EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF “READING” ON READING
A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of
California State University, Stanislaus
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Education
By
Nancy M. Parsons September 2013
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF “READING” ON READING
By Nancy M. Parsons Dr. Susan M. Neufeld Professor of Education Dr. Oddmund Myhre Professor of Education Date Date Signed Certification of Approval Page
© 2013 Nancy M. Parsons ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
iv DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to the fifteen children that participated in the after-school reading club and their amazing parents. Without their commitment to the program this study would not have been possible. Their eagerness to learn and excitement for books made each day of reading club a memorable experience. We developed a special bond rooted in reading that helped us all grow as individuals. Thank you!
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are several people that transformed this dream into a reality. I would like to thank my friends and family for giving me constant love and support and encouraging me at all times. To my grade level team, thank you for your
understanding and flexibility that allowed me to conduct this study. Last but not least, the deepest gratitude goes to my amazing committee chair and mentor, Dr. Susan Neufeld. Although I may have grumbled at you for the classroom assignment that led to my decision to change topics, I thank you for introducing me to Richard Allington and lighting a spark in me to change attitudes towards reading. Your countless hours of reading, support, and enthusiasm kept me motivated and helped more than words can express. My deepest thanks!
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Dedication ... iv
Acknowledgements ... v
List of Tables ... viii
List of Figures ... ix Abstract ... x CHAPTER I. Introduction ... 1 Research Problem ... 2 Purpose Statement ... 2 Research Questions ... 3 Definition of Terms... 3 Summary ... 5
II. Literature Review... 6
Reading Instruction ... 6 Independent Reading ... 11 Reading Aloud ... 16 Reading Motivation ... 18 Summary ... 23 III. Methodology ... 24 Demographics ... 24 Participants ... 24 Instrumentation ... 25 Procedures ... 26 Treatment ... 27 Summary ... 29 IV. Results ... 30 Research Question 1 ... 30
vii
Research Question 2 ... 34
Findings Related to Research Question 2 ... 34
Observations ... 35
Summary ... 38
V. Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations ... 40
Conclusions ... 41
Implications and Recommendations ... 42
References ... 47
Appendices A. Informed Consent... 51
B. After-School Reading Club Permission Slip ... 52
viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Time Allocations for the First Grade After-School Reading Club ... 28
2. Reading Level Growth ... 31
3. Average Reading Growth ... 32
4. Group Growth Crosstabulation ... 33
5. Comparison of Group Growth ... 33
6. Paired Sample T-Test ... 35
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. The Reading Hypothesis ... 13 2. Motivation to Read Profile... 34
x ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to test the impact of authentic reading on reading achievement and reading motivation. This study consisted of implementing an after-school reading club for a sample of first grade students to come and listen to an adult read aloud as well as engage in independent reading. A mixed-methods approach was used to collect data. Reading achievement was measured using running records to determine beginning and ending reading levels of participants. Reading motivation was measured at the start and conclusion of the study using The Motivation to Read Profile. In addition, reading attitudes were portrayed using anecdotal notes and observations collected by the researcher. Results indicate that the reading behaviors examined in this study do impact reading achievement and reading motivation.
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
“Put Reading First” has been a well known phrase since 2000 when the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, 2010) composed a report designed to identify the building blocks for teaching reading. The idea of putting reading on the forefront of educational instruction does not raise much opposition. The methodology of teaching reading is where the differences present themselves. The constantly swinging pendulum has been no stranger to either side of the spectrum of reading instruction. It has swayed toward the side of skills based instruction as well as on the opposing side, literature based instruction. With each change of leadership the pendulum swings and education reform inevitably takes place. Research has been conducted, analyzed, replicated, and evaluated time and time again, but educators, administrators and legislators are still at odds as to what constitutes an ideal reading curriculum. With the upcoming
implementation of Common Core Standards, administrators, educators, and curriculum designers have a new opportunity to make decisions that not only acknowledge educational research but act on it as well. This study will explore two strategies, independent reading and reading aloud, by creating an after-school reading club for first graders that consists of these two methods alone. The goal of this study is to explore the impact of these two methodologies on reading growth and reading motivation.
2
Research Problem
“Practice makes perfect” is an old adage that has been heard in a variety of environments year after year. From the 50-yard-line of a football field to the music stands in a performance hall, professionals know that the best way to improve is to practice. The same is true for reading: the best way to get better is to practice. So if professional athletes and musicians can agree on this, why is it such a battle for educators? Researchers have been studying the impact of reading on reading growth for years and have proven time and time again that the more you read the better you get. Since there is not a lack of literature on reading instruction, the problem
therefore lands somewhere else, in the practice. There is a huge disconnect between what has been proven by research and what has been implemented into the
classrooms. Researchers such as Allington (2012), Trelease (2006), and Krashen (2004) have paved the way in discovering what works in reading instruction and this study aims to act on their findings.
Purpose Statement
The intent of this concurrent mixed methods study is to explore the impact of “reading” on reading. In this study, running records will be used to measure and compare the reading growth of students who participate in an after-school reading program with similar first graders who do not participate in an after-school reading club. At the same time, the attitude towards reading will be explored using
3 methods of data collection is to better understand the impact of independent leveled reading on reading growth (quantitative) and reading attitudes (qualitative).
Research Questions
Research Question 1: How does reading growth differ between first grade students who participate in an after-school reading club and first grade students who do not participate in an after-school reading club?
Hypothesis: There is no difference in reading growth for first grade students who participate in an after-school reading club and first grade students who do not participate in an after-school reading club.
Research Question 2: How do the reading attitudes of first grade students change after attending an after-school reading club?
Hypothesis: There will be no change in the reading attitudes of first grade students who attend an after-school reading club.
Definition of Terms
Beginning Phonics Skills Assessment (BPST). An assessment used in
primary grades to determine if children can identify letter sounds and blend sounds to read words.
Free Voluntary Reading (FVR). The act of reading because you want to, not
because it is a requirement. There are no guidelines, reports or questions following reading. It is simply engaging in high-interest, self-selected reading material (Krashen, 2004).
4
Guided Reading Level (GRL). The level of book that a child can read
independently with 95-100% accuracy. Reading levels start at AA (Pre-Primer) and go all the way to Z (5th grade).
Literature Based Instruction. The use of literature throughout the curriculum
as a means of teaching reading.
