A Look at Descriptive Data!

1. Descriptive Statistics

1        21 Participants (N=21)

·         11 Females (52%) and 10 Males (48%)

·         5 Students with an IEP

·         10 Students in RTI (Response to Intervention)

·         7 Students in RTA (Read to Achieve)

Twenty-one students (N=21) are participating in the research study. Eleven of the students are female and ten of the students are male. Five of the students in the classroom have an IEP, all of them being for speech related reasons. Ten of the students in the classroom are in the RTI program and are a part of the AIMSweb intervention. Seven of the students in the class work with the RTA teacher for 30 minutes a day, five days a week. The seven students that are in RTA are also in RTI. The twenty-one students were split into three research groups in the classroom: HELPS Program, Houghton Mifflin Reading Series, and repeated reading.

2.       

      2.   Group Formation

                                            

Each research group consists of seven students. Male and female students were split evenly amongst the groups. RTI and RTA students were also split evenly amongst the groups. Groups were formed in this manner in order to receive valid results. IEP’s were not factored in since they were all for speech and it didn’t affect the students learning abilities.

3.      3. Garfield Reading Attitude Survey Results

·         Full Scale Score (N=21): 78 66 56 63 69 70 68 56 74 42 62 65 45 67 73 70 61 62 57 61 62

·         Mean: 63.2 Range (42-78)

·         Median: 63

·         Mode: 62

Participants Full Scale scores (Recreational +Academic) generally ranged from 53-74. Nine students scored in the range of 53-63 and nine students scored in the range of 64-74. All students completed this survey in the classroom. Each question was read twice to the students while the students circled the Garfield character that corresponded with their feelings.

4.       

      4. STAR Reading Results- Grade Equivalent Reading Level prior to beginning research

2.4 1.4 1.6 2.7 3.5 0.8 1.8 1.1 2.2 0.9 2.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 3.8 1.1

·         Mean: 1.7 Range (0.8-3.8)

·         Median: 1.3

·         Mode: 1.1, 1.3

One student did not score on the STAR Test. Therefore, 95% of the students received a score on this assessment. Until a student is reading independently and decoding words, students will not perform well on this assessment. At the time the STAR Test was given, students should have been reading at a grade equivalent reading level of 1.5. This number represents the first grade in the fifth month (December). This test was given prior to beginning the research study in order to check for gains in reading levels. Below you will find a pie chart showing how many students are reading above, on, or below grade level.

5.      5. Initial AIMSweb R-CBM Results- Words Correct per minute

89 32 55 8 112 167 22 81 36 36 17 36 23 29 17 10 60 25 37 23 109

·         Mean: 48.8 Range (8-167)

·         Median: 36

·         Mode: 36

The Initial AIMSweb R-CBM was given to the students at the beginning of the research study. All students were given the same reading passage to ensure accurate results. Students were given one minute to read the passage. This same passage was given to the students at the end of the study in order to look for gains in fluency that was made. The graph below shows the range of scores within the results. Seven students are already reading at an end of first grade reading level and fourteen students are reading below the end of first grade R-CBM goal. Students should be able to read 54 WCPM at the end of Grade 1.

HELPS and Houghton Mifflin Group Progress

HELPS:

I am very excited to begin by saying that All-Star Elementary (A pseudonym for my school) has just received training on the HELPS Program. We were able to watch a video of Begeny, the creator of the HELPS Program, implementing the program with a child. We were also able to look though all of the HELPS materials and discuss what results we were seeing with this program in the classroom. This group has been responding well to the HELPS Program. With this being said, I have only worked with this group two times thus far. I was supposed to work with them Monday and today, but snow days are not allowing for that to happen. I am going to have to find time to make up these two sessions. I was able to put the data I have collected into a table in order to see the progress made from session 1 (1/27) to session 2 (1/29). All names are pseudonyms. The running record in this group is somewhat challenging due to time constraints. Ideally, I need to listen to each participant read the passage three times each. I have found the time to do this on the two days working with this group. I know that this will not always be the case. The chart reflects the students’ scores during the third reading of the passage.  

HELPS Students Names	1/27/2014	1/29/2014
H L	29/3	35/4
H K	28/6	43/4
H A	50/1	52/1
H G	90/0	88/0
H B	84/0	104/0
H Jo	83/0	92/0
H Ja	72/0	58/1
Scores reflect WCPM/errors. Scores reflect the students third time reading the passage.

As you can see, progress has been made. Two students did not show gains with WCPM from session 1 to session 2. Gains were also made within the first reading of a passage to the third reading of a passage. This data is not shown in the chart but below you can see a student’s progress from the first reading to the third reading of a passage. I like that the HELPS contains a comprehension component that the repeated reading does not. It seems that the students are able to make less mistakes when they have an idea of what they are reading about. 

 

This student read 70 WCPM the first time reading, 73 WCPM the second time reading and 88 WCPM the third time reading the passage. This student shows improvement within each reading. Remember, after the first reading, we discuss difficult words, comprehension of the story, and the students fill in the blanks while I read the story. All of these are components that is not a part of the repeated reading group. It is also important to note that the student had 0 errors on the third reading of the passage. 

Houghton Mifflin Group:

I have only worked with this group once. The students seemed to enjoy the first session. We read the decodable reader story, "Mike's Bike" several times before beginning the activity. I had them silently read, read with me as a group, and fill in the blanks as I read the story. In doing this, the students were exposed to the text in several different ways. The center activity that went along with the reading series involved them writing about what they had read. Below you can see what two different students wrote about the story. 

 

Hopefully we will have school tomorrow so the research can continue! Stay warm!

Updates and Ice!

No school again today! I’ve been sitting with no electric all morning. Everything outside is covered in ice. Due to this being the second snow day of the week, I am getting behind on the research process. I was not able to work with the HELPS group on Monday and now the HELPS group today. I am thankful to say that I did get a full week of research in last week. Somehow, I will have to find the time to make up the time I am missing with my groups this week. I will go ahead and take this time to reflect on the progress of the repeated reading group.

Repeated Reading Group:

I have been very pleased with the results that I am receiving from this group. They seem to be enjoying the process of repeated reading. I explained to them the purpose of repeated reading and they are very excited to see their progress each time they read. I have worked with this group a total of three times up to this point. I give each student a copy of the passage during each session. I have them circle where they stop each time they read. I time them for one minute each time. It is merely impossible for me to keep a running record for each student, especially since the students are reading the passage three times each. What I have been doing is working with the group, having them circle each time where they stop, and then I call them back over to work with me one at a time. I simply have them read the passage one time, marking the miscues as they read. This gives me an idea of how well they are doing with this passage since this is the fourth time they will be reading the passage. This process has seemed to be working well. Below you will find a chart of the results from the students. All scores resemble to fourth time the child read the passage. All names used in the chart are pseudonyms. 

Repeated Reading Students Name	1/28/2014 (Word count 94)	1/30/2014 (Word count 82)	2/4/2014 (Word count 118)
RR Bra	43/3	56/2	50/2
RR M	59/1	63/0	64/0
RR I	75/0	65/0	76/0
RR N	88/1	78/1	96/0
RR Br	90/2	81/1	80/3
RR A	94/0	82/0	118/0
RR Bro	94/0	82/0	104/0
**Score are WCPM/ Miscues. Also all scores resemble the fourth time students read the passage.

As you can see, progress is being made from week to week. For example, student RR M went from 59 WCPM the first session to 64 WCPM the third session. Student RR A went from reading 94 WCPM the first session to reading 118 WCPM the third session. Stay tuned for updates on the HELPS group and Houghton Mifflin reading series group.