Statement of
the Problem
When a student graduates from the
twelfth grade and can only read at an eighth grade level, the United States and the state of Georgia have a
problem. Citing the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES), Park and Osborne (2007) said, “TheAmerican educational system has made little to no progress with respect toimproving students’ reading and comprehension over the past twenty years; more
than 25% of high school students graduate without the ability to read at the basic
level”(p.161). When conversation of a Career & Technology classroom comes
up, most people, including the teacher, think “hands-on learning.” While that
is a true statement, other types of learning are also taking place. Penisten
(1993) commented that trade students need to understand technical material like
charts, diagrams, flow-charts, regulations, and dosages; that is why reading
comprehension is so important. What is the relevance of Career & Technical
Training as related to reading and basic academics? Can implemented readingstrategies in a Healthcare Science Technology Education (HSTE) classroom
improve reading skills and performance across the curriculum? This study
investigated the significance of implementing Content Area Reading Strategies
(CARS) in a HSTE classroom in order to discover if those strategies affect the
students’ grades across the curriculum.
Significance of
the Problem
As students are bombarded daily with
electronic stimuli, the adage, “sit down with a good book,” no longer has any
meaning. How can a book compete with online games and the ability to connect
with lost friends within your own space on the World Wide Web? Often, a book
cannot compete unless the students are “tag teamed” by their academic, English
& Language Arts teacher and their Career & Technology teacher. How can
educators replace the time being taken by all of the electronic stimuli with
reading time? The focus might not be replacing the time, but making the time
given to reading more productive.
Theoretical and
Conceptual Frameworks
Because of the rising trend of poor reading comprehension and skills
of high school students, carefully selecting a thesis is important. How can the
implementation of reading strategies in a CTE (Career & Technical
Education) classroom improve the students’ grades across the curriculum? Poor
reading comprehension and skills are a hindrance to the educational system, the
student, and the class. When trying to educate students about emergency
preparedness, the need to teach some conceptual understanding is present.
Students in EDP (Emergency & Disaster Preparedness) have already had
Introduction to Healthcare Science, but now they wish to venture into the world
of Emergency Medicine. The class starts off at the very beginning with
self-safety awareness and builds through constructivist educational beliefs of
“hands-on education” and the building of new knowledge onto prior
knowledge. While using differentiated
instruction, the opportunity to strengthen the classes reading comprehension
and skills by implementing a conceptual understanding of reading strategies
related to the content area becomes evident and necessary.
This thesis regarding reading strategies given in a CTE/HSTE
classroom correlates to the LaGrange College Educational Department’s (2008)
second tenet of the Conceptual Framework,exemplary professional teaching practices, “professional skills”, (p.5).
Competency Cluster 2.2 discusses instructional skills and the need to use
“effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to encourage
students’ development of critical thinking, problem-solving, and performance
skills” (p. 7). With the implementing of Content Area Reading Strategies (CARS)
into classroom lessons, the desired affect is to encourage the students and
increase their comprehension of the material that is being covered, while
impacting their reading skills enough to see a positive improvement in their
ELA (English Language Arts) grade.
The thesis also matches Georgia’s
state level Domain Five, planning and instruction. From the Georgia
Professional Standards Commission [GAPSC] (2010), “5.3: understand and use a
variety of instructional strategies appropriately to maintain student
engagement and support the learning of all students.” (p. 3). While reading
strategies are not typically taught in a CTE/HSTE classroom, maybe the benefit
will create the need. The desired effect, as the instructional strategies are
varied, is to see an increase in reading comprehension and skills to the degree
that impacts the students’ ELA grade. Implementing CARS within the CTE/HSTE
classroom assisted the students and the ELA teacher. With a dual approach to
improving reading comprehension and skills, one set of skills from the ELA
teacher and CARS from the CTE/HSTE teacher, the student will succeed in
improving their reading comprehension and skills.
Nationally, Proposition Two of the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standard’s (NBPTS) Core Propositions
for Experienced Teachers is where this thesis bests fits. The LaGrange College
Education Department (2008) ConceptualFramework mentions that, “teachers know the subjects they teach and how to
teach those subjects to students” (p.12). The fact that I wrote all of Fulton County’s
Healthcare Science curriculums and half of the state’s Emergency & Disaster
Preparedness and Concepts of Emergency Medicine curriculum gives me the
background and expertise to try a different approach towards instruction in order
to attempt to halt the declining reading comprehension and skills of today’s
youth. Proposition number two of the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards (NBPTS, 2002) states, “teachers know the subjects they teach and how
to teach those subjects to students” (p.3). The NBPTS (2002) also mentions, “able
teachers keep current with the growing body of curricular materials --
including literature available through their professional organizations -- and
constantly evaluate the usefulness of those materials based on their
understanding of curriculum theory, of students, of subject matter, and of the
school's and their own educational aims”(p.11). Reading strategies are not part
of the Healthcare Science curriculums, but with the ongoing challenge of
students’ low reading comprehension and skills, it is time for some action from
the Career & Technical Educator. That is the bases of this thesis.
Focus Questions
To determine if the implementation of CARS influenced the student’s
grades, I came up with three separate focus questions that guided this study.
The first question asks how implementing Content Area
Reading Strategies (CARS) in a Healthcare Science Classroom can lead to
improved reading comprehension and skills of the student.
The importance of this question was to see if
CARS really helps the student and if so, it should be implemented in every CTE
classroom. The next question asks what the differences in the students’ grades
and test scores were after implementing CARS. When this question is answered,
it helped determine the impact of CARS in a CTE/HSTE classroom. While
improvement of the students’ grades in the HSTE classroom is important and
necessary, improving their grade in ELA is a double benefit. The last focus
question asks what the impact of CARS was in the Healthcare Science classroom.
If there is no benefit to the students, then a different solution to the poor
reading comprehension and skills must be found. After this study, the CTE
department knew how to move forward as it tries to help the students improve
their reading comprehension and skills.
This action research
utilized two groups, a control group and a treatment group. By using
quantitative data from test scores, surveys and ELA grades, this study
determined if the implementation of CARS in a CTE/HSTE classroom was beneficial
to the students’ reading comprehension and skills across the curriculum in an
ELA classroom. The first step was the administration of a practice EOCT reading
comprehension evaluation to the control group and treatment group. This was
also done post-CARS instruction to the treatment group. Analysis of this
assessment gave baseline data to help determine if the CARS group is making
improvements with their reading and comprehension skills when compared to the
control group. Half-way through the study, leisure reading surveys were
administered to the students. The survey helped measure the students’ leisure
reading habits while in high school. At the beginning,
middle and end of the research time
window, the students’ ELA grades were also collected. This data helped confirm
or deny the impact of CARS on the students’ grade in their ELA class.
Human as
Researcher
I have been a Paramedic
in the Atlanta area for twenty-six years. Never intending to become an
educator, the title and job fell into my lap when I became a CPR instructor in
1985 and a Paramedic Instructor in 1993. Teaching EMT and Paramedic classes at
private schools, Vocational Colleges and at Emory University gave me the
experience I needed to enter the secondary education market ten years ago.
Since then, I have been with the Fulton County Board of Education and was
placed on the State Department of Education’s Healthcare Science Advisory
Committee in 2001. Writing curriculum at the State and County levels, along
with the associated lesson plans, has led me to work
towards a graduate degree from LaGrange College in Curriculum and Instruction
and has given me the experience to
conduct this study. I see daily the struggles students have with reading
complex medical literature. With the implementation of CARS in the HSTE
classroom, I believe that the students’ can succeed in obtaining improved
reading comprehension and skills before they graduate and move on to post-secondary
education or employment. I hope to support that statement with this study.
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Much research has been
done and much has been written about the low level of reading comprehension and
skills found among high school students in the United States. However, there
has been very little research specifically regarding reading comprehension
among high school students in the pathways of Career and Technical Education
(CTE). Therefore, I have made the focus of this thesis study the implementation
of Content Area Reading Strategies (CARS) in a Healthcare Science
Classroom. This study is to determine if CARS lead to students’ having improved
reading comprehension and skills in the Healthcare Science classroom as well as
across the curriculum in the English and Language Arts (ELA) classroom.