Motivation to Read Profile (MRP). Assesses children’s self concepts as
readers and the value they see in reading (Gambrell, Palmer, Codling, & Mazzoni, 1996).
Reading Aloud. Reading a book out loud to children.
Reading Engagement. When a student is reading and interacting with a text. Reading First Initiative. A program where “states and districts receive
support to apply scientifically based reading research—and the proven instructional and assessment tools consistent with this research—to ensure that all children learn to read well by the end of third grade” (U.S. Department of Education, 2006, para. 1.).
Running Records: A system of assessing a child’s reading level by
examining both accuracy and types of errors made.
Skills Based Instruction. Instruction that begins with explicit skills (i.e.
phonics, phonological awareness, etc.) that evolves into reading skills after time.
Sustained Silent Reading (SSR). A time set aside in a classroom for students
5
Summary
The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of independent reading and reading aloud on reading achievement and reading motivation. In the text that follows there will be brief overview of the literature regarding reading instruction as it
currently exists in education. In addition, literature surrounding the two strategies explored in this study will be presented as well as literature pertaining to reading motivation. Following the review of literature, Chapter III describes the methodology of this study and design used to conduct the research. Chapter IV reports the results and findings while Chapter V summarizes the conclusions drawn from the study as well as recommendations for further exploration.
6 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
As a starting point to answering the underlying questions, research was done in the area of reading. Since reading is such a large topic, this review narrows the research down into four main subcategories: reading instruction, independent reading, reading aloud, and reading motivation, which will serve as the framework for this literature review.
Reading Instruction
Reading instruction varies across the classrooms, districts, cities, states, and even countries. While everyone agrees with the importance of developing a nation of readers, not everyone agrees on how to do this. Many educators agree that there needs to be a balance between skills based instruction and literature based instruction. According to the findings and determinations of the report of the National Reading Panel (NRP), “teachers must understand that systematic phonics instruction is only one component—albeit a necessary component—of a total reading program”
(NICHD, 2010, p. 5). They continued, “It is important not to judge children’s reading competence solely on the basis of their phonics skills and not to devalue their interest in books because they cannot decode with complete accuracy” (NICHD, p. 5). At first glance these comments appear to support a balanced approach to reading instruction, however, Trelease (2006) made an observation that paints a slightly different picture. After conducting a word search of the NRP report, Trelease (2006)
7 found that the word ‘phonemic’ was mentioned 752 times, the word ‘phonics’ was mentioned 178 times, while ‘literature’ was only mentioned 7 times and ‘reading aloud’ was only mentioned twice (p. 8). Mathematically, these numbers do not show a balance.
Brenner and Hiebert (2010) also illustrated this imbalance when studying the core reading programs that were implemented with the Reading First initiative. They studied the third grade teacher’s editions of six core reading programs to determine the amount of reading time suggested by the program. As part of their study they looked at the 90-minute reading block that was allocated to reading/language arts to determine how many words were provided in the student texts and how much time it took an average student to read this amount of words. Their findings showed that the mean volume across all six programs was 15 minutes a day allocated for student reading (p. 357).
Chard and Kameenui (2000) also studied the amount of time that students actually read during their reading/language arts time. They observed struggling readers in first grade classrooms to identify how much oral reading students were engaged in during their reading instruction. Their findings showed that while instruction differed greatly from classroom to classroom, the amount of oral reading done by the students was consistently low. In a discussion of their findings they noted that “Current reading instruction may not provide adequate opportunities to apply and practice knowledge and skills for students who are struggling to learn to read” (p. 36).
8 Following the lead of Chard and Kameenui’s study, Kent and Wanzek (2012) explored the print reading time in Kindergarten classrooms. They focused on
students who were recognized as at-risk for reading difficulties. After observing and coding data collected from classroom observations they found that on average only about 46 minutes (about 50%) of the reading/language arts instructional block was devoted to literacy instruction. Within this 46 minute block of literacy instruction students spent most of their time participating in skill based activities such as phonemic awareness, letter-sound correspondence, and individual word reading (p. 60). In addition, they found “80 percent of the teachers providing less than 2 minutes of oral print reading to students at-risk for reading difficulties” (p. 61).
Kent and Wanzek’s study validates Allington’s (2012) argument “We must better organize schools to capture every minute of instructional time” (p. 57).
Allington (2012) noted that small things such as morning announcements, packing up backpacks, roll call, and daily interruptions all contributed to dwindling time spent on reading instruction. In addition, there were “reading lessons with too little reading” (p. 58). In observations of effective teachers Allington (2012) noted that an hour long reading lesson would include 5 to 10 minutes of pre-reading activities, 5 to 10
minutes of post-reading activities and a 40 to 45 minute block where the children actually were engaged in reading. On the contrary, in his observations of less effective teachers, the students spent 15-20 minutes doing pre-reading activities, 20-25 minutes doing post-reading activities, and only 10-15 minutes of actual reading (p.
9 55). Between the structure of the days and the structure of the lessons, valuable reading time was being lost.
In 2004 the National Endowment for the Arts gathered and organized an extensive collection of national data on reading in America. After evaluating the findings from a variety of sources the National Endowment for the Arts (2007) came to three conclusions, “Americans are spending less time reading. Reading
comprehension skills are eroding. These declines have very serious civic, social, cultural, and economic implications” (p. 7). They noted that although there had been a lot of progress in early literacy at the elementary level, the progress appeared to slow down or stop altogether as children became teenagers and adults. They found that nearly half of Americans ages 18-24 read no books for pleasure and that this was strongly correlated with academic achievement. This correlation was portrayed in the data the National Endowment for the Arts (2007) collected from the U.S. Department of Education showing that students in grade twelve who read almost every day had an average reading score of 302 (on a range of 0-500) where their grade level peers who read never or hardly ever averaged a score of 274 (p. 70).
This reciprocal relationship of reading for pleasure and reading achievement goes hand in hand with the Matthew effects in reading. As it is most commonly explained, the Matthew effect is the principle that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. As explained by Stanovich (1986)
The very children who are reading well and who have good vocabularies will read more, learn more word meanings, and hence read even better.
