Academ ic Y ear C ohort 1 C ohort 2
M (SD ) M (SD )
2009-2010 577.1(117.07) 2010-2011 577.9(108.09)
2011-2012 602.2(106.9)
2012-2013 603.9(105.8)
The obtained t statistic exceeded the critical region indicating th at this result was considered significant, t (1,600) = -2.26, p < 0.05. The one-tailed probability w as p = 0.0122. The tw o-tailed probability w as p = 0.0244. C ohen’s d w as 0.266. The memi difference w as greater than w ould be expected by chance (e.g., the standard error). The m ean o f the experim ental group w as different from the m ean o f the control group by 25.3 points on the reading scores. The null hypothesis w as rejected, w hich stated th at there w as no statistical significant difference in the Grade 11 students’ proficiency in reading as m easured by reading scores. The alternative hypothesis w as accepted, w hich stated th at there w as a statistical significant difference in the G rade 11 students’ proficiency in reading.
Based on the findings, the Study Island softw are helped students im prove their proficiency in reading as m easured b y state tests. The findings are in line w ith the
41 theoretical fram ew ork o f this non equivalent quasi-experim ental study, w hich w as based on the intelligence and differentiation theories.
Sum m ary
A nonequivalent quasi-experim ental research design w as used. A rchived data w ere collected and an independent samples f te st w as used for data analysis to m easure the variances in state scores betw een the tw o cohorts. A statistical evidence o f differences betw een the m ean scores was found suggesting th at Study Island had an effect on the reading test scores o f the participants in the experim ental group. D iscussed in Section 5 are conclusions and im plications related to the findings.
42 Section 5: Summary, Conclusion, and Recom m endations
Introduction
The findings o f this study are discussed in this section together w ith conclusions and recom m endations. The findings provided em pirical evidence th at state scores im proved after Study Island w as integrated into the literacy curriculum.
Sununary o f Findings
In order to determ ine i f there w as a significant statistical difference betw een the m eans o f tw o cohorts o f Grade 11 students’ reading state scores at a confidence level at or above 95% {o = .05), an independent samples t test was used. The m ean score o f the control group for the academ ic year 2009-2010 w as M = 577.1 w ith a standard deviation o f SD = 117.07 (Table 2). The m ean score o f the control group for the academ ic year 2010-2011 was M = 577.9 w ith a standm'd deviation o f SD = 108.09 (Table 2). Based on the state scores. G rade 11 students’ proficiency during the academ ic years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 w ere close to the state average in reading.
The m ean score o f the experim ental group for the academ ic year 2011-2012 was M = 602.2 w ith a standard deviation o f SD = 106.9 (Table 2). The m ean score o f the
control group for the academ ic year 2012-2013 w as M = 603.2 w ith a standard deviation o f SD = 105.08 (Table 2). Based on the state scores. Grade 11 students’ proficiency during the academ ic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 w ere above the state average in reading.
The m ean score o f the control group for the academ ic years 2009-2010 and 2010- 2011 w as M = 577.6 w ith a standard deviation o f SD = 117.5. The m ean score o f the
43 experim ental group for th e academ ic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 was M = 602.9 w ith a standard deviation o f SD = 106.14. The m ean score o f the experim ental group (i.e., academ ic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013) w as different than the m ean score o f the control group (i.e., academ ic years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011) by 25.3 points on the state tests in reading suggesting that the Study Island softw are had an effect on the G rade 11 students’ state scores in the experim ental group.
The result, based on th e t distribution table, w as considered statistically
significmit, t (1,600) = -2.26, p < 0.05 (one-tailed p = 0.0122 and tw o-tailed p = 0.0244). The null hypothesis w as rejected. The alternative hypothesis w as accepted. There w as a significant statistical difference in the m ean scores o f the reading scores for the tw o cohorts. Study Island softw are assisted students tow ard the achievem ent o f greater academ ic proficiency in reading because the experim ental group scored higher than the control group from the tim e district adm inistrators decided to integrate Study Island softw are into the literacy curriculum.
