Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance of Students in a

Dominican Scholar Dominican Scholar

Graduate Master's Theses, Capstones,

and Culminating Projects

Student Scholarship

5-2015

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance of Students in a Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance of Students in a

Learning Center Model at the Elementary School Level Learning Center Model at the Elementary School Level

Marion E. Schalich

Dominican University of California

https://doi.org/10.33015/dominican.edu/2015.edu.08

Survey: Let us know how this paper benets you.

Recommended Citation

Schalich, Marion E., "Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance of Students in a Learning

Center Model at the Elementary School Level" (2015).

Graduate Master's Theses, Capstones,

and Culminating Projects

. 181.

https://doi.org/10.33015/dominican.edu/2015.edu.08

This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at

Dominican Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Master's Theses, Capstones, and

Culminating Projects by an authorized administrator of Dominican Scholar. For more information,

please contact [email protected].

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 1

Title Page

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance of Students in a Learning Center Model at the

Elementary School Level

Marion Schalich

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Education

School of Education and Counseling Psychology

Dominican University of California

San Rafael, CA

May 2015

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 2

Signature Sheet

This thesis, written under the direction of the candidate’s thesis advisor and approved by the

Chair of the Master’s program, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of Education

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science. The content and

research methodologies presented in this work represent the work of the candidate alone.

Marion Schalich May 1, 2015

Candidate Date

Madalienne F. Peters, Ed.D. May 1, 2015

Thesis Advisor Date

Elizabeth Truesdell, Ph.D. May 1, 2015

Program Chair Date

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 3

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 4

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Madalienne Peters for helping me write this paper and taking the

time to work one on one with me. She made this process easy and manageable. I would also

like to thank Rande Webster, Billye Brown, and Sharon Gordon for always pushing me to follow

my dreams in the field of education. They have been there for me whether I was attending

Dominican or not. They have always been willing to lend a helping hand when I was in need.

I would like to thank all my students that participated in this study and helped make this

research paper possible. I would like to thank my parents and brothers who have always

supported me and would drop everything to be there for me. My mom and dad motivate me

every day by constantly telling me how proud they are of all that I have accomplished.

Lastly, I would like to thank my friends, especially Danielle and Michelle who have been

my allies throughout this whole process. They have been such a great support system through

the credential and graduate programs.

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 5

Table of Contents

TITLE PAGE ...................................................................................................................................... 1

SIGNATURE SHEET ........................................................................................................................... 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................... 5

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 8

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM ............................................................................................................ 8

PURPOSE STATEMENT .................................................................................................................. 8

RESEARCH QUESTION .................................................................................................................. 9

DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................................................................................................. 9

THEORETICAL RATIONALE ........................................................................................................... 9

ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 10

BACKGROUND AND NEED .......................................................................................................... 11

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 12

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................................... 13

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 13

SMALL GROUP INSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................... 13

READING STRATEGIES ............................................................................................................... 20

TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 22

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 22

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 6

CHAPTER 3 METHOD ...................................................................................................................... 24

RESEARCH APPROACH ............................................................................................................... 24

ETHICAL STANDARDS ................................................................................................................ 24

SAMPLE AND SITE ...................................................................................................................... 25

ACCESS AND PERMISSIONS ........................................................................................................ 25

DATA GATHERING PROCEDURES ............................................................................................... 25

DATA ANALYSIS APPROACH ...................................................................................................... 26

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 27

DESCRIPTION OF SITE, INDIVIDUALS, DATA ............................................................................... 27

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS ................................................................................................ 27

TIME SPENT IN LEARNING CENTER ............................................................................................ 28

GENDER ..................................................................................................................................... 29

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 31

SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 31

COMPARISON OF FINDINGS TO THE LITERATURE ........................................................................ 31

LIMITATIONS/GAPS IN THE RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 32

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ..................................................................................... 33

OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................... 33

ABOUT THE AUTHOR ................................................................................................................. 33

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 35

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 7

Abstract

Many students are struggling in school academically. These students do not qualify for

additional resources. Typically these students continue to struggle in their classroom, year after

year. Additionally, teachers tend to socially promote these students. These students continue to

fail because they are lacking foundational skills.

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of small group instruction using select

reading comprehension strategies on student reading achievement comparing Measures of

Academic Progress (MAPs) assessments from September 2014 to February 2015. The literature

suggests that reading comprehension strategies and phonetic awareness improvements are only

noted in small group instruction, grammar needs to be taught explicitly, and teachers need to

understand individuals backgrounds and use that knowledge to motivate and encourage their

students learning.

This is a teacher action research project. Pretest and posttest quantitative data will be

collected and analyzed. The results indicated that approximately 50% of students who received

explicated small group instruction in reading comprehension performed higher on their reading

section of the MAPs statewide assessment in February 2015.

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 8

Chapter 1 Introduction

I have worked in special education for the passed three years. In those three years I have

assessed almost 40 students to see if they qualified for special education services. Of those 40

students, only 18 qualified for special education services and received extra support at school.

One of the most difficult aspects of my job is telling the concerned parents of a struggling

student that their child does not qualify for special education services. If students did not qualify,

our school did not offer serviced for these students. My principal and I began talking to the

district leadership about other options and programs that are available that could better support

the students at our school. These conversations led to our school developing a Learning Center

Model at our school.

Statement of Problem

Students are struggling in school and are not getting the help that they need to improve

academically. Funding for extra curricular activities, such as, art and music programs is limited

and yet the general education teachers are expected to teach these subjects. Aide time is

shortened or eliminated altogether and the general education teachers are still expected to help

support every student’s individual needs. This system has set the students and the teachers up to

fail.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study was to determine if small group instruction at the students’

comprehension levels increased students’ test scores. The researcher met with students in a

separate classroom for 45 minutes a day. The researcher used three different reading

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 9

comprehension programs to determine whether small group instruction at students’ individual

reading level helped increase their reading comprehension test scores on the MAPs assessments.

Research Question

What is the effect of small group instruction on students’ reading comprehension scores

when taking the February 2105 MAPs compared to the September 2014 MAPs assessments that

they took at the beginning of the school year?

Definition of Terms

Small group instruction – a group of 4-7 students receiving explicit instruction in reading

comprehension and decoding skills.

Learning Center Model – a “pull out” program for struggling general education students and

students with Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) to receive explicit teaching strategies in

reading comprehension and decoding skills.

Measures of Academic Progress (MAPs) assessment – a statewide reading, language, and

mathematic assessment that students take three times a year at public schools.

Reading comprehension scores – percentages students receive on the reading section of the

MAPs assessment test.

Theoretical Rationale

Over the years, many theorists have studied how children learn. Some theorists such as,

Piaget (Gauvain & Cole, 1993) believed that development cycles formed before learning cycles.

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 10

Others, such as James (Gauvain & Cole, 1993), believed that learning and development

happened concurrently. Lastly, Koffka’s theory (Gauvain & Cole, 1993) believed that as

children mature, they are able to comprehend the learning process and as they go through the

learning process, it helps them mature.

Vygotsky (Gauvain & Cole, 1993) believed that the difference between each child’s

learning and development was called the zone of proximal development. He assessed this

process by taking two students and testing them to determine their developmental levels. Both

students tested at an 8 year old developmental level. These two students were then taught

different math strategies. After the lessons, he retested the students. One student was now

achieving at a 9 year old level and the other student was achieving at a 12 year old level. This

led Vygotsky to believe that there was a difference between developmental level and learning

levels. The results of the study indicated that children’s learning and developmental levels are

interrelated.

Assumptions

I assume that any student receiving direct small group instruction will benefit

academically. I assume that this new Learning Center Model’s reading strategies will be helpful

and beneficial for my struggling students. I assume that these students are struggling in school

because they are “late bloomers” in their development and not because they have a learning

disability.

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 11

Background and Need

Fisher and Blachowicz (2005) examined an instructional strategy to help with vocabulary

instruction called Word Wizard. Word Wizard divides the vocabulary into three tiers. Tier 1 had

words that appeared in everyday life, Tier 2 had words that were high frequency sight words and

Tier 3 had words that are low frequency and were not presented all the time.

During the week the students reviewed the words chosen at the beginning of the week,

mostly Tier 2 words. Whenever the students encountered them in their daily life, they would add

a check mark next to the word. Tutors worked with individual students to identify the words.

This strategy made the students successful and they learned 60% of the words that were

presented to them. This strategy could be used in a classroom setting as a whole group

instruction for teaching vocabulary words to struggling readers.

Reis, McCoach, Coyne, Schreiber, Eckert, and Gubbins (2007) studied the effects of a 12

week reading program on 226 3

-6

students in two elementary schools using a reading program

called School-Wide Enrichment Model in Reading Framework (SEM-R). The 14 teachers

attended a one hour afternoon training on the literacy program. Students were chosen to not only

participate in the Reading Program, but also to receive 90 minutes of instruction using the

Success for All, program in class. The program uses high interest books that the students can

choose independently based on their interests. After selecting a book, the students worked daily

on independent reading support. The results of this study showed that all students that

participated in the controlled reading program increased their oral reading fluency scores and

expressed a better attitude towards reading in their follow up interviews.

Sporer, Brunstein, and Kieschke (2009) determined which reading strategies would be

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 12

effective at 210 elementary schools. In the small intervention groups, students were taught four

strategies: questioning, predicting, summarizing, and clarifying. Students demonstrated their

knowledge on these four topics by working in small groups, in pairs, and in guided practice

lessons. The results of the study showed that students in the reading intervention group received

higher scores on post assessments than students who received traditional instruction in the

general education classroom.