Background: Low Literacy
News
channels have only five topics to cover: sports, weather, politics, and local
and national events. Education is covered in three of those areas and the
reports about education usually include a story related to poor test scores in
the areas of math and reading. The following background summary focuses on the poor
reading skills and the low status of American high school students when
discussing their literacy.
Sum,
Kirsch and Traggart (2002) noted that, “the United States is spending more per
capita on education then other high-income countries like Canada, Germany and Australia.
Even with the United States’ higher levels of
spending and educational attainment, the U.S. average proficiency scores only
match the world’s average” (p.30). When the United
States is considered the richest country on the planet, one would believe that
our educational system would be the best on the planet. Unfortunately that is
not the case and the reading comprehension and skills of our youth is
dismal.
More than 133
years ago, Horace Mann commented: “the scientific or literacy well-being of a
community is to be estimated not so much by its possessing a few men of great
knowledge as it is having many of competent knowledge” Horace Mann (as cited in
Sum et al., 2002, p.28). This impactful insight echoes
in the hallowed halls of learning at all levels. Attempting to educate everyone
at the same level is a great undertaking by any country. Additionally impactful
was the comment by Hock et al., (2009) that, “more than eight million
adolescents have not mastered the reading skills necessary for them to
successfully respond to demanding secondary school requirements or compete for
meaningful jobs in the workplace” (pp.21-22). The eight million kids represent
more than a quarter of graduating high school students. While in high school,
those students are encouraged to move into post-secondary levels of education.
When those students arrive, they find it very difficult to stay on task and a
large percentage of them fail or quit within their first year.
Currently
America’s demographics are changing very dramatically and the literacy skill
deficit will affect the population groups that are growing the fastest. These
groups already have below-average skills which are noted by Sum et al. as they
said in 2002, “the average literacy scores of
native-born Blacks and Hispanics in the U.S. were at the 28th percentile on the
composite scale” (p.32). Sum et al. (2002) also mention that inequality is rooted very deeply in the United States educational
system. They stated that, “those entering any level of the educational system
with below-average skills are far less likely to advance to the next level,
receive far fewer hours of applied learning time, and hence gain far fewer
skills” (p.31). How can this be happening so long after the civil inequalities
of this country where changed when discussing education. The system is in need
of improving all students. The data showed cause to put extra effort toward the
minorities so that one day they may be truly equal when discussing the
education of all Americans.
The Need for Reading Strategies
By the time the student has reached high school, reading skills and
comprehension are already established and set. High school students with low
reading comprehension and skills can lead secondary educators to question the
students’ previous educational rigor and comment that more is needed at the
elementary level. With such staggering numbers in place, when discussing
reading comprehension and skills of high school students, it must be remembered
that “children acquire a large repertoire of strategies between the ages ofseven and thirteen. Some are explicitly taught and others are spontaneouslygenerated” (Kozminsky & Kozminsky, 2001, p.189).
Educators will also need to consider what Kozminsky and Kozminsky (2001)
illuminated that, “studies reveal that poor students have difficulty in using
strategies that contribute to reading comprehension” (p.190). With the
unfortunate downturn of the economy in recent years, many schools have seen an
increase in their free and reduced lunch programs and are now serving more and
more economically disadvantaged students. Years ago students were fed lunch for
a low fee, but now students are receiving lunch for free and in some
economically challenged areas students are also receiving free or reduced
breakfast. Along with cut backs on Paraprofessionals in core classrooms,
instruction to assist and help the students in weak academic areas has been
drastically affected. Some school system are relaying on parents to come and
help with classroom functions.
Park
and Osborne (2007) said, “because today’s students will read and write more
than any other previous generations of students, they must learn the requisite
skills necessary to create meaning from the surfeit and diversity of texts
available” (p.161). The demand for good
reading comprehension and skills is not noticed by the students and only some
parents will catch on. Students do not relate real jobs after high school or
college with the ability to read and comprehend. Citing the National Reading
Panel [NRP], Park and Osborne (2007) also stated that, “these reading skills
are vital for productive careers, democratic citizenship, and successful
personal lives” (p.45). The countries former President, Thomas Jefferson,
believed that every American should receive an education. His belief was based
on the notion that the more intelligent an individual, the more productive the
citizen and the better a country would be. Park and Osborne (2007) noted that,
“adolescents need strong reading skills to excel in academics, create meaning
from text, and function in society” (p.45). Citing NCES statistics from 2001,
Park and Osborne said in 2002 that data and research has indicated that, “reading
skill deficiencies are prevalent at the secondary level” (p.46). They also
noted from the NCES statistics that, “in the 8th grade, 32% of boys
and 19% of girls cannot read at the basic level” (p.46). A country’s
educational system cannot thrive with these dismal numbers. Citizens who cannot
read well enough will only keep Thomas Jefferson’s beliefs for every American’s
equal education from coming to fruition.
Students with
below-average skills cannot expect and will not earn above-average wages in an
increasingly global economy. The United States is competing with the world’s
countries and with more importance being placed on information and technology
in all fields, including healthcare, it is imperative that we find ways to
reduce the high level of inequality in reading comprehension and skills so that
our country can continue to thrive and to be internationally competitive. Park
and Osborne (2007) noted that when a student enters high school, “instruction
must occur in all courses with responsibility falling upon all teachers,
including career and technical education teachers” (pp.161-162). McKenna and
Robinson (1990) said that, “content area reading strategies are operationally
defined as those text-based strategies that enable students to acquire new
content in a given discipline” (p.185). Students in a Career and Technical
course arrive with all different reading abilities, some students are advanced
and some come with Individual Education Plans (IEP’s). Reading strategies are
simply procedures that will help the students as they read the manuals and
texts related to their career path in middle school or high school. In Georgia,
these career paths are established by school counselors and parents after the
student completes a career assessment on the GAcollege411.org website, under
the “Career Planning” tab, then the “Learn About Yourself” box. New laws put
into place by the Building Resourceful Individuals to Develop Georgia's Economy
Act, or the B.R.I.D.G.E. Act in Georgia, require this assessment to begin in
the sixth grade (Official Code of Georgia Ann. §
20-2-327{c}, 2010). While most kids will tell you what
they what to be when they grow up, most of them have no idea what it takes to
become that career choice. When a student is still learning how to read and
comprehend in the fifth grade, how will they make an intelligent decision about
a career path? Reading Strategies will need to be put in place early within
students’ educational processes so they can realize what types of careers are
available for them.
How a Career and Technology Classroom Can Help
Very little instruction happens in a Career and Technical Education classroom
directly related to literacy. The last place students would expect reading
strategies to be taught is in their career and technical education course.
Students do not understand the relevance of being a good reader (Penisten, 1993).
Students register and sign up for these courses to get out of the desk chair
and participate in hands-on, real-life learning activities. If the students
knew that content area reading strategies (CARS) were included in the career
and technical education classrooms, they would probably bolt for the door and
take physical education classes. Yet the importance of reading comprehension
and skills are needed in today’s society. A Career and Technical Education
course can assist in teaching those reading skills necessary for today’s youth
to succeed.
Park and Osborne (2007) wrote, “the
problem associated with the use of literacy strategies in career and technical
education is the lack of evidence supporting the impact of such strategies on
students’ academic performance and motivation” (p.46). Most career and
technical educators focus on the career aspects of their chosen profession, yet
very little instruction happens in a career and technical classroom related to
literacy. However, if a student is taught how to use high priced medical
equipment, they should also be taught reading strategies. Hock et al. (2009)
said that, “it is important that teachers be prepared to teach these students
reading skills and strategies” (p.35).
While students progressively work up the ladder of their core
classes during primary, middle and secondary school, their entrance into a Career
and Technical Education classroom is usually first in their ninth or tenth
grade year of high school. Students
enter Career and Technical Education classrooms because they have an interest in
a particular subject or trade. They come with minimal to zero prior knowledge
of the subject. Kozminsky and Kozminsky (2001) were concerned that, “the prior
knowledge of each reader varies from one subject matter to another, and the
level of knowledge in any given area will affect his or her ability to apply
meaning to the information in the text” (p.188). Some students will try to give
the impression that they know the subject due to years of television shows or
YouTube videos that show people how to do something, but when the real
information is presented all students in a Career and Technical Education
classroom start at the same level playing field.
