TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Statement of the Problem

2. Current Methodology
3. Theoretical Basis
4. Review of Related Literature
5. Statement of Hypothesis
6. Experimental Design
7. Threats to Validity
8. Statistical Analysis
9. Sources
 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
During my time as both a reading and writing tutor and a fifth grade student teacher,
I have come to notice a disparity between student phonemic awareness and reading
comprehension levels. Students who regularly display a positive grasp of phonic
decoding skills are not always able to comprehend and explain what they have just
read. Based on these observations I am interested in investigating techniques which
purport to increase student comprehension levels. The current model for reading
comprehension instruction is the reading workshop – a model in which there is one
particular gap: vocabulary reinforcement.
 CURRENT METHODOLOGY

The current instructional model for teaching and encouraging

reading comprehension is called the reading workshop.

The reading workshop involves the modeling of various strategies

such as monitoring for comprehension, activating background
knowledge, asking questions, inferring meaning, determining
importance, and summarizing.
 THEORETICAL BASIS

The basis for the reading workshop model can be traced

to Vygotsky, who emphasized social interaction as a
necessary component of learning. (Fountas & Pinnell,
2001)
 LITERATURE REVIEW
Positive gains in reading comprehension:

• Oral reading techniques (Hinchley & Levy, 1988)

• Make predictions when reading, generate questions about the
text, summarize what was read (Lysynchuk, Pressley, & Vye, 1990)
• Emphasizing higher-order thinking (Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, &
Rodriguez, 2003)
• Cooperative learning (Uttero, 1988)
• Exposure to reading strategies before being presented with
instruction [5th graders] (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005)
 LITERATURE REVIEW
Negative gains in reading comprehension:

• Enriched reading experiences by exposing students to books in

their areas of interest, daily supported independent reading of
challenging self‐selected books using differentiated reading
instruction, and interest‐based choice opportunities in reading
(Reis, McCoach, Coyne, Schreiber, Eckert, & Gubbins, 2007)
• Exposure to reading strategies before being presented with
instruction [2nd graders] (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005)
 STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS

Exposure to vocabulary as a pre-reading strategy during one 45

minute period twice a week for four weeks will increase reading
comprehension among ten 5th graders at PS X in Brooklyn, NY as
measured by pre- and post-treatment assessments.
 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Pre-Experimental/Quasi-Experimental –

• Two non-randomly selected groups

• Designated treatment group (X1)
• Control group (X2)
 THREATS TO VALIDITY
Internal threats:

• Instrumentation (pre-assessment vocabulary prep not sufficient to

boost comprehension/vocabulary incorrectly chosen, assessment not
administered/interpreted correctly)
• History (comprehension troubles are due to factors other than
vocabulary comprehension (i.e. cultural/experiential differences
from the world of the text, student’s native language is not English,
student does not possess phonemic decoding skills))
• Mortality/Differential Selection of Subjects (student absent for
assessment due to illness or other family concern)
 THREATS TO VALIDITY
External threats:

• Participant effects (ie the Novelty effect – a student’s effort may

be dependent on the novelty of participating in the experiment)

• Experimenter effects (ie a student’s effort may be affected by the

presence of the researcher)
 PRE-TREATMENT/POST-TREATMENT
SCORES (SUBJECT GROUP)
AVERAGE INCREASED 0.9 POINTS
4

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 PRE-TREATMENT/POST-TREATMENT
SCORES (CONTROL GROUP)
AVERAGE INCREASED 0.1 POINTS

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND SELF-
ASSESSMENT OF READER CONFIDENCE IN TREATMENT
GROUP
(0.349015=LOW/FAIR CORRELATION)
3.5

2.5

2
Scores

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Reading Confidence
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND SELF-
INITIATED DICTIONARY USE IN TREATMENT GROUP
(0.884985=HIGH CORRELATION)
4.5

3.5

2.5
Scores

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Dictionary Use
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND PARENTAL
READING AS A CHILD IN TREATMENT GROUP
(0.416463=LOW/FAIR CORRELATION)
4.5

3.5

3
Scores

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Read-to by Parents as a Child
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND REGULAR
LIBRARY USAGE IN TREATMENT GROUP
(0.806478=HIGH CORRELATION)
4.5

3.5

3
Scores

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Library Use
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND SELF-
ASSESSMENT OF READER CONFIDENCE IN CONTROL
GROUP
(-0.23837=LOW CORRELATION)
3.5

2.5

2
Scores

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Reading Confidence
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND SELF-
INITIATED DICTIONARY USE IN CONTROL GROUP
(0.690066=FAIR/HIGH CORRELATION)
4.5

3.5

3
Scores

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Dictionary Use
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND PARENTAL
READING AS A CHILD IN CONTROL GROUP
(0.790569=FAIR/HIGH CORRELATION)
4.5

3.5

3
Scores

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Parental Reading
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND REGULAR
LIBRARY USAGE IN CONTROL GROUP
(0.806478=HIGH CORRELATION)
4.5

3.5

2.5
Scores

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Library Usage
 REFERENCES
Amendum, S.J., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Ginsberg, M.C. (2011). The effectiveness of a
technologically facilitated classroom-based early reading intervention. The Elementary
School Journal, 112 (1), 107-131. doi: 10.1086/660684.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660684
Ash, B. H. (1990). Reading assigned literature in a reading workshop. English Journal, 79, 77-79.
http://www.jstor.org/journals/00138274.html
August, D., Francis, D.J., Hsu, H.A., & Snow, C.E. (2006). Assessing reading comprehension in
bilinguals. The Elementary School Journal, 107 (2), 221-238.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/510656
Dougherty Stahl, K. (2008). The effects of three instructional methods on the reading
comprehension and content acquisition of novice readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 40
(3), 359-393.
Elish-Piper, L., & L’Allier, S.K. (2011). Examining the relationship between literacy coaching and
student reading gains in grades K–3. The Elementary School Journal, 112 (1), 83-106. doi:
10.1086/660685. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660685
 REFERENCES
Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers. (pp. 191-192, 218). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Ferguson, J., & Wilson, J. (2009). Guided reading: it’s for primary teachers. College Reading Association
Yearbook, 30, 293-306.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J.P. & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students
with learning disabilities: a review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71 (2), 279-320.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516086
Hinchley, J., & Levy, B.A. (1988). Developmental and individual differences in reading comprehension. Cognition
and Instruction, 5 (1), 3-47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233608
Kletzien, S.B., & Hushion, B.C. (1992). Reading workshop: reading, writing, thinking. Journal of Reading, 35 (6),
444-451. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40007556
Larson, L.C. (2008). Electronic reading workshop: beyond books with new literacies and instructional
technologies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52 (2), 121-131. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20111749
 REFERENCES
Lausé, J. (2004). Using reading workshop to inspire lifelong readers. The English Journal, 93 (5), 24-30.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128931

Lysynchuk, L.M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N.J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading-comprehension performance in
poor comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 90 (5), 469-484. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001797

Maney, E.S. (1954). The reading workshop: building pre-reading comprehension skills part 1: vocabulary development. The Reading
Teacher, 7 (3), 183-186. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20196764

Meyer, K.E. (2010). A collaborative approach to reading workshop in the middle years. The Reading Teacher, 63 (6), 501-507.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25615840

Oberlin, K.J., & Shugarman, S.L. (1989) Implementing the reading workshop with middle school ld readers. Journal of Reading, 32 (8),
682-687. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40030025

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. The
Elementary School Journal, 108 (1), 3-23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/522383

Reutzel, D.R., & Cooter, Jr., R.B. (1991). Organizing for effective instruction: the reading workshop. The Reading Teacher, 44 (8), 548-
554. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20200734
 REFERENCES
Roessing, L. (2007). Losing the fear of sharing control: starting a reading workshop. Middle School Journal, 38 (3), 44-51.
Schaffer, L.M., & Schirmer, B.R. (2010). The guided reading approach: a practical method to address diverse needs in the
classroom. Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education, 11 (1), 40-43.
Scharer, P., Pinnell, G., Lyons, C., & Fountas, I. (2005). Becoming an engaged reader. Educational Leadership, 63 (2), 24-
29.
Stewart, R.A., Paradis, E.E., Ross, B.D., & Lewis, M.J. (1996). Student voices: what works in literature-based developmental
reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39 (6), 468-478. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40014036
Swift, K. (1993). Try reading workshop in your classroom. The Reading Teacher, 46 (5), 366-371.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20201090
Taylor, B.M., Pearson, P.D., Peterson, D.S., & Rodriguez, M.C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: the
influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School
Journal, 104 (1), 3-28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3203047
Uttero, D.A. (1988). Activating comprehension through cooperative learning. The Reading Teacher, 41 (4), 390-395.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20199801

Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J.P. (2005). Effects of explicit reading strategies instruction and peer tutoring on second and
fifth graders' reading comprehension and self-efficacy perceptions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73 (4),
291-329. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20157404