Discussion of Findings

Home

Abstract

Theory and Related Research

Design

Discussion of Findings

Analysis

Conclusions and Implications

References and
Related Documents

About the Researcher

Overall Method of Assessment
The five participants were administered the following reading comprehension assessments at the beginning of
the school year and again at the midpoint: the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), the Qualitative
Reading Inventory-3 (QRI-3) and the Benchmark test. The participants also completed the Reader Self-Perception
Scale (RSPS) at the beginning of the school year and again at the midpoint. Participants completed reflections
on the reading strategies presented. Through observations by the researcher, anecdotal notes were written and transcribed. The transcription was distributed to four scorers. Each scorer coded the comments and a discussion
took place to verify and clarify the comments. In this way, inter-rator reliability was established.
(see Appendix C)


The Reader Self-Perception Scale reflects four dimensions of self-efficacy: progress, observational comparison,
social feedback, and physiological states. Progress scores range from 0 to 34 (low), 35-39 (average) and
40-45 (high). Observational comparison scores range from 0-16 (low), 17-21 (average), and 22-30 (high).
Social feedback scores range from 0-27 (low), 28-33 (average), and 34-38 (high). Physiological states scores
range from 0-25 (low), 26-31 (average), and 32-40 (high).

Discussion of the Findings
Five students in a grade 6 sheltered English instruction classroom were selected to participate in the study. They
were selected according to the number of months they had been in the United States. For the purpose of this
research project, they will be referred to as Chloe, Joe, Neeki, Dan and Dari.

The purpose of the twelve-week intervention was to determine if students’ self-efficacy would increase as they
learned and implemented reading comprehension strategies. In other words, as their ability to comprehend text
increased, their self-efficacy would also increase. Bandura (1982) stated,

In preliminary explorations of the cognitive processing of enactive experiences, people register notable increases in self-efficacy when their experiences disconfirm misbeliefs about what they fear and when
they gain new skills to manage threatening activities. They hold weak self-percepts of efficacy in a
provisional status, testing their newly acquired knowledge and skills before raising judgments of what
they are able to do (p.125).

Summary of Findings for Each Student Pre and Post
(by Type and Feature)
For the purpose of this study, students were given pseudonyms in the reporting of the findings. The following
is a summary of the findings of the 12 week intervention for the five participants-Chloe, Joe, Neeki, Dan and
Dari.

Chloe

At the time of this study Chloe was an 11 year old girl who had been in the United States for 3 years and
7 months. She arrived from Cape Verde with strong literacy skills in her native language and no knowledge of
spoken English. She was placed in a grade 3 sheltered English immersion classroom. During a brief pre-testing
interview, Chloe reported that she enjoyed school. Math and science were her favorite subjects. In the reading
class, Chloe presented as a quiet girl. She was reluctant to participate in the reading group. She answered
questions when asked, but volunteered infrequently. She engaged readily when speaking with adults
one-on-one.

Figure 1 represents the scores on the RSPS for Chloe.

Figure 1

After the 12 week intervention, Chloe’s progress score increased by 1 point (high range). Observational
comparison scores also increased (from low to average). Social feedback decreased (from high to average).
Physiological states remained in the high range.

The Benchmark test (also known as the Edusoft Assessment Management System) was developed by Riverside
Publishing Company. The Benchmark test is a district wide reading comprehension test measuring various areas
of reading such as context clues, foreshadowing, parts of speech, author’s use of dialogue, main idea and
supporting details, genre, theme, and elements of a story. Scores in these areas are represented in percentiles
with an overall reading comprehension score.

Figure 2 is a performance report demonstrating Chloe’s scores at the beginning of the school year and the
midpoint.

Figure 2

Chloe’s scores on the Benchmark reflect an overall increase of 58 points. She demonstrated increases in all
areas tested.

The Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) is a standardized method for assessing reading development
and progress. The DRA reflects scores for accuracy, comprehension level, and phrasing and fluency. In the fall,
Chloe completed level 24 (grade 2 equivalent) of the DRA with 97% accuracy, a comprehension level of 16,
indicating adequate comprehension of text, and fluency and phrasing rate of 3.

The DRA administered at the midyear indicated Chloe was reading at a level 30 (grade 3 equivalent) with 99%
accuracy, a comprehension level of 19, indicating adequate comprehension, and fluency and phrasing rate of 4.