Sum m ary o f Findings R elated to L iterature on Study Island Software
The findings are in line w ith the findings o f (a) Clem ents (2009) w ho agreed that greater success could be achieved w ith early intervention to reading, (b) D aisey (2009) w ho recom m ended reading m aterials for better com prehension, (c) K ashef et al. (2014) w ho reported th at reading can be changed w ith learning-centered instruction, and (d) N osratinia and Shakeri (2013) w ho asserted th at reading strategies have a significant benefit on reading com prehension. Rupley (2009) agreed w ith N osratinia and Shakeri
44 (2013) th at readers need effective reading instruction and w ith Ness (2009) th at reading com prehension is im portant for high school students in content area classes.
The findings o f the control group (Table 2) are in line w ith the findings o f
Cookson (2009), G am er (2010), O dden (2009), Slavin, Cham berlain, and Dmiiels (2007) th at reading scores o f secondary students are below state levels. The findings o f the experim ental group (Table 2) are in line w ith the findings o f A llington (2006) who encouraged the use o f softw are (e.g., Study Island), being sim ilar to reading tex t and sharing the understanding o f th at text. Study Island softw are focuses on reading, about thinking, and reconstm cting m eaning (Tovani, 2000).
Study Island softw are w as used to increase the students’ proficiency in reading com prehension because students w ere challenged to use higher order thinking skills (Duke, 2010; Gallagher, 2009; Gewertz, 2010; Irvin, M eltzer, & Dukes, 2007; N ational A ssessm ent o f Educational Progress, 2011). Students learn easier b y relating o n e’s environm ent and psychological processes (Fahser-H erro, 2010) to build know ledge and interpret the read tex t (K am il et al., 2008). G reater understanding o f read tex t can be generated by understanding w hat has been read (A bdullah et al., 2012). O ’C onnor (2009) stated th at continuous reading could increase com prehension.
Study Island uses visual representations. A ccording to A nderson (2008), visual representations can be used to assist students in processing inform ation they have read. A ccording to Rosenthal and Ehri (2011), visual representations and new words could im prove learning. M assengill (2004) asserted th at im provem ent in reading
45 Students w ho use Study Island have the option o f re-reading a passage allow ing students to retell the story to check for understanding. Pang (2013) found th at the lack o f
know ledge slows reading rate and delays the com prehension o f w hat has been read. W agam an (2008) found th at stating how, w hat, and w hy are exam ples o f the inferential questions a reader should ask to attain greater reading com prehension.
The findings are in line w ith the findings o f Corbalan, Kester, and van M errienboer (2006) th at allow ing students to have m ore control o f th eir learning has benefits, the greatest being the increase o f reading com prehension. Students should have the opportunity to tailor reading content (M eyer et al., 2011) and to progress through the learning activities (Starkm an, 2007) at th eir ow n pace (H annafin & Foshay, 2008).
Study Island should be integrated into high school subjects such as social studies. Fry and G osky (2008) found that the com puter-based intervention o f pop-up dictionary to be statistically effective in increasing the reading com prehension rate o f social studies students and their test scores. Intervention softw are provides teachers w ith opportunities to m onitor a student and w hat is being read, how the student is progressing, and also branch students to the next learning level based on perform ance (Chen, Chen, & Sun, 2010; M acaruso, Hook, & M cCabe, 2006). Students should m aster the m aterial before they progresses to the n ext lesson (H annafin & Foshay, 2008) and have extra practice (M acaruso & Rodm an, 2009). M eyer et al. (2011) found that softw are can provide tim ely feedback regarding the learning o f the learner for each activity completed.
