Improving 3 rd Grade Written Comprehension Utilizing a Writer’s Club Dare To Share Conference June 15, 2015 An Action Research Project by Carol Frazier

Welcome Carol Frazier Shawboro Elementary School Currituck County Reading Recovery/Title I Teacher NC Master Literacy Trainer GTN Educational Action Researcher

Norms for Participation Silence cell phones. Be attentive and participate in activities Consider the possibilities of Action Research

What is the Governor’s Teacher Network? A group of 450 NC teachers were selected from 1,400 applicants for the GTN. Race to the TopTeachers identify instructional needs, create innovative digital instructional resources and design professional development to support key Race to the Top initiatives in Home Base. Network Teachers continue their current educator roles in their schools and districts and serve in one of two pathways.

What is the Governor’s Teacher Network? Pathway 1 Teachers: Professional Development Identify problems of practice around instructional needs and conduct action research projects in their schools. Investigate and analyze the effectiveness of strategies and practices on student learning. Create professional development sessions and materials to be posted in Schoolnet and the Professional Development System in Home Base.

What is Action Research? Systematic inquiry conducted by teachers and other educators to find solutions for critical, challenging, relevant issues in their classrooms and schools. Mills, Geoffrey E, Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher, 2014

Completion of Online Course Action Research for the K-12 Educator: Instructor-Led Mills, G.E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Goals of Action Research Main Goals Include: Positively impact student outcomes Identify and promote effective instructional practices Create opportunities for teachers to become reflective practitioners Share research results with other educators Mills, Geoffrey E, Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher, 2014

Improving Written Comprehension Utilizing a 3 rd Grade Writer’s Club An Action Research Project by Carol Frazier

Poll the Audience Classroom Teachers using mCLASS®: Reading 3D Assessment Other Teachers Undergraduate Students Graduate Students Faculty Members at UNC-G Familiar with mCLASS®: Reading 3D Assessment & Text Reading Comprehension (TRC)

Why a 3 rd Grade Writer’s Club? Read to Achieve Requirements for 3 rd Grade Students and Teachers in North Carolina –Possible Retention if Non-Proficient in Reading on BOY or EOG Alternate Assessments Approved by State of NC –mCLASS ® :Reading 3D TRC Assessment (Level P = Proficiency) –Read to Achieve Alternate Assessment Students’ R3D Instructional Reading Level and the Level of Instruction may be Skewed Written Comprehension Proficiency effects overall R3D TRC Scores

Problem to Investigate School Districts Across NC use mCLASS ® :Reading 3D Assessment as a tool to Determine Reading Proficiency and meets Read to Achieve Requirements. Reading 3D TRC Benchmark at BOY, MOY, and EOY Text Reading Comprehension (TRC) Level - highest level book that was read independently (between 95%-100% accuracy) and scored proficient on both oral and written comprehension. TRC Level Ceiling - Non-proficient in Reading Accuracy, oral comprehension or written comprehension OR reached Instructional Accuracy Range (90%-94%). Reading 3D Data - Many students unable to show acceleration in Reading due to a lack of proficiency on the Written Comprehension. During each Benchmark a group of students are consistently unable to successfully write the two responses required to be scored proficient in Reading.

Turn and Talk What are the biggest challenges that your students face in order to reach grade level proficiency using the mCLASS ® :R3D TRC Benchmark Assessment? How do your students’ TRC Accuracy Rates and Text Reading Level compare to their Written Comrehension proficiency scores?

Multiple Data Sources Benchmark Goal: BOY = Level M MOY = Level O EOY = Level P Student # 4KAmazing Lasers97%4/5 P2/3 PIntensive433/2 LThe Statue of Liberty100%5/5 P1/3 NP MTrees on Our Planet99%5/5 P1/3 NP NGiraffes99%5/5 P1/3 NP OA New Skatepark98%4/5 P1/3 NP Student # 5KAmazing Lasers99%4/5 P2/3 PIntensive428/1 LThe Statue of Liberty99%4/5 P1/3 NP MTrees on Our Planet95%2/5 NP1/3 NP NGiraffes98%4/5 P1/3 NP Student # 6KAmazing Lasers98%5/5 P2/3 PIntensive429/1 LThe Statue of Liberty94%0/3 NP MTrees on Our Planet100%0/3 NP

Action Research Plan Purpose: To determine if a 3 rd Grade Writer’s Club intervention will improve Written Comprehension as measured on the mCLASS ®: Reading 3D Text Reading and Written Comprehension assessment.

Questions How can I best prepare my at-risk Title I students to respond in writing to questions/petitions posed on the Reading 3D Written Comprehension portion of the mCLASS ® assessment? Which research-based strategies will accomplish the above? How can a pull-out intervention program contribute to increased written comprehension proficiency?

Review the Research

Jigsaw Activity Reviewing the Research 5 Participants in Each Group Read One of Five Professional Article Summaries Written by the Researcher Share each Article Summary & How it Relates to this Action Research Study Discuss any “Aha” moments from the Article Summary Discuss the Research Summaries and How they Relate to Your Class/Students

3 rd Grade BOY Data Displayed in the Data Room BOG R3D

3 rd Grade Student Criteria for Writer’s Club Intervention Non-Proficient on R3D TRC based on Written Comprehension Proficient in both Accuracy and Oral Comprehension on R3D TRC Non-Proficient on 3rd Grade BOG R3D TRC Benchmark is Below or Well Below Grade Level Cut Scores*

3 rd Grade BOG and BOY R3D TRC BOG: 426/1 BOG: 431/1 BOG: 436/2 BOG: 433/2 BOG: 428/1 BOG: 429/1 BOG: 425/1 BOG: 423/1 BOG: 426/1 BOG: 425/1 P O N M L K J I BOY MOYMOY MOYMOY MOYMOY MOYMOY MOYMOY MOYMOY MOYMOY MOYMOY MOYMOY MOYMOY Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5 Student 6 Student 7 Student 8 Student 9 Student 10

What is the Goal of the Writer’s Club Intervention? To Increase Written Comprehension Proficiency of 3 rd Grade Students as Measured by the mCLASS ®: R3D Assessment Research Based Reading and Writing Strategies Purposeful Reading and Writing Activities Every Day Increase Understanding of Non-Fiction Text Features Create a “Kid Friendly” Writing Rubric with Students to use for Self and Peer Assessment/Scoring

Writer’s Club Tool Box

Intervention Rotation Written Comprehension Journals Non-Fiction Text Features LINCS Vocabulary Strategy Student Friendly Writing Rubric Anchor Charts Cobine, Gary R. (1995). “Effective Use of Student Journal Writing.” ERIC Digest. [ED378589] O’Brien, C. (2005). Modifying learning strategies for classroom success. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 1(3) Article 3. Retrieved 7/23/14 from

Individual Writer’s Club Written Comprehension Journals for Daily Writing

Student Created Written Comprehension Rubric for Peer and Self Assessment

Intervention Rotation 1 - Written Comprehension Journals 2 - Non-Fiction Text Features 3 - LINCS Vocabulary Strategy 4 - Student Friendly Writing Rubric 5 - Anchor Charts Cobine, Gary R. (1995). “Effective Use of Student Journal Writing.” ERIC Digest. [ED378589] O’Brien, C. (2005). Modifying learning strategies for classroom success. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 1(3) Article 3. Retrieved 7/23/14 from

Action Research Results Using Multiple Data Sources 3rd Grade BOG mCLASS ®: R3D TRC BOY to MOY Student Reports – Growth Model Attendance: Students & Teacher of Record Report Card Grades Student Survey – Attitude/Likert Scale Field Notes

3 rd Grade BOG & R3D TRC BOY to MOY Beginning of Grade Level 3 = 439 or > BOG: 426/1 BOG: 431/1 BOG: 436/2 BOG: 433/2 BOG: 428/1 BOG: 429/1 BOG: 425/1 BOG: 423/1 BOG: 426/1 BOG: 425/1 P O N M L K J I Text Level BOYMOYBOYMOYBOYMOYBOYMOYBOYMOYBOYMOYBOYMOYBOYMOYBOYMOYBOYMOY Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5 Student 6 Student 7 Student 8 Student 9 Student 10

Multiple Data Sources Benchmark Goal: BOY = Level M MOY = Level O EOY = Level P Student NameBOY Book Title - BOYAccuracyOralWritten Risk or NeedBOGTeacherMOY Book Title - MOYAccuracyOCWCRisk or Need Student # 1L The Statue of Liberty97%5/5 P2/3 (P)Strategic426/1BL The Statue of Liberty98% 5/5 (P) 2/3 (P) High Risk/intensiv e M Trees on Our Planet93%3/5 NP1/3 NPM Trees on Our Planet93% 4/5 (P) 1/3 (NP) Student # 2KAmazing Lasers97%5/5 P2/3 PIntensive431/1ANGiraffes96% 5/5 (P) 2/3 (P)Some Risk The Statue of Liberty100%4/5 P0/3 NPO A New Skatepark96%N/A 1/3 (NP) Student # 3JHarvest Mouse99%5/5 P2/3 PIntensive436/2BL The Statue of Liberty98% 5/5 (P) 2/3 (P) High Risk/Intensiv e KAmazing Lasers99%5/5 P1/3 NPM Trees on Our Planet99% 5/5 (P) 1/3 (NP) L The Statue of Liberty100%4/5 P0/3 NPNGiraffes100% 5/5 (P) 1/3 (NP)

Multiple Data Sources Benchmark Goal: BOY = Level M MOY = Level O EOY = Level P Student # 4KAmazing Lasers97%4/5 P2/3 PIntensive433/2BM Trees on Our Planet98% 5/5 (P) 2/3 (P)Some Risk L The Statue of Liberty100%5/5 P1/3 NPNGiraffes98% 5/5 (P) 1/3 (NP) M Trees on Our Planet99%5/5 P1/3 NP NGiraffes99%5/5 P1/3 NP O A New Skatepark98%4/5 P1/3 NP Student # 5KAmazing Lasers99%4/5 P2/3 PIntensive428/1BO A New Skatepark97% 5/5 (P) 2/3 (P) Low Risk/OGL L The Statue of Liberty99%4/5 P1/3 NPPBeavers96% 4/5 (P) 1/3 (NP) M Trees on Our Planet95%2/5 NP1/3 NPNGiraffes97% 4/5 (P) 2/3 (P) NGiraffes98%4/5 P1/3 NPM Trees on Our Planet97% 4/5 (P) 2/3 (P) Student # 6KAmazing Lasers98%5/5 P2/3 PIntensive429/1ANGiraffes98% 5/5 (P) 3/3 (P)Some Risk L The Statue of Liberty94%0/3 NPO A New Skatepark97%N/A 1/3 (NP) M Trees on Our Planet100%0/3 NP

Multiple Data Sources Benchmark Goal: BOY = Level M MOY = Level O EOY = Level P Student # 7JHarvest Mice95%4/5 P3/3 PIntensive425/1AO A New Skatepark91% 5/5 (P) 2/3 (P) Low Risk/OGL KAmazing Lasers95%1/3 NPNGiraffes96% 5/5 (P) 2/3 (P) L The Statue of Liberty97% 4/5 (P) 2/3 (P) Student # 8NGiraffes99%4/5 P2/3 P On Grade Level423/1APBeavers95% 4/5 (P) 2/3 (P) Low Risk/Above O A New Skatepark99%N/A1/3 NPQ The Game of Soccer94%N/A 1/3 (NP) Student # 9KAmazing Lasers95%4/5 P2/3 PIntensive426/1APBeavers99% 5/5 (P) 2/3 (P) Low Risk/Above l The Statue of Liberty98%1/3 NPQ The Game of Soccer100% 4/5 (P) 1/3 (NP) Student # 10JHarvest Mouse97%5/5 P4/5 PIntensive425/1BL The Statue of Liberty98% 4/5 (P) 2/3 (P) High Risk/Intensiv e KAmazing Lasers94%4/5 P1/3 NPM Trees on Our Planet99% 5/5 (P) 1/3 (NP) L The Statue of Liberty95%5/5 P1/3 NP M Trees on Our Planet96%4/5 P1/3 NP NGiraffes90%5/5 P1/3 NP

P O N M L K J I BOYMOY BOYMOY BOYMOY BOYMOY BOYMOY BOYMOY BOYMOY BOYMOY BOYMOY BOYMOY Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5 Student 6 Student 7 Student 8 Student 9 Student 10 mClass ®: R3D TRC BOY to MOY Student Growth Model

Teacher A Text Level P O N M L K J I BOYMOYBOYMOYBOYMOYBOYMOYBOYMOY Student 2Student 6Student 7Student 8Student 9

Teacher B Text Level P O N M L K J I BOYMOYBOYMOYBOYMOYBOYMOYBOYMOY Student 1Student 3Student 4Student 5Student 10

Teacher Attendance Data

72 days

Teacher Attendance Data

Gender, Growth, Attendance and EOY 2 nd Grade Report Card Grades Days Absent and Tardy may be a variable for Student 1, 2 & 4. StudentGenderGrowth/RiskAbsentTardy EOY R 2nd EOY W 2nd 1F0 Levels F3 Levels M2 Levels4033 4F F4 Levels M3 Levels F5 Levels6023 8F2 Levels8033 9M5 Levels F2 Levels1033

Student Work Samples

Elbow Partner How did your class progress from BOY, MOY and EOY? Did Non-Proficient Written Comprehension scores cause your students to back up using the required leveled texts?

Read to Achieve State, Regional, and Local Results BOY-MOY March 19, 2015 The next three slides were shared during a Region 1 Read to Achieve Meeting by Abbey Whitford, DPI Read to Achieve Consultant

BOBOY – mCLASS®: Reading 3D Rigby comparison Purpose: Illustrate how customer compares to state and regional performance in terms of moving students across Instructional Support Recommendations (ISR) from BOY to MOY Percent of students in each TRC instructional category at middle of year who started the year performing at Far Below Proficient levels Grade Students Above Proficient Level Students At Proficient Level Students Below Proficient level Students Far Below Proficient Level DistReg 1 NCDistReg 1 NCDistReg 1 NCDistReg 1 NC Kinder0%6%8% 0% 11% 75% 70%68% 25%13% 1 st Grade 0%1% 9% 10%5% 0% 6%7% 91%83% 87% 2 nd Grade 0%1%3% 4%2% 9% 19%14% 88%76% 81% 3 rd Grade 5%6%3% 7% 3% 17% 19%18% 71%73% 76% 4 th Grad e* 2%0%1% 9% 0%2% 18% 5%8% 71%95% 89% 5 th Grad e* 0% 33% 7%5% 0% 7% 67%93% 88%

BOY – mCLASS®: Reading 3D Rigby comparison Purpose: Illustrate how customer compares to state and regional performance in terms of moving students across Instructional Support Recommendations (ISR) from BOY to MOY Percent of students in each TRC instructional category at middle of year who started the year performing at Below Proficient levels Grade Students Above Proficient Level Students At Proficient Level Students Below Proficient level Students Far Below Proficient Level DistReg 1 NCDistReg 1 NCDistReg 1 NCDistReg 1 NC Kinder0%15%19% 7%21% 93%64% 60% 0%8% 0% 1 st Grade 0%6%2% 40%33% 23% 2%12% 20% 58%48% 55% 2 nd Grade 0%10% 7%17% 18% 33%47% 44% 60%26% 28% 3 rd Grade 26%16%15% 13% 26%49% 47% 33%22% 25% 4 th Grad e* 19%7%2% 31%20% 19% 12%25% 39% 38%48% 40% 5 th Grad e* 0% 33%45% 35% 17%27% 29% 50%27% 36%

Percent of students in each TRC instructional category at middle of year who started the year performing At OR Above Proficient levels Grade Students Above Proficient Level Students At Proficient Level Students Below Proficient level Students Far Below Proficient Level DistReg 1 NCDistReg 1 NCDistReg 1 NCDistReg 1 NC Kinder20%33%40% 33%24% 21% 46%42% 38% 0%1% 1 st Grade 33%37%30% 51%42% 41% 4%6% 14% 12%14% 15% 2 nd Grade 27%52%55% 32%22% 35%21% 19% 6%5% 4% 3 rd Grade 61% 64% 12%13% 14%21% 19% 12%6% 4% 4 th Grad e* 24%23%36% 42%44% 18%23% 17% 16%9% 3% 5 th Grad e* 0% 50%84% 17%10% 33%6% BOY – mCLASS®: Reading 3D Rigby Comparison Purpose : Illustrate how customer compares to state and regional performance in terms of moving students across Instructional Support Recommendations (ISR) from BOY to MOY

Student Attitude Survey (Likert Scale) Purpose: to investigate how the students felt about their participation in the Writer’s Club After completing the 10 week Writer’s Club Intervention the students were asked to complete an Attitude Survey After reading each statement/question the students responded “Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree”

30%

20%

50%

Field Notes Positive Student Statements: “It’s not time to leave yet!”, “Can you ask us a question on our way out?”, “I think writing club is helping me.”, “Can I use the book to help me answer this question?”, “I want to come back to Writer’s Club!” Negative Student Statements: “My teacher said she doesn’t like us coming to writer’s club.”, “Do we have to come today? Our class is having popcorn and a movie!” Inconsistent notification by teachers when students were unavailable to attend Writer’s Club. Some students were sent late … “After they finished their class work needed for a grade.”