10 Children with inadequate vocabularies-who read slowly and without
enjoyment-read less, and as a result have slower development of
vocabulary knowledge, which inhibits further growth in reading ability. (p. 381)
In his article, Stanovich acknowledged the large number of causes that led to reading deficiencies but he argued that they were all reciprocal in effect as opposed to causal. He noted that skills such as eye movement, word recognition, decoding skills and use of context clues all had reciprocal relationships with reading practice because the children who struggled with these skills early on were the same children who got limited access to reading print and in turn continued to struggle with these same skills. It was a cycle that trapped the struggling reader. Good readers read more often and in turn got better at reading and reluctant readers read less often and
therefore did not exhibit as much growth. According to Allington (2012), the poorest readers often read up to three times less during the school day than their higher achieving peers (p. 45). So how do educators change this cycle? By understanding the reciprocal relationship between reading achievement and reading practice educators can begin to alter the environment and create classrooms that even out the playing field and give equal reading opportunities to children at all levels.
In a collection of case studies, Presley, Allington, Wharton-McDonald, Block, and Morrow (2001) identified several teachers who had changed the cycle. Their collaborative book explored exemplary first grade teachers who had found a way to get past the debate on reading instruction and create classrooms where reading was
11 practiced and valued. Surveys, observations, and interviews were all conducted as part of the data collection for this study and resulted in an analysis of the
commonalities of exemplary teachers. The authors’ analysis suggested that
exemplary teachers had found a way to blend a whole-language approach with direct skills instruction. They noted that successful teachers learned from experience, matched students to tasks, encouraged student self-regulation, were knowledgeable on what their students needed to know and how to teach the necessary skills. In a more direct relationship with this study, the authors found that “teachers become excellent by learning how to immerse children in fine literature” (p. 225). This immersion in fine literature included students reading a lot of great stories to themselves, as well as to their peers, parents and teachers. Moreover, it included teachers reading wonderful literature to the students as well. In a comparison of other educators they noted “this immersion in outstanding literature contrasts with more haphazard readings in many of the more typical classrooms, and, in some cases, very little reading at all as compared to what went on in excellent classrooms” (p. 225). In the following sections of this literature review, two of the practices observed in these exemplary classrooms, independent reading and reading aloud, will be explored in greater depth.
Independent Reading
There are many terms and acronyms related to independent reading such as sustained silent reading, self-selected reading, extensive reading, and many more. Whatever name they go by they all boil down to the act of students reading on their
12 own. In a report entitled Becoming a Nation of Readers (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985) silent reading was identified as a practice that was associated with reading achievement and that it should be occurring more frequently in school (p. 54). In fact, it was estimated that only 7 or 8 minutes per day was spent silent reading in the typical primary classroom (p. 76). With independent reading being a major source of vocabulary growth and reading fluency, Anderson et al. stated “increasing the amount of time children read ought to be a priority for both parents and teachers” (p. 77).
This call for action to increase the amount of time spent reading was
embraced by Krashen (2004) who coined the term Free Voluntary Reading (FVR). Krashen defined FVR as reading a book because you wanted to (p. 1). FVR was, as Krashen explained, “the missing ingredient” in language arts instruction. In a comparison of in-school free reading and traditional approaches, he found that 94% of readers involved in free reading programs did as well as or better on reading tests than the students involved in traditional approaches (p. 2). Moreover, studies that had implemented FVR programs longer than a year had even greater positive results in reading comprehension. In addition to his own research, Krashen referenced several other studies that were consistent with his evaluation of FVR. He developed the “reading hypothesis” as a means of explaining the positive effects of FVR. Figure 1 illustrates Krashen’s vision of the reading hypothesis.
13
In-School Free Reading
Self-Reported Free Reading
Free Voluntary Reading
Reading Comprehension Writing Style Grammar Spelling Vocabulary
Figure 1. The Reading Hypothesis. Source: Krashen (2004)
As Krashen’s (2004) reading hypothesis clearly illustrated, reading was the driving force behind literacy development. Although Krashen believed reading held the most power, he also recognized the value in other language arts lessons. He never proposed having a language arts curriculum with solely FVR, however he stressed the importance of not being confused by a cause and effect style of teaching reading where skills needed to be developed first in order to begin reading. Real reading and skills development needed to happen simultaneously to make the most out of the language arts program.
Similar to Krashen, Pilgreen (2000) researched free-reading programs and discovered two reasons educators were interested in free reading, increased reading achievement and reading motivation. In an attempt to gain insight into the range and results of free reading programs, Pilgreen analyzed thirty-two studies to determine which programs were successful in increasing achievement and motivation. Once she
14 had determined which ones were successful, she identified common components that each one possessed. From her analysis she identified eight factors that the successful Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) programs all shared; access, appeal, conducive environment, encouragement, staff training, non-accountability, follow-up activities, and distributed time to read (p. 6). After identifying the eight factors, she designed a study that compared implementation of two types of SSR programs. Her treatment group had all of the eight factors implemented into the SSR program while the control group only implemented some of the factors. The study included pre and post-tests to measure achievement and motivation, and after a period of sixteen weeks the data was compared. From the study, Pilgreen found that both groups made gains in both reading comprehension as well as positive attitudes towards reading, however the treatment group that had implemented all eight factors made slightly more gains, especially in the area of increased positive attitudes (p. 41). In addition to gaining insight from her research, Pilgreen’s book serves as a great tool to help teachers implement a successful independent reading program into their classroom. As
Pilgreen stated, “It is time to stop telling people that SSR works and start telling them
how it works” (p. 42).
Although there was overwhelming evidence to support instituting a SSR program, there was also still a debate over silent reading which caused many teachers to go out on a limb and create a change in their own classroom before they could influence others in their school to follow. Lee (2011), a high school English teacher, implemented SSR once a week into a class of 20 juniors and examined the impact.
15 As part of her case study she recorded teacher observations as well as notes from student conferences. Although she was met with a lot of resistance from the students at the beginning of the program, by the end of the first semester they were asking for more time for reading. Lee, who used Pilgren’s (2000) study as a guide to her implementation, identified the steps she took to create her SSR program and the roadblocks that stood in her way. She noted that the key to creating a successful SSR program was teacher mentoring (p. 213). By modeling what engaged readers do, discussing interests, providing guidance in selecting books, and trusting in her students’ choices, Lee was able to mentor her students and institute a successful program that encouraged reading for pleasure.