46
A pplications o f the Findings
Em pirical evidence w as provided b y the findings o f this study show ing th a t the reading scores o f Grade 11 students increased after the integration o f Study Island into the curriculum. H igh school teachers m ay need professional developm ent on how to use softw are to help students (K iriakidis & Jenkins-W illiam s, 2014). Training teachers on how to use Study Island could im prove their confidence using technology in the
classroom. School and district adm inistrators could use these findings for the allocation o f educational softw are funding. These practical applications o f the findings o f this study m ay be o f interest to researchers, policym akers, parents, and the com m unity (Kiriakidis, 2013).
Im plications for Social Change
The findings provided valuable insight about the successful integration o f softw are into the literacy curriculum. H igh school teachers can use softw are to help students in m eeting AYP and passing state exams. School adm inistrators should offer professional developm ent for teachers in im proving th eir pedagogies and the use o f software. Professional developm ent providers m ay benefit from having an aw areness o f the benefits o f the integration o f Study Island softw are into the high school curriculum. D istrict and school adm inistrators should identify strategies for the successful integration o f Study Island softw are into the curriculum.
The aw areness o f these benefits has im plications for positive social change
because im proving teach ers’ pedagogies via the use o f softw are could result in increasing state scores to create change at the research site. B y integrating standards-based software
47 into the high school curriculum , students could m ore likely becom e productive m em bers o f society.
R ecom m endations for A ction
Literacy teachers who integrate Study Island could provide valuable feedback to school adm inistrators regarding the strategies used to integrate technology into the curriculum. Stakeholders such as adm inistrators, teachers, parents or guardians, and professional developm ent providers could benefit from having an aw areness o f strategies for students to pass state exams.
Based on the findings o f this study, a recom m endation to adm inistrators w ould be to offer professional developm ent for high school teachers to integrate educational technologies into the curriculum. Study Island should be used in all content areas at the research site.
R ecom m endations for F urther Study
A qualitative case study should be conducted at the research site to exam ine the experiences o f literacy teachers regarding the integration o f Study Island softw are into the curriculum. A m ixed-m ethods research design could be conducted in order to exam ine the im pact o f Study Island softw are on state scores and to interview teachers and/or students. Recom m endations for further research include studying a larger sample o f G rade 11 state scores in reading from m ultiple schools or school districts. A larger sam ple could include adm inistrators, teachers, parents or guardians, and students for greater consistency and additional findings. Researchers should collect archived reading PSSA scores m atched to individual reading teachers.
48
R eflections
M y experience in conducting this study, as a high school teacher, was positive because I learned how to collect, organize, and analyze data and to use statistics to answ er the research question. By conducting this study, I interacted w ith m y com m ittee chair and learned a plethora o f strategies for conducting quality research. I feel a great sense o f accom plishm ent because I conducted this study as a novice researcher.
Sum m ary
In this section, I discussed and interpreted the findings o f this study and provided conclusions and recom m endations. The findings are in line w ith the findings o f (a) Clem ents (2009) regarding early intervention to reading perform ance, (b) D aisey (2009) w ho recom m ended that students should read certain m aterials for com prehension, (c) K ashef et al. (2014) who reported th at attitude about reading can be changed through the utilization o f learning-centered instruction, (d) N osratinia and Shakeri (2013) who asserted th at reading strategies have a significant benefit on reading com prehension, (e) Rupley (2009) who agreed w ith N osratinia and Shakeri (2013) th at readers need effective reading instruction and w ith N ess (2009) th at reading com prehension is im portant for high school students in content area classes, and (f) softw are had a positive effect on student achievem ent (D esim one, 2009). Study Island softw are increased the students’ proficiency in reading com prehension because students w ere challenged to use higher order thinking skills (Duke, 2010; G allagher, 2009; G ew ertz, 2010; Irvin, M eltzer, & Dukes, 2007; N ational A ssessm ent o f Educational Progress, 2011). A ccording to (a) A nderson (2008), visual representations can be used to assist students in processing
49 inform ation they have read, (b) Rosenthal and Ehri (2011), visual representations and new words could im prove vocabulary learning, (c) M assengill (2004), im provem ent in reading com prehension has been noted w hen em phasis is placed on guided reading activities for the purpose o f w ord recognition, and (d) Burns et al. (2012) that the utilization o f the keyw ord strategy could im prove reading com prehension.
