PAGE 21

Laura Shirley

Action Research Prospectus: The Impact of iRead on Reading Comprehension

Kennesaw State University

ECE 7531

Running Head: The Impact of iRead on Reading Comprehension

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact and effects of the implementation of iRead among five EIP students. Through a five week implementation period, data was collected and observed of the engagement of students and reading achievement and growth within the focus group being studied. Technology integrated with phonics, reading comprehension skills, strategies, and readings standards were used to accommodate the struggling students. It was observed that the implementation of iRead has a positive impact on student engagement and reading achievement.

Keywords: iRead, reading, engagement, achievement, Cold Read

Introduction

Reading is essentially all about comprehension. Reading comprehension helps students with other key concepts needed while reading. These skills include predicting, questioning, retelling, and making connections. Papatga and Ersoy (2016) discuss that reading comprehension is a skill that will not only play a role in a student's academic life, but their whole life as well. Bloom (1995) has shown that reading comprehension has a direct correlation to their success in other subjects. Comprehension follows students to all other subjects for the rest of their lives. According to the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), sixty-six percent of all U.S. fourth graders scored "below proficient" on the 2013 NAEP reading test. This means that they are reading below grade level.

Workman (2014) states the third grade is a pivotal point in a child’s educational career. Burns discusses that children who read well in early grades are far more successful in later years; and those who fall behind often stay behind when it comes to academic achievement (Snow, Burns and Griffin 1998). There is a huge emphasis on the importance of ensuring all students are reading on or above grade level by the end of the third grade (Workman, 2014). Workman (2014) suggests that students who are not reading proficiently by the third grade are four times more likely not to graduate from high school. In addition, these students are also more likely to have a low-income job later in life.

As educators, it is our job to make sure every student is learning in a way that benefits them the most. In today’s society, technology plays a huge role in the lives of our students. The integration of technology in the classroom could potentially increase student success when linked with reading comprehension.

Purpose and Rationale of the Study

Within this Action Research, the following question will be addressed: How does the implementation of iRead as personalized learning increase the students’ reading comprehension and reading level?

Teachers and educators around the country are integrating more and more technology into their daily routine in order to possibly increase student engagement and knowledge of content being presented. Students are more skilled than ever before while using technology to explore information and research (Ertem, 2013). With technology increasing, it is important that teachers become more aware of the positive impact technology can have on students’ literacy engagement, motivation, and achievement (Gambrell, 2006).

Research indicates that the use of technology can best affect student learning when learning goals are clearly articulated beforehand (Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002; Schacter, 1999). When technology is used appropriately, it not only increases students understanding of the content, but also student achievement. Technology also helps develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Schacter & Fagnano, 1999). These instruments provide teachers with personalized learning options in their classrooms. With the use of technology, there is a shift from teacher-centered classrooms to student-centered learning environments.

iRead, an app used to drive instruction and assessment, finds specific skills and standards students need reinforcement on. With the use of iRead, students are implementing personalized learning. Materials taught on iRead are differentiated based on the individual needs of each student. Each student works at his/her own pace on standards and skills he/she needs help with. Within iRead, there are assessments students take to ensure mastery of concepts is met. This app has explicit instruction covering the following concepts: phonological awareness, phonics, alphabet knowledge, decoding, syntax, fluency, word recognition, and morphology (iRead, 2015).

iRead was designed with the diversity of many classrooms in mind. Special Education students as well as English Language Learners were also kept in mind through the creation of this program. English Language Learners, ELL, have support through this app. iRead has a Spanish translator, pronunciation modeling, and teaching support. It also includes a bilingual family portal for students and parents to use at home (iRead, 2015). iRead scaffolds and supports students who are identified as Special Ed through individualized pacing and multi sensory instructional resources. The iRead creators had the “typical” diverse classroom in mind when creating this resource (iRead, 2015).

Through the implementation of iRead, I hope to see additional growth with my struggling readers. With the personalized instruction and embedded assessments, the students are in control of their own learning. With this, I am also hoping to see an increase in student engagement in reading.

Terms to Know:

Struggling student: A student who is not showing mastery of content taught. A student who is reading or performing, below grade level.

Proficient: skilled in doing or using something.

iRead: a new, digital foundational reading program designed to close the achievement gap early.

Context of Study

I am a third grade teacher at Mountain Park Elementary School, MPE, located in Roswell, Georgia. Roswell has a population of approximately 94,000 people. MPE serves a predominantly comfortable socioeconomic population. Mountain Park is comprised of around 854 students. 81.1% of students identify as Caucasian, 6% Hispanic or Latino, 6% African American, and 4% identify as two races. Only 7% of Mountain Park’s population qualify for free and reduced lunch (School Digger, 2016). The gender ratio at MPE is made up of 52% male and 48% female.

I teach twenty-four third graders aged seven to eight. I teach fourteen girls and ten boys. My class consists of two African Americans, one American Indian, and twenty-one Caucasians. Three of my twenty-four students are considered gifted, while seven of my students are considered below grade level. I have two students currently served through 504 accommodations, two in SST, and four on Tier 2 of RTI. Five of my students are currently being served through EIP. These students receive additional instructional support during reading.

Three times each year, I conduct the DRA on every student. The DRA is a standardized reading test used to determine a student’s instructional and independent level in reading. Based on the DRA given at the beginning of the year, seven of my students are reading below grade level, three of which are on a first grade reading level. Fifteen of my students were reading on grade level, and two are above grade level. By administrating this test, teachers are able to see what specific skill a student is struggling with in reading. I have found all my students reading below grade level struggle with reading comprehension. By the time I give this assessment in March, I aim to have 100 percent of my students reading on grade level. I am hoping the platform, iRead, will help me accomplish my goal.

Literature Review

The Importance of Reading Comprehension

Reading comprehension is one of many basic skills that should be taught to children in the primary years of elementary school (Ersory & Papatga, 2016).  In the primary grades of elementary school, reading is focused on building phonemic awareness and phonological skills, along with reading fluency. These skills are very important for students to learn and turn into readers who can comprehend (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). Reading comprehension is recognized in standards for all grades in all fifty states (Mahdavi, Tensfeldt 2007).

Mahdavi and Tendfeldt (2013) discuss how reading comprehension does not naturally occur for all students. There are many strategies teachers can use to help those struggling students. “According to the National Reading Panel (NRP; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 2000), scientifically based research has determined the following specific comprehension strategies to be effective: monitoring comprehension, using graphic and semantic organizers, answering questions, generating questions, recognizing story structure, and summarizing,” (Mahdavi and Tendfeldt, 2013). The NRP also suggests teachers use exploit instruction that includes modeling, guided practice, explanation, and application.

Integration of Technology and Personalized Learning

Technology has had an impact in every area of human life and has brought numerous improvements and changes to the educational field (Ersoy & Paptga, 2016). Approximately eighty-five percent of teachers implement the use of technology in their daily routine in the classroom, while fifteen percent use some form of technology in every lesson (Gambrell, 2006). Technology is a tool being implemented nation-wide to potentially increase student engagement, motivation, and learning. Since the use of technology is rapidly expanding, it is important that teachers become more aware of the positive impact technology has on students’ literacy engagement, motivation, and achievement (Gambrell, 2006).

When technology is applied effectively, it has been proven increase student learning, understanding, and achievement and also motivates students to learn, helps develop critical thinking, fosters problem-solving skills, and can stimulate collaborative learning (Schacter & Fagnano, 1999). Technology provides teachers with direct access to resources that can help identify problem areas for students. The endless amount of apps, websites, and interactive tools allow teachers to differentiate their instruction to meet the individual needs of all students. Pitler and Hubbell state that the integration of technology shifts classrooms from teacher-dominated to student-centered learning environments (Pitler & Hubbell, 2012).

Technology can help support good instruction, and has great potential when it comes to personalized learning. With technology, students are able to interact with technology, research, create projects, and communicate with others. Technology allows teachers to differentiate instruction more efficiently by accommodating and reaching the learning needs and styles of all students (Pitler & Hubbell, 2012).

Technology is rapidly becoming a significant instrument used for teaching and learning (Ertem, 2013). Technology provides students, no matter their learning style or ability, a personalized learning experience. Personalized learning, defined by Şimşek and Çakır (2009), is accounting for individual differences in capacity as well as motivation.

The use of personalized learning can have a positive effect inside the classroom. When used appropriately, personalized learning can potentially lessen the need for remediation during the literacy block (Ertem, 2013). DeMoulin (2001) states that personalization provides students with an engaging and entertaining experience, enhances the believability of characters, and provides an easy understanding of the content making it easier to comprehend the story.

Ihsan Ertem, the author of the article, The Influence of Personalization of Online Texts on Elementary School Students’ Reading Comprehension and Attitudes Toward Reading, conducted a study to see if personalization of online texts has an effect on reading comprehension. This study also measured the affect personalization had on students’ attitudes. This study consisted of 47 fifth grade students. Students were given one of two online texts to read and 12 questions to answer. Some students were given the opportunity to choose their background color, pictures, and fonts, while the other group was not able to choose anything.

Out of twelve points, students who received the personalized option scored an average of 9.6 on the comprehension. The mean score for students who did not receive the personalized test was 8.34. Through the use of surveys, ninety percent of more of the students who used the personalized platform thought the personalized aspect of learning was more enjoyable and motivating (Ertem, 2013).

This study shows a positive effect on reading comprehension, engagement, and motivation. According to Ertem, “Teachers can use vary personalization types in their classroom to enhance students’ motivation and reading achievement. We need to carry on to assess online text technologies and to make efforts to integrate personalization, psychology and human computer interaction principles.” (Ertem, 2013)

Participants

This study will consist of five, third grade students. These students were selected based on their DRA assessment, cold reads, and running records done thus far in the year. These students were picked due to their need for additional support from myself, as well as an EIP teacher.

Intervention and Instrument

Each student will have his/her own account on iRead. The use of iRead will help me collect data to determine the individual needs of each student. This app will help me guide instruction in small groups and individual conferences. iRead allows students to work at his/her own pace to ensure mastery of all standards in place. Teachers can have students take assessments on iRead to show mastery. iRead generates action data and reports for each student to show potential growth. This platform allows the teacher to give each student the personalized learning they all deserve. Each student will spend a minimum of 30 minutes, three times a week working on iRead.

Data Collection & Procedure

Upon logging into iRead, students will be prompted to take a diagnostic assessment. This assessment places students on a lesson that he/she needs more guidance and help with. They will be able to work through the lessons at their level. When they get to the end of a series of lessons, they will be reassessed to show mastery of the skills taught. If the students fail to show mastery, they will have to complete the lessons again.

I will pull data generated from the app itself. I will be looking at student growth reports. The student growth reports will show the students’ progress towards different grade level benchmarks. This will allow me to see the progress being made. In addition, this will help me monitor progress and help me plan instruction for class and small groups.

Along with the data collected and generated by iRead, I will also be journaling after each reading lesson. I will reflect upon my observations, student participation, and what the students were working on. I will post my journals on wordle.com. Wordle will generate the most used words I used while describing my observations. This will allow me to see the most frequently used terms during my observations.

In addition, I will be conducting observations to show student engagement while using iRead. I will use a 2-1-0 scale. Each student will receive a 2 when they are actively engaged, 1 when they are somewhat engaged, and 0 when they are not engaged. I will do a quick scan every 5-10 minutes. At the end of each day or week, I will find the mean score for each student. Data Analysis

Students will work on the app three times a week during our Readers’ Workshop. During those times, I will journal my observations and do scans to show engagement. I will pull the data collection provided from iRead every Friday.

Implications

All students deserve the right to learn through an individualized plan made just for them. Students need to be motivated to learn and be able to do so through platforms, such as technology, which is something that interests a vast majority of them. As teachers, we will need to use the technology, apps, and interactive websites to our advantage to individualize the learning for each and every student.

