Research Proposal

East Carolina University: EDUC 6480

Rachel Patty
December 2, 2014

Introduction and Literature Review

Literacy practices in the classroom have changed drastically over the years to
accommodate new research found in ways to increase students literacy skills more effectively.
For example, years ago educators thought reading and writing were independent practices,
whereas we all now know that they are reciprocal cognitive processes that are highly beneficial
when taught together. Guided reading is another literacy practice that has been around since the
1940s and has evolved throughout the years. Guided reading is a practice that uses reading
levels to guide student instruction. In 1946 Emmett Betts defined four different reading levels;
independent, instructional, frustrational, and the probably capacity level (Halladay, 2012).
Students are matched with leveled texts and students will similar reading levels are grouped
together.
Ford and Opitz (2008) conducted a national survey on guided reading practices in order
to analyze the purpose of guided reading and how it is implemented in the classroom. They
found variations in the understandings of how guided reading works, which in turn created
significant differences in how guided reading was implemented in classrooms across the nation.
Although there is a variety of guided reading methods, educators seem to find common ground
on the purpose of the practice; to help students become independent readers by teaching them to
internalize specific strategies they can use to successfully read a text on their own. Regardless
of decade or author, all agree that guided reading is planned, intentional, focused instruction
where the teacher helps students, usually in small group settings, learn more about the reading
process (Ford and Opitz, 2011, p. 229). Fountas and Pinnell (2012) call guided reading an
essential element of high-quality literacy education.

Even though the purpose of guided reading has been established as an opportunity to
teach children to practice strategies in hopes of becoming successful independent readers (Ford,
2008), there are other aspects of guided reading that deserve to be examined more closely.
Fountas and Pinnell (2012) tell us that guided reading levels are often determined by using
benchmark running records to assess the accuracy level, fluency, and comprehension, and to
observe and code oral reading behaviors of each student. Educators can use the scores from
running records to make sound instructional decisions about the level that is appropriate for the
student (Fountas and Pinnell, 2012), but the scores do not determine whether the teacher should
base the students reading level off of the comprehension level or the accuracy in word
recognition level. Standards for picking a book on the students instructional level are between
95-99% word recognition ability and between 75-89% comprehension ability (Halladay, 2012).
Halladay (2012) argues that the relationship between decoding and comprehension varies
according to the developmental stages and skill level of the student. Teachers of younger readers
tend to have their reading levels focus on the instruction of decoding skills rather than
comprehension performance (Halladay, 2012). Halladay (2012) warns that because
comprehension and decoding levels are often not aligned teachers must be careful when using
assessment scores (such as running records) to determine reading levels and that educators must
think carefully about how to determine reading levels when the students are not meeting both
accuracy and comprehension.
I suspect that there are so many variations in the implementation of guided reading
because it is highly driven by the determination of reading levels, yet there are gaps in the
understanding of how reading levels ought to be determined. These gaps are created by the lack
of relationship between decoding words and text comprehension. Studies have identified

groups of students who show strengths and weaknesses in decoding or comprehension, but not in
both (Halladay, 2011, p. 55).
Purpose of Study and Hypothesis
As Halladay (2011) pointed out, there is sometimes a lack of relationship between a
students decoding level and comprehension level. Therefore, there is a concern about children
who read words at a higher level than they comprehend. This leads me to propose the question:
Does guided reading instruction work better for struggling second grade readers with poor
comprehension skills when teachers drop down in terms of comprehension of the text or should
teachers choose a text based on the students oral reading level/word recognition? Instruction for
the text will be the same whether the text is chosen on their comprehension level or on their oral
reading accuracy level. Fisher (2008) states that guided reading has been proposed to be an
opportunity for students to learn to comprehend, and I have to agree with her. I hypothesize
reading comprehension will increase when guided reading texts are chosen based on the
students comprehension level.
Identification of Variables and Definition of Terms
The independent variable is the type of guided reading approach, which is assigned two
levels: (1.) Teachers pick books for guided reading and instruct students based on their oral
reading level, or (2.) Teachers pick books for guided reading and instruct students based on their
comprehension level. The dependent variable for this study is reading comprehension. There
are several possible threats to the validity of this study. There could be a mortality threat if the
students are absent too much, which cannot be controlled. The two most likely threats to validity
are subject characteristics and implementation. Since the subjects have not been randomly
assigned to the two treatment conditions subject characteristics could become an intervening

variable. Two strategies to control this threat include matching and pretesting. With pretesting I
would be able to look at the pretest scores of both groups and argue that even though I did not
randomly assign them to two different treatment conditions, these subjects came from the same
population. Implementation becomes an intervening variable because the two groups will have a
different teacher and there is a concern that teacher difference may account for the results rather
than the treatment itself. To control this threat I would train and monitor the implementers,
guarantee that the implementers have similar backgrounds, years of teaching experience, and
teaching credentials, and I would investigate the implementers attitudes toward the two
treatments and, if necessary, try