A t the research site, the integration o f Study Island into the curriculum by teachers helped G rade 11 students increase th eir proficiency in literacy. W hen students pass state tests and graduate from high school, society benefits. Based on the findings o f this study, a recom m endation to adm inistrators w ould be to offer professional
developm ent for high school teachers to integrate educational technologies into the curriculum. A nother recom m endation for action w ould be for teachers to w ork w ith technology experts to integrate educational technologies into the curriculum . Study Island softw are should be used in all content areas at the research site.
50 References
Abdullah, S., Rahim, P. R. M. A., Setia, R., M oham ad, R., Ghazali, N ., Sabapathy, E., Hassan, N. S. I. C. (2012). R eading for pleasure as a m eans o f im proving reading com prehension skills. A sia n Social Science, 5(13), 233-238.
doi:10.5539/ass.v8nl3p233
Akinbobola, A., & Afolabi, F. (2009). C onstructivist practices through guided discovery approach: The effect on students’ cognitive achievem ents in N igerian senior secondary school physics. Bulgarian Jo urna l o f Science & Education Policy, 3(2), 233-252.
A llington, R. L. (2006). W hat really m atters fo r struggling readers: D esigning research- based program s. N ew York, NY: Pearson Education.
Anderson, R. S., Grmit, N. M., & Speck, B. W. (2008). Technology to teach literacy: A resource fo r K -8 teachers (2”*^ ed.) U pper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
M errill/Prentice Hall.
Anm arkrud, O., & Braten, I. (2009). M otivation for reading com prehension. Learning and Individual D ijferences, 19, 252-256. doi:10.1016/j.linkif.2008.09.002 Attaprechakul, D. (2013). Inference strategies to im prove reading com prehension o f
challenging texts. E nglish Language Teaching, 6(3), 82-91. doi:10.5539/elt.v6n3p82
Baleghizadeh, S., & Babapour, M. (2011). The effect o f sum m ary w riting on reading com prehension and recall o f EEL students. N ew E n g la n d R eading A ssociation Journal, 47{\), 44-48.
51 Barr, S., Eslam i, Z. R., & Joshi, R. M. (2012). Core strategies to support English
language learners. 0/7(3/Forww, 76(1), 105-117. do i:10 .1080/00131725.2011.628196
Bayraktar, S. (2001). A m eta-analysis o f the effectiveness o f com puter assisted instruction in science education. Journal o f R esearch on Technology in Education, 3 4 f i \ 173-188.
Beck, I., & M cK eown, M. G. (2002). Q uestioning the author: M aking sense o f social
studiQ S. E ducational Leadership, 60{3), 0013-1784.
Bem ers-Lee, T. (1999). W eaving the web: The original design and ultim ate destiny o f the W orld Wide Web by its inventor. San Erancisco, CA: Harper.
Biggs, M. C., Homan, S. P., Dedrick, R., M inick, V., & Rasinski, T. (2008). U sing an interactive singing softw are program : A com parative study o f struggling m iddle ^chooXxQ^dQr^. R eading Psychology, 29(3), 195-213.
doi: 10.1080/02702710802073438
Blount, Y., & M cN eill, M. (2011). fo ste rin g independent learning and engagem ent for postgraduate students: U sing a publisher-supplied softw are program.
In ternationalJo urnal o f Educational M anagem ent, 25(4), 3 9 0 ^ 0 4 . doi: 10.1108/09513541111136667
Bluestein, N. A. (2010). U nlocking tex t features for determ ining im portance in
expository text: A strategy for struggling readers. R eading Teacher, 63(1), 5 9 7 - 600. doi:10.1598/RT.63.7.7
52 Braden, J. P. (2002). B est practices for school psychologists in educational
accountability: H igh stakes testing and education reform . In A. Thom as & J. Grimes (Eds.), B e s t practices in school p sychology I V (301-320). W ashington, DC: N ational A ssociation o f School Psychologists.