Miller (2012) also created a classroom where children were mentored to become independent readers. In an article about the implementation of independent reading in her middle school classroom she highlighted the importance of setting aside time for children to engage in behaviors similar to avid readers. Strategies such as teacher read alouds, providing reading choice and celebration of reading were all ways in which she capitalized on her reading instruction. Similar to Allington’s (2012) belief that teachers need to restructure the day to make the most of their instruction, Miller (2012) stated that the many of the commonly used language arts activities did not “produce the same level of academic power as 15 minutes of reading time would” (p. 90). By recognizing the power of reading and allowing the time and encouragement for it to happen, she created a “classroom where readers flourished” (p. 88).
16 Although the research has shown the value of implementing FVR into the classroom, many educators are still resistant to implement it due to fear that their administrators will be unhappy if they walk in and observe the teacher reading as opposed to “teaching.” In the conclusion of his book, Krashen (2004) addressed this fear when he stated, “Administrators need to know that when teachers are reading to students, and when teachers are relaxing with a good book during sustained silent reading sessions, teachers are doing their job” (p. 151).
Reading Aloud
In addition to the impact that independent reading can make on reading achievement, another influential factor comes from reading aloud. One of the primary findings of Becoming a Nation of Readers (Anderson et al., 1985) was “The single most important activity for building the knowledge required for eventual success in reading is reading aloud to children” (p. 23). Several researchers have explored the effects of reading aloud and its contribution to the reading growth and attitudes of children.
Trelease (2006) stressed the importance of teaching children to want to read as opposed to teaching them how to read. Although Trelease understood the value of teaching the mechanics of reading he believed in focusing on motivation. He suggested that there were two basic “reading facts of life” (p. 4). First, “Human beings are pleasure centered” and second “Reading is an accrued skill” (p. 4). Reading aloud played perfectly into these two facts of life because it was based on creating pleasure and it provoked a desire to read. This desire to read got books into
17 children’s hands and therefore got them practicing the skill. In his Read-Aloud
Handbook, Trelease (2006) strived to encourage parents and teachers alike to read
aloud to their children and students. He offered a variety of recommendations on making reading a part of daily life as well as the reasoning for doing so. In addition, he also provided a treasury of books that would motivate more reading aloud.
The partnership between reading aloud and independent reading is a powerful one that cannot only increase reading achievement but reading motivation as well. Cho and Choi (2008) examined this partnership in an experimental study with sixth grade students in Korea. Their goal was to test the impact of using read-alouds and self-selected reading as a means to enhance learning the English language. As part of their experiment they implemented 10-15 minutes of teacher read-alouds to each class hour. They also provided a forty-minute time block once a week where the students involved in the study could participate in self-selected reading. The comparison group was taught by the same teacher however the read-alouds and self-selected reading were not included. At the end of a 21-week period the students’ progress was measured and compared. Their findings showed that the experimental group made more growth in learning English, as well as had increased interest and confidence in English.
Pegg and Bartelheim (2011) also hoped to add to research by testing the impact of reading aloud on silent reading. Their action research study, which took place in a first grade classroom, consisted of implementing read-alouds every day for a two-week period. They also had five extended silent reading periods throughout the
18 course of the two weeks that was followed up with time for students to fill out a quick survey about their reading experiences. Their hypothesis was that with increased teacher read-alouds, silent reading time would also increase, as would the enjoyment level of their students.
At the end of their study, Pegg and Bartelheim (2011) found that read-alouds did impact the students’ ability to read silently over a longer period of time as well as the level of enjoyment demonstrated by the students after reading silently. In fact, the researchers believed that “after experiencing the increased daily teacher read-alouds, the students developed a greater enjoyment for books both read to them and read on their own during silent reading time” (p. 5). Although this action research project was short in duration it validated taking time out of the curriculum filled day to enjoy books and read aloud to children.
Reading Motivation
The Matthew Effects in Reading (Stanovich, 1986) showed that the more you read the better you got and the better you got, the more you read. In this type of reciprocal relationship educators need to focus on what it takes to get books into the hands of children, not just at school but at home as well. The bottom line as to what gets books in children’s hands was motivation. Quite simply, the children who were motivated to read will read more.
Trelease (2006) observed that in Kindergarten the children started with 100 percent enthusiasm and desire to learn to read but by the time they reached their senior year of high school only 19 percent read for pleasure daily (p. 1). This
19 number, while disheartening, caught the eye of several educators and researchers who looked for answers to the problem. Two such researchers were Ivey and Broaddus (2001) who conducted a survey of middle school students to identify what made them want to read. Because of the reputation middle school students had as reluctant, unengaged readers, Ivey and Broaddus desired insight into the perspectives of these students. They surveyed 1,765 sixth grade students in 23 schools as well as
conducted follow up interviews with 31 of the students to achieve a better understanding of the survey results. The survey included open-ended response questions as well as short answer items and hoped to provide information in three main areas: what students valued most in their language arts classes, what motivated them to read, and how the classes measured up. The data analysis showed that the two reading activities most enjoyed in class were free reading time and teacher reading out loud (p. 360). In response to questions about what motivated the students to read, the majority (42%) said finding good materials and having choice in what they selected to read. The information collected from the survey and interviews gave Ivey and Broaddus a clear understanding that “high engagement reading and language arts classrooms would include time to read, time to listen to teachers read, and access to personally interesting materials” (p. 370).
In 2000 and 2003 the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) conducted an assessment of reading literacy in English-speaking countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland. In an attempt to learn from these assessments Brozo, Shiel, and Topping (2007/2008) analyzed and
20 presented some of PISA’s findings. They found that American teens placed 20th
out of 32 on engagement in reading and only 15th in their ability to retrieve and interpret information from text. In addition, they noted that there was wide gap between the reading engagement of boys and that of girls. These findings showed the strong correlation between reading engagement and reading achievement. In a more encouraging light, they also found that high volumes of reading and positive reading attitudes could overcome powerful barriers such as socio-economic status. They reported that “American 15-year olds who were highly engaged in reading but whose parents had the lowest occupational status and limited income achieved better reading scores than students who were poorly engaged in reading but whose parents had high or medium occupational status” (p. 309). In an attempt to motivate change from their findings, Brozo et al. shared some lessons with current educators. First and foremost, they emphasized the importance of increasing time of personalized reading. This meant finding time within the busy curriculum to allow students to read material that they selected. They also stressed the importance of increasing engagement for boys as well as high poverty students and focusing interventions towards increasing access to materials and improving motivation on an ongoing basis.
