An Exploration of Reading Comprehension with ELL Students Lindsay Jones

“ Intentional thinking during which meaning is constructed through interactions between the text and reader”(Durkin, 1993). Without comprehension, reading is meaningless. “Reading comprehension has become the ‘essence of reading’ and is essential not only to academic learning in all subject areas, but to lifelong learning as well” (Durkin, 1993). What is the Purpose of Comprehension?

Research Question Will using desktop computers during reading instruction increase reading comprehension in fiction text for ELLs in a first grade classroom?

What Does the Research Say? Prior research shows mixed results in regards to whether or not technology had any impact on ESL instruction in literacy. One aspect of research previously gathered reviews how computer assistance in instruction showed significant gains in reading comprehension test scores in comparison to students who did not receive the computer assistance (Chamberlain, Beck, & Johnson, n.d.). However, according to Pitts et al. (1983) results showed no significant gains between the two groups. In “Blended Learning,” Mason (2005) states, “mobile devices, such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), mobile phones, wireless laptops, and tablet PCs, are also being introduced into courses to increase flexibility, widen participation, allow more natural interaction and collaboration” (p. 219).

Participants Ten first grade students English Language Learners All participants were grouped in guided reading groups grounded on instructional reading level (using running records administered at the end of the first nine weeks) Both Control and Experimental group students were randomly selected

Procedures Data collection occurred during a two and a half time frame There were five students in each group. The groups remained the same throughout the study. Students participating in the experimental group received fifteen to twenty minutes of instruction on the Reading A- Z computer program four times a week. This program provides both English and Spanish text on their independent level. Students in both the control and experimental groups received twenty minutes of guided reading instruction daily.

Data Collection Initial running records and student surveys (Baseline data) were administered Mid- October at the end of the first nine weeks Over the two and a half week course, experimental group received twenty minutes of Reading A-Z computer program in addition to guided reading During this time, control group only received guided reading groups. Final running records, student surveys, and teacher voice surveys were all administered at the end of the two and a half week time frame. Data were analyzed to show any potential growth between the two groups.

Baseline Data Table 2 Control Group Initial Running Record Level StudentLevel Student AE (1.2) Student BE (1.2) Student CC (K.8) Student DC (K.8) Student EC (K.8) Table 3 Experimental Group Initial Running Record Level StudentLevel Student FC (K.8) Student GC (K.8) Student HD (1.0) Student ID (1.0) Student JC (K.8) * Level E is considered on grade level at the end of first nine weeks

Running Record Example (Brown, 2011)

Guided Reading Schedule Day 1-Front loading -Preview cover -Book walk to set purpose of book -Text connections -Introduce vocabulary (decoding, meaning, context) Day 2-Review vocabulary -Teach and monitory fluency (echo read) -Continue to make connections to text Day 3-Choral read -Discuss the meaning of the story and ask comprehension questions (higher order thinking cards) -Brain mapping Day 4-Independent reading -Comprehension activity to match story Day 5-Teacher conferences (running records, cold passages, vocabulary assessments)

Survey Results Students in the experimental group began by answering a survey question on whether or not they enjoyed using computer programs in their reading class. They were then asked to explain their rationale. 100% of participants said they enjoyed using computers in reading Based on results, Table 4 shows the responses given: Table 4 Initial Survey Results No response given3 participants “It is fun to use”2 participants

Final Outcomes: Control Group Table 5 Control Group Running Record Level StudentInitial LevelFinal LevelGrowth Student AE (1.2)F (1.4)2 months growth Student BE (1.2)F (1.4)2 months growth Student CC (K.8)E (1.2)4 months growth Student DC (K.8)E (1.2)4 months growth Student EC (K.8)D (1.0)2 months growth Average Growth of Control Group: 2.8 months of growth

Final Outcomes: Experimental Group Table 6 Experimental Group Running Record Level StudentInitial LevelFinal LevelGrowth Student FC (K.8)E (1.2)4 months growth Student GC (K.8)D (1.0)2 months growth Student HD (1.0)F (1.4)4 months growth Student ID (1.0)E (1.2)2 months growth Student JC (K.8)D (1.0)2 months growth Average Growth of Experimental Group: 2.8 months of growth

Final Outcome: Survey Results Students in the experimental group were given a survey at the end of the data collection (same survey as the beginning) 100% of participants still enjoyed computer programs Table 7 shows the responses given as rationale at the end of data collection: Table 7 Final Survey Results No response given0 participants “It is fun to use”5 participants “I learn a lot about reading books”3 participants (Three participants responded with computer programs are fun and they learn a lot about reading )

Teacher Voices “My students enrolled in the RAZ Kids program enjoyed getting on the program. They reminded me daily to make sure they received their turn”- S.Reddix (First Grade Teacher) “The students in your experimental group seemed to become more confident in their answers in their guided reading comprehension checks. Before, it was very hard to get them to openly participate, however now they are actively engaged.” – B.King (First Grade Teacher)

Possible Factors Even though all students made growth, what are some possible factors that could have altered the results? Attendance: Student G in the Experimental Group has attendance issues. He is consistently tardy and missing reading block. Time frame of data collection: Was the two and a half week time period for data collection sufficient for seeing the fullest potential? Groups were randomly selected, which may have presented groups which differed significantly in terms of ability level.

Future Research Would a longer time frame alter the results of reading comprehension in first grade ELL students when using computer programming? How do computer programs (such as RAZ Kids) impact student motivation?

References Brown, F. (2011). Bath time. Dallas: Learning A-Z. Chamberlain, E., Beck, D., & Johnson, J. (n.d.). Compensatory language experiences and reading program final evaluation report. Retrieved on September 29,2015 from Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read. (6 th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Mason, R. (2005). Blended learning. Education, Communication & Information, 5(3), Pitts, M., Tompson, B., & Gipe, J. (1983). Teaching comprehension- monitoring with microcomputers. Mid- South Educational Research Association.