Bum s, M. K., H odgson, J., Parker, D. C., & Fremont, K. (2011). C om parison o f the effectiveness and efficiency o f tex t preview ing and preteaching keyw ords as sm all-group reading com prehension strategies w ith m iddle-school students. L iteracy R esearch a n d Instruction, 50{3), 241-252.
d oi:1 0.1080/19388071.2010.519097
Casey, H. K. (2009). Engaging the disengaged: U sing learning clubs to m otivate
stm ggling adolescent readers and w riters. Journal o f A d olescent & A d u lt Literacy, 52, 284-294. doi:10.1598/JA A L.52.4.2
Cham bers, B., Slavin, R. E., M adden, N. A., A bram i, P. C., Tucker, B. J., Cheung, A., & G ifford, R. (2008). Technology infusion in Success for All: Reading outcom es for first gyadQYS. E lem entary SchoolJournal, 109(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1086/592364 Chen, H. (2009). O nline reading com prehension strategies am ong general and special
education elem entary a n d m iddle school students (D octoral dissertation). A vailable from ProQ uest D issertations mid Theses. (U M l No. 304949457)
Chen, J., Chen, M., & Sun, Y. S. (2010). A novel approach for enhancing student reading com prehension and assisting teacher assessm ent o f literacy. Com puters &
53 Chen, N., Teng, D., Lee, G., & Kinshuk. (2011). A ugm enting paper-based reading
activity w ith direct access to digital m aterials and scaffolded questioning.
Com puters & Education, 57(2), 1705-1715. doi: 10.1016/j.com pedu.2011.03.013 Ciardello, A. V. (1998). Did you ask a good question today? A lternative cognition and
m etacognitive strategies. Journal o f A d olescent & A d u lt Literacy, 42, 210-219. A vailable from http://w w w .reading.org/general/publications/joum als/jaal.aspx Ciardiello, A. (2002). H elping adolescents understand cause/effect tex t stm cture in social
studies. Social Studies, 93 {\), 31-36. doi: 10.1080/00377990209599877
Clem ents, J. K. (2009). The influence o f the search and teach early intervention program on reading achievem ent (D octoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQ uest
D issertations and Theses database. (U M I No. 20111003)
Cookson, P. W. (2009). Teaching for the 21^ century. E ducational Leadership, 67(7), 23-29. A vailable from http://w w w .ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership.aspx
Cooney S. (1999). L eading the way: State actions to im prove student achievem ent in the m iddle grades. Atlanta, G A: Southern Regional Education Board.
Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & van M errienboer, J. J. G. (2006). Tow ards a personalized task selection m odel w ith shared instm ctional control. Instructional Science, 24, 3 9 9 - 422. Retrieved from http://dspace.ou.n1/bitstream /1820/1636/l/Instm ctional Science_C orbalanetal_06_dspace.pdf
54 Crowder, N. A. (1962). Intrinsic and extrinsic program m ing. In J. E. Coulson (Ed.),
P rogram m ed learning a n d com puter-based instruction (pp. 58-66). N ew York, NY: W iley & Sons.