I have learned there is a direct correlation between the use of personalized learning through technology and student engagement and motivation. In addition, Ihsan Ertem, the author of the article, The Influence of Personalization of Online Texts on Elementary School Students’ Reading Comprehension and Attitudes Toward Reading, found an increase in student comprehension through the use of personalized learning. I am hoping to see an increase in reading comprehension and student engagement throughout my research.

Reading comprehension is a main skill students are taught throughout their elementary school careers (Ersoy & Papatga, 2016). The base of reading comprehension comes from phonemic awareness and phonological skills. The app, iRead, focuses on student mastery of this skill first. A firm understanding of phonemic awareness and phonological skills can potentially increase reading comprehension.

Many strategies can be used to increase student comprehension. These strategies include: generating questions, monitoring comprehension, using graphic organizers, answer questions, and recognizing story structure. (NRP, 2000). iRead incorporates some of these strategies. For the strategies that iRead does not cover, I will incorporate those into my small group instruction along with modeling and guided practices.

Overall, I am hoping to see the use of technology and personalized learning increasing students’ reading comprehension, motivation, and performance across the board. I strongly believe the use of technology can do amazing things for a classroom full of struggling readers.

Data Analysis

In order to measure the effect iRead has on reading comprehension and reading level, the implementation of iRead focused on five third grade students. These students were selected based on their need for additional support inside the classroom. These selected students worked on iRead three times a week, with a minimum of twenty minutes in each session. During the five weeks of data collection, I collected both qualitative and quantitative data.

Quantitative Data

To collect quantitative data, I gave my students a Cold Read (reading comprehension quiz) prior to implementing iRead. At the end of the five weeks, I gave the students another Cold Read to compare their reading comprehension at the beginning then in the end. On each Cold Read given, students were asked to read a page long passage and answer five multiple choice questions from the reading. All questions were worth 20 points each. As you can tell by the data

below, all students Cold Read scores increased.

Cold Read Scores

EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s

In addition to the Cold Read, I also collected quantitative data through engagement scans taken while each student was working on iRead. The engagement scans were taken every five to ten minutes. On days of implementation, I completed an engagement scan three times a session. The students could receive a score of zero, one, or two. A two meant they were actively engaged, one meant partially engaged, and zero meant not engaged in the lesson. I found the total amount of points each student received weekly. The graph below shows the engagement scans for each week. The most points a student could get in one week is eighteen. This graph shows all students were, for the most part, actively engaged in during their lessons.

Student Engagement

Qualitative Data

To collect qualitative data, I journaled by reflecting upon my observations, student participation, and what the students were working on. I journaled through a word document using the following coding scheme: iR-iRead, NOT-Not on task, AE- Actively engaged, NE-Not engaged, and SWE-somewhat engaged. When referring to specific students within my journals, I coded them as Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4, and Student 5. To analyze the patterns in my notes, I used Wordle to create a word cloud. The Wordle generated my most used words when describing my observations. Here is what Wordle word cloud:

This word cloud verified exactly why I was conducting this research project on iRead. It was to better the reading and phonics skills for my students. The words phonics, reading, and comprehension really stand out on the word cloud. In addition, the coding AE and SWE stick out as well. This reminds me hard work these students put in. Many of these students struggle with concentrating and paying attention, so the fact that they were actively and somewhat engaged is amazing!

All of this data combined, really prove how much growth they made through their reading comprehension and engagement with reading. Both my quantitative and qualitative data both showed similar findings. All data shows most of my students were thoroughly engaged when using iRead and all students improved on reading comprehension checks. I learned a lot through this data. I have learned that finding something that the students enjoy and something they can fully engage with can increase their reading comprehension. Using iRead allowed the students to focus on standards they were specifically struggling with. Once they understood and mastered those standards, they were able to improve their reading skills. I have determined that the app, iRead, has a positive impact on increasing reading comprehension.

Conclusions and Further Study

At the conclusion of this research, I feel as if the question asked showed a positive effect of reading comprehension with regards to student engagement and achievement. Through observations and collecting quantitative and qualitative data, I felt as if my students were actively engaged and involved with the lessons being taught on iRead. All students showed positive growth on reading achievement as well. However, I feel as if engagement was more affected than growths in reading comprehension. Future action research involving iRead will focus on all students rather than a small group. I plan on making iRead a part of my daily reading rotation schedule. This will ensure all students are getting the personalized learning they need. In addition, I hope to discover more technology based platforms to use in writing and math to potentially see an increase in engagement and achievement levels. iRead is definitely a great tool to use for struggling students. Due to the findings of this research, I do not feel as if further research is needed. I feel as if this research made solid conclusions regarding the relationship between reading comprehension and engagement and iRead.

References

Adedokun-Shittu, N., & Jaleel Kehinde Shittu, A. (n.d.). Evaluating the Impact of Technology Integration in Teaching and Learning. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology.

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (n.d.). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading, 37-55.

Childress, S., & Benson, S. (2014). Personalized Learning for Every Student Every Day. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(8), 33-38. doi:10.1177/00317217140950080

Ciancio, D., Thompson, K., Schall, M., Skinner, C., & Foorman, B. (2015). Accurate reading comprehension rate as an indicator of broad reading in students in first, second, and third grades. Journal of School Psychology, 53(5), 393-407.

Ertem, I. S. (2013). The Influence of Personalization of Online Texts on Elementary School Students' Reading Comprehension and Attitudes toward Reading. International Journal of Progressive Education, 9(3), 218-228. Retrieved October 07, 2016.

Ersoy, A., & Papatga, E. (2016). Improving Reading Comprehension Skills Through the SCRATCH Program.

Kao, G. Y., Tsai, C., Liu, C., & Yang, C. (2016). The effects of high/low interactive electronic storybooks on elementary school students’ reading motivation, story comprehension and chromatics concepts. Computers & Education, 100, 56-70.

Lepola, J., Lynch, J., Kiuru, N., Laakkonen, E., & Niemi, P. (2016). Early Oral Language Comprehension, Task Orientation, and Foundational Reading Skills as Predictors of Grade 3 Reading Comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4),

Li, L., Worch, E., Zhou, Y., & Aguiton, R. (2015). How and Why Digital Generation Teachers Use Technology in the Classroom: An Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Study. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Ij-sotl, 9(2), 1-9.

Mahdavi, J. N., & Tensfeldt, L. (2013). Untangling Reading Comprehension Strategy Instruction: Assisting Struggling Readers in the Primary Grades. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 57(2), 77-92.

Pitler, Howard, Matt Kuhn, and Elizabeth Ross Hubbell. Using Technology With Classroom Instruction That Works. Alexandria, Va: ASCD, 2012. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 9 Oct. 2016.

Ochoa, M. A., & Ramírez, M. S. (2016). Strategy Based Instruction Facilitated by Technologies to Enhance Reading Comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research JLTR, 7(4), 655.

Smith, G. E., & Throne, S. (2007). Differentiating instruction with technology in K-5 classrooms. Eugene, Or.: International Society for Technology in Education.

Statistics About Education in America. (2015). Retrieved October 09, 2016, from

https://www.studentsfirst.org/pages/the-stats

What are some reasons to teach reading comprehension strategies in content-area classes. (n.d.). Retrieved October 09, 2016, from

http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/csr/cresource/q1/p01/

Workman, E. (2014). Third-grade reading policies. Educational Commission of the States. Retrieved October 17, 2016.

Appendix

Cold Read #1

Cold Read prior to iRead

Student 1Student 2Student 3Student 4Student 540.00000060.00000060.00000040.00000040.000000Cold Read after iRead

Student 1Student 2Student 3Student 4Student 580.00000080.000000100.00000060.00000080.000000

Student 1

Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 517.00000015.00000016.00000016.00000017.000000Student 2

Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 518.00000014.00000017.00000016.00000015.000000Student 3

Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 517.00000016.00000016.00000017.00000016.000000Student 4

Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 516.00000014.00000014.00000012.00000015.000000Student 5

Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 515.00000014.00000015.00000017.00000018.000000