Figure 3 shows DRA scores for Chloe.

Figure 3

The Qualitative Reading Inventory-3 is an informative test which provides levels of reading comprehension. The
QRI-3 begins with concept questions to activate student’s prior knowledge on the topic which they will be
reading. After reading the text, 8 comprehension questions are presented to the student-4 text explicit and
4 text implicit. Eight correct responses would indicate that level to be the child’s independent level of reading.
Six to 7 total correct responses would indicate the instructional level, and 5 or less would indicate the
frustration level. The QRI-3 also measures student’s accuracy scores. The accuracy score is obtained by
recording the number of miscues that are made while reading the selection.

In the fall, Chloe obtained a total of 6 on the level 3 of the QRI-3. She correctly answered 3 text explicit
questions and 3 text implicit questions. On the concept questions, she obtained a score of 50%. Her accuracy
score was 97%. These scores indicate Chloe’s instruction level in the fall to be at level 3.

At midyear, Chloe obtained a total of 7 on the level 5 of the QRI-3. She correctly answered 3 text explicit
questions and 4 text implicit questions. On the concept questions, she obtained a score of 58%. Her accuracy
score was 99%. These score indicate Chloe’s instruction level at the midpoint to be at level 5.

The following graphs represent Chloe’s scores on the QRI-3.

Figure 4

Joe

At the time of this study, Joe was a 12 year old boy who had been in the United States for 2 years and 9
months. He arrived from Cape Verde with strong literacy skills in his native language and limited knowledge of
spoken English. He was placed in a grade 4 sheltered English immersion classroom. During a brief interview
session in the fall, Joe reported that he enjoyed science, reading and social studies. In the reading class, Joe
was a very direct boy who clearly expressed his thoughts and opinions orally as well as in his written work. He
readily participated in the reading group and often volunteered to be the group director. Joe worked well with
other students and readily engaged in conversation with adults.

Figure 5 shows the scores on the RSPS for Joe.

Figure 5

After the 12 week intervention, Joe’s progress score increased by 3 points (from average to high range). No
change was noted in the area of observational comparison. In the area of social feedback, an increase of
8 points was noted (from average to high range). In the area of physiological states, an increase of 4 points
was noted (from average to high range).

Figure 6 demonstrates a performance report showing Joe’s scores on the Benchmark test at the beginning of
the school year and at the midpoint.

Figure 6

Joe increased overall by 46 points on the Benchmark tests.  Elements of a story remained in the below average
range. A decrease was noted in the area of context clues. Increases were noted in all other areas tested. 

The DRA administered in the fall indicated Joe’s reading level to be at level 28 (third grade). He obtained an
accuracy rate of 98%, a comprehension level of 11 indicating some comprehension, and phrasing and fluency
were at a level 3.

At the midpoint, Joe obtained a level 34 (fourth grade) with an accuracy rate of 99%. Comprehension level
was 17, indicating adequate comprehension, and in phrasing and fluency, he remained at the level 3.

Figure 7 demonstrates DRA scores for Joe.

Figure 7

In the fall, Joe obtained a total of 7 on the level 3 of the QRI-3. He correctly answered 4 text explicit questions
and 3 text implicit questions. On the concept questions, he obtained a score of 83%. His accuracy score was
96%. These scores indicate Joe’s instructional level in the fall to be at level 3.

At midyear, Joe obtained a total of 7 on the level 4 of the QRI-3. He correctly answered 4 text explicit questions
and 3 text implicit questions. On the concept questions, he obtained a score of 100%. His accuracy score
was 97%. These score indicate Joe instructional level at the midpoint to be at level 4.

Figure 8 represents Joe’s scores on the QRI-3.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Figure 8

Neeki

At the time of this study Neeki was an 11 year old girl who had been in the United States for 2 years and
7 months. She arrived from Cape Verde with strong literacy skills in her native language. She was placed in a
grade 4 sheltered English immersion classroom. During a brief interview in the fall, Neeki reported that she
enjoyed school and had many friends. Her favorite subjects were health and reading. In the reading group,
Neeki presented as a cooperative student and completed most tasks with no prompting. She enjoyed helping
other students and teachers and was well liked by her peers.

Figure 9 shows the scores on the RSPS for Neeki.