Park and Osborne (2007) said, “when students do not comprehend a literary work in English class,
the consequence is failure on an assignment or assessment. However, when a
student does not comprehend text in agricultural science, such as a chemical
label, a technical manual, or a nutritional label, the consequences may include
failure on an assignment or test, but may also actually endanger the student or
his/her peers”(p.46). This holds true for any
Career and Technical Education classroom
where the same context exists. Automotives, aircraft repair, welding,
construction, heating and air, plumbing and electrical are all taught in
today’s high schools and reading errors can have bad results.
Park and Osborne (2007) mention that “outcomes of reading in career
and technical education can consist of solving problems, increasing knowledge,
or engaging the reader” (p.50). When Career and Technical classroom educators
begin to work with their students, and implement content area reading
strategies (CARS), they must motivate the students and use CARS multiple times.
Citing research by Choochom, Park and Osborne (2007) concluded that,
“intrinsically motivated students employed more strategies, exhibited greater
self-regulation, and comprehended more text” (p.52). The easiest way to
motivate a career and technical student is to dangle the use of hands-on
learning with equipment as a reward. Students want to get up out of the seat
and have fun learning with their hands. In a Healthcare Science classroom
hands-on learning includes the practice of Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation
(CPR), application of bandages and splints, search and rescue for disaster
victims and moulage and triage of said patients. Bouncing back and forth
between CARS and hands-on learning should keep the students motivated.
Reading
Strategies
Content Area Reading Strategies
(CARS) are very specific tools and actions that the students will use to make
meaning from written text. When the student is reading equipment manual it is
like they are having a conversation with the manufacturer. Authors of books and
manufacturers of equipment make decisions about how to effectively communicate
through a piece of writing. Students use specific reading strategies within
their content area to help them understand what the authors are trying to
communicate through the writing.
While there can be up to twenty
different reading strategies used when teaching, this study employed only five:
Activating Prior Knowledge, Ask Questions, Identify Main Ideas and Supporting
Details, Sequence Events, and Summarize Information. This allowed the researcher
time to discern which strategies the students enjoy and which strategies truly
benefit the students. Theses strategies were implemented before, during and
after the reading of each unit. By doing this we were able to see which
strategy worked best in each part of the reading.
Summary of Literature
Reading comprehension and skills are
low in the United States and studies show that they are getting worse. The need
for Content Area Reading Strategies (CARS) is necessary for our country to
compete in this global economy. CARS can be implemented in a Career and
Technical Education classroom to help strengthen the student's reading
comprehension and skills by teaching them the several different text-based
strategies. These strategies can help the students in any course and in the job
market where they are required to more reading and writing. With the Career and
Technical Education teacher using CARS, students should begin to have better
grades and test score across the curriculum in their English and Language Arts
(ELA) classroom.
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study used an action research
design through describing the affects of Content Area Reading Strategies (CARS)
in a Healthcare Science classroom. Action research, also know as “Classroom
Research,” is well documented. Gilles, Wilson, and Elias (2010), found in their
research that action research is a powerful agent for change. Hendricks (2009)
states, “the purpose of action research is for practitioners to investigate and
improve their practices” (p. 3). Descriptive data describes an event. In the
case of this study, the affect of CARS on a tenth to twelfth grade population is
described. More specifically, this research was associational research because
it was looking for correlations between the students leisure reading habits and
the possible affects of CARS on the student’s English Language Arts grades,
across the curriculum.
The structure of this study is
fairly simple. The treatment group and control group both took the practice
reading End of Course Test (EOCT) for Ninth graders before the implementation
of CARS. The subjects also took a “Leisure Reading Survey”. During the study,
the researcher gathered the subject’s current ELA grades, three times;
beginning, middle and end. At the end of the study, the subjects once again
took the practice reading End of Course Test (EOCT) for Ninth graders. The data
was analyzed and coded for recurring, dominant or emerging themes. A dependent
t-test was performed for the treatment group and control group, pre-post
treatment, along with pre-pre and post-post treatment between the two groups to
make sense of the data.
Setting
The school at which the
study took place was located in the city of Atlanta. It is in a metropolitan
area of the Fulton County school district. The high school that was used had a
primarily Black student body consisting of ninety-nine percent of the total two
thousand, one hundred and twelve students. Sixty nine
percent of the students were economically disadvantaged. During the school year of this study, sixty-four percent of the
students were receiving free or reduced lunch. The school had been a Title 1 school since the beginning of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB). The location was chosen due to my place of employment. Approval
for the study was obtained from the school Principal, and the LaGrange College
Institutional Review Board.
Subjects and Participants
The subjects in this
study were chosen by class name. Because of the need for a control group, the
Emergency & Disaster Preparedness (EDP) classes where chosen. The two
classes consisted of forty-three students. Forty students were African-American
and three were Asian. Thirty-three of the students were female and ten were
male. There were four tenth grade students, thirty-one eleventh grade students
and eight twelfth grade students. The first EDP class of the day, fifth period,
was the treatment group with twenty students. The second EDP class of the day,
sixth period, was the control group with twenty-three students.
Procedures and
Data Collection Methods
To
gather the evidence about the treatment, CARS, an Instructional Plan, Appendix
A, must first be implemented. In the data shell in Table 3.1, Focus Question
One deals with the Instructional Plan and the rubric that was used by a
colleague to evaluate the effectiveness of the Instructional Plan. Several
suggestions where made that improved the final plan. Details on how the
collection of the subject’s grades at the beginning, middle and end of the
study, from the ELA teachers was discussed. The concern was how to implement
the collection of the data with little to no impact on the teacher’s already
burdensome duties. The recommendation of utilizing the current electronic grade
book and asking the schools data clerk to pull the needed information was
implemented. The students were also administered a Leisure Reading Survey (see
Appendix B) during the applications of CARS to the treatment group. This gave
baseline data to all of the subject’s current reading attitudes. The data were
coded to see if any emerging trends occurred.
Table 3.1: Data Shell
Focus Question
|
Literature
Sources
|
Type: Method,
Data , Validity
|
How are data
analyzed?
|
Rationale
|
Can implementing
Content Area Reading Strategies (CARS) in a Healthcare Science Classroom lead
to improved reading comprehension and skills of the student?
|
Park, T. D.,
& Osborne, E. (2007).
Hock, M.,
Brasseur, I., Deshler, D., Catts, H., Marquis, J., Mark, C., & Stribling,
J. (2009)
Kozminsky, E.,
& Kozminsky, L. (2001)
|
Type of Method:
Instructional
Plan, rubric and interview
Type of Data:
Qualitative
Type of
Validity:
Content
|
Lessons that are
qualified to CARS instruction: Coded for themes aligned with the focus
question.
Analysis with
qualitative approach: Coded for themes aligned with the focus question.
|
Looking for
dominate, recurring and emerging themes.
|
What were the
differences in the students’ grades and test scores after implementing CARS?
|
Park, T. D.,
& Osborne, E. (2007).
Kozminsky, E.,
& Kozminsky, L. (2001)
|
Type of Method:
Standardized
-Practice EOCT
Type of data:
Interval
Type of
Validity:
Content
|
Dependent T
Independent T
ANOVA
|
To determine if
there are significant differences between means from one group tested twice.
To determine if
there are significant differences between means from two independent groups.
Desire to find
what questions (items) are significant (and which ones are not)
|
What was the
impact of CARS on the educator and the students?
Self reflection
and student affect
|
Penisten, J.
(1993)
Reflective
Journal
|
Type of Method:
Reflective Journal and Student Surveys
Type of Data:
Qualitative
Type of
Validity:
Construct
|
Analysis with
qualitative approach: Coded for themes
Recurring
Dominant
Emerging
Dependent T
Independent T
Chi Square
|
Looking for
categorical and repeating data that formed a pattern of behaviors.
To determine if
there are significant differences between means from two independent groups.
Desire to find
what questions (items) are significant (and which ones are not)
|
The second focus question looked at the difference in the subjects
practice reading EOCT for ninth grade scores. In order to determine if content
area reading strategies (CARS) were beneficial in the Healthcare Science
classroom, subjects were tested pre-CARS and post-CARS. The End of Course Test
(EOCT) is an academic assessment conducted in many states by the State Board of
Education. Georgia, for example, tests from the ninth to twelfth grades. Georgia
high schools are required to administer a standardized, multiple-choice EOCT in
each of eight core subjects including Algebra I, Geometry, U.S. History,
Economics, Biology, Physical Science, Ninth Grade Literature and Composition,
and American Literature and Composition. The official purpose of the EOCT is to
assess specific content knowledge and skills. After gathering the scores from
the treatment and control group, an independent t-test evaluated the treatment
group scores with the control group scores. A dependent t-test was also
performed on the treatment group and control group, pre-post treatment, along
with pre-pre and post-post treatment between the two groups.
The third focus question looks at the impact of CARS on the teacher
and student. All of the qualitative data was collected from the student’s
surveys and teacher’s reflective journal that was analyzed using correlation
coefficients. Additional information, such as the types of material read by the
students, was also collected from the Leisure Reading Survey. The Leisure Reading
Survey was given to determine the number of hours students spend reading during
leisure time within the week. The students took the Leisure Reading Survey
during the middle of the study, or the nine week time window.
Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias
An
Instructional Plan was created for the data gathering method to answer Focus
Question One. Two of my colleagues reviewed the instructional plan and
completed the associated rubric. I then interviewed these two colleagues to
record their responses and used that qualitative data to improve the
Instructional Plan for classroom instruction.
Popham (2008) defines content
validity as, “the extent to which an assessment procedure adequately represents
the content of the curricular standard being measured” (p.89). The Instructional
Plan was created to ensure content validity. Construct validity was sought for
implementation of CARS in the HSTE classroom. The Instructional Plan was
evaluated by the researchers’ colleagues to ensure the Georgia Performance
Standards were included and covered. The colleagues then checked the
transcripts of those interviews for accuracy.
To achieve dependability, the collection
of qualitative data and treatment of the Instructional Plan was kept consistent.
The data was accurately recorded with the use of protocol and interviews of the
colleagues who reviewed the Instructional Plan and recorded their thoughts on
the Instructional Plan rubric. The selection of an adequate number of subjects
was used in the treatment group and control group. The length of time for data
collection was prolonged to eighteen weeks to in order to keep the treatment
persistent.
According to Popham (2008), there
are three types of bias: offensive, unfair penalization, and disparate impact. The
instrument of assessment used was a practice EOCT for reading comprehension.
The EOCT was evaluated by the Georgia Department of Education for unfair
penalization, offensive language or content and disparate impact on the
subjects that take it.
To determine if there were differences in the students’ grades and test scores after
implementing CARS the data gathering method used for Focus Question Two was standardized
assessments. I used a practice Ninth grade End of Course Test (EOCT) for
reading comprehension to gather pre- and post-treatment test scores for the
quantitative data. More teacher-made quantitative data were collected from the
students’ individual scores in their current ELA class. The scores were
gathered at the beginning, middle, and end of the study.
Content
and Criterion based validity was gathered because of the prediction that students
who receive CARS would score higher on standardized test than those students
who did not receive CARS during the study. Popham (2008) says Criterion
Validity is using measurements between two groups as a basis of a predictive
inference.
To
assure reliability, the same practice EOCT for Ninth grade reading was administered.
A test-retest correlation between the treatment group and control group was performed.
This allowed inferences to be made on any correlations that appeared (Salkind,
2010). Another way that I ensured reliability was utilizing a one tail t-test
for comparing the scores of the treatment group and control group to determine
if there was significant difference between the two groups, pre-test/post-test.
Referencing
Popham (2008),“assessment bias refers to qualities of an assessment instrument
that offend or unfairly penalize a group of students because of students’
gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, or other such
group-defining characteristics” (p.111). The practice EOCT for Ninth grade
reading has been critiqued by a bias review panel formed by the Department of
Education (DOE) in Georgia prior to its distribution to the individual school
systems and schools.
To answer Focus Question Three, qualitative data gathered from a reflective journal kept during the
study and the students’ Leisure Reading Survey that was given at the half way
point of the study. Penisten (1993) comments that students do not see the
relevance of being a good reader to their expected trade of study. Construct
validity was utilized for the teacher’s reflective journal that recorded
beliefs and attitudes about implementing CARS in the classroom. Construct
validity was used for the students’ thoughts and attitudes about leisure
reading.
Dependability was maintained by data collecting and accurately
recording that data with the use of protocol. Maintaining well organized raw
data, the researcher can utilize the gathered data to disprove or prove that
the implementation of CARS in a CTE classroom impacted the students’ grades
across the curriculum in the ELA classroom. All files were secured in a locked
file cabinet located in the researcher’s office on campus.
Survey questions were evaluated for unfair penalization, offensive
language, or content and disparate impact on the subjects of this action
research as indicated by Popham (2008). The only instruction given to students
in regards to the Leisure Reading Survey was not to count textbooks as leisure
reading.
Analysis of
Data
The purpose of this study was to
see if there was a positive impact on reading
comprehension and skills to validate the implementation of Content Area Reading
Strategies (CARS) within the CTE classrooms. Looking back at the planned research, the three focus questions of
this study relate the three types of validity; content, construct, and criterion
in multiple ways (Popham, 2008). Focus Question One uses qualitative data from
multiple colleague interviews and critiques of the Instructional Plan to
evaluate any recurring, dominant or emerging themes. The rationale is that
repeating data can form patterns of behavior. The colleagues’ review of the
Instructional Plan was also to ensure validity and curriculum content.
Quantitative data was gathered from
Focus Question Two. The subjects were administered a practice ninth grade
reading EOCT, pre and post treatment. With a null hypothesis stating that there
is no significant difference between the treatment group and control group’s
pre-test, an independent t-test with unequal variances at the P< 0.05
significance level was completed pre-treatment. This was to determine if there
were significant differences between the control group and treatment group.
Next, an ANOVA was completed to analyze the students’ grades in their ELA class
during the study to help determine a correlated gain with the treatment effect.
The decision to reject the null hypothesis for the ANOVA was set at P< 0.05.
After the study, with a null hypothesis stating that there is no significant
difference between the treatment group and control group’s post-test, an independent
t-test with unequal variances at the P< 0.05 significance level was
completed post-treatment. Data research for Focus Question two concluded with a
dependent t-test. Once again, with the null hypothesis stating that there is no
significant difference between the treatment group and control group’s pre-post
test scores, a dependent t-test with equal variances at the P< 0.05
significance level was completed on each group, post treatment.
Focus Question Three evaluated thequalitative data gathered from the teacher’s reflective journal and student’s
Leisure Reading Survey. The data was analyzed and coded for recurring, dominant
or emerging themes. The Leisure Reading Survey was analyzed using a chi square
to reveal statistical values from question numbers four and five using a Likert
scale format. This was done to see if the students’ answers trended
toward significance to one item from each question. Significance
was reported at the p<.05, p<.01, and the p<.001 levels.
This construct
validity will bring understanding to the student’s survey questions. The
construct validity was supported by the use of the LaGrange College theoretical
framework, the use of a data shell to align the focus questions to literature
and research methods, and the large sample size used for the quantitative study.
This study is holistic in nature. It
is an analysis of the whole study, not just a particular focus question. The
study received validation from faculty of Lagrange College and the school’s principal.
Eisner (1991) referred to this type of validation as, “’Consensual validation,’
an agreement among competent others that the description, interpretation,
evaluation, and thematic are right” (p. 112). The results of this study were
compared to the epistemological validation on the effectiveness of CARS in an
EDP classroom. Cycling back, as described by Denzin and Lincoln (1998), to the
literature review in Chapter Two of the theses, helps give validity to the
study. This study has epistemological validation because the results are
compared to existing literature.
The study has credibility, a process
defined as triangulation. Eisner (1991) calls this
process ‘structural corroboration,’ where a confluence of evidence comes together
to form a compelling whole. Multiple data sources were utilized to
support structural corroboration and great care was taken to ensure precision
and accuracy so a tight, coherent and strong case can be presented to assert
judgments.
To
help achieve transferability, this study easily constructed and can be
replicated by others and used for future research. Eisner (1991) calls this
process ‘referential adequacy’ where perception and understanding by others
will increase because of research. The referential adequacy of this study was
achieved by how easy it can be duplicated and studied in the future.
Catalytic validity is the degree to
which you anticipate your study to shape and transform your participants,
subjects or school (Lather as cited by Kinchloe & McLaren, 1998). This
study did have catalytic validity because of the positive changes and
transformational events that occurred for the researcher and students within
the study.
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Quantitative and
qualitative data were both collected from this action research study. The
results from the data were analyzed and organized by focus question in this chapter. In this
chapter the quantitative data gathered is shown through statistical data and
tables. The qualitative data were collected from the Instructional
Plan, co-worker interviews, and a reflective journal. Hendricks (2009)
recommends that quantitative data be analyzed using an electronic software
program, such as Microsoft Excel. Following this recommendation, the quantitative
data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2007, also suggested by Salkind
(2010).
Focus
Question One asked, “can implementing Content Area Reading Strategies (CARS) in
a Healthcare Science Classroom lead to improved reading comprehension and
skills of the student? The qualitative data gathered were from two faculty
member interviews at Westlake High School. Hendricks (2009) recommends using a
thematic analysis to analyze the qualitative data by coding for themes such as,
“activities, events, strategies and processes” (pp.143-144). Faculty Member A
was another Healthcare Science teacher. Faculty Member B was an Administrative
Assistant to the Principal and former ELA Department Chair person. A detailed
Instructional Plan, meeting the state of Georgia’s Department of Education
standards, was created by the researcher and was reviewed by the two faculty
members using a rubric. The Instructional Plan addressed five Georgia Performance
Standards [GPS], as a resource for alignment during the research. When Faculty
Member A reviewed the Instructional Plan they noted that the practicality of
the lessons might hamper the time needed to teach the standards of the GPS’s.
Member A noted the short time window of each school period, fifty-two minutes,
would add some stress to the educator and felt that the addition of more
information to the already packed GPS’s might be difficult for the researcher
to plan for and the students to learn. Recommendation was received from Faculty
Member A to extend the research time from fifteen weeks to eighteen weeks. This
recommendation was duly noted and the research time was extended to allow for
more teaching of CARS to the treatment group. Faculty member A also mentioned
that her job was to teach the GPS’s and nothing more. Member A said, “If they
can’t read by now, they need to go back.”
Park and Osborne (2006) noticed during their study of Agriscience
educators that, “teachers are often reluctant to implement content area reading
strategies in their content areas” (p. 44). Several reasons where noted for
this reluctance by Park and Osborne (2006) including, “a lack of confidence in
handling reading problems, the attitude that reading instruction infringes on
content time, and the denial of the importance of reading for learning in the
content area” (p. 44). The infringement of time was a continuing echo for
member A during the review of the Instructional Plan and the research itself.
Faculty Member B noted some grammatical errors in the Leisure
Reading Survey and the Instructional
Plan that were corrected. Faculty Member
B also pressed the importance of this study and showed great interest. Faculty
Member B felt that every class in every content area should have some aspect of
CARS in place and that all educators should strive to improve the reading
skills and comprehension of all students at all levels. Faculty Member B also
mentioned the time initially set for the study might not be enough. She stated
that additional time was needed at the beginning of each GPS and when
introducing a new strategy. Faculty Member B suggested focusing on only four or
five reading strategies during the research time. Her suggestions where also
noted and research only centered around the following five strategies;
Activating Prior Knowledge, Ask Questions, Identify Main Ideas and Supporting
Details, Sequence Events and Summarize Information. Faculty Member B was very
enthusiastic and helped tremendously with the study. This is further discussed
in Chapter Five of this thesis paper.
To answer FocusQuestion Two, quantitative data were used to determine the student’s prior
knowledge. Students in the treatment
group and control group were both given an identical Ninth Grade EOCT
Practice Test for Reading prior to any CARS instruction. The pre-test took
place on day one and two of the study. The high score on the pre-test in the
control group was an 86%, scored by an eleventh grade male. The lowest score on
the pre-test was a 38%, scored also by an eleventh grade male. The class mean
of the control group, on the pretest was 66.47%; the median score was 69%. The
high score on the pre-test by the treatment group was an 84%, scored by an
eleventh grade male. The lowest score on the pre-test was a 36%, scored by an
eleventh grade female. The class mean of the treatment group was 66%, with a
median score of 67.5%.
The null hypothesis stated that there was no significant difference
between the control and treatment group’s pre-test. For the hypothesis to be
rejected, the obtained value [OV], obtained from the data, must be larger than
the critical value [CV], created by setting the alpha to 0.05. An independent
t-test was run on the pre-test scores between the control group and treatment
group, the CV was 1.68 and the results from the t-test was t(41) = 0.127, p> .05 on a one tailed test. The
purpose of this t-test was to show that both groups were relatively equal in
ability and prior knowledge of the material at the beginning of the study.
Since the obtained value of 0.127 was less than the critical value of 1.68 (as
shown in Table 4.1), then the null hypothesis was accepted because there was no
significant difference in the pre-test scores from the control group when compared
to the pre-test scores of the treatment group. Salkind (2010) recommends using
an effect size calculator (p.234) to determine “how different two groups are
from one another” (p.231). Using Cohen’s d,
an effect size of 0.0000192
was calculated. Since this score is within the range 0.0 to 0.2, the
effect size is considered small. Therefore, the groups tended to be very
similar and overlap entirely (Salkind, 2010). This t-test allowed the research
to begin without alteration to the CARS given to the treatment group.
Table 4.1 – Independent t-Test: Pre-test to Pre-test
t-Test: Two-Sample
Assuming Unequal Variances
|
||||
Pre-Test Treatment
|
Pre-Test Control
|
|||
Mean
|
66
|
66.47826087
|
||
Variance
|
130.9473684
|
173.3517787
|
||
Observations
|
20
|
23
|
||
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
|
0
|
|||
df
|
41
|
|||
t Stat
|
-0.127437029
|
|||
P(T<=t) one-tail
|
0.44960875
|
|||
t Critical one-tail
|
1.682878003
|
|||
P(T<=t) two-tail
|
0.8992175
|
|||
t Critical two-tail
|
2.019540948
|
|||
t(41) = 0.127, p> .05
As mentioned in previous chapters
of this thesis, the applications of CARS in the Healthcare Science classroom
was to be measured and evaluated. It was hypothesized that the application of
CARS in the Healthcare Science classroom might improve reading skills and
comprehension across the curriculum in the students ELA classroom. This study
did investigate the significance of implementing Content Area Reading
Strategies (CARS) in a HSTE classroom in order to discover if those strategies
affect the student’s grades across the curriculum. Tables 4.2, ANOVA Treatment
Group with CARS, and Table 4.3, ANOVA
Control Group no CARS, show the students ELA grades at the beginning of the
study; day one, the middle of the study; day sixty-three, and the end of the
study; day one hundred and twenty-six. The results indicate that there was not
a significant difference between the control group and treatment group within
their ELA classes. However the averages show growth with both groups over the
time of the study.
Table 4.2- ANOVA Treatment Group with CARS
Anova: Single Factor
|
|||||||||||
SUMMARY
|
|||||||||||
Groups
|
Count
|
Sum
|
Average
|
Variance
|
|||||||
Begin
|
20
|
1424
|
71.2
|
310.6947
|
|||||||
Middle
|
20
|
1461
|
73.05
|
238.5763
|
|||||||
End
|
20
|
1589
|
79.45
|
56.26053
|
|||||||
ANOVA
|
|||||||||||
Source of Variation
|
SS
|
df
|
MS
|
F
|
P-value
|
F crit
|
|||||
Between
Groups
|
749.6333333
|
2
|
374.8167
|
1.856963
|
0.165469
|
3.158843
|
|||||
Within
Groups
|
11505.1
|
57
|
201.8439
|
||||||||
Total
|
12254.73333
|
59
|
|||||||||
f(2,57)=1.85,
p>.05
Table 4.3- ANOVA Control Group no CARS
Anova: Single Factor
|
||||||
SUMMARY
|
||||||
Groups
|
Count
|
Sum
|
Average
|
Variance
|
||
Begin
|
23
|
1715
|
74.56522
|
308.3478
|
||
Middle
|
23
|
1763
|
76.65217
|
241.3281
|
||
End
|
23
|
1889
|
82.13043
|
54.11858
|
||
ANOVA
|
||||||
Source of Variation
|
SS
|
df
|
MS
|
F
|
P-value
|
F crit
|
Between
Groups
|
702.2608696
|
2
|
351.1304
|
1.744619
|
0.182671
|
3.135918
|
Within
Groups
|
13283.47826
|
66
|
201.2648
|
|||
Total
|
13985.73913
|
68
|
||||
f(2,66)=1.77,
p>.05
Upon
completion of the study, two dependent t-tests were conducted on each groups’
pre-test and corresponding post-test. The null hypothesis, there is no
significant difference in the pre-test scores and post-test scores would be
rejected if p< .05. Table 4.4 displays the data gathered on the
pre-test/post-test of the practice reading EOCT for Ninth grade, for the
control group.
Table 4.4-
Dependent t-test of Pre-Test/Post-Test Control Group
t-Test: Paired Two-Sample
for Means
|
||
Control Class- NO
CARS
|
Pre Test
|
Post Test
|
Mean
|
66.47826087
|
62.47826087
|
Variance
|
173.3517787
|
321.1699605
|
Observations
|
23
|
23
|
Pearson Correlation
|
0.845637865
|
|
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
|
0
|
|
df
|
22
|
|
t Stat
|
1.963476024
|
|
P(T<=t) one-tail
|
0.031176909
|
|
t Critical one-tail
|
1.717144335
|
|
P(T<=t) two-tail
|
0.062353818
|
|
t Critical two-tail
|
2.073873058
|
|
T(22) = 1.96, P> .05
|
||
The
data in Table 4.4 shows the obtained t-value did not exceeded the corresponding
critical value at the α=.05 confidence level for both groups: t(22) = 1.96, P>.05 . For the
control group: therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted, meaning there is no
significant difference present from the scores of the pre-test and
corresponding post-test. When looking at the mean a 4% drop in averages is
noted between the pre-test and post-test for the control group. This drop may
account for several different reasons, i.e. student’s attitudes on the same
test given again or end-of-the year attitudes that the students have because
they are only studying for their finals. Further discussion on this issue is
discussed in chapter five of this thesis.
Table
4.5 displays the data gathered on the pre-test/post-test of the practice
reading EOCT for Ninth grade, for the treatment group.
Table 4.5-
Dependent t-test of Pre-Test/Post-Test Treatment Group
t-Test: Paired Two-Sample
for Means
|
||
Treatment Class- CARS
|
Pre Test
|
Post Test
|
Mean
|
66
|
69.15
|
Variance
|
130.9473684
|
159.2921053
|
Observations
|
20
|
20
|
Pearson Correlation
|
0.528771815
|
|
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
|
0
|
|
df
|
19
|
|
t Stat
|
-1.201351366
|
|
P(T<=t) one-tail
|
0.122188396
|
|
t Critical one-tail
|
1.729132792
|
|
P(T<=t) two-tail
|
0.244376791
|
|
t Critical two-tail
|
2.09302405
|
|
T(19) = 1.20,
P> .05
|
||
The
data in Table 4.5 shows the obtained t-value did not exceeded the corresponding
critical value at the α=.05 confidence level for both groups: t(19) = 1.20, P>.05 . For the treatment
group: therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted, meaning there is no
significant difference present from the scores of the pre-test and
corresponding post-test. When looking at the mean a 3% increase in averages is
noted between the pre-test and post-test for the treatment group. This rise may
account for CARS or it may account for the student’s natural course of
obtaining knowledge in their ELA class. Their attitudes about taking the post
test where different when compared to the control group. This may be as a
result of the CARS that they had been taught.
Quantitative
data was also used to determine the student’s knowledge after the research
study, post-CARS. Students in the
treatment group and control group were both given the same identical
Ninth Grade EOCT Practice Test for Reading post-CARS instruction that they had
taken pre-CARS instruction. The post-test took place on day one hundred
twenty-five and one hundred twenty-six of the study. The high score on the post-test
in the control group was an 85%, scored by an eleventh grade male. The lowest
score on the post-test was a 26%, scored also by an eleventh grade male. The
class mean of the control group on the post-test was 62.4%, the median score
was 68%. The high score on the post-test by the treatment group was an 88%,
scored by an eleventh grade female. The lowest score on the post-test was a
36%, scored by an eleventh grade male. The class mean of the treatment group
was 69.1%, with a median score of 72%.
The null hypothesis stated that there was
no significant difference between the control and treatment group’s post-test.
For the hypothesis to be rejected, the obtained value [OV], obtained from the
data, must be larger than the critical value [CV], created by setting the alpha
to 0.05. An independent t-test was run on the post-test scores between the
control group and treatment group, the CV was 1.68 and the results from the
t-test was t(39) =
1.425, P> .05 on a one tailed test. The purpose of
this t-test was to show that both groups were relatively equal in ability after
the administration of CARS to the treatment group at the end of the study. Since
the obtained value of 1.42 was less than the critical value of 1.68 (as shown
in Table 4.6), then the null hypothesis should be accepted because there was no
significant difference in the post-test scores from the control group when
compared to the post-test scores of the treatment group. Salkind (2010)
recommends using an effect size calculator (p.234) to determine “how different
two groups are from one another” (p.231). Using Cohen’s d, an effect size of 0.0000888 was calculated. Since this
score is within the range 0.0 to 0.2, the effect size is considered small.
Therefore, the groups tended to be very similar and overlap entirely (Salkind,
2010). This t-test allowed the research to finish with the treatment group.
Table 4.6 – Independent t-Test: Post-test to Post-test
t-Test: Two-Sample
Assuming Unequal Variances
|
||
Post Test Treatment
|
Post Test Control
|
|
Mean
|
69.15
|
62.47826087
|
Variance
|
159.2921053
|
321.1699605
|
Observations
|
20
|
23
|
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
|
0
|
|
df
|
39
|
|
t Stat
|
1.424736104
|
|
P(T<=t) one-tail
|
0.081093579
|
|
t Critical one-tail
|
1.684875122
|
|
P(T<=t) two-tail
|
0.162187159
|
|
t Critical two-tail
|
2.022690901
|
|
T(39) = 1.425, P> .05
Focus
Question Three was answered with qualitative data
collected from a teacher reflective journal that were coded for themes. The
themes focused on teacher attitude, student’s attitude toward CARS and what
CARS where better received by the students during the research. At the beginning of the research the
treatment group was verbally negative about the use of reading strategies. Some
students commented, “this is stupid and a waste of time!” Several students
where heard making statements like, “We are not in third grade, we know how to
read.” The treatment group was explained that the reading strategies are not to
belittle the student, but to enhance the abilities of the student.
After the second week of the study a
routine began to form and the student’s attitudes began to accept this change
in schedule. As the students began to except the change, it made it easier for
the educator to present, explain and demonstrate the CARS being presented. The
students spent the most time on Activating Prior Knowledge, APK. For most of the
students the only thing they knew about emergency preparedness is what they had
seen on television. Stereo-types and urban legends took up a great deal of
time. The students enjoyed the conversation though and the educator learned
more about the student’s backgrounds. When using APK, Asking Questions just
seem to flow naturally for the students. They began to research more and try to
find information to stump the instructor.
A scavenger hunt was used to help
Identify Main Ideas and Supporting Details. By handing each student a sheet
with detailed items to find in the book’s chapter, the class began to compete
to see who would finish the hunt first. I purchased the “rubber cookie” for an
award and students loved to compete for it. Once the scavenger hunt was over
some students noted that the Sequencing of Events was already completed. The
students created a flow chart that started with scene-safety, then the students
where able to peace together and plug in the parts of the disaster or emergency
unfolding in front of them. When that flow sheet was completed the students
then found an easy way to Summarize the Information. Several students video
taped the process with their cell phones. They enjoyed using their cell phones
because the school does not allow them out of pocket.
The students where given a Leisure Reading Survey half way through
the study to evaluate their reading habits. The survey was designed to give the
researcher an idea of the reading habits of the students in the study. Because
only two questions where Likert items, a Cronbach’s Alpha was not completed.
Question four of the survey asks, how many hours a week do you read magazines? Question
five of the survey asks, how many hours a week do you read books? From the
survey a chi squared statistical value was obtain from questions four and five
using a Likert scale format.
Table 4:7- Chi Square: Leisure Reading Survey
n=43
|
X2
|
Question 4: How
many hours a week do you read magazines?
|
45***
|
Question 5: How
many hours a week do you read books?
|
70***
|
Both
questions from the Leisure Reading Survey trended toward significance in thier
anwser to one item from each question. The data gathered showed the majority of
students reading books and magazines less than five hours per week. It is
somewhat possible that the students counted their text books as “leisure
reading”, but they where instructed not to do so prior to the survey. The
research was conducted at a school with eight periods per day. Combined with
the research data, it is possible to hypothisize that the lesiure reading time
of the students is lowered because of the time needed to stay up with thier
studies.
CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Analysis
Through the
use of an Instructional Plan and an Instructional Plan Rubric, Focus Question
One was addressed. Coded for dominate, recurring and emerging themes allowed
the following themes to emerge prior to the study commencing. The patterns that
formed from the two colleagues that reviewed the Instructional Plan and
completed the Instructional Rubric were the need for extra time relevant to the
study and the need for extra time to teach the students CARS. These themes were
significant to the study and allowed the researcher not only to extend the
research window, but also to decrease the number of reading strategies implemented
and taught from twenty down to five.
The literature
review supports the need for more time. The addition of
more time puts significance on what was mentioned
by Topping and Paul (1999), “time allocated to reading does not necessarily
equate to time engaged in reading, particularly at the right level and
successfully” (p.227). During the study, the treatment group was asked to start
the class period each day with at least ten minutes of dedicated reading
related to the current lesson and using the most recent reading strategies
learned. During this time many students were observed off-task; checking there
cellular devices or talking with their classmates. After the students were
re-guided to their assigned task, the time they had left was even more important.
To answer Focus Question Two, the independent t-test ran on the pre-test scores between the
control group and treatment group showed the CV was 1.68 and the results from
the t-test was t(41) = 0.127, p> .05 on a one
tailed test. This t-test showed that both groups were relatively equal in
ability and prior knowledge of the material at the beginning of the study.
Since the obtained value of 0.127 was less than the critical value of 1.68 (as
shown in Table 4.1-Independent t-Test: Pre-test to Pre-test), then the null
hypothesis was accepted because there was no significant difference in the
pre-test scores from the control group when compared to the pre-test scores of
the treatment group.
At the beginning, middle, and end of
the study, the student’s ELA grades were gathered to see if CARS was having an
impact across the curriculum. The grades of the treatment group and control
group were analyzed using an ANOVA. The single factor ANOVA for the treatment
group result was f(2,57)=1.85, p>.05. The single factor ANOVA for the control
group result was f(2,66)=1.77, p>.05. There was no significant
difference among the two groups. The null hypothesis was accepted. The data
gathered from the ANOVA’s also showed that both groups had an 8% increase in
their semester averages from the beginning to the end of the study.
After the
implementation of CARS, the treatment group and control group both took the
same ninth grade practice EOCT for reading comprehension and skills for a
post-test. The independent t-test ran on the post-test scores between the
control group and treatment group, the CV was 1.68 and the results from the
t-test was t(39) =
1.425, P> .05 on a one tailed test. The purpose of
this t-test was to find if both groups were relatively equal in ability after
the administration of CARS to the treatment group. The results of the t-test
indicated an obtained value of 0.142. This was less than the critical value of
1.68. Salkind (2010) recommends the use of an effect size calculator to
determine difference between two groups. Using Cohen’s d, an effect size of 0.0000888 was calculated. This score
is within the 0.0 to 0.2 range, an effect size that is considered small. The
groups trended towards be very similar and overlap entirely (Salkind, 2010). The
null hypothesis was accepted because there was no significant difference in the
post-test scores from the control group when compared to the post-test scores
of the treatment group.
The qualitative data used to answer
Focus Question Three came from a reflective journal kept by me. As mentioned by
Hendricks (2009), “your journal will allow you to see themes and patterns that
may be important” (p.34). One of the two themes that emerged at the beginning
of the research was the treatment group’s resistance to learn or use the
reading strategies. The students had been receiving the same educational format
for nineteen weeks, and then they were exposed to something new. Students were
heard commenting, “This is stupid and a waste of time!” Students also commented
that they felt, “belittled and stupid”, for having to use the CARS. CARS were
described to the treatment group as “additional strategies to gather key
information from the text”.
The negative attitude of the students continued until the second
week of the study. By that time they had figured out that I was not going to
change what was being presented and that resistance was futile. As the educator
and researcher, it was the toughest time for me not knowing if CARS would work
and being leery of change in my classroom.
The second theme that emerged was that students became more
accepting as the lessons began to include more and more CARS. This acceptance
by the students made it easier for me to present and explain CARS during the
lessons. The largest amount of time was spent on the part of CARS called Activating Prior Knowledge, or APK. The majority of the students only
knew about emergency preparedness from what they had seen on television. Certainly,
Emergency Preparedness would not even be a subject that a teenager would type
into a computer for a search on YouTube.com.
The second largest amount of time was spent dealing with the
students’ urban legends related to medicine. I continually dealt with what “my
grandmother said”, and sometimes students found out that grandmother was
wrong. While the students enjoyed these
conversations, I as an educator and healthcare professional learned a great
deal about the students’ backgrounds. When the students started to use APK more, another CARS called Asking Questions, or AQ, just seemed to flow naturally from
the students’ learning. The AQ tied
in with the urban legend questions very well. At this point of the research the
students began to research more from their texts and tried to stump each other
as well as the educator with the gathered knowledge.
The students then used a scavenger hunt to help Identify Main Ideas, or IMI,
and Supporting Details, or SD. At the beginning of the lesson,
students were handed a sheet with detailed items to find in the book’s chapter.
The class began to compete to see who would finish the hunt first. Upon completion
of the scavenger hunt, students noted that the Sequencing of Events, or SQ,
was already completed. By using flowcharts, students were able to complete Summarize the Information, or SI. It was at this point that the
students were given a Leisure Reading Survey. Designed to give the researcher
an idea of the reading habits of the students, the survey only contained two
questions that were Likert items. The chi square statistical information was
obtained from questions four and five using a Likert scale format. The two questions
trended toward significance with their anwsers to one item from each question.
The data stated that the majority of students were only reading books and
magazines less than five hours per week. This was disappointing data to uncover
as a researcher.
Discussion
Looking through a
holistic lens, some possible reasons emerge as to why the results showed no
improvement across the curriculum. One reason that emerged was that the ELA
teachers set up their instructional plans differently from each other. If the
instructional plans were shared as a department, then the study could eliminate
this reason. The different ELA educators also create their own grading scale
within the county recommendations. Once again, if the ELA department based
their grades on the same scale and percentage of assignments, the ELA
educators’ varied instructional plans and grading scales as a reason of failure
could be removed. Another reason to consider is the fact that the students in
the study had eight different ELA classes among them. Each grade level has
their basic ELA class as well as their own upper level or Advanced Placement
(AP) course, and the eleventh and twelfth grade classes also offer honor
courses. Separate coding would need to be implemented and pulled to discern the
data from each sub-group and grade. This study did not go into that much
detail.
Outcome data showed no
improvement across the curriculum as I had hypothesized but scores within the
classroom did improve, and I realized that more time is needed to utilize CARS
in the classroom. If CARS had been implemented for the entire year, or if CARS
had been implemented at the beginning of the students’ three year journey
through my classroom instead of in the second, I believe the outcomes may have
been stronger, not only in the classroom, but across the curriculum. There is coherent evidence to assert that
CARS was beneficial and further research in this area is needed from CTE
classrooms.
The administration of CARS to the
students of these EDP classes used a unique instructional technique to educate
them. By using structural corroboration, this study ensured credibility, also
known as triangulation. Data were gathered from multiple sources during this
research. Reflective journals by the teacher, surveys by the students, and
written assessments in the form of a practice EOCT helped ensure reliability
and validity to guarantee credibility related to each focus question. To ensure
fairness, any opposing views would have been presented in Chapter Two, the
Literature Review. Although a thorough review of the literature was performed, all
of the literature supports the need to improve students reading and
comprehension skills in all classes and no opposing literature was located
during this study.
Implications
The
quantitative data results gathered indicated the treatment group had a gain
when compared to the control group after CARS was implemented on the practice
EOCT for reading comprehension and skills. The quantitative data also showed
that the treatment group failed to produce a significantly higher grade in
their ELA class across the curriculum. Currently, the data gathered is not
strong enough to pass judgment on a larger population at this time without
further research. This study can be replicated with any CTE class. This ability
to replicate gives the study referential adequacy.
The very important qualitative data
results found that several themes emerged. The Instructional Plan Rubric
indicated the need for more time. More time was needed for the study and more
time was needed to implement CARS in the classroom. General conversation with
school colleagues indicated the need for all classes to be utilizing CARS in
their daily pursuits of education. Several colleagues insisted that CARS should
be a backbone for all Instructional Plans from primary education through
post-secondary education.
The qualitative data gathered also
indicated that students need to put greater emphasis on leisure reading.
Electronic and social media are constantly bombarding the youth of the world.
This has forced some newspapers and magazines to go bankrupt. Other forms of
print are now jumping to the electronic format via such e-book reading vessels
as Kindle™,
I-Pad™ and Nook™. Text-book publishers are now
following suit by offering the classroom text via e-book readers. It can only
be hoped that students will be excited enough to consider reading more than
they do now with one of these devices.
Both the qualitative
and quantitative results of this study have helped better me as an educator.
Catalytic validity was achieved for both me and the students, because
I was able to use different instructional strategies to educate my students.
The research enlightened me towards new instructional strategies to consider.
The students also benefited from CARS because it allowed them to utilize
different tools to gain knowledge. I can only hope that the students in the
treatment group will continue to use the new strategies obtained during the
study.
Impact on
Student Learning
Upon the completion of
this study, it was noted through quantitative data from
the pre-test and post-test of the
treatment group that student scores were impacted in a positive way. The
treatment group’s dependant t-test showed a 3% increase in their reading
comprehension and skills score on the practice EOCT. The control group’s
dependant t-test showed a 4% decrease in their reading comprehension and skills
score on the practice EOCT. The quantitative data also shows that the
implementation of CARS to the treatment group did not negatively affect the
practice EOCT score.
The treatment group in
this study had more questions and conversations about the material than the
control group and seemed more engaged when discussing various scenarios that
would occur from man-made or natural disasters. The treatment group also
achieved higher class averages on comparable class assessments, written and
practical. The majority of the students in the treatment group enjoyed the new
strategies being taught, which improved the classroom atmosphere and allowed
for better student to student interaction, as related to learning, as well as
student to educator for teaching.
Recommendations
for Future Research
Further research is
needed in this area. However, there will need to be several changes made to
truly measure the impact of CARS in a CTE classroom. The first step will need
to be an increase in the research time. The study originally started with
fifteen weeks planned for research. Through the comments of an experienced
educator’s review of the Instructional Plan, the study was extended to eighteen
weeks. At minimum, an increase to the entire school year, thirty-six weeks,
will be needed. The second step will require all CTE classrooms in the school
to implement CARS. Students usually take two elective classes during the school
year. This will allow the study group to be much larger, potentially composing
of almost the entire student body. If the Physical Education and Music-Art classes
could also offer CARS in their lessons, an impact in the students’ grades
across the curriculum in their ELA classrooms might be noted. Preparations for
step two will need to begin at least six months before the start of the year in
order to train the teachers on the use of CARS in their content area. Step
three might be the most difficult to implement. All ELA educators would need to
be using the same instructional plans and grading outlines. Variations in
instruction from the ELA teachers would not show that CARS is having an impact
on students’ grades from across the curriculum, but rather it would only allow
the other educators the ability to measure their own success with the students
using CARS.
References
Building
Resourceful Individuals to Develop Georgia's Economy Act,
Official Code of Georgia Ann. § 20-2-327 (c), (2010)
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin& Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
The landscape of qualitative
research: Theories and issues (pp. 407-430).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Eisner, E. (1991). The
enlightened eye. New York:
MacMillan.
Georgia
Professional Standards Commission. (2010). Georgia framework for teaching.
Retrieved September 9, 2010, from
the World Wide Web: http://www.gapsc.com/EducatorPreparation/Documents/GA%20Framewk
Principles.pdf
Gilles, C., Wilson,
J., & Elias, M. (2010). Sustaining teachers' growth and renewal
through action research, induction programs, and collaboration. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 37(1), 91-108.
Hendricks, C. (2009). Improving schools through action research: a
comprehensive
guide for educators. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Education Publishers.
Hock, M., Brasseur, I., Deshler, D.,
Catts, H., Marquis, J., Mark, C., & Stribling, J.
(2009). What is the reading
component skill profile of adolescent struggling
readers in urban schools? Learning Disability Quarterly, 32,
21-38.
Kinchloe, J., &
McLaren, P. (1998) Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In
N. Denzin&
Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories
and issues (pp. 260 –299).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Kozminsky, E.,
& Kozminsky, L. (2001). How do general knowledge and reading
strategies ability relate to reading comprehension of high school
students at
different educational levels?. Journal
of Research in Reading. 24 (2), 187-204.
LaGrange College
Educational Department. (2008). The
conceptual framework.
LaGrange, GA: LaGrange College
McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, R. D.
(1990). Content literacy: A definition and
implications. Journal of Reading,
34, 184-186.
National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards. (2002). What
teachers should know
and be able to do. August, 2002. Retrieved
September 9, 2010, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nbpts.org/the_standards/the_
five_core_propositio
Park, T. D., &
Osborne, E. (2006). Agriscience teachers' attitudes toward implementation of
content area reading strategies. Journal
of Agricultural Education, 47(4), 39-51.
Park, T. D., &
Osborne, E. (2007). Reading strategy instruction in secondary agricultural
science courses: an initial
perspective reading. Career and Technical Education
Research,
32 (1), 24-75.
Penisten, J. (1993,
July). Learning for literacy in the
vocational trades. Paper presented
at
the First International Conference on Literacy, Melbourne, Australia.
Popham,
W.J. (2008). Classroom assessment: what teachers need to know. (5th
ed.).
New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Salkind, N.J. (2010).
Statistics for people who think they hate
statistics. (2nd ed.) Los
Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc.
Sum, A., Kirsch, I., & Traggart, R.,
(2002). The twin challenges of mediocrity and
inequality: Literacy in the U.S.
from an international perspective. Policy
Information Center, Educational
Testing Service, PIC-TWIN, 2-44.
Topping, K., &
Paul, T., (1999). Computer-assisted assessment of practice at
reading: A large scale survey using
Accelerated Reader data. Reading and
Writing Quarterly, 15(3), 213-231.
0 Response to "KUMPULAN SKRIPSI BAHASA INGGRIS IMPACTING READING COMPREHENSION AND SKILLS ACROSS THE CURRICULUM FROM A HEALTHCARE SCIENCE CLASSROOM"
Posting Komentar