Summary

Researchers found three main themes. Teaching struggling readers requires teachers to

be knowledgeable about reading comprehension skills and syntax. Teachers need lessons that

involve the rules of grammar, phonetics, and comprehension skills. Children are not born

knowing these skills they need to be taught them. Secondly, teachers need to understand their

students’ individual backgrounds and use that knowledge to motivate and encourage their

students’ learning. Lastly, if classrooms allow it, students learn best in small groups. In small

group environment, teachers can learn exactly how each of their students learn, so that they can

differentiate instruction for individual students.

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 13

Chapter 2 Review of the Literature

Introduction

This section was an examination of the research literature on Reading Comprehension

Strategies. Information was gathered from academic library searches using online resources.

Research information is organized in the following categories: Small Group Instruction, Reading

Strategies, and Technology.

Small Group Instruction

Abbott, Dornbush, Giddings, and Thomas (2012) found that many kindergarteners and 1

graders did not have reading readiness skills at their grade level. The purpose of the study was to

teach these skills to those struggling students. The study involved 74 students and parents. The

researchers assessed students using three different measures: parent survey, baseline

assessments, and observational checklist. The parent survey indicated that students who disliked

reading were also struggling in reading. The assessments identified students who were

struggling in reading and targeted areas for instruction.

The interventions used were: guided reading groups, flashcards for letter recognition and

letter sounds, phonetic awareness drills, and visual cues to help with unknown words. The results

of these interventions were an increase in overall reading scores and reading readiness. This

study was performed in a small, rural area in Illinois with a small sample size. The results of this

study showed a positive increase in overall reading for all students involved.

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 14

Amendum, Vernon-Feagans, and Ginsberg (2011) focused on the effectiveness of reading

intervention to struggling readers using Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI). This study

involved seven schools, including 364 kindergarten and 1

grade students, from a low socio

economic status, in a rural community. This study included a control group and a treatment

group of teachers that were taught reading strategies and received ongoing professional

development through webcam sessions.

The students took a reading test on their word reading, letter recognition, comprehension,

and spelling in the fall and then again in the spring. The results of this test were that struggling

students and students at grade level who received the TRI scored higher on the spring reading

assessment compared to the control group of struggling students and students at grade level. The

results of this study suggest that the struggling students and the students at grade level both

benefited from using the TRI program.

Gelzheiser, Scanlon, Vellutino, Hallgren-Flynn, and Schatschneider (2011) examined the

importance of creating a comprehension program that also supported individual student needs.

Public school teachers separated their 4

grade classes into two groups, struggling readers and a

control group. The struggling readers received the intervention in the fall and were tested in the

spring. The fall intervention students increased reading comprehension and reading accuracy

skills compared to the control group students.

Gilbert, Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, Bouton, Barquero, and Cho (2013) examined the

effectiveness of the three tiers of intervention for 649 1

graders at the beginning of the year.

The team determined which students would receive different tier intervention based on students’

progress. Tier 1 intervention involved 78 struggling 1

grade students which was delivered in

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 15

the classroom by the general education teacher. Tier 2 intervention involved 45 students being

pulled out of the classroom for small group instruction by a tutor. Tier 3 intervention involved

24 students and was similar to tier 2 intervention, except it was “one on one” tutoring and was

more frequent.

Students who received tier 2 intervention made a substantial progress on word reading

than the group receiving tier 1 intervention in the general education classroom. This study also

discovered that the students receiving tier 3 intervention, “one on one” tutoring, made similar

progress when compared to the students in the tier 2 intervention. This intervention was only

offered in first grade for 14 weeks and then stopped. The results of this study showed that by

third grade, 39% of students from the tier 1 were reading at grade level range and 40% of

students from the tier 2 were reading at grade level range.

In a study by Kinniburgh, and Baxter (2012), researchers examined the effectiveness of

the literacy program Question Answer Relationship (QAR), a strategy which helps students

comprehend what they just read by using the different types of questions: Right There questions,

Think and Search questions, Author and You questions, and On My Own questions. Right There

Questions are literal questions that are found right out of the reading. Think and Search

Questions are questions were the reader has to gather information together to answer to the

question. Author and You questions are questions that use information from the story that can

relate to the student. On My Own questions are questions that do not require any information

from the story but the students must use their background knowledge to answer the question.

These different kinds of questions can help a student understand the story. Results of the study

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 16

indicated that students were able to improve their reading comprehension using the QAR

comprehension strategy.

Lovett, De Palma, Frijters, Steinbach, Temple, Benson, and Lacerenza (2008) examined

166 2

-8

grade students. Of these students, 90 were English as a first language students and 76

were English Language Learners. The students were grouped by reading level ability. They

received one hour of intervention 4 to 5 days a week for a total of 105 hours of intervention. The

teachers took a two day training course through the Learning Disabilities Research Program and

received three more days of training throughout the intervention program. The students were

assessed and continuously monitored during the phonologically based reading intervention

program. The results showed that both the English as a first language and English Language

Learner improved in their overall reading skills.

McCutchen, Gree, Abbott, and Sanders (2009), examined the effects of teachers’

knowledge compared to the achievement of struggling students. Teachers took a ten day

intervention class that focused on literacy instruction and linguistic knowledge. After researcher

observations and review of the students’ results, the researchers learned that there is a

relationship between teacher knowledge and student learning. Small groups and teacher

involvement show positive effects on student’s learning. Teachers with deep linguistic

knowledge can help prevent reading difficulties, which in turn, help to decrease writing

difficulties among students. Teachers need to have knowledge in linguistics to help students

learn reading for both struggling and non-struggling students.

Melekoglu and Wilkerson (2013) examined students’ motivation to read and its effects on

students reading skills. Their premise was students who struggled with reading, usually, had

difficulty finding books to read for pleasure at their reading level. The general education teachers

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 17

had to deal with behavior problems because students could not comprehend the curriculum,

become frustrated and disrupt the class. The study had a total of 45 students from grades four

through twelve (10 fourth graders, 14 fifth graders, 12 sixth graders, 3 tenth graders, 5 eleventh

graders, and 1 twelfth graders). Students were given a survey questionnaire and some evidence-

based assessments that teachers could utilize to improve reading motivation of upper elementary

and high school students. The results of this study showed no significant changes in students

with disabilities. Students without disabilities that struggled in reading performed better and

enjoyed reading with more exposure. More exposure to reading can help teachers plan better

lessons incorporating reading for those struggling students.

Pacheco and Goodwin (2013) interviewed 20 7

and 8

grade students from two middle

schools in the Southeastern Unites States. The purpose of the study was to understand the

different strategies middle school readers used during morphology instruction (word structure,

meanings of roots and affixes, and how to use morphological problem solving to figure out

unknown words) so that teachers can integrate this information in future lessons. The

researchers collected data from 20-minute interviews, where students were asked to problem

solve 12 morphologically complex words, and then answer follow-up questions about their

problem-solving processes. The results showed four strategies when teaching morphological

instruction: (1) encouraging chunking into meaningful parts, (2) encouraging students to make

connections, (3) teaching morphology in context, and (4) leveraging students’ language

knowledge.

Pomerantz and Pierce (2013) examined student performance at an urban elementary

school, Williams School, where students received low test scores for numerous years. Williams

School paired up with Salem State University to figure out the areas of need for reading

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 18

comprehension instruction, provided literacy coaches, and changed the teachers teaching

instruction by adding professional development strategies. The study examined the effects of

educating teachers through professional development trainings, co-teaching, and literacy coaches

on students’ reading comprehension skills. Williams School has 552 students, 91% come are

from low-income families and 78% are English Language Learners. Results indicated that

students and teachers faced many challenges. The school, in general, did not have access to

reading curricular materials for teachers to use with their students. The teachers themselves did

not have the skills to teach reading comprehension strategies. The students’ test scores

performance increased once teachers had professional development training in the following:

teaching reading comprehension strategies, learning how to model these practices, applying

strategies, and monitoring the students’ progress. This study focused mainly on the teachers

teaching strategies and not on the students.

The purpose of the study by Roberts, Vaughn, Fletcher, Stuebing, and Barth (2013) was

to examine response based reading intervention for 768 struggling 6

grade students over three

years. The researchers randomly chose students to be apart of the control group and a part of the

intervention group for three years in the fall to receive one year of intervention. This study

found that students in the intervention group made more growth than the control group of

students, however, by the spring of eighth grade (two years later), there was still a gap between

typical developing students and the struggling students who had received the intervention.

Scholin, Haegele, and Burns (2013) examined three 4

and 5

grade students that were

struggling in reading comprehension but that did not struggle with reading fluency. The program

used the Read Naturally Program and small group instruction to teach the students numerous

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 19

strategies to help understand how to summarize, answer inference questions, and make

predictions. The researchers determined the program to be successful since all three of the

students were able to graduate from the small group instruction and were placed back in the

general education classroom. This program had a very small participant sample group and also

indicated that they needed more time to know if the intervention students continued to be

successful in the general education classroom for the remainder of the school year.

Stroger, Sontag, and Ziegler (2014) studied the effects of reading intervention strategies

being taught in 4

grade general education classrooms. After implementing this new strategy,

the researchers examined: the effects on the students’ self-regulation of their own learning,

identifying the main idea, and reading comprehension skills. The study included 3 different

groups, 266 students who received regular general education instruction, 286 students who

received text reduction work, and 229 students who received the 7-step self-regulation model

instruction. Students were randomly assigned to one of the three groups for 11 weeks. After the

11 weeks, students who received the self-regulation instruction had a positive outlook on their

learning, had higher standardized reading comprehension test scores, and could identify the main

idea more than the students in the other two groups.

The study by Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn, and Ciullo (2010) was a synthesis of research on

24 different reading interventions for students in grades 4

-5

. They researched word

recognition programs, reading comprehension programs, and vocabulary intervention programs.

Their findings showed that reading comprehension intervention groups had the highest success

scores before, during, and after regular reading curriculum. There were mixed results on reading

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 20

fluency, the word recognition intervention had moderate improvement results, and there was

little research on vocabulary intervention programs over their 20 years of study.

Reading Strategies

Cheek and Ortlieb’s (2013) book featured one study that focused on scaffolding

children’s reading. This classroom intervention involved a teacher working with two 1

grade

students in a “one on one” situation. In the teacher’s experience, students over-relied on only

meaning and syntax and did not pay attention to the visual/print information, or over-relied on

the visual/print information and ignored the meaning and syntax. After teaching the students

helpful strategies to use both the pictures and decoding the words correctly, the student’s reading

comprehension improved. The researchers suggested that teachers work “one on one” with

students to gather information about how to shape their students’ reading behaviors based on

student performance on the following: reading text, solving problems during reading, and

monitoring their attempts. Reading teachers should maintain running records to show evidence

that students can begin to balance their uses of information as they attempt to solve problems and

monitor their reading. This study, although helpful, requires a lot of “one on one” time with

students. These strategies would be beneficial in small group settings or in a “pull-out” program

to accompany classroom learning.

Compton-Lilly (2008) wrote an informative article about methods in reading instruction

that affect learning. The author introduced responsive teaching that involved recognizing the

various differences between individual students in the classroom. The study gave three examples

of different students and suggested reading strategies to use for each of the sample students. The

study found that the author was able to build reading skills based on the individual student’s

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 21

background. The author found that children had different interests and attention to those different

interests. This finding is critical when working with children who struggle with reading.

Teachers need to be expert observers, need to know their students’ interests, and need to be alert

to those times that students are making connections between text to self. This article did not

provide research-proven methods, but urges teachers to be mindful of the difference types of

background knowledge students bring into the classroom. Although it lacks specific strategies, it

teaches teachers to be mindful as they approach their students’ learning styles.

Mahdavi and Tensfeldt's (2013) research showed the importance of reading

comprehension in the low elementary grades, especially, since it has been included as a

necessary standard for K-3 grades in the US. The authors indicated that multiple methods should

be used to improve comprehension for young students. The study is based on specific

comprehension strategies, including peer learning, self-questioning, story grammar, and text

structures for lower elementary school age students. This study included special education

children, English Language students, and at-risk/RtI (Response to Intervention) students.

Results were reported for each individual strategy. The peer mediated learning showed the

improvement of reading comprehension in 1

grade with children with special education and

children who are at-risk for reading failure. The peer mediated learning also helped build the

phonemic awareness and word study abilities of kindergarten children. Results also indicated

that using story mapping, vocabulary instruction, and other graphic organizers demonstrated the

significant influence of completing graphic organizers as a useful tool for keeping students,

especially children with reading difficulties, engaged in the text. Only students who received

direct instruction in self-questioning showed improvement with reading comprehension skills.

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 22

The results showed that students became most successful when two or more strategies are

combined in instruction.

Technology

Cheung and Slavin (2013) examined the effectiveness of technology on students’ reading

improvement in school. A total of 20 studies based on about 7,000 students in grades 1

-6

were

involved in the analysis. Technology applications used were, Read, Write & Type and the

Lindamood Phoneme Sequence Program, Jostens, Lexia, READ 180, ReadAbout, and Fast

ForWord. Students showed improvement with their reading skills using Josten and Lexis,

however, the test score improvement was minimal. One of the recommendations of this study, to

incorporate small group instruction along with the technology applications, did not produce

meaningful positive effect sizes.

Summary

Findings in the research literature showed that students learn best in a small group

environment. One study showed that there was no difference between individual instruction and

group instruction. Small group instruction may be preferable to serve more students in a limited

time frame. The research also indicated that teachers who get to know their students individually

and understand their backgrounds in order to select motivating reading materials based on

students’ interests. Lastly, another study showed that following group instruction the researchers

noticed an increase in students’ reading scores as well as an increase in positive behavior in the

general education classroom. Findings of previous research indicated that individualized small

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 23

group instruction suggested that students reading test scores will increase if they have the

opportunity to receive direct small group instruction in a Learning Center Model.

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 24

Chapter 3 Method

Research Approach

The research of this study was a review of students’ pretest and posttest reading

performance of students in a Learning Center Model at the Elementary school level. The

researcher reviewed the students’ September 2104 and February 2105 MAPs assessment scores

and determined whether or not the students reading improved after receiving direct small group

instruction.

Pretest/ Posttest Comparison

The purpose of this study was to determine if small group instruction at students’

comprehension levels increased students’ test scores. The researcher pulled students into a

separate classroom and used three different reading comprehension programs to determine

whether small group instruction at students’ individual reading level helped increase their

reading comprehension test scores on the MAPs assessments from September 2014 to February

2015. This was a teacher action research project. Quantitative data were collected from student

work samples to determine if there was noted student improvement in classroom.

Ethical Standards

This paper adheres to the ethical standards for protection of human subjects of the

American Psychological Association (2010). Additionally a research proposal was submitted

and reviewed by the researcher’s advisor, and was approved.

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 25

Sample and Site

Data were collected from one elementary school, in an affluent area in the San

Francisco/North Bay Area from 28 students. The study included the following: one 1

grader,

seven 2

graders, seven 3

graders, six 4

graders, and seven 5

graders. Twelve of the twenty-

eight students were English Language Learners. Of the twenty-eight students, thirteen were

male students and fifteen were female students.

Access and Permissions

Parents of the participants received a letter of notification that their child's was

participating in the Learning Center Model. As part of the researcher’s normal instructional

process, assessment scores were reviewed and analyzed. The parent of the participants received

a copy of their scores of the MAPs assessment from September 2014 and February 2015.

Data Gathering Procedures

The participants for this study took the statewide testing, MAPs, in September 2104. The

participants that had been selected by their teachers, based on their testing scores, received small

group instruction in reading comprehension and decoding skills. Participants then took the

statewide testing, MAPs, in February 2105.

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 26

Data Analysis Approach

Data were analyzed by creating tables showing comparisons of the twenty-eight general

education students receiving small group instruction in a Learning Center Model. Tables

compared English Language Learners, time spent in the Learning Center, and gender.

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 27

Chapter 4 Findings

Description of Site, Individuals, Data

Data were collected from one elementary school, in an affluent area in the San

Francisco/North Bay Area. Within the Learning Center there are seven staff members, one

general education credentialed teacher, three special education credentialed teachers, and three

special education instructional assistances. The data collected were from 28 general education

students who received small group instruction in the Learning Center Model since September

2014. These students range from K-5

grade. The students took the MAPs state standard

assessment in September 2014 and then took it again in February 2015.

English Language Learners

The following table includes the English Language Learners who received small group

instruction in the Learning Center Model since September 2014.

Student

Number

Age

Gender

English

Language

Learner

Grade

Fall 2014

Percentile

Spring

2015

Percentile

Male

Yes

21%

38%

Female

Yes

Female

Yes

Male

Yes

42%

62%

Female

Yes

Female

Yes

Female

Yes

15%

Male

Yes

Male

Yes

47%

51%

Male

Yes

72%

69%

Female

Yes

18%

Female

Yes

44%

18%

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 28

Of the 28 general education students receiving small group reading comprehension instruction in

the Learning Center Model, 12 of the students were English Language Learners. For these

English Language Learners, the data showed that 6 students increased their percentages on the

MAPs assessment after receiving reading comprehension intervention skills in the Learning

Center. Two students showed no growth and 4 students’ percentages decreased after Learning

Center intervention.

Time Spent in Learning Center

The following table includes 20 students who received small group instruction in the Learning

Center Model since September 2014.

Student

Number

Age

Gender

English

Language

Learner

Grade

Fall 2014

Percentile

Spring

2015

Percentile

Female

20%

30%

Female

10%

Male

24%

30%

Female

20%

Female

Male

20%

30%

Female

Yes

Female

Yes

Male

23%

Male

19%

14%

Female

Yes

15%

Female

14%

Male

37%

Male

Yes

Male

Yes

47%

51%

Male

Yes

72%

69%

Female

Yes

18%

Female

58%

64%

Female

Yes

44%

18%

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 29

Of the 28 general education students receiving small group reading comprehension instruction in

the Learning Center Model, 20 of the students received the small group instruction since

September 2014, while other students received small group instruction since December 2014. Of

the 20 students who received small group instruction since September 2014, the data showed that

10 students increased their percentages on the MAPs assessment after receiving reading

comprehension intervention skills in the Learning Center. Three students showed no growth and

7 students’ percentages decreased after Learning Center intervention.

Gender

The following table includes the male and female students who received small group instruction

in the Learning Center Model since September 2014.

Student

Number

Age

Gender

English

Language

Learner

Grade

Fall 2014

Percentile

Spring

2015

Percentile

Male

49%

28%

Male

24%

30%

Male

20%

30%

Male

Yes

21%

38%

Male

25%

43%

Male

Yes

42%

62%

Male

23%

Male

19%

14%

Male

37%

Male

Yes

Male

Yes

47%

51%

Male

Yes

72%

69%

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 30

Student

Number

Age

Gender

English

Language

Learner

Grade

Fall 2014

Percentile

Spring

2015

Percentile

Female

20%

30%

Female

10%

Female

20%

Female

16%

Female

40%

70%

Female

Yes

Female

Yes

Female

Yes

Female

Yes

Female

Yes

15%

Female

14%

Female

Yes

18%

Female

58%

64%

Female

Yes

44%

18%

Of the 28 general education students receiving small group reading comprehension instruction in

the Learning Center Model, 13 of the students were male and 15 of the students were females.

The data showed that 8 male and 7 female students increased their percentages on the MAPs

assessment after receiving reading comprehension intervention skills in the Learning Center.

One male student and 2 female students showed no growth and 5 male and 6 female students’

percentages decreased after Learning Center intervention.

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 31

Chapter 5 Discussion /Analysis

Summary of Major Findings

Data indicated that 50% of English Language Learners receiving small group reading

comprehension and decoding instruction in the Learning Center model showed improvement as

measured by student percentages on the post MAPs assessment in February 2015. Data also

indicated that 50% of students who received small group instruction since the beginning of the

school year (September 2014) received higher scores on the February 2015 MAPs assessment.

Lastly, 62% of male students and 47% of female students received higher scores on their

February 2015 MAPs assessment after receiving small group reading comprehension instruction.

Comparison of Findings to the Literature

The findings in this study were similar to the findings of the literature review. D’Ardenne,

Barnes, Hightower, Lamason, Mason, Patterson, and Erikson (2013) examined small group

instruction for students working on reading comprehension and reading fluency. The study

showed the importance of having books that were culturally diverse, high interest, appealing to

boys and girls, aligned with curriculum across the grades, and equally representative of fiction

and non-fiction. The results showed that students in the intervention program showed growth on

their statewide reading assessments. Similar to that study, Compton-Lilly (2008) suggested that

teachers need to focus on individual student backgrounds and use those different interests to help

children who struggle with reading. Biggart, Kerr, O’Hare, and Connolly (2013) studies also

showed improvement on students’ behavior in the general education classroom after receiving

small group, structured, reading intervention instruction after school.

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 32

The literature suggested that direct small group instruction in grammar that is based on

students’ interests improves students’ reading skills. Approximately 50% of the students in this

study, that received small group reading decoding and comprehension instruction in the Learning

Center Model increased their reading performance levels on the February 2015 MAPs

assessments.

Limitations/Gaps in the Research

The limitation in this study was that the study was only given at one school. This study

only used one Learning Center Model and had a limited sample of students involved.

The study also included students that had previously had been assessed for special

education services but did not qualify based on IQs. These students have IQs in the 80s and do

not qualify for Special Education services because they are working at their potential. Students

that qualify for Special Education services show a discrepancy between their IQ and their

education performance levels. This might explain why some of the students’ scores did not

improve because they are working at their potential.

Lastly, the pre and posttest assessments are different because MAPs progresses

throughout the year. The pretest is assessing the student’s knowledge of the previous grade and

then progresses based on what the students should learn by the time of the next assessment

period. For example, a 3

grade student in September 2014 on the MAPs assessment period is

being compared to other 3.1 (3

grade, 1

month of school) students. During the February 2015

MAPs assessment period, that same 3

grade student is being compared to students at a 3.6 (3

grade, 6

months of school).

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 33

Implications for Future Research

Students should take an assessment that is the exact same pre and posttest to accurately

show their growth. The researchers should also use an assessment that assesses students at their

individual reading level not the grade level the students are currently in. This will allow the

researcher to truly study the individual student’s growth after receiving the intervention. Lastly,

the researchers should take into account students who have previously been assessed for Special

Educational services and are working at their potential and focusing on a different intervention

for those students.

Overall Significance of the Study

The purpose of this study was to provide struggling students who do not qualify for

Special Education services a resource at school to help them become more successful in reading.

The data showed that approximately 50% of the students that are receiving small group reading

comprehension instruction in the Learning Center Model are receiving higher testing scores on

the MAPs assessment. Teaching students explicit reading decoding and reading comprehension

skills in a small group setting, helps students improve on their reading comprehension statewide

assessments.

About the Author

My name is Marion Schalich and I am a Resource Specialist. I have been working at my

school for the past two years. During my tenure, I have been working with the staff and

administration to develop a program to benefit students who are working below grade level,

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 34

students with special needs, English Language Learners, and struggling students that do not

qualify for Special Education services. With this goal in mind, I worked with a team of teachers,

to developed a Learning Center Model at the school site.

The Learning Center supports both special education and general education students in a

fluid manner on a daily basis. The concept of the Learning Center is to enable special education

and general education staff (certificated and classified) to work together in order to provide

targeted instructional support to students who have not mastered core academic skills and are

performing below grade level. Special education students, English Language Learners, and

general education students would be taught in designated, small group Learning Center

classrooms. Each session would be scheduled for 45-minute sessions throughout the day. There

are approximately 30 special education students and 70 Response to Intervention (RtI) students

who would have never received this level of regular small group support in the past with a

student-teacher ratio of 6:1! This Learning Center program will allow more struggling students

to receive small group instruction at their academic level and will help them become more

successful at school.