Figure 9

After the 12 week intervention, Neeki’s progress score increased by 10 points (from low to average range).  In
the area of observational comparison, Neeki’s score increased by 3 points (from low to average range). In the
area of social feedback, an increase of 3 points was noted (scores remained in the low range). In the area of
physiological states, an increase of 3 points was noted (from low to average range).

Figure 10 is a performance report showing Neeki’s scores on the Benchmark test at the beginning of the school
year and at the midpoint.

Figure 10

Neeki increased overall by 44 points on the Benchmark tests. Scores increased or remained the same in all
other areas.

The DRA administered in the fall indicated Neeki’s reading level to be at level 30 (third grade). She obtained
an accuracy rate of 98%, a comprehension level of 20, indicating adequate comprehension, and phrasing and
fluency were at a level 4.

At the midpoint, Neeki obtained a level 34 (fourth grade) with an accuracy rate of 98%. Comprehension level
was 21, indicating adequate comprehension, and in phrasing and fluency, she remained at the level 4.

Figure 12

In the fall, Neeki obtained a total of 6 on the level 4 of the QRI-3. She correctly answered 3 text explicit
questions and 3 text implicit questions. On the concept questions, she obtained a score of 72%. Her accuracy
score was 96%. These scores indicate Neeki’s instructional level in the fall to be at level 3.

At midyear, Neeki obtained a total of 7 on the level 4 of the QRI-3. She correctly answered 4 text explicit
questions and 3 text implicit questions. On the concept questions, she obtained a score of 66%. Her accuracy
score was 98%. These score indicate Neeki’s instructional level at the midpoint to be at level 4.

Figure 12 represents Neeki’s scores on the QRI-3.

Figure 12

At the time of this study Dan was a 12 year old boy who had been in the United States for 2 years and
3 months. He arrived from Cape Verde with good literacy skills in his native language and some understanding
of English. Dan was placed in a grade 4 sheltered English immersion class. Dan reported that he enjoyed
science and reading.  In the reading group, Dan enjoyed clarifying concepts for the other students. He had very
good vocabulary skills and was quick to clarify unknown words and concepts to the other students. He readily
engaged in conversation with peers and adults. He was often reminded to remain on task as he was easily
distracted.

Figure 13 shows the RSPS scores for Dan.

 Figure 14

Dan increased overall by 45 points on the Benchmark tests. The area of genre remained in the average range.
Elements of a story remained in the below average range.  All other areas tested indicated an increase.

The DRA administered in the fall indicated Dan’s reading level to be at level 28 (third grade). He obtained an
accuracy rate of 97%, a comprehension level of 18, indicating adequate comprehension, and phrasing and
fluency were at a level 3.

At the midpoint, Dan obtained a level 30 (fourth grade) with an accuracy rate of 98%. Comprehension level
was 17, indicating adequate comprehension and in phrasing and fluency, he remained at the level 3.

Figure 15 shows DRA scores for Dan.

In the fall, Dan obtained a total of 7 on the level 4 of the QRI-3. He correctly answered 3 text explicit
questions and 4 text implicit questions. On the concept questions, he obtained a score of 36%. These scores
indicate Dan’s instructional level in the fall to be at level 4. His accuracy score was 95%.

At midyear, Dan obtained a total of 7 on the level 5 of the QRI-3. He correctly answered 4 text explicit
questions and 3 text implicit questions. On the concept questions, he obtained a score of 72%. His accuracy
score was 98%. These score indicate Dan’s instructional level at the midpoint to be at level 5.

Figure 16 represents Dan’s scores on the QRI-3.

Figure 16

Dari

At the time of this study Dari was an 11 year old boy who had been in the United States for 1 year and
10 months. Dari arrived from Cape Verde with excellent literacy skills in his native language. During a brief
interview session in the fall, Dari reported that he enjoyed math and science.  In the reading group, Dari
presented as a shy and reserved student. He responded when called upon, but rarely volunteered. He
completed tasks accurately, but was reluctant to participate in additional activities. Dari was a quiet and
reflective boy. He had acquired classroom English very quickly.

Figure 17 shows the RSPS for Dari.

Figure 17

After the 12 week intervention, Dari’s progress score remained the same (average range).  In the area of
observational comparison, Dari’s score again remained the same (average range). In the area of social feedback, an increase of 10 points was noted (from low range to high range). In the area of physiological states, an
increase of 6 points was noted (from average to high range).