In an attempt to understand students’ reading habits, McKool (2007)
conducted a mixed methods study to investigate why some children chose to read out-of-school while other children did not. She included a qualitative element into her study because she was interested in understanding students’ perspectives about reading and motivation. McKool’s four-month study included a sample of 159 fifth
21 graders from two separate schools as well as several different methods of data
collection. She used activity logs, reading attitude and motivation surveys, reading achievement information, income information, and student interviews. In addition she kept a reflective journal throughout the course of the study to record thoughts, comments and wonderings. Her findings showed that the fifth graders in the study averaged 17 minutes a day of voluntary reading outside of school. Broken down into subgroups she noted that avid readers (students who reportedly read the most from their schools) engaged in voluntary reading an average of 46 minutes a day whereas reluctant readers (students who reportedly read the least from the schools) only read an average of 3 minutes a day voluntarily. McKool also found a significant positive correlation between self-concept and amount of out-of school reading suggesting that students who possessed a greater self-concept as a reader engaged more often in voluntary reading outside of school. According to the avid readers in this study a positive self-concept as a reader developed when there were opportunities to informally discuss books, supportive classrooms with time for independent free reading, access to preferred reading materials, and parent, teacher and peer recommendations of good books.
One of the forms of data collection in the McKool (2007) study was the Motivation to Read Profile (MRP). This MRP was developed by researchers
Gambrell et al. (1996) in an attempt to design an instrument that could be easily used by educators to assess reading motivation in children. The MRP focused on
22 reading. This instrument used two forms of data collection (survey and interview) to assess a child’s motivation to read. The MRP was developed through a multiple step process that included research, field-testing, and validity and reliability checks. The MRP received an inter-rater agreement of .87 proving that “children responded consistently on both types of assessment instruments across time” (Gambrell et al., p. 526). In their article, Gambrell et al. (1996) clearly explained the development, administration, and scoring of the MRP, as well as gave suggestions on how to use the results.
Pitcher et al. (2007) collaborated to revise the Motivation to Read Profile to make it more appropriate when working with adolescents. They combined research on adolescents and their own personal experiences from working with adolescents and created the Adolescent Motivation to Read Profile (AMRP). Although the questions and delivery of the question were slightly different than the MRP, the AMRP produced similar findings about motivation and reading. After analyzing their findings, Pitcher et al. (2007) listed five things that educators needed to do to
influence the motivation of adolescents in their classrooms. These included,
recognizing the multiple literacies that students engaged in outside of school and find a way to incorporate them into the classroom; model personal reading enjoyment; embrace literature circles and book clubs in secondary schools; increase variety of reading material; and incorporate choice into reading (p. 394-395).
As demonstrated by the aforementioned researchers, motivation is a huge factor in determining reading achievement. When children have a high self-concept as
23 a reader and a strong belief in the value of reading, they will be motivated to pick up a book and read. This motivation to read not only produces better readers, it also produces lifelong readers.
Summary
As illustrated in this literature review there are many approaches to teaching reading to children. The research and debates continue as all educators strive to provide the best reading instruction possible. Although the studies and theories of teaching reading are complex, Allington and Gabriel (2012) present a simplified approach to reading instruction. They outlined six key elements that every child needs to experience every day. They suggested that every child should: read something he or she choses, read something accurately, read something he or she understands, write about something personally meaningful, talk with peers about reading and writing, and listen to a fluent adult reader read aloud. Of these six elements, five are the focus of this study. With the exception of writing, the
participants of the current study will engage in five of these elements all within a 45-minute time block. Chapter III discusses the breakdown of the treatment as well as the participants and instrumentation used in this study.
24 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
Demographics
This study was conducted at an elementary school in the Central Valley of California. The school was one of the 12 elementary schools in the district that also had three middle schools and three high schools. The school was in a rural setting and served nearly 700 students from kindergarten to sixth grade. Hispanic students made up 82.3% of the population while the other ethnicities included 10% white, 5.1% Asian, and less than 1% of the students were African American, Native
American, Pacific Islander or Filipino. Of the 700 students that attended this school, 49% were classified as English Learners. The participating school was a Title I school with 74% of the students qualifying for free and reduced lunch. The
University Institutional Review Board approved this thesis #1213-048 on October 17, 2012.
Participants
The participants of this study were first grade students from five different intact classrooms. The participant selection started with a purposeful sampling of 30 students that included six students from each of the five first grade classrooms. The teachers were directed to select students at the strategic level based on their current academic standing. Teachers used the Beginning Phonics Skills Assessment (BPST) as a means of identifying strategic students, however there were no set numbers for
25 this qualification so teacher judgment and student comparisons played a huge role in selecting the strategic students to be used for this study. From the six students that each teacher recommended, three were randomly selected to be the treatment group (attend the after-school reading club) and the remaining three would become part of the control group (not attend the reading club). This resulted in 15 students in the treatment group and 15 students in the control group for a total of 30 participants.
After selecting the participants by using the above criteria, letters of consent and permission slips were sent home (see Appendix A). The parents of the treatment group were asked to sign both a letter of consent to allow their child’s scores to be used as part of the researcher’s data and a permission slip granting permission for their child to attend the reading club. The parents of the control group were asked to only sign the letter of consent to use their child’s scores for data.
Instrumentation
In order to answer the research questions set forth in this study the researcher collected both qualitative data as well as quantitative data. One quantitative
instrument used in this study was running records and leveled books from the Reading A to Z website. This membership-based website contained leveled books that could be used for assessment as well as the corresponding running records. The leveled books and running records were used to determine reading levels at the beginning and end of the 12-week time period for all participants (both the control and treatment groups). In addition to the pre and post assessments, the running records were used throughout the course of the 12 weeks to continually track the
26 progress of the treatment group and keep them reading at their correct level. As means to control the variances in testing procedures and scores, the researcher conducted all assessments necessary for data collection.
Another quantitative instrument used was the Motivation to Read Profile (MRP): Reading Survey. The MRP was created by Gambrell et al. (1996) as means to measure self-concepts as readers and the perceived value of reading. The MRP was made up of 20 multiple choice questions, 10 related to self-concept and 10 related to value of reading. This survey was used to measure the reading attitudes of the first grade participants at the beginning of the study as well as at the end. This survey was conducted in a one-on-one setting by the researcher to all 15 of the students in the treatment group.
In addition to the quantitative data, the research collected qualitative data as well. This qualitative data came in the form of anecdotal notes that were taken throughout the course of the 12-weeks to gain insight into the thoughts of the students as they engaged in the reading program.
Procedures
Reading growth was measured in this study by determining the starting Guided Reading Level (GRL) of each student in both the treatment and control group and then comparing that level to the their ending level. To determine the GRL of the students, the researcher tested each student in a one-on-one setting. The instruments used for this assessment were running records and benchmark books. The researcher had the students read while she conducted a running record to determine the level of
27 independent reading ability. The breakdown for determining the independent level of reading was specified on the Reading A to Z website where the testing materials were downloaded. To be considered at an independent level the child needed to read the benchmark book with at least 95% accuracy.
Reading attitudes were measured using the Motivation to Read Profile (MRP) as well as observational notes collected by the researcher. The MRP was conducted by the researcher in a one-on-one setting to all of the students in the treatment group at the beginning and end of the 12-week study. Each of the 20 questions was scored on a 4-point scale to identify the degree to which a child felt about each topic. After totaled, the numbers were converted into percentages and used for comparison at the beginning and end of the treatment. The researcher chose to only explore the reading attitudes of the students in the treatment group to determine if the reading club
impacted their attitudes toward reading. To determine if there was a change in reading attitude, the researcher compared the before and after percentages of each participant at the end of the study.
Treatment
After considering a variety of factors such as the researcher’s schedule and the school-wide after-school program, the reading club was designed to occur on
Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays from 2:30-3:15. The breakdown of the 45 minute time block was the next decision to be made and is illustrated in the figure below.
28 Table 1
Time Allocations for the First Grade After-School Reading Club
Snack and Teacher Read Aloud 2:30-2:45 15 Minutes Independent Reading of Leveled Books 2:45-3:00 15 Minutes Peer Reading (Sharing) of Leveled
Books
3:00-3:10 10 Minutes
Closing Procedures 3:10-3:15 5 Minutes
Total Time of Reading Club 45 Minutes
The students in the treatment group came immediately after-school to the researcher’s classroom and were given a snack. While the students ate their snack they listened to two stories read aloud by the researcher. The stories chosen were both fiction and non-fiction and at least one of the stories was at the students’ current reading level (ranged from level B-K). The intention of the researcher was to not only expose the children to great literature but to build interest for the books to which they had access.
After the snack and read-aloud, the students would get their individual book boxes and find a quiet, cozy place to sit and read independently. During this time the children read books that they had selected out of their reading level basket. The books that were available for children to choose were leveled according to Guided Reading Levels and included both fiction and non-fiction titles. The children were told to select up to 8 books from the basket that corresponded to their individual reading level and were given the opportunity to trade books every 4-5 days. While
29 the students read, the teacher walked around and made anecdotal notes about levels of student engagement and observed behavior. The teacher would also chose to read with students informally as well as formally to collect running records and ensure the children were still at the correct reading levels. If a child moved up to a new level they would exchange their current books for ones at the new level. The moving of levels and exchanging of books was an ongoing process that occurred several times throughout the 12-week study and was thought of as celebration of accomplishment for the individual participants.
Following the independent reading time, the children were allowed to take their book boxes and share their books with their peers. They would engage in variety of reading behaviors that included; reading the same book together,
alternating reading from page to page, continuing to read independently, or sitting and listening to a friend read to them. During this time, the teacher would join in on the groups and act as a participant. Student behavior and comments were recorded as part of the anecdotal notes to be included in the qualitative data. After reading with friends, the students cleaned up and either went home or to the school-wide after-school program for homework help and day care.
Summary
This chapter identified the research design as well as a breakdown of the participants, the treatment and the different types of instrumentation to be used in the study. Chapter IV presents the qualitative and quantitative data collected and the results of the study.
30 CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of independent reading and reading aloud on reading achievement and reading motivation. This 12-week study included a treatment group of 15 first grade students and a control group of 15 first grade students. Different methods of data collection (both qualitative and quantitative) were used to measure the impact of implementing an after-school reading club on reading achievement and reading motivation. This chapter presents the research findings organized by the research questions.
Research Question 1
Question 1: How does reading growth differ between first grade students who participate in an after-school reading club and first grade students who do not
participate in an after-school reading club?
Hypothesis: There is no difference in reading growth for first grade students who participate in an after-school reading club and first grade students who do not participate in an after-school reading club.
31
Findings Related to Research Question 1
Table 2
Reading Level Growth
Treatment Group Control Group
Pre Post Change Pre Post Change
Student 1 C K +8 Student 1 A C +2 Student 2 B H +6 Student 2 B H +6 Student 3 B K +9 Student 3 C L +9 Student 4 B J +8 Student 4 D K +7 Student 5 D J +6 Student 5 C K +8 Student 6 C L +9 Student 6 D H +4 Student 7 B D +2 Student 7 C I +6 Student 8 B H +6 Student 8 B J +8 Student 9 E L +7 Student 9 E P +11 Student 10 B D +2 Student 10 C J +7 Student 11 C J +7 Student 11 C J +7 Student 12 C K +8 Student 12 C E +2 Student 13 B H +6 Student 13 C F +3 Student 14 C H +5 Student 14 C G +4 Student 15 B H +6 Student 15 D M +9
32
At the conclusion of the 12-week study, data showed that every child in both the treatment group and the control group advanced in reading levels. When focusing specifically on the children that participated in the after-school reading club, it is important to note that 13 of the 15 students grew by five of more reading levels in the 12-week period.
Table 3
Average Reading Growth
Average Reading Level-Pre Average Reading Level-Post Average Level of Change Treatment 2.7 9 6.3 Control 3.1 9.3 6.2
Although there was a lot of growth made by individual students, the average level of change for the treatment group and the control group were 6.3 and 6.2 respectively. A two-way contingency table analysis was conducted to evaluate the differences in average reading growth. The two variables were treatment (children who attended the after-school program) and control (children who did not attend) with two levels, pre reading and post reading level. Participation and pre/post reading levels were not found to be significantly related, Pearson
33
Table 4
Group Growth Crosstabulation
Growth Total 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 Group: Treatment 13.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 33.3 13.3 20.0 13.3 0.0 100% Group: Control 13.3 6.7 13.3 0.0 13.3 20.0 13.3 13.3 6.7 100% Total Count 13.3 3.3 6.7 3.3 23.3 16.7 16.7 13.3 3.3 100% Table 5
Comparison of Group Growth
Levels of Growth Treatment Group Control Group
0-4 13.3% 33.3%
5-8 73.3% 46.6%
9-11 13.3% 20%
While the average level of change did not yield significant results, the
crosstabulation showed that 73.3% of the treatment group made between five to eight levels of growth in 12-weeks whereas only 46.6% of the control group made five to eight levels of growth.
34
Research Question 2
Question 2: How do the reading attitudes of first grade students change after attending an after-school reading club for twelve weeks?
Hypothesis: There will be no change in the reading attitudes of first grade students who attend an after-school reading club.
Findings Related to Research Question 2
Figure 2. Motivation to Read Profile.
As illustrated in the graph, 100% of the participants in the treatment group demonstrated increased motivation to read after receiving the 12-week treatment. Moreover, 7 of the participating students increased motivation by more than 10 percentage points in the course of the 12-week reading club with one student increasing by 19 percent.
35
Table 6
Paired Sample T-Test
M SD t Sig. (2-tailed) Pretest Posttest 63.13 70.53 4.96 4.82 -7.337 .000* *p<.05
A paired sample t-test of the pre and post scores on the MRP was significant (t=-7.337, p=0.00), which led the researcher to reject the null hypothesis and
conclude that there was a change in the reading attitudes of children who attended an after-school reading club.
Observations
In addition to the MRP, the researcher also collected observational notes on the children in the treatment group. Observational notes included on-task behavior, comments and behaviors of the students as well as comments from their teachers. Each day as the children engaged in reading, the researcher would circulate throughout the classroom and write down any interesting observations or
conversations held with the students. The following table lists some of the comments made by teachers and students as well as the reading behaviors that went along with each comment.
36
Table 7
Observational Notes
Student Date Behaviors/Comments
7 1/16
1/17
Researcher noticed student was off task and not attempting to read.
R: Why aren’t you reading your books? S: Because they are all too hard, I can’t read.
R: Yes you can read. I bet you can read this book. Let’s try.
Read aloud One Frog, One Fly very well with minimal cues from researcher.
S: (Laughs) That one is easy for me. Let’s read it again. Read book again and continued to read as researcher walked away.
Student came in and started reading right away.
1 2/5 Student comes into reading club very excited to talk to researcher.
S: My teacher says you are a good teacher because my
reading is going up and up. Remember? (Looks to classmate
for validation) Remember when teacher said that?
8 2/21 Researcher reads aloud a Noodles book at the beginning of class.
S: That’s an H book! I can read that!
The rest of the students start echoing with “oh yeah” and
“me too.”
R: You’re right! You guys can read this book. If you like it,
you can choose it for your book box later. S: Yessss!
1 2/21 Student 1’s teacher comes in to show researcher his test scores. Teacher was very excited and wanted to thank the researcher for the reading club. “Thank you, this club really
is working.”
7 2/26 Researcher does whole class read aloud and then sends students off to read independently. Student gets very excited about reading time.
37
Several minutes later student came up to teacher with books in hand.
S: This is an F book and I just read it! Holds up a Piggy and Elephant book by Mo Willems. Do you have any more
books with these guys?
R: Yes, I do. I love those characters. Let’s go look. Finds books to give student.
S: Cool! Walks off with books in hand to go read. 12 & 9 2/26 Students are talking during shared reading time.
S12: Hey dude look. He is sad. He is crying. Shows illustrations to partner.
S9: Oh man, poor guy!
Students read together to find out why the character is crying.
8 & 13 2/27 Students get together for partner reading.
S8: This is her book (points to another student) but we can
all read it together.
S13: Ok. Student lies down next to girls. Girls look up at researcher.
S8: Wanna listen?
2 3/5 Researcher makes an announcement about students moving up in reading level.
R: Congratulations to (Student 11) and (Student 12)! They
both moved up to the I-J basket today.
S2: WOW! They are like teachers!
12 & 9 3/7 Students are lying together during shared reading time. S12: Hey dude, what level books are you on?
S9: I-J
S12: Cool! Me too! Look at this one. Holds up a level I book.
Researcher 3/19 Researcher walks around and observes students reading with great expression, catching things in books they have not noticed and pointing them out to friends, enjoying
characters. Students are deeply engaged in reading and do not even look up as researcher passes by.
38
Researcher 3/28 Last day of reading club. It is a celebration where families are invited to come read with their children and then enjoy an ice cream sundae. Of the 15 participants only 1 did not have a family member show up. Many families came with both parents as well as siblings. Amazing turnout and even more surprising because according to the other teachers, many of these parents have not attended any other school function. Huge validation of reading club and motivation of participants and their families.
6 3/28 Student had stopped reading to mom to eat her ice cream sundae. When she was finished eating she quickly threw the bowl away and then picked her book back up.
S6: Yeah! I’m done, now I can read.
More excited about the books than the ice cream.
These observations added to the data on student attitudes because they show the interactions between readers and the motivation that had developed. The MRP was used as a tool to have the children identify their personal feelings about reading while the observational data served as a secondary tool to see the participants acting on their feelings. In addition to the behaviors of growing readers, the observations showed the attitudes of teachers and parents as they interacted with the participants, which is an element that could not be illustrated by using the MRP alone.
Summary
This chapter analyzed the data gathered throughout the course of this 12-week study. The results showed that there was a not a significant difference between the control and treatment groups in regards to reading growth causing the researcher to be unable to reject the null hypothesis for research question 1. Conversely, the
researcher was able to reject the null hypothesis for research question 2 because the data showed an increase in reading motivation by all of the students that participated
39 in the after-school reading club. Chapter V presents a discussion of the findings, along with implications and recommendations for further studies.
40 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study explored the impact of implementing an after-school reading club on first grade students’ reading growth and reading motivation. Data was collected using running records, anecdotal observations and the Motivation to Read Profile. This chapter summarizes the findings of the data in regards to the two research questions as well as discusses the conclusions, implications and recommendations for future research.
Independent reading is often a minimal or non-existent component in many classrooms. Krashen (2004) has even referred to it as “the missing ingredient” in the language arts curricula. This study reintroduced the “missing ingredient” in a first grade after-school reading club to test its impact on reading growth and reading motivation. After conducting an after-school reading club that implemented independent reading and read alouds, the researcher tested the impact on reading growth by using running records to identify the post guided reading levels of each child. These reading levels were compared to the students starting levels to determine the amount of growth. The data showed that all of the children made growth
regardless of being in the treatment or control group. The total amount of growth for the children in the treatment group equaled 95 levels while the total amount for the control group equaled 93 levels. While the amount of overall reading growth is something to celebrate, the data did not yield significant results.
41 In regards to the second question the researcher used the Motivation to Read Profile to measure the reading attitudes of the participants at the beginning and end of the treatment. The data showed that 100% of the participants had developed a more positive attitude towards reading and a paired sample t-test yielded a significance of .000 allowing the researcher to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there was a change in the reading attitudes of children who attended an after-school reading club.
In addition to the data collected from the MRP, the change in reading attitudes of the children was also exhibited by the anecdotal observations taken by the
researcher throughout the course of the study. The observations showed children who grew as readers, talked about books, encouraged the reading growth of peers, and developed an excitement for books.
Conclusions
This study was successful in many different contexts. First and foremost it got books in the hands of children, which in and of itself is a success, however it did much more than that. As the data in this study showed, the participants in this study grew tremendously as readers. In 12 weeks, they grew a collective 95 levels in reading and developed greater self-concept as readers as well as greater attitudes towards the value of reading. By simply listening to books read-aloud and reading independently, attitudes changed and positive reading behaviors were nourished. The children in this study demonstrated an increased motivation to read that can be used as the first stepping-stone towards becoming a successful lifelong reader.
42 This study not only impacted the 15 children that attended, it impacted the parents and teachers of these children as well. The teachers noticed changes in their students and began asking questions. They were eager to know what was happening in the reading club and why it was making such an impact. These questions led to conversations amongst educators about reading instruction and the importance of giving children the opportunity to read. Teachers began allocating more time for reading in their own classrooms and therefore impacting countless numbers of children who will enter first grade year after year.
Parents were also impacted when they picked up their children every day and heard them talking about their new reading level and the books that they read in the school that afternoon. Children began leaving school with reading on their mind and parents noticed. The impact on parents became especially clear on the last day of reading club when the families were invited to a short celebration to read with their children. The room was full of mothers, fathers, siblings and aunts (some of whom have never attended a school function in the past) all present to hear their loved ones read. It was a powerful statement that reading is valued.
Implications and Recommendations
The findings of this study showed the positive impact of “reading” on reading motivation however it did not show a significant impact on reading growth. There are many reasons that the results did not show a statistically significant impact on the reading achievement of the participants and with modifications the results would be different.
43 One such modification would be sample size. With only 30 children involved in the study, it is hard to achieve numbers that show a significantly positive impact. In addition, the reading behaviors of the children outside of the school day were not considered and could have easily played a role in their individual reading growth. Future studies could address this concern by simply implementing a reading log that the children in both the treatment and control groups could complete at home and return to the researcher as a means of charting outside reading.
Along with the individual reading behaviors of each child, another
modification would be to choose a sample of children that meet certain requirements in areas such as English Language level, reading levels, speech and special education eligibility, age, and previous retentions. In an attempt to keep the sample selection random, the current study did not take these factors into consideration and that may have played a role in the reading growth of individuals. Future studies could have specific guidelines that the teachers could use to select children who are more closely alike in academic standing.
Finally, another modification that would most likely make a large impact on the results would be the length of the study. The current study lasted for a 12-week period however a study of longer duration would most likely yield different results. Krashen (2004) noted that “studies that last longer show more consistently positive results” and “programs that last longer than a year are consistently effective” (p. 3). This is an important consideration when looking at the results of this study and making plans for future studies.
44 Each of these modifications would add greatly to a study similar to the one presented. Future researchers could add to the body of knowledge that exists around reading instruction and similar to the researcher in this study, begin to influence the educators around them.
Reading instruction is always going to be at the forefront of educational discussions. This study aimed to change the direction of these discussions by focusing on the key component of reading instruction—reading. Trelease (2006) added to Stanovich’s Matthew Effect (1986) by presenting a simplified formula to create better readers. He stated, “The more you read, the better you get at it; the better you get at it, the more you like it; and the more you like it, the more you do it” (Trelease, 2006, p. 3). Trelease’s simple formula is at the heart of this study. The children that attended reading club were given a chance to engage in reading and develop a love for literature. By giving them the time and encouragement to pick up a book and read, they grew as readers and their attitudes changed. This change in attitude is what will motivate them to continue to pick up books and in turn continue to grow.
The academic future for each of these 15 students is uncertain but as a teacher my heart is full because I know that I have shared my love of reading with them and they have opened their hearts to books as well. Although the study is wrapped up and the reading-club has finished, the participants continue to come by the classroom and reminisce on the days when they could come in and read. “Remember when we used to read in here”, “I was a good reader, huh” and “I wish we could do that again” are
45 just a few of the comments that I have heard in the days following the conclusion of the reading club. It is comments like these and results like the ones presented that validate this study and encourage me to continue to provide an inviting environment where children can come to embark on their journey of becoming a reader.
47
REFERENCES
Allington, R. L. (2012). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing
research-based programs. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Allington, R. L., & Gabriel, R. E. (2012). Every child, every day. Educational
Leadership, 69(6), 10-15.
Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, A.G. (1985). Becoming a
nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading.
Champaign-Urbana, IL: U.S. Department of Education.
Brenner, D., & Hiebert, E. H. (2010). If I follow the teacher’s editions, isn’t that enough? Analyzing reading volume in six core reading programs. The
Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 347-363.
Brozo, W. G., Shiel, G., & Topping, K. (2007/2008). Engagement in reading: Lessons learned from three PISA countries. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
51(4), 304-315.
Chard, D. J., & Kameenui, E. J. (2000). Struggling first-grade readers: The frequency and progress of their reading. The Journal of Special Education, 34(1), 26-38. Cho, K. S., & Choi, D. S. (2008). Are read-alouds and free reading “natural
partners”? Knowledge Quest: Journal of the American Association of School
Librarians, 36(5), 69-73.
Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518-533.
