THE IMPACT OF A VOLUNTARY SUMMER READING PROGRAM ON SUMMER READING LOSS
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 Mary K. Kelley
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
THE IMPACT OF A VOLUNTARY SUMMER READING PROGRAM ON SUMMER READING LOSS
by Mary K. Kelley
Dr. Susan Neufeld Professor in Education
Dr. Noelle Won
Associate Professor in Teacher Education
Date
Date Signed Certification of Approval Page
© 2014 Mary K. Kelley ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
iv DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my wonderful family – my mother, Irene, siblings, Sharon, Beth and David, Aunt Margaret, Aunt Janice, Aunt Virginia, and to my lovely nephews and niece, Aaron, John, Sarah and Stephen. Also, it is dedicated to my many kind friends who have been an ideal support as it was completed. Thank you for listening to my excitement of student learning, ramblings on research topics, and complaints of how much work I have to yet to do. Your support is priceless.
This work is also dedicated to the students at New Jerusalem School. You have inspired me with your work, love of learning, and enthusiasm for life. This work was motivated by you and completed for your benefit.
Finally, this thesis is dedicated to Jesus Christ who has given me the ability to learn and teach. “And I am certain that God, who began the good work within you, will continue his work until it is finally finished on the day when Christ Jesus
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest thanks to my advisor, Dr. Susan Neufeld, for her wonderful guidance, support, and advice while I was completing my research. Her support and enthusiasm for my subject matter and research project was beyond beneficial and was extremely meaningful to me. A special thanks also goes to Dr. Noelle Won who was willing to participate in my thesis defense committee.
I would like to thank the administrators who made this reading research possible, Don Patzer, Steve Payne, and David Thoming. Their support in allowing me to complete my research during the summer at the school library was meaningful. Additionally, to my colleague, Jill Perez, who voluntarily joined me at the library and supported the students in reading. Finally, Missy Cochrane, the school librarian, who taught me how to use the library computer system and allowed me to use the library without complaint. My research would not have been possible without their help.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Dedication ... iv
Acknowledgements ... v
List of Tables ... viii
Abstract ... ix
CHAPTER I. Introduction ... 1
Statement of the Problem ... 3
Purpose of the Study ... 3
Significance of the Study ... 4
Research Questions ... 5
Limitations of the Study... 6
Definitions of Terms ... 7
Summary ... 8
II. Review of the Literature ... 10
Theory ... 10
Access to Print ... 11
Summer Reading Loss ... 16
Interventions that Improve Access to Print ... 19
Effective Programs that Reduce Summer Reading Loss ... 23
Summary ... 30 III. Methodology ... 31 Participants ... 31 Treatment ... 32 Data Analysis ... 33 Summary ... 34 IV. Results ... 35 Introduction ... 35
vii
Findings Related to Research Question 1 ... 35
Findings Related to Research Question 2 ... 39
Findings Related to Research Question 3 ... 40
Summary ... 42
V. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ... 43
Summary ... 43
Conclusion……… 44
Discussion ... 48
Recommendations for Future Studies ... 49
Final Conclusion ... 50
References ... 52
Appendices A. Consent Form ... 59
B. Assent Form ... 60
viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Difference in Change of Scores on Spring 2013 and Fall 2013 Fall STAR Reading
Level Among Program Participants ... 36
2. Paired t-Test Statistics for Table 1 ... 36
3. Fall 2013 STAR Reading Level Scores ... 37
4. Independent t-Test Statistics for Table 3 ... 37
5. Differences Between Control and Treatment Group Fall 2013 STAR Level When Controlling for Spring 2013 STAR Level ... 38
6. ANCOVA Statistics for Table 5 ... 38
7. Difference in Change of Scores on Spring 2013 and Fall 2013 Reading Attitude Survey Among Program Participants ... 41
ix ABSTRACT
Reading comprehension is one of the key skills students develop in elementary school. The ability to read well can be deterred by a lack of access to print, which can be exacerbated over the summer when students do not have access to their classroom and school libraries. This leads to decreased reading levels over the summer months. Lack of text access over consecutive summers, can lead to considerable reading level drops which creates a gap between the grade level and reading level. This primarily impacts students who may be reading at or below grade level and over time it is compounded for students who are struggling to keep up. This study examined the effect of a voluntary summer reading program at a rural
California school to negate summer reading loss. In this program, the students came to the school library, checked out books, and took at least five Accelerated Reader tests to verify that a book was read. The analysis of the data revealed that participants gained four months in their reading level. Although the small sample size did not make the results statistically significant, there were various implications from the data.
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
The ability to read well impacts the success a child has academically and may determine what sort of life they face as an adult. Reading ability and comprehension are two of the most important things a student learns in their formative years. The California Department of Education states that “students who are behind in reading at third grade have only a 12 to 20 percent chance of catching up” (1998, p. v). While basic literacy in the United States continues to increase, the students need to grow in their ability to read and write beyond the third grade level (Krashen, 2004). The California Common Core Standards for English Language Arts (California
Department of Education, 2013) explicitly state that a great number of students read texts far below the expected level of performance.
Some children, through no fault of their own, are at even greater risk of falling behind in reading. A persistent problem that plagues schools and communities is the achievement gap between students from low socioeconomic households and those from households with greater income (Kober, McMurrer, Silva, & Center on Education Policy, 2011). Exacerbating the achievement gap between poor and wealthy students is the phenomena of summer reading loss, which is a widely researched problem in American schools (Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay, &
Greathouse, 1996). Each year, children make gains in classrooms, only to lose some skills through the summer months. Consequentially, students get further and further
2 behind each summer, and for economically disadvantaged students, the achievement gap is worsened. If students lose three months of reading level over the summer months by the time they reach fifth grade, they are a year and a half behind their at-grade-level peers (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2003). The further behind the student is in the fall, the less likely they are to succeed that academic year.
Each year the reading level of the curriculum increases, and if the student’s reading level does not increase, the reading level of the curriculum is too difficult to understand. After grade three, students no longer learn to read, but rather read to learn. Alexander, Entwisle, and Olson (2001) found that while students are in school, all children gain skills at the same rate. However, when school is out, low socio economic status (SES) students do not have the resources of the wealthier students who are increasing their reading level over the summer. Even if the low-SES students do not decrease their reading level over the summer, many wealthier classmates have made gains while many disadvantaged students are already behind.