Cuevas, J. A., Russell, R. L., & Irving, M. A. (2012). An exam ination o f the effect o f custom ized reading m odules on diverse secondary students' reading
com prehension and m otivation. Educational Technology, R esearch and D evelopm ent, 60{?>\ 445-467. doi: I0 .I0 0 7 /sI I423-0I2-9244-7
Daisey, P. (2009). The reading experiences and beliefs o f secondary pre-service teachers. R eading H orizons, 49{2), 167-190. Retrieved from
http://scholarw orks.w m ich.edu/cgi/view content.cgi?article=1053& context=readin g h o riz o n s
Damico, J., Baildon, M., Exter, M., & Guo, S-J. (2009). W here we read from matters: D isciplinary literacy in a ninth-grade social studies classroom. Journal o f A d olescent & A d u lt Literacy, 53, 325-335. doi:I0.I598/JA A L .53.4.6
Daniels, H., & Zem elm an, S. (2004). Subjects matter: E very te a c h e r’s guide to content- area reading. Portsm outh, NH: Heinemann.
Dewitz, P., Jones, J., & Leahy, S. (2009). C om prehension strategy instruction in core rQ ââ\ng^ro^Q .m s,.R eadingR esearchQ uarterly, 44, 102-126.
d o i:I0 .I5 9 8 /R R Q .4 I.2 .I
55 Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). M oving from the old
to the new: R esearch on reading com prehension instruction. R eview o f E ducational Research, 6 1 {2 \ 239-264. doiilO .3102/00346543061002239 D rum m ond, K., Chinen, M., Duncan, T., M iller, H., Fryer, L., Zm ach, C., ... N ational
C enter for Education Evaluation and Regional A ssistance. (2011). Im pact o f the Thinking R eader softw are program on G rade 6 reading vocabulary,
comprehension, strategies, and motivation: F in a l report (NCEE 2010-4035). W ashington, DC: N ational Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Duke, N. K. (2010) R&D: The real-w orld reading and w riting U.S. children need. P hi D elta K a p p a n , 97(5), 68-71.
Eahser-Herro, D. C. (2010). E xploring student practices, teacher perspectives, and com plex learning with web 2.0 technologies: A social-constructivist approach (D octoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest D issertation and Theses database. (U M I N o.3424047)
Eatemi, A. H., Vahedi, V. S., & Seyyedrezaie, Z. S. (2014). The effects o f top-
dow n/Bottom -up processing and field-dependent/Eield-independent cognitive style on Iranian EEL learners' reading com prehension. Theory and P ractice in L anguage Studies, 4(4), 686-693. Retrieved from
http://sem 'ch.proquest.com /docview /1519975772?accountid=14872
Eerster C. B., & Skinner, B. E. (1957). Schedules o f reinforcement. N ew York: A ppleton- Century-Crofts.
56 Fry, S. W., & Gosky, R. (2008). Supporting social studies reading com prehension w ith an
electronic pop-up dictionary. Journal o f R esearch on Technology in Education, 4 0 {2 \ 127-139. R etrieved from
http://search.proquest.com /docview /250928538?accountid=14872
Fusarelli, L. (2004). The potential im pact o f the No C hild Left Behind Act on equity and diversity in A m erican Education. Educational Policy, 18(1), 71-94. Retrieved from http://w w w .hks.harw ard.edu
Gallagher, K. (2003). R eading reasons. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Gallagher, K. A. (2009). Readicide: H ow schools are killing reading and w hat you can do about it. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
G am er, D. G. (2010, M arch). Inferior national standards: English language arts. Education.N ew s.org. Retrieved from
http://w w w .educationnew s.org/com m entaries/71559.htm l
Gew ertz, C. (2010). H ow to m ove from standards to curricula? Education Week, 29(32), 1-2 2.
Gumus, S., & Atalmis, E. (2011). Exploring the Relationship betw een Purpose o f Com puter U sage and R eading Skills o f Turkish Students: Evidence from PISA 2006. Turkish O nline Journal O f E ducational Technology - TOJET, l(Kf>\ 129- MO.
Glasser, W. (1993). The quality school teacher: A com panion volum e to the quality school. N ew York, NY: H arper-Collins Books.
57 Glickm an, C. D., & A lridge, D. P. (2001). Professional developm ent in pursuit o f school
reform. In A. Lieberm an & L. M iller (Eds.). Teachers caught in the action: