1. READING, ARGUMENTATION, AND WRITING: COLLABORATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A READING COMPREHENSION INTERVENTION FOR STRUGGLING ADOLESCENTS Susan Grogan, PhD Harding University

2.  Background  Purpose of the Study  Research Questions  Literature Review  Methodology  Findings  Discussion of Findings  Recommendations  Implications Overview

3. Adolescent reading achievement hasn’t changed much in the last 20 years. Only 30% of 8 th graders scored Proficient on the NAEP in 2011. Struggling adolescent readers need effective reading comprehension interventions Problem: Struggling Adolescent Readers

4.  discussion methods and improving critical thinking around texts.  Argumentation is one of those methods being studied (i.e. Collaborative Reasoning and Accountable Talk).  Multi-component interventions show promise.  Writing supports reading Current research on adolescent reading comprehension?

5.  Design a new intervention model that focuses on higher level thinking about texts?  Design an intervention around reading, argumentation, and writing?  A teacher could collaborate with me to develop and implement it ? What if?

6. Intervention Cycle

7.  Does the students’ participation in the reading intervention influence their reading comprehension? Essay writing?  How does teacher collaboration influence the development and implementation of the reading intervention? Research Questions

8. Convergent Mixed Methods Quantitative Data Strand Pre and Post reading comprehension tests (Flynt-Cooter Reading Inventory for the Classroom) Pre and Post Essays Scored with a rubric by teacher and researcher Research Design

9. Qualitative Data Strand Videos Emails Collaborative conversations notes Teacher anecdotal notes Researcher notes Student argument maps Student essays Research Design continued

10. Converge the Strands Quantitative and qualitative data and analyses examined separately, yet simultaneously, and then brought together for fuller explanation of what happened. Research Des ign continued

11. Three Teachers – Three Groups Group 1 – Teacher collaborated with me Group 2 – Intervention Teacher implemented, but did not collaborate Group 3 - Teacher of control group Activity Settings

12. Students 5 th Grade – 10 and 11 years old Teacher-selected by:  STAR test  Last year’s literacy Benchmark exam  Current classroom performance Activity Settings continued

13. Group 1 – Collaborating Teacher  Implemented in a Language Arts/Social Studies classroom.  Study students were followed  Videoed along with peers  Wrote argument maps and essays with peers  Argued with each other and peers Activity Settings continued

14. Group 2 – Intervention teacher implemented alone, after PD  Small group of six students  Pulled-out from another LA/SS classroom  Empty classroom setting Activity Settings continued

15. Group 3 – Control Group  Regular Language Arts/SS classroom  No implementation of intervention  No learning of argumentation or argumentative essay writing  Students reading scores were compared with others Activity Settings continued

16. Pre-topic: Should Kids Have Cell Phones in School? SS topic: Revolutionary War: Cycle 1: Who was right: British or Colonists? Cycle 2: Should women have been allowed to serve in the Continental Army? Reading Topics

17. Intervention Cycle

18. Baseline Essays

19. They got better…

20. Significant differences in pre and post essays. p =.000 Quantitative analysis Findings

21. Essay Organization and Conventions and Style

22. Use of Sources

23. Improvement in construction of arguments and oral argumentation. All students improved. Qualitative analysis Findings continued

24. Teacher’s collaboration with researcher positively influenced the development and implementation of the intervention. Changes came about because of problems encountered and subsequent solutions attempted. Qualitative analysis Findings continued

25.  Annotation requires explicit modeling  Argument construction has specialized language - position, reasons, evidence, counter- position, rebuttal, conclusion  Argumentation was awkward and confusing, at first  Analyzing arguments was not easy  Essay writing was difficult Findings: Argumentation is Complex

26. No improvement in reading comprehension was found. p=.33 Quantitative analysis Findings continued

27. No differences between groups were found with the essays. p =.66 Quantitative analysis Findings

29. Possible influences that may explain no reading comprehension improvement and no differences between groups on essays. Implementation Fidelity Short Duration – 10 Weeks Size of Groups Task Complexity Aligned Assessments Discussion of Findings

30. Extend the timeframe Develop and use a fidelity measure Implementation Guide available Recommendations

31. sgrogan@harding.edu for Argument Map Rubric Implementation Guide

32. Policy-makers There is no “quick fix”. Comprehension is complex. Implications

33. Educators 1.Teacher scaffolding is critical in RTI groups. 2.Break complex skills into smaller bites. 3.Social interaction is necessary. 4.Fidelity to the model is important. Implications

34. Researchers Struggling adolescents can make progress in constructing arguments, oral argumentation, and argumentative essay writing with this model. Implications

35. Researchers More research is needed to know if a longer implementation of this intervention may bring improvement in reading comprehension to struggling adolescents. Implications

36. More research with this intervention across more classrooms. Development of a fidelity measure for implementation assurance. Enhanced professional development for teachers involved in implementation. Next Steps