Yet another problem that impacts students’ reading ability and comprehension is student access to print. Neuman and Celano (2012) found that even with
identically available resources at the libraries in a high socio-economic area and low socio-economic area, the support the children received from their caregivers differed to substantially impact the children’s access to print. Additionally, they found that the children in the two differing libraries were less likely to choose the same books. Low SES children were more likely to be reading below their grade level while students in a high SES neighborhood were more likely to be reading at or above their
3 grade level. Similarly, students from low income households were less likely to have a range of books at their reading level in their home, and were therefore more likely to suffer even greater loss of ability during the summer break. Martinez (2008) found that libraries, even in rural areas, were important centers of promoting literacy to parents, families, and students. With school budget cuts and more rigorous academic standards, schools must find even more effective, inexpensive ways to address the problem of summer reading loss which is exacerbated by access to print and impacts the widening achievement gap.
Statement of the Problem
Summer reading loss is well researched and negatively impacts the success of low SES students. Reading loss is compounded by the rural location of the school setting and by student’s limited access to print. Furthermore, the new Common Core standards require more complex and greater variety of text which will be a challenge for students enrolled at this rural, Central Valley school. Without access to a
bookmobile, or a local public library, the students in the rural school setting lack the needed literacy resources and support. This study examined whether summer reading loss can be negated by a summer reading program.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this inquiry is to counteract summer reading loss in students in a low SES, rural school setting. In doing so, the research leads to three questions. First, since summer reading loss exists, does students reading self-selected books impact the loss of reading level? Second, how does program participation impact the
4 change of spring to fall scores in relation to initial performance? Finally, does
participation in the summer reading program effect student attitude towards reading? The study included students from a rural Central Valley elementary school in second through fifth grade and ran for eight weeks through the summer. Participants read at least five books they selected and took a ten question Accelerated Reader (AR) quiz on each book. The control group consisted of students who did not participate in the summer reading program. Reading levels were measured by all participants taking the Standardized Test for Reading (STAR) computer based reading assessment in the last two weeks of the spring and then post summer
assessment in the first two weeks of the fall. This study used the normed referenced Elementary Reading Attitude Survey developed by McKenna and Kear (1990) to measure student’s attitude towards reading at the same time they took the STAR reading assessment.
Significance of the Study
The Central Valley school in which this study was conducted was unique in that it was a rural school. Many of the studies on access to print and summer reading loss have focused on various urban locations. Also, while much of the work that has been completed in this field of study has addressed low socioeconomic households, the population of the school was unique in that they were low socioeconomic and rural. Of the research on the topic of summer reading loss, there was one on a rural bookmobile program and one that looked at rural libraries. Molhoit (2005) wrote that rural schools serve as more than an education center in their communities. The
5 school becomes the paramount public institution because it serves a resource for the surrounding community. It is the community center, the library, and the supporting point for services to the low SES families and children. This current study was also noteworthy because the school was successful at targeting low performing students and offered many types of interventions. However, the majority of the student population remained at the Basic level on the California Standards Tests (CSTs). While the school had reduced the number of students at Far Below Basic and Below Basic, it had not been able to bring them up to the higher levels of proficient or advanced. Summer reading loss over sequential summers lowers the reading level a little each year so that by the time the students were in the sixth or seventh grade, they could be a whole year grade level behind in reading. This in turn, would impact their ability to perform well on the CSTs (Allington et al., 2010).
Research Questions
Research Question 1: How much does reading five self-selected books over the summer affect summer reading loss?
H01: There is no change in students reading level if they participated
in the summer reading program.
H11: Students who participated in the summer reading program have
higher post reading levels than students who did not participate in the program.
6
H21: After controlling for spring 2013 reading levels, students who
participated in the reading program have higher fall 2013 reading levels.
Research Question 2: How does participation in the summer reading program impact the change on spring to fall reading scores based on initial performance level?
H02: Program participation has an equal effect based on initial
reading level on the changes of scores from fall 2013 to spring 2013.
Research Question 3: Among participants in the summer reading program, how much did attitude toward reading change?
H03: Participation in the summer reading program will have a
positive impact on students’ attitude towards reading.
Limitations of the Study
This study included students enrolled in grades two through five at a rural Central Valley school, which created several limitations. The participants in the study were limited to the population of students who attended the school.
Additionally, they were limited to the students willing to participate in the voluntary summer reading program. The school had a small population, so the group of
available participants was about 100 students. Furthermore, since the school was in a rural location, the only way to participate in the study was for students’ parents to
7 bring them to the school; there was no public transportation available and the distance was too great for most students to walk to the school. While the students had online access to the AR tests to participate in that manner, the rural location created a technological divide because the cost of internet service was greater than most families could afford. While there were many limitations in the study by the
population, the focus of the study was to negate summer reading loss at this particular school with this specific population.
Definition of Terms
Accelerated Reader Tests (AR).Accelerated Reader is a computer based assessment used by schools for monitoring the practice of reading. Students read a book and then take a ten multiple choice reading quiz. It was created by Renaissance Learning, Inc.
Achievement Gap. Achievement gap is the observed, persistent disparity of
educational measures between the performance of groups of students, especially groups defined by socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity and gender
California Standards Tests (CSTs).Tests that measure students' progress toward achieving California's state-adopted academic content standards in English– language arts (ELA), mathematics, science, and history–social science.
Elementary reading attitude survey. A reading survey which measures
8
Reading Level. The grade level at which students can read with fluency and
comprehend at what they are reading. For the purposes of this study, reading level is determined by the STAR reading assessment.
Rural School. Census-defined rural territory that is more than 5 miles but less
than 25 miles from an urban area, as well as rural territory that is more than 2.5 miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from an urban cluster.
Socioeconomic status (SES). Socioeconomic status (SES) is the measure of
the influence that the social environment and monetary income has on individuals, families, communities, and schools. For the purpose of this study, low SES is determined by qualification for the Federal Free and Reduced Lunch program.
Standardized Test for Reading (STAR) Assessment. A computer based
reading comprehension assessment with adaptive testing to determine reading level for the AR reading program. The reading assessments are produced by Renaissance Learning, Inc.
Summer reading loss. The loss of reading level that occurs over the months in
which students are out of school.
Summary
The next four chapters address the current literature, this study’s
methodology, the data analysis, and further recommendations. This chapter provides insight into summer reading loss, academic gap, and access to print. Chapter II highlights the current literature that exists pertaining to summer reading loss, the achievement gap, and students attitude towards reading. Chapter III provides specifics
9 about the study’s techniques and the specific methods used when conducting the research. This chapter discusses the timeframe, assessments, and demographics of the p. Chapter IV presents the data collected during the course of the study. This chapter explains the findings that developed from examining the two groups within the study. Last of all, Chapter V explains further recommendations and a summary of the findings. This chapter outlines further studies to explore effective means of combating summer reading loss.
10 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of the study was to examine whether a summer reading program can negate summer reading loss particularly with children who live in a rural area. When looking at this study, there was a large amount of research regarding the topic of summer reading loss. It is imperative to understand the significance of access to print, the effect of summer vacation on low SES and high SES students, and effective programs that have been implemented and researched to address these problems. This chapter is ordered into five strands that help support this study: Theory, The
Importance of Access to Print, Summer Reading Loss, Interventions that Improve Access to Print, and Effective Programs that Reduce Summer Reading Loss. The research on these topics sequentially effect summer reading loss; a lack of books for students to read increases the likelihood they will experience summer reading loss. In turn, if summer reading loss can be negated, it is mostly likely going to be impacted by improving access to books and summer programs that encourage reading.
Theory
The acquisition of reading skills, or the lack thereof, is often referred to the Matthew Effect. The Matthew Effect is a theory based on the work of Merton (1968) which is a reciprocal theory based on the Biblical reference in the book of Matthew which states that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This accumulated
11 scientist was published, the more work he got credit for, and the more well-known they were, the more they got credit for work they did not complete. Stanovich (1986) used this theory and applied it to the acquisition of reading skills; the more one reads the better reader they become. Conversely, the less one reads, the less likely they are to advance their reading skills. The application of the Matthew Effect was applied by Cain and Oakhill’s (2011) research which found that the reading comprehension and reading experience of students by age 8 years predicted their performance at 8, 11, 14, and 16. Essentially, poor reading ability led to less reading. The less a student read, the less chance they have of improving their set of reading skills.
Access to Print
There was an overwhelming amount of research that noted a lack of access to print among low SES communities across the country. Access to a variety of books, and books that were of interest to children, was crucial for successful reading
development. The more books available to students increased the likelihood they would learn to read well. These studies examined the amount of books available to children in homes and neighborhoods, school libraries, and classroom libraries.
Neuman and Celano (2001) conducted groundbreaking research that studied the access to print of children in four different neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The focus of the research was to look at the reading resources for children in low income and high income neighborhoods, books in stores, preschools, school libraries, and public libraries. They contrasted four distinct neighborhoods and found that children in low income neighborhoods had significantly less literary
12 materials available to them. The researchers specifically noted that these titles
included coloring book and comic book titles which would not be considered quality children’s literature. Research revealed that bookstores in middle to high SES areas had 13 titles for every 1 child, but in the low SES neighborhood there were one book title for every 3 children. Similarly, in the preschools, they found a statistically significant variance of book collections, in availability of books, and in quality of books in high SES versus low SES neighborhoods. This dismal pattern continued in the neighborhood school libraries, where they found high and middle SES libraries had an average of 25.7 books per student and low SES had 18.9 books per pupil. Additionally, the high and middle SES school libraries had library staff with higher levels of training than the low SES school libraries. The librarians provide an extra level of literacy support for children, and thus the students attending the low SES schools have less literacy support. The pattern of inequity continued in public
libraries where high and middle SES neighborhoods had libraries with more titles and longer evening hours, giving these children more access to text than their low SES counterparts who had neighborhood libraries with fewer resources and restricted hours of operation. The result of this research supported the argument that students in low SES neighborhoods experienced summer reading loss because there was a lack of books in their homes, neighborhoods, and libraries.
Neuman and Celano (2012) continued their research on access to print in the community and found that the trend continued. Their research examined a 10-year period in Philadelphia and libraries in the various neighborhoods within the city. It
13 seemed that there was not just an economic divide between the two libraries, but a divide in the education level between the two groups. The education level of the population who lived in the lower SES neighborhoods negatively impacted the ways that the libraries were used there. In the study, there was an initiative to improve the public libraries in both low income and high income neighborhoods. So, even though the libraries mirrored each other in quality of material and access to technology between the two neighborhoods, the research showed a striking difference in the way that library was used. This included the types of computer usage, the reading level of books being selected by young people, and the time spent by adults reading to
children. This conclusion caused the authors to assert that public libraries needed to not just be equal, but they need to have even greater resources in the low SES neighborhood. Their assertation was that fair was availability of resources needed; not the same literacy resources.
Constantino (2005) conducted similar research in four areas of Los Angeles, California that examined the amount of books in classroom libraries, school libraries, and public libraries. Research showed the high SES homes had an average of 414 books. At the schools in the high SES neighborhood, the classroom library averaged 658 books and the school library averaged was 11,360 books. The public libraries in the high SES neighborhoods contained a mean of 73,000 books. In contrast, the low SES homes had an average of 6 books. Classroom libraries in low SES
neighborhoods contained an average of 51 books. The low SES school library contained 1,714 books. The low SES neighborhood library shelved an average of
14 50,700 books. The low SES and high SES homes, schools, and stores demonstrated significant statistical differences in the access to print, p < .001, with high SES possessing a greater number of books. While, there was not a significant difference between the two amounts of public library books. As Neuman and Celano (2012) claim, the libraries may have the same materials, but the populations the libraries serve differ greatly in their need for literacy services.
Duke (2000) conducted a quantitative review of access to print in four classrooms on four different days. First, Duke recorded the number of books and magazines available to students in their classroom libraries. The author then recorded new books on each sequential visit. The author also recorded the availability of the materials to the students, how they were displayed, and how the students used the materials. Next, the author recorded the amount of print on the walls and how other the teachers and students referred to it in the daily routines. Last, the author recorded the amount of time in which print was involved in classroom activities, the centrality of print to these activities, and the extent to which these activities occurred across the curriculum. Finally, the author recorded the special classes students attended and the use of print in those environments.
All text was coded for difficulty (extended, phrasal/sentential, word, or
letter/digraph), authorship, and use in the classroom setting. Duke (2000) also looked at the opportunities students had to choose what they read, what they wrote, the audience for whom they wrote, and the opportunity of students to see themselves as real writers. The 17 schools chosen to participate highlighted the high SES and low
15 SES extremes. From the schools, the first grade classrooms (two high SES and two low SES) were chosen at random from the consenting teachers.
The resulting data from the study concluded that there were significant differences in all areas examined. The mean number of print items available to students on visit one at low SES schools was 448.9 and 737.7 at high SES schools which was statistically significant. On subsequent visits, the mean number of books at low SES school had 210.2 new titles in the classroom, while the high SES school was 442.5. The difference between the amounts of print displayed on classroom walls was not significant, but there was a greater amount of print on walls in the high SES classrooms. The use of the print on the walls was statistically significant with 52 references to environmental print in the high SES classroom while there were 31 references in the low SES classroom. Duke (2002) found that low SES classes spent more whole group time in written activities (low SES M = 593.0 and high SES M =700.9), but when the time where group or station writing work was added, the numbers were no longer significant.
Duke (2002) found that the level of complex environmental text was not statistically different. However, the students’ experience with extended time with complex text was statistically significant, with high SES classrooms devoting more time to extended text while low SES classrooms spent more time with text in reference to letter, words, and phrasal levels. Another significant difference found between the classrooms was the amount of choice students had in reading material, which was three times greater in the high SES classroom than the low SES classroom.
16 Although there were some exceptions, Duke found substantial differences between the classrooms, especially in access to print and student choice with print. The importance of this research was that the lack of print available to students in schools may contribute to lower levels of literacy among low SES students even though it is expected that public schools have the same resources.
Summer Reading Loss
Summer reading loss is an issue that has been widely researched. The results have produced a consensus among researchers that students from low SES
neighborhoods and homes are more likely to experience summer setback than their counterparts from higher income areas. Remarkably, it does not seem to be from a lack of ability (they learn at the same or even greater rate during the school year), but from a lack of access to print.
Cooper et al. (1996) conducted a review of 39 studies that showed
achievement declined over summer vacation. This review combined the studies to form a larger sample group to pull out trends among the research. The review found that there was a reading comprehension loss of d =-.19. However, when they divided the subjects by income level they actually found that lower income students had a mean loss of reading comprehension d =-.21 while middle income children had an average gain of d = +.06. The loss of reading skill proved to be statistically significant while the gain in reading ability was just short of significant.
Additionally, the review of the research revealed statistically significant differences between low and middle income students in reading recognition skills over summer
17 with low SES, d = -.12 and high SES students having a gain d = +.13. Lastly, they found that as the grade level increased, the negative impact of summer vacation grew as well. They found that in grade one d = +.04, but by grade eight it was d = -.21. The authors also reported that there was cause to believe that their findings were conservative since many of the reviewed studies had longer time spans between the testing, noting that these time spans accounted for some reteaching in the fall prior to retesting.
Alexander et al. (2001) conducted research on summer reading loss over an expanded time frame. They examined the California Achievement Tests (CAT) from the Beginning School Study (BBS) over 5 school years and 4 summers with 20 schools chosen that had a racial mix in the Baltimore area. Over half of the schools were located within the lower SES category. The study found that lower SES youth started at a lower level of reading comprehension with a significant mean difference of .70. This trend continued over the five school years growing to a mean difference of .99. The authors found that all students showed a gain from the typical spring spring cycle of testing, but the low SES students grew at a lesser rate. However, looking at testing between the spring and fall showed an interesting pattern. In the first two summers, the low SES students showed reading loss of -3.67 and -1.70, but a reading gain over the second two summers of 2.74 and 2.89. In contrast, the high SES students showed gain each summer of 15.38, 9.22, 14.51, and 13.38. The research revealed two apparent themes. First, the early years were extremely important for the low SES students. Second, the amount of growth for the low SES
18 students showed them falling further and further behind the high SES students
creating a growing achievement gap as the school years progressed. The authors also broke down the CAT results by race and gender, but economic status remained the greatest predictor of academic achievement over the four summers.
Alexander, Entwisle, and Olson (2007) authored a second study which continued the BBS study using the CAT assessments over nine years of schooling. The results showed a statistically significant summer loss for low SES students of -1.90 over four summers and a gain of 191.30 over five winters. The results produced a statistically significant gain for high SES students of 46.58 over four summers and 186.11 over five winters. This translated into a statistically significant achievement gap at the end of 8th grade of 73.16 with p<.05 in a two tailed test. The evidence demonstrated the resounding effect that students learned while in school, but the compounding loss of learning over summer created an ever widening achievement gap by the 8th grade. This achievement gap had a lasting impact on a student’s academic career, determining their likelihood of dropping out of school (.36 in low SES versus .06 in high SES), completing high school (.35 in low SES, but .11 high SES), attending a trade or two year college (.21 low SES and .27 high SES) or attending and graduating four year college (.07 low SES versus .59 high SES). Even though this study was limited to 300 students, its urban low SES context has
generalizing relevant results for educators today.
Helf, Konrad, and Algozzine (2008) conducted a study to examine summer reading loss in early literacy. However, they reported that the effect of summer
19 vacation on struggling readers between kindergarten and first grade in the
southeastern United States did not exist. The 54 participants of the study were ranked as 23 not at risk, 9 at risk from control schools, and 22 at risk from treatment schools. They used the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)
assessment to measure the rate of growth or loss and tested them in the spring of kindergarten, fall of first grade, and fall of second grade. The authors studied the letter naming fluency, segmentation fluency, and nonsense word fluency of the participants. They found that the change in scores over the summer were not
statistically significant. Students receiving interventions in the treatment group made statistically significant gains over the summer along with those not receiving the interventions. This led to a conclusion that all students made significant gains in these areas of reading over the summer regardless of the intervention. However, the researchers stated that they purposefully studied word recognition, decoding, and fluency rather than reading comprehension.
Interventions that Improve Access to Print
Multiple studies led to the conclusion that access to print in low SES homes and neighborhoods could be a contributing factor to the summer reading loss that occurred in students from those homes and neighborhoods. Current research argued that libraries were vital for improving access to print. There were multiple studies that examined interventions in libraries that improved access to print.
Ramos and Krashen (1998) conducted a rapid research report that studied the impact of monthly trips to the local library during the school day (104 students in
20 total). While the students were at the library, they were able to explore the library at will since the visit was scheduled before the regular hours of the library. The students were allowed to check out 10 books to read in the classroom and take home. The researchers then conducted an anonymous survey of both the parents and the students and found positive results from each audience. Of the students (N= 93), 52%
reported that it was their first visit to the library and 23% of first visitors returned to the library on their own since the class trip. The researchers reported that 75% of the whole group responded positively to attend the library again with their class and 75% reported reading more since the library visit. An overwhelming 82% felt reading was easier since the library visit. The parent surveys (N=75) from the research replicated the strong response to the library visits. Parents also reported that 96% of their children were more interested reading and that their child read aloud to a family member daily. Another insight gained through the survey was that 94% of parents reported that they noticed an improvement in their child’s reading and that their child spent more time with the books since the visit. Sixty-seven percent of parents said their child had requested to go to the library with their parents. All of the responding parents were in favor of the library program continuing. While this study was not inferential in nature and did not reveal statistically significant data, it implied that providing a variety of books to students was an influential motivation for reading. The authors also noted that while the surveys were anonymous, the close nature between the parents, students, and researchers may have had a positive effect on the answers they gave.
21 Fisher, Lapp, and Flood (2001) conducted research on the effect of visits to the community libraries on the performance of elementary students. The research included ten schools in an urban area with a variety racial, ethnic, and economic background. From the schools, they selected 24 classrooms. Between the
classrooms, there were 674 students that made up a population of 53% female and 47% male. Participants in the target group (61%) and the comparison group (63%) already had a library card. The target group had 319 students which visited the library once a week with their class. The comparison group consisted of 335 students who had access to their classroom library and visited the school library on a regular basis with their class. The researchers used the Flood Lapp Reading Inventory Survey and the SAT-9 assessments pre and post treatment.
The achievement of the students on the SAT-9 was similar in both groups prior to the treatment. Following the treatment, the target group who tested “at or above grade level” increased by 21% while the control group increased by 4%. While these results were not significant, the students’ attitude toward reading (those who reported that they liked to read) had significant change. Sixty-seven percent of the target group liked to read prior to the study, but 96% had a favorable response following the weekly library visits. In likability of reading, the researchers found a significant change; of comparison group, 54% of the students reported liking to read at the start of the study; following the study 77% reported liking to read. There were also significant changes in students’ recognition of children’s book authors and
22 recognizing children’s books titles. There were not significant changes to the
changes in recognition of magazine and newspaper titles.
Public libraries are an excellent means in increasing access to print. Martinez (2008) published a collective, qualitative case study on libraries working in
conjunction with schools to increase access in urban, suburban and rural areas. The author interviewed the 26 librarians to provide uniformity in the study. Each interview was 30-45 minutes in length. The interviews were then transcribed and coded to find similarities between the libraries and how they were conducting outreach to the surrounding communities. The case study revealed that all librarians worked to build home school and community connections. The librarians all worked together among individual and community groups to improve children’s academic success. They provided a variety of literary rich services in a number of settings outside of the library; including community events and schools. The librarians had multiple methods of community outreach which included everything from homework help to bookmobiles in an effort to reach the most disadvantaged populations. The librarians’ efforts demonstrated a willingness to collaborate with schools to improve the education of the children in their communities.
Constantino (2008) conducted research in conjunction with Access to Books. The study was conducted in 30 Title I schools in the Los Angeles area. The program focused on improving the libraries at the school by increasing the number of titles available to the students and the general environment of the library. Each school was given an average of ten books per student: 2,000 – 3,000 went into the school library
23 and the rest were distributed to classroom libraries. On average, there were 10,000 books given to each school. Prior to and following the improvement, 100 students were informally interviewed at each school site. The effect of the improved library increased student attitude towards the library, the rate of attending the library outside of classroom visits, students’ attitude toward reading. The informal surveys showed that students who reported liking to read jumped from 20% to 70%. The surveys also showed that students were more likely to get their books from the library rather than the classroom library or home. The surveys were completed two months after the libraries were refurbished.
Effective Programs that Reduce Summer Reading Loss
There are numerous studies that report effective results in reducing summer reading loss. Specifically, many of these studies show inexpensive ways for school districts to improve the access to print of low SES student groups. Research showed that reading loss can be negated easily and inexpensively through giving students books to read, supporting reading with scaffolding before the start of summer vacation, and through programs that include reading as part of a whole day learning experience.
Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding (1988) conducted extensive research on time spent outside of school and its correlation to reading growth. The study had multiple measures, which included a home survey of minutes spent reading and a measure of grade level proficiency of the student. The study included 155 fifth grade students and looked at their reading gains from second grade to the fifth grade. The
24 researchers found that reading comprehension fell as the number of hours spent watching television increased. They also found that reading comprehension percentile ranking increased as the number of minutes per day spent reading increased.
Shin (2001) studied the effect of low performing sixth grade students who enrolled in a summer program and spent two hours a day reading books of their own choice. The students met with the teacher in mini-conferences regarding the books they read along with forty-five minutes of the day in guided reading and discussion of a group chapter book. The students (N=81) made five months of reading
comprehension growth (on the ALTOS assessment) and one year of growth on the Nelson reading test over the six weeks of the summer program in comparison to the control group students (N=52) who enrolled in traditional summer school programs. The program also had a positive effect on the student’s attitude towards reading and increased their likelihood of reading outside of school. The researcher noted that this kind of growth would most likely not be sustainable over a year of school, but it did produce statistically significant results for a short summer school program.
Schacter and Jo (2005) researched one approach to combating summer
reading loss by holding a summer day camp in the Los Angeles area. In this program, the treatment group was 72 randomly selected low SES and low performing first grade students who were enrolled in a 7-week day camp program. The control group consisted of 90 students who did not receive any special services. The treatment group attended the seven week camp each day from 8:00 to 5:00, receiving reading
25 instruction intervention from 8:00-10:00 each morning. The reading intervention included teacher read-alouds, phonics instruction and practice, reading practice, and writing. The rest of the day included a variety of “camp” activities, games, and play. There was no cost the participants and they were given lunch and a snack each day. The students were tested immediately after the program, at 3 months, and 9 months to examine lasting impacts of the day camp.
The posttests following the intervention had mixed results specifically because their improvement reduced over time. Intervention had a substantial influence on five of the six outcome variables (posttests 1, 2, and 3, male, female, Black, Hispanic) with effect sizes of 0.47 to 1.35. Children in the intervention did considerably better on the tests following the intervention, on the 3 month
assessment, and the 9 month assessment. Summer reading camp students’
comprehension grew 41% compared to the control after the program. The students kept a 39% lead for three months, and 18% better at the end of the year. Students led the control group in decoding skills by 33%, 22% three months later, and 0% at the end of the year. Another important piece of this research was changing the model from summer school to “day camp” to increase participation. Historically summer school has not shown an impact on students’ academic performance. The program was funded by a grant from the US Department of Education and a gift from The Milken Family Foundation. While effective, this day camp program would be extremely expensive to implement in other settings without special funding.
26 White and Kim (2008) conducted a study that documented a voluntary
summer reading program for third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students that provided books of students interest and focused on oral and silent reading over the summer. The study began with teacher scaffolding reading comprehension lessons prior to the end of the school year. The scaffolding also included demonstration on how
students could read aloud to their parents over the summer (the researchers labeled this oral reading/parent scaffolding). Students in the treatment group chose books through a reading survey and received the books at the end of the school year.
Students in the control group did not receive the comprehension or parent scaffolding, but were given books in the fall after the posttests were administered. The results showed overall reading achievement was greater for the treatment group (M = 207.9) than the control group (M = 205.9). The change of 2.0 points was not statistically significant (p < 0.06). However, it was important to notice it included 1.3 additional months of school learning, so while not statically significant, it had practical
importance.
A second experiment (White & Kim, 2008) within the study with four groups of students was also conducted. In the second experiment, both teachers and students were randomly assigned into four groups—Books Only, Books with Oral Reading Scaffolding, Books with Oral Reading and Comprehension Scaffolding, and Control. Students in the Control group did not receive oral reading/parent scaffolding, teacher comprehension scaffolding, and they received their books in the fall. The overall effect of the experiment showed students in the full treatment group Books with Oral
27 Reading and Comprehension Scaffolding (M = 207.0) significantly improved over students in the Control group (M = 203.1). The change in scores of 3.9 points shows a +2.5 gain. Students in the Books With Oral Reading Scaffolding group (M = 204.8) did better than students in the Control group (M = 203.1) and showed a larger
difference for students who were below the median on the fluency pretest (M = 204.8 vs. 200.7), but none of these differences were statistically significant. The Students in Books with Oral Reading Group had no effect on fluency scores. When breaking students up by subgroup, low-SES students had an average gain of 4.0 months of learning, but it was important to note that this was not enough to overcome the larger achievement gap problem.
Allington et al. (2010) published a three year study that followed an
intervention to improve access to print and reduced summer setback among low SES students. The students were from seventeen low SES schools in Florida. There were 478 students in the control group, 852 students in the treatment group with a total of 1,330 participants enrolled in the study. The treatment and control groups contained students who were low and middle SES levels. The study began with students enrolled in first or second grade and followed them through three consecutive years. The researchers invited the students to self-select fifteen titles in the spring of each year at a school book fair. Twelve of the books were then given to the students over the summer to keep as their own. It was important to note that the books were those of popular culture and high interest to the students, not necessarily high quality literature. A t-test found statistically significant changes in the performance of the
28 treatment and control students with a significant effect size (ES = .14). When the middle SES students were removed from both control and treatment group the t-test found greater statistically significant differences (t = 3.280, df = 1088, p = .001) on tests after three successive summers. The effect size was larger (ES = .21). This led to the conclusion that students voluntarily reading self-selected books had a positive effect, but it had the greatest impact on those in the lowest SES group. While the effect size of both groups was not great, it was key to note that this study was completed with very little additional instruction, teacher time, or cost.
Wilkins et al. (2011) investigated the effects of providing books to students and sending them reminder postcards over the summer, but without teacher
instruction. The goal of this approach was to produce cost effective ways in which schools and non-profits could assist with student reading growth. Additionally, Scholastic Books Co. provided all of the books for this study free of charge. The study was conducted in Texas with four consenting school districts. The primary finding of the analysis was that the summer reading program did not have a statistically significant impact on student reading comprehension. The average Scholastic Reading Inventory score for students in the treatment group was 330.10, compared with 321.49 for students in the control group (effect size=0.02, p=0.62). This study did not follow up to verify that students read the books. Additionally, the authors noted that while the selected schools had a lower SES average household income, since all the students in the school did not participate, there is no way to know if the participants were from low, middle, or high SES homes.
29 Melosh (2013) reported on her work as a principal to combat summer reading loss. The program, called Summer Books, included 46 randomly assigned second graders in a rural, low income area in Florida. At the end of the school year the students were tested on fluency, comprehension, sight word knowledge, and reading motivation. The students in the treatment group (N= 25) received bookmobile and a teacher visit for 10 weeks of the summer vacation. The students were visited once a week, with the visit lasting an average of thirty minutes. At each visit, the teacher took a running record of the student’s selected book and then the teacher would assign a reading level to the child for their next book selection. The students could then choose five more books and talk to the teacher about their books. The books included in the bookmobile contained all levels of readers and a variety of genres. Students in the control group (N= 21) were given books to take home at the end of the research project. The students were then given assessments at the beginning of the next year school year. The results of the effort were mixed with no statistically significant results. The mean gains for the participants in books program was 25, while the control group had a loss of 35. The effect size on the treatment group was in the moderate range (d=.54). Melosh noted that students with a history of low reading achievement scores in the treatment group had their reading loss stemmed and had the greatest absolute gains. The author also importantly noted that in the treatment group, a reading loss of one month may have masked what could have been a reading loss of three to four months.
30
Summary
Multiple studies showed that access to print and summer setback was
perennial problems that plague schools. There were multiple studies which aimed to improve access to print and reduce summer reading loss. It is easy to see that the most effective programs were expensive both monetarily and in time. This research lays the ground work for the current study, which seeks to improve access to print in the school library for as little cost as possible. Additionally, this study does not seek to improve reading skill (the AR tests were used solely to prove that students had read books) but to increase the number of books read over the summer as a means of combatting summer setback. The methodology used in this study is delineated in Chapter III.
31 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this inquiry is to examine three questions. First, since summer reading loss exists, does reading student selected books impact the loss of reading level? Second, how does program participation impact the change of spring to fall scores in relation to initial performance? Finally, does participation in the summer reading program effect student attitude towards reading? The study included students from a rural Central Valley elementary school in second through fifth grade and ran for eight weeks through the summer. The University Institutional Review Board approved this thesis, protocol #1213-183 on April 18, 2013.
Participants
The invited participants were all 111 students in second through fifth grade at a small, rural school in the Central Valley. The demographics of the school as
released in the School Accountability Report Card report (2012) included 49% white, 37% Hispanic or Latino, 6% Black or African American, 3% Asian, 3% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 2% Filipino. Ed-Data (2014) revealed enrollment by school group participants were 50% socioeconomically disadvantaged, 22% English learners, and 15% students with disabilities. On the 2012 English Language Arts CST, 52% scored proficient or advanced. The proficient or advanced
performing students were 63% Black or African American, 60% White, and 38% Hispanic or Latino. Additionally, 37% of low SES students and 30% of English
32 Language Learners scored proficient or advanced. There were 56 boys and 55 girls within this population of convenience. The actual number of participants was 50 and represented the demographics of the larger group. The Elementary Reading Attitude Survey was used in spring 2013 to ensure that participants and non-participants had an equal likability of reading. In order to measure the difference in reading attitude among participants and non-participants, an independent t-test was performed.
Treatment
The study included students from a rural Central Valley elementary school in second through fifth grade and ran for 8 weeks through the summer. The summer reading program included the researcher opening the school library for three hours a week so students could check out and read books over 8 weeks of summer vacation. It is important to note that the students were allowed to read books of their choice at any level (Allington, 2003; Krashen, 2004). The treatment group or program
participants (group 1), included 18 students which took the STAR reading assessment produced by Renaissance Learning in the last two weeks of school to determine their reading level and took the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey. Over the summer they read at least 5 self-selected books and took a short Accelerated Reader quiz on each book. The purpose of the AR test was to show accountability for reading the book. Within the first two weeks of school in the fall, the students took the STAR reading test and the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey to assess their reading level after summer break.
33 The control group or non-participants (group 2) included 32 students who signed the consent letter but did not take at least 5 Accelerated Reader quizzes. The control group took the STAR reading assessment produced by Renaissance Learning in the last two weeks of school to determine their reading level as well as the
Elementary Reading Attitude Survey prior to summer break. Within the first two weeks of return to school the control group also took the STAR reading assessment and the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey to determine their reading level
following the summer break. The there was no measurement tool used to determine if the control group read over the summer, although some students took less than five AR tests, so they were placed in the control group since they did not meet the
requirements.
Data Analysis
The data in the study was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The researcher ran a paired t-test to compare the spring 2013 and fall 2013 reading levels of program participants. Additionally, an independent t-test was run to compare the reading levels of program participants with non-participants. To control for spring 2013 reading levels, an ANCOVA was run to compare the fall 2013 reading levels of summer reading program participants and non-participants. Furthermore, an ANOVA was run to measure the effect of program participation based on initial reading performance level. Finally, the researcher performed a paired
t-test to measure the impact of program participation on their attitude towards
34
Summary
This study looked at a convenience sample made up of two groups of students at a rural school in California which were similar in demographics. The data consisted of pre- and post-assessments as well as pre- and post-attitude surveys. The data analysis included a paired t-test, independent t-test, ANCOVA, and ANOVA to determine if reading books over the summer negated summer reading loss and
influenced attitude towards reading. Chapter IV provides the analysis and findings for the study.
35 CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of reading five books over the summer in order to negate summer reading loss among second through fifth grade students. Based on the literature, the goal for participants was that they would
maintain, not lose, reading level over the summer. The null hypothesis was that reading five books has no effect on the loss of reading level over summer. Using the Statistics Package for the Social Sciences v. 22, paired t-tests, independent t-tests, ANOVA, and ANCOVAs were administered using data collected in the spring 2013 and fall 2013 before and after the summer reading program. The outcomes of the study help explain how participation in a summer reading program affect reading level los and reading attitude.
Findings Related to Research Question 1
Research Question 1: How much does reading five self-selected books over the summer address summer reading loss?
H01: There is no change in students reading level if they participated in the summer
36 Table 1
Difference in Change of Scores on Spring 2013 and Fall 2013 STAR Reading Level Scores Among Program Participants
n M SD
Spring 2013 18 4.23 1.84
Fall 2013 18 4.45 2.04
Table 2
Paired t-Test Statistics for Table 1
t df p
Change in STAR Level
1.65 17 .12
*p <0.05
The results for this research question are shown above in Table 1 and Table 2. The research is unable to reject the null hypothesis; there was not enough evidence to suggest that the results were statistically significant. After Levene’s test indicated that equal variances could be assumed, a paired sample t-test was conducted to determine whether student reading level in the treatment group differed between spring 2013 and fall 2013 STAR assessment. On average program participants read at grade four, month two reading level at the beginning of the summer. After participating, the students read at an increased average level of grade four, month five. The goal of the program was that they would maintain their reading level, and as an average, they were able to maintain reading level and show growth of two and half months. The results indicate the mean for spring STAR level (M=4.23, SD=1.84)
37 was not significantly different than the mean for the fall STAR level (M=4.45,
SD=2.04), t(17) = 1.65, p = .12. The data analysis indicate an increase of reading
level between the spring (M=4.23) and fall (M=4.45) assessment, but not enough to be significant.
H11: Students who participated in the summer reading program have higher
post reading levels than students who did not participate in the program. Table 3
Fall 2013 STAR Reading Level Scores
n M SD
Treatment 18 4.45 2.04
Control 32 3.56 1.80
Table 4
Independent t-Test Statistics for Table 3
t df p
Change in STAR Level
-1.62 48 .11
*p <0.05
Table 3 illustrates the reading level of the control and treatment groups. Participants in the summer reading program (n=18) demonstrated a mean of STAR reading level on the fall STAR (M=4.45, SD = 2.04) of fourth grade, fifth month, while non-participants (n=32) read at an average of third grade, sixth month (M=3.56, SD = 1.80). While the reading level of the participants was higher (one
38 year, six months) than the non-participants, the independent t-Test statistics for table three (Table 4) illustrate that mean scores for the participants were not significantly higher than the non-participants t(48) = -1.62, p = .11 with an alpha level of p <0.05. As a result, there was not enough evidence to suggest that the results were statistically significant.
H21: After controlling for spring 2013 reading levels, students who
participated in the reading program have higher fall 2013 reading levels. Table 5
Differences Between Control and Treatment Group Fall 2013 STAR Level When Controlling for Spring 2013 STAR Level
n M SD
Treatment 18 4.45 2.04
Control 32 3.56 1.80
Table 6
ANCOVA Statistics for Table 5
F df p
Change in STAR Level
3.07 (1, 47) .09
*p <0.05
The result of this hypothesis is displayed above in Table 5 and Table 6. After testing for Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances, the variances were shown to be similar. A one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed and the hypothesis was not rejected. There was not enough evidence to suggest there are
39 differences in the mean reading level of program participants (M = 4.45, SD = 2.04) and non-participants (M = 3.56, SD = 1.80) after controlling for spring 2013 STAR reading levels based on the covariate of the STAR, F (1,47) = 3.07, p=.09. Even after controlling for differences, performance between the two groups was too similar on both the STAR assessment of fall 2013 in relation to Spring 2013.
Findings Related to Research Question 2
Research Question 2: How does participation in the summer reading program impact the change on spring to fall reading scores based on initial performance level?
H02: Program participation has an equal effect based on initial reading level
on the changes of scores from fall 2013 to spring 2013. Table 7
Change in STAR Reading Level Based on Initial Performance Level
N M SD
Above Grade Level 4 0.40 0.78
At Grade Level 5 0.54 0.40
40 Table 8
ANOVA Statistics for Table 7
F Df p STAR Reading Level Based on Initial Performance 2.37 2,15 .13 *p <0.05
The results for this research question are presented in Table 7 and Table 8. The research was unable to reject hypothesis; there was not enough evidence to suggest that the results were statistically significant. After Levene’s test indicated that equal variances could be assumed, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine whether program participation had the same effect based on initial reading level of the STAR assessment in Spring 2013. On average program participants above grade level increased reading level (n= 4, M= 0.40, SD = 0.78) by four months. Program participants who initially performed at grade level increased reading level (n= 5, M= 0.54, SD = 0.48) of five months. The program participants who initially scored below grade level lost reading level of less than a month (n= 9,
M= 0.04, SD = 0.78). The goal of the program was that they would maintain their
reading level, and as an average, they were able to maintain reading level or show growth, with students at grade level making the most growth, However, the ANOVA indicated that the results were not statistically significant F (2, 15) = 2.37, p = .13.
Findings Related to Research Question 3
Research Question 3: Among participants in the summer reading program, how much did attitude toward reading change?
41
H03: Participation in the summer reading program will have a positive impact on
students’ attitude towards reading. Table 9
Difference in Change of Scores on Spring 2013 and Fall 2013 Reading Attitude Survey Among Program Participants
N M SD
Spring 2013 13 52.15 23.33
Fall 2013 13 54.77 32.41
Table 10
Paired t-Test Statistics for Table 9
T df P
Change in Reading Attitude
.48 12 .64
*p <0.05
The results for this research question are shown above in Table 11 and Table 12. The research is unable to reject the null hypothesis; there is not enough evidence to suggest that the results were statistically significant in changing attitude towards reading. Not all the students who participated in the summer reading program (N=18) took the reading attitude survey (N= 13). After proving Levine’s Test of Equality of Error Variances, a paired sample t-test was conducted to determine whether student reading attitude in the treatment group differed between spring 2013 and fall 2013 reading attitude survey. The results indicate the mean for spring reading attitude
42 (M=52.15, SD=23.33) was not significantly different than the mean for the fall
reading attitude (M=54.77, SD=32.41), t(12) = 0.48, p = .64. The scores are highly varied in both the spring and fall survey (SD=23.33 and SD =32.41). The data analysis indicate improved attitude towards reading between the spring (M=52.15) and fall (M=54.77) survey, but not enough to be significant.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine the outcome of reading five books over the summer in order to refute summer reading loss among second through fifth grade students. Based on the literature, the goal for participants was that they would maintain, not lose, reading level over the summer. The null hypothesis was that reading five books has no effect on the loss of reading level over summer. Using the Statistics Package for the Social Sciences, v. 22, paired t-tests, independent t-tests, ANOVA, and ANCOVAs were administered using data collected in the spring and fall before and after the summer reading program. The outcomes of the study reveal the effect of reading over the summer on reading level loss and reading attitude. Due to the small size of the treatment and control groups, there was not enough evidence to indicate that the summer reading program had a significant impact on summer reading loss or attitude toward reading. Chapter V discusses the summary of the results presented in this chapter as well as conclusions, discussions, and
43 CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
Research documents that summer reading loss is a contributing factor in students overall academic success. Summer reading loss is the loss of reading level that occurs over the months in which students are out of school. In this study, summer reading loss is exacerbated by the rural location of the students and lack of access to print among the low SES students. Research by Allington et al. (2010) showed that giving students 12 self-selected texts over the summer resulted in a statistically significant impact on the rate of summer reading loss. White (2008) provided books and scaffolding teacher instruction prior to summer vacation.
Wilkins et al. (2012) provided books to students over the summer, but was not able to verify that the students read the books. Schacter and Jo (2005) provided reading instruction in a summer day camp setting, where reading was just one of the various activities in which students participated.
The focus of this study was to provide rural students access to self-selected text at the convenient location of the school library in order to combat summer reading loss. In order to ensure that students read the books, they were required to take at least 5 AR tests over the 8 week time period. The treatment group (group 1), included 19 students which took the STAR reading assessment produced by