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 35

References

Abbott, L., Dornbush, A., Giddings, A., & Thomas, J. (2012). Implementing guided reading

strategies with kindergarten and first grade students. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED531180.pdf

Amendum, S. J., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Ginsberg, M. C. (2011). The effectiveness of a

technologically facilitated classroom-based early reading intervention. Elementary School

Journal, 112(1), 107-131. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American

Psychological Association. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Biggart, A., Kerr, K., O’Hare, L., & Connolly, P. (2013). A randomised control trial evaluation

of a literacy after-school programme for struggling beginning readers. International

Journal of Educational Research, 62, 129-140. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.005

Cheek, E. H, & Ortlieb, E. (2013). School-based interventions for struggling readers. K-8.

Bingley, U.K.: Emerald. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com

Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). Effects of educational technology applications on

reading outcomes for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research

Quarterly, 48(3), 277-299. doi:10.1002/rrq.50

Compton-Lilly, C. (2008). Teaching struggling readers: Capitalizing on diversity for effective

learning. Reading Teacher, 61(8), 668-672. doi:10.1598/RT.61.8.10

D'Ardenne, C., Barnes, D. G., Hightower, E. S., Lamason, P. R., Mason, M., Patterson, P. C., &

Erickson, K. A. (2013). PLCs in action: Innovative teaching for struggling grade 3-5

readers. The Reader Teacher, 67 (2), 143-151. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1180

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 36

Fisher, P. J., & Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (2005). Vocabulary instruction in a remedial setting.

Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 281–300. doi: 10.1080/10573560590949386

Gauvain, M. & Cole M. (1993). Reading on the development of children. New York: Scientific

American Books.

Gelzheiser, L. M., Scanlon, D., Vellutino, F., Hallgren-Flynn, L., & Schatschneider, C.

(2011). Effects of the interactive strategies approach--extended: A responsive and

comprehensive intervention for intermediate-grade struggling readers. The Elementary

School Journal. 112 (2), 280-306. doi: 10.1086/661525

Gilbert, J. K., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Barquero, L. A., & Cho, E.

(2013). Efficacy of a first-grade responsiveness-to-intervention prevention model for

struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 135-154. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com

Kelly C., & Campbell L. (2014) Helping struggling readers John Hopkin School of Education.

Retrieved October 2, 2014, from

http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/strategies/topics/literacy/articles/helping-

struggling-readers/

Kinniburgh, L. H. 1., & Baxter, A. (2012). Using question answer relationships in science

instruction to increase the reading achievement of struggling readers and students with

reading disabilities. Current Issues in Education, 15(2), 1-9. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com

Lovett, M. W., De Palma, M., Frijters, J., Steinbach, K., Temple, M., Benson, N., & Lacerenza,

L. (2008). Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of response to intervention

by ELL and EFL struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(4), 333-352.

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 37

Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com

Mahdavi, J. N., & Tensfeldt, L. (2013). Untangling reading comprehension strategy instruction:

Assisting struggling readers in the primary grades. Preventing School Failure, 57(2), 77-

92. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com

McCutchen, D., Green, L., Abbott, R., & Sanders, E. (2009). Further evidence for teacher

knowledge: Supporting struggling readers in grades three through five. Reading &

Writing, 22(4), 401-423. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9163-0

Melekoglu, M. A., & Wilkerson, K. L. (2013). Motivation to read: How does it change for

struggling readers with and without disabilities? International Journal of Instruction, 6

(1), 78-88. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED539840.pdf

Pacheco, M. B., & Goodwin, A. P. (2013). Putting two and two together: Middle school students'

morphological problem-solving strategies for unknown words. Journal of Adolescent &

Adult Literacy, 56(7), 541-553. doi:10.1002/JAAL.181

Pomerantz, F., & Pierce, M. (2013). "When do we get to read?" reading instruction and literacy

coaching in a "failed" urban elementary school. Reading Improvement, 50(3), 101-117.

Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com

Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Coyne, M., Schreiber, F. J., Eckert, R. D., & Gubbins, E. J. (2007).

Using planned enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading fluency,

comprehension, and attitude toward reading: An evidence-based study. Elementary

School Journal, 108(1), 3-23. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com

Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Performance Levels 38

Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Fletcher, J., Stuebing, K., & Barth, A. (2013). Effects of a response-

based, tiered framework for intervening with struggling readers in middle

school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3), 237-254. doi:10.1002/rrq.47

Scholin, S. E., Haegele, K. M., & Burns, M. K. (2013). A small-group reading comprehension

intervention for fourth- and fifth-grade students. School Psychology Forum, 7(2), 40-49.

Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com

Sporer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students' reading comprehension

skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction,

19(3), 272-286. doi: 10.1016/j.learninginstruc.2008.05.003

Stoeger, H., Sontag, C., & Ziegler, A. (2014). Impact of a teacher-led intervention on preference

for self-regulated learning, finding main ideas in expository texts, and reading

comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 799-814.

doi:10.1037/a0036035; 10.1037/a0036035.supp (Supplemental)

Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., & Ciullo, S. (2010). Reading interventions for struggling

readers in the upper elementary grades: A synthesis of 20 years of research. Reading &

Writing, 23(8), 889-912. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9179-5