Figure 18

Dari increased overall by 39 points on the Benchmark tests. A decrease in scores was noted in context clues.
Elements of a story remained the same. All other areas showed an increase or remained the same.

The DRA administered in the fall indicated Dari’s reading level to be at level 24 (second grade). He obtained
an accuracy rate of 98%, a comprehension level of 20, indicating adequate comprehension, and phrasing and
fluency were at a level 2.

At the midpoint, Dari obtained a level 28 (third grade) with an accuracy rate of 99%. Comprehension level
was 21, indicating adequate comprehension, and in phrasing and fluency, he obtained a level 3.

Figure 19 shows DRA scores for Dari.

Figure 19

In the fall, Dari obtained a total of 6 on the level 2 of the QRI-3. He correctly answered 3 text explicit
questions and 3 text implicit questions. On the concept questions, he obtained a score of 50%. His
accuracy score was 96%.These scores indicate Dari’s instructional level in the fall to be at level 2.

At midyear, Dari obtained a total of 7 on the level 4 of the QRI-3. He correctly answered 4 text explicit
questions and 3 text implicit questions. On the concept questions, he obtained a score of 62%. These scores
indicate Dari’s instructional level at the midpoint to be at level 3. His accuracy score was 98%.

Figure 20 represents Dari’s scores on the QRI-3.

Discussion of Pre and Post Change for Students

Results of the DRA reflect increases in comprehension for four students. All participants increased 1 to 2
reading levels. In accuracy and fluency and phrasing, students remained at the same level or an increase was
noted. The QRI-3 also indicated overall increases in reading comprehension scores.  The Benchmark Test was
utilized by this particular school system as a teaching tool to identify areas of strengths and weaknesses of
the students. After weaknesses were identified, intensive instruction took place to improve these areas. With
this intensive remediation, the post scores on the Benchmark showed significant overall increases for all
students.  Through modeling, group practicing, and independent reflections, the students were able to increase
reading comprehension scores.

Analysis of the scores on the RSPS indicate four of the participants, Neeki, Joe, Dan and Dari, showed increases
or remained the same in all four areas of self-efficacy-progress, observational comparison, social feedback and physiological states. Joe’s scores indicate increases in progress, social feedback and physiological states. His
scores on observational feedback remained the same. Dari’s scores indicate increases in social feedback and
physiological states. Observational comparison and progress remained the same. Chloe’s scores demonstrate
growth in the areas of observational comparison. A decrease in social feedback (from high to average) was
noted. Four of the students showed growth in the area of progress and one of the student’s scores remained
the same.

Henk and Melnick (1995) define progress as the student’s perception of present reading performance compared
with past performance. Therefore, after the 12-week intervention, four of the participants’ perceptions of their
present reading performance increased and one student’s perception remained the same. The observational
comparison subtest is designed to show how the child perceives his reading performance compared with the
performance of classmates. In this area, three of the students showed growth, and two students’ scores
remained the same. Therefore, after the twelve- week intervention, three of the five participants perceived
their reading performances to be better than that of their peers.

Measures of social feedback include direct or indirect input about reading from teachers, classmates and
people in the child’s family. Four of the five participants increased their scores in the area of social feedback. 
After the 12-week intervention, these four students perceived positive feedback from teachers, classmates
and people in their families. The subtest for physiological states examines the internal feelings the child is
experiencing during reading. Four of the students’ scores indicated increases in the area of physiological
states. After the twelve week intervention, these four students perceived themselves as having positive
internal feelings during reading.

Limitations
In the process of completing the study, the following limitations were noted.

• The study was conducted with a limited number of students. Larger numbers of students may yield more
  information to determine the connection between reading comprehension strategy instruction and
  increased self-efficacy.
   

• The research project was limited to four reading comprehension strategies-previewing, visualizing,
  questioning and summarizing. Additional reading comprehension strategies may further increase
  pre and post scores on comprehension assessments.
   

• The study was conducted over a 12-week period. A year long study may yield greater insight into
  increasing student self-efficacy.
                                                                                                                                                   

• Few testing instruments were available to measure self-efficacy.

• The findings of this study are limited to these students at the time and, therefore, not generalizable.