reading: The romance and the reality.
Reading Teacher, 66(4), 268-284. doi:10.1002/TRTR/01123
Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59- 109. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00346543074001059#articleCitation DownloadContainer
Garcia-Reid, P., Reid, R. J., & Peterson, A. (2005). School engagement among Latino youth in an urban middle school context. Education and Urban Society, 37(3), 257-275. doi:10.1177/0013124505275534
Goertzen, M. J. (2017). Introduction to quantitative research and data. Library Technology, 53(4), 12-18.
Griffith, L. W. & Rasinski, T. V. (2004). A focus on fluency: How one teacher
incorporated fluency with her reading curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 58(2), 126-137. doi:10.1598/RT.58.2.1
Grittner, F. M. (1975). Individualized instruction: An historical perspective. The Modern
Language Journal, 59(7), 323-333. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1975.tb04708.x
Gunderson, D. E. & Moore, J. D. (2008. Group learning pedagogy and group selection.
International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 4(1), 34-45. doi:10.1080/15578770801943893
Gutierrez-Braojos, C., Fernandez, S. R., & Salmeron-Vilchez, P. (2014). How can reading comprehension strategies and recall be improved in elementary school students? Estudios Sobre Educacion, 26, 9-31.
Hale, A. D., Hawkins, R. O., Sheeley, W., Reynolds, J. R., Jenkins, S., Schmitt, A. J., & Martin, D. A. (2011). An investigation of silent versus aloud reading
comprehension of elementary students using MAZE assessment procedures.
Psychology in the Schools, 48(1), 4-13. doi:10.1002/pits.20543
Hedrick, W. B. & Pearish, A. B. (1999). Good reading instruction is more important than who provides the instruction or where it takes place The Reading Teacher, 52(7), 716-726.
Huang, Y. & Liang, T. (2015). A technique for tracking the reading rate to identify the e- book reading behaviors and comprehension outcomes of elementary school students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 864-876. doi:10.1111/bjet.12182
Jerrim, J., Vignoles, A., Lingam, R., & Friend, A. (2015). The socio-economic gradient in children’s reading skills and the role of genetics. British Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 6-29, doi:10.1002/berj.3143
Juul, H., Poulsen, M., & Elbro, C. (2014). Separating speed from accuracy in beginning reading development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1096-1106. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1049478
Karasakaloglu, N. (2012). The relationship between reading comprehension and learning and study strategies of prospective elementary school teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(3), 1939-1950
Knifsend, C. A. & Juvonen, J. (2014). Social identity complexity, cross-ethnic
friendships, and intergroup attitudes in urban middle schools. Child Development, 85(2), 709-721. Retrieved from
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=19& sid=146ab166-2a54-4957-91b4-31525fa844ea%40sessionmgr113&hid=112 Kucer, S. B. (2014). What retellings can tell us about the nature of reading
comprehension in school children? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 37(1), 31-44.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. A. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. doi:10.1016/0010- 02857490015-2
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Learning to read: Should we keep things simple? (2015). Reading Research Quarterly, 50(2), 151-169. doi:10.1002/rrq.99
Lovett, M. W. (1987). A developmental approach to reading disability: Accuracy and speed criteria of normal and deficient reading skill. Child Development, 58(1), 234-260. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1130305
Marchant, M. & Anderson, D. H. (2012). Improving social and academic outcomes for all learners through the use of teacher praise. Beyond Behavior, 21(3), 22-28. Retrieved from
www.eds.a.ebscohost.compallas2.tcl.edu/ehost/pdfviewer?vid=11&sid=58146a65 -742a43d4-aa6426f311e8%40sessionmgr4010
Martin, J. (2016). Measuring in action research: Four ways of integrating quantitative methods in participatory dynamics. Action Research, 14(2), 168-183.
doi:10.1177/1476750315590883
Mason, L. L., Rivera, C. J., Spencer, T. D., O’Keefe, B. V., Petersen, D. B., & Slocum, T. A. (2016). A preliminary investigation of visual goal markers to prompt fluent oral reading. Psychology in the Schools, 53(1), 58-72. doi:10.1002/pits.21888 McCarthy, C. J., Whittaker, T. A., Boyle, L. H., & Eyal, M. (2017). Quantitative
approaches to group research: suggestions for best practices. The Journal for
Specialists in Group Work, 42(1), 3-16. doi:10.1080/01933922.2016.1264520
Mertler, C. A. (2014). Action Research: Improving Schools and Empowering Educators. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Naeghel, J., Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., & Yves, R. (2012). The relation between elementary students’ recreational and academic reading motivation, reading
fluency, engagement, and comprehension: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1006-1021. doi:10.1037/a0027800
Nathanson, S. A. & Nathanson, M. L. (2004). Thinking about the brain to balance literacy programs. The Language and Literacy Spectrum, 14, 48-61.
Paige, D. D. (2011). “That sounded good!”: Using whole-class choral reading to improve fluency. The Reading Teacher, 64(6), 435-438. doi:10.1598/RT.64.6.5
Pardini, P. (2005). View from the classroom. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 14-18. Retrieved from
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&s id=21f2533c-d3b8-4e5d-a906-498c621a98dd%40sessionmgr112&hid=112 Parker, M., Patton, K., & Sinclair, C. (2016). ‘I took this picture because…’: Assessing