Students’ stamina increased as they remained focused for longer periods of time when reading and answering questions/petitions Students increased their use of the text to find text based evidence to include in their responses Teacher B - Bereavement Absences Field Notes Continued

Writing Rubric Transferred Back to Regular Classroom Environment

R3D TRC Graph Growth From BOY to EOY

BEBEBEBEBEBEBEBEBEBE #1#2#3#4#5#6#7#8#9#10 Withdrew Growth From BOG to EOG Scale Score and Achievement Level

Questions … and Possible Answers How can I best prepare my at-risk Title I students to respond in writing to questions/petitions posed on the Reading 3D Written Comprehension portion of the mCLASS® assessment? Establish a Community of Writer’s with a 3 rd Grade Writer’s Club Write Every Day Teach Non-Fiction Text Features Teach and Use a Rubric for Self and Peer Assessment Use Anchor Charts and Mini-Lessons

Questions … and Possible Answers Which research-based strategies will accomplish the above? Guided Reading and Writing Before, During, After Reading Strategies Teach Strategies for Transfer Back into the Regular Classroom Environment Share Writing Rubric used by Teachers to Score Student Responses Create a “Kid Friendly Writing Rubric” With Students to Use for Self and Peer Scoring Explicit Vocabulary Instruction Interactive Read-Alouds and Think-Alouds Use Graphic Organizers to Organize Thoughts and Ideas LINCS Vocabulary Strategy Brushaber, T. (2003, April, 28). Teaching comprehension through a comprehension strategy framework. Retrieved from pdf pdf Cummins, S. and Stallmeyer-Gerard, C. (2011). Teaching for synthesis of informational texts with read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 64(6) doi: /RT Duke, N. and Block, M. (2012). Improving reading in the primary grades. Future of Children 22(2) O’Brien, C. (2005). Modifying learning strategies for classroom success. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 1(3) Article 3. Retrieved 7/23/14 from

Questions … and Possible Answers How can a pull-out intervention program contribute to increased written comprehension proficiency? Build a Community of Writers called a “Writer’s Club” Specific Focused Instruction Use of Written Comprehension Strategies that Transfer to the Classroom Impress upon students the urgency of increasing their WC: Share Benchmark scores and PM reports and graphs

Conclusions Students that had consistent core instruction based on the NC ELA Standards within the regular classroom environment did make growth in their writing proficiency with the additional layer of a Writer’s Club intervention. Make Written Comprehension a priority and teach the Rubric and how to self and peer assess/score. Students understood the researchers urgency for this project and participated with the intent of improving their written comprehension. Reading Comprehension proficiency on the R3D assessment is dependent on writing proficiency and therefore may skew students instructional reading level.

Recommendations Revise this pull-out intervention to be used within a regular classroom environment. Team Teach during the ELA 90 minute block and use the Writer’s Club for whole class instruction. Once an area of need is identified, design an intervention and stay focused on the specific area of need. Do not default to old teaching habits and activities or give up! The core instruction in the general education classroom should be delivered on a consistent basis, by the teacher of record, with minimal absences or use of substitutes.

References Brushaber, T. (2003, April, 28). Teaching comprehension through a comprehension strategy framework. Retrieved from pdfhttp://files.eric.edgov/fulltext/ED pdf Cobine, Gary R. (1995). “Efective Use of Student Journal Writing.” ERIC Digest. [ED378589] Cummins, S. and Stallmeyer-Gerard, C. (2011). Teaching for synthesis of informational texts with read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 64(6) doi: /RT Duke, N. and Block, M. (2012). Improving reading in the primary grades. Future of Children 22(2) Mills, G.E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. O’Brien, C. (2005). Modifying learning strategies for classroom success. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 1(3) Article 3. Retrieved 7/23/14 from Wallace, R., Perman, C., Hail, C., and Hurst, B. (2007). Writing for comprehension. Reading Horizons,

References from NC Department of Public Instruction NC Read to Achieve LiveBinder for Parents K-3 Literacy fwes.wcpss.net/wp.../03/Read2Achieve_Parent_brochure_ pdf

Question and Answer Session What’s on your mind? Questions Comments I wonder … I think …

Feedback Plus/Delta Chart Please take 2 Post-It Notes Write one positive comment about this presentation and place it under the Plus Sign as you exit. Write one comment on how this presentation could be improved and place it under the Delta Sign as you exit.

Thank You for Your Participation! Contact Information Carol Frazier Action Research Project & Power Point