1. Findings presented by: Susan P. Homan, Ph.D. Marie C. Biggs, M.S. Using an Interactive Singing Program in Grades 4-12 with Struggling Readers: A Comparative Study of Reading Progress International Reading Association Conference May 16, 2007

2. Susan P. Homan, Ph.D. Marie C. Biggs, M.S. Using an Interactive Singing Program in Grades 4-12 with Struggling Readers: A Comparative Study of Reading Progress

3. Theoretical Models for Research Design * Fluency: Accuracy, Automaticity, and Prosody: Samuels, 1979 Kuhn and Stahl, 2003 Rasinski, 2004 * Alternative Text: Leu, 2000 Kamil, 2002 Alvermann, 2003 * Motivation and Engagement: Guthrie and Wigfield, 2000

4. Year 1 (Fall)Pilot Study1 middle school Year 1 (Spring)Sustainability1 middle school Year 2 (Fall) Replication 2 elementary schools 2 middle schools 2 high schools Year 2 (Spring)Expansion2 elementary schools 2 middle schools 2 high schools Year 3 (Fall)ELL Elementary9 elementary schools Year 4 (Spring)ELL Elementary9 elementary schools Research Overview 2004 - 2007

5. Initial Pilot (fall semester 2004) Inclusion Criteria/Procedure

6. Readability of Songs

7. How the Students Used the Program

8. Splash Screen

9. Teachers Screen – Classes/Exercises by Grade

10. Sheet Music View

11. Graphic View

12. QRI – Pilot Study Qualitative Reading Inventory The QRI is a reading inventory with passages ranging from pre primer to high school levels, word lists for grades 1 st -12 th, and comprehension questions. Reliability, validity, and readability levels of all passages have been investigated and reported in the QRI technical development section on the inventory (Leslies & Caldwell, 2000). All control and treatment students at the middle and high school level were administered the Cloze Assessment, developed from passages in the QRI. Elementary students were given the full battery of the QRI. Elementary students were given the whole battery of the QRI.

13. Initial Pilot Results (2004 – 2005) Sustained Improvement 1.45 Grade Level Improvement Treatment Group Control Group Post-Test Pre-Test

14. 2005 - 2006 Studies duration, population characteristics, multiple treatments, and implications for average and above average readers. Phase I was a replication and expansion of the pilot study to 3 districts and 6 sites. Phase II ended in May. Its goal was exploratory, investigating:

15. Elementary School Results (two elementary schools) Post-Test Pre-Test Control Group Treatment Group 1.45 Grade Level Improvement

16. Comprehension Mean Scores

17. Word Recognition Mean Scores

18. Spring Semester 06 A teacher felt guilty about the control kids. Can we let 1 st semester control kids use the software? Fall Control group became Spring Treatment group.

19. Spring Semester 06

20. Control Group Turned Treatment: Instructional Reading Levels

21. Control Turned Treatment: Comprehension p

22. Control Turned Treatment: Word Recognition

23. Control Turned Treatment: Fluency

24. Middle School Results ( two middle schools) Post-Test Pre-Test Control Group Treatment Group.95 Grade Level Improvement

25. High School Results (two high schools) Post-Test Pre-Test Control Group Treatment Group 1.37 Grade Level Improvement

26. Fluency Gains 0 Elem. School Middle School High School

27. Current Study: 2006 - 2007 English Language Learners Elementary Level 850 Students Funded by Florida Department of Education

28. Teachers Screen – Speech Recognition

29. For More Info Susan Homan, Ph.D.homan@tempest.coedu.usf.edu Marie Biggs, MSmariecbiggs@aol.com info@elpcorp.com www.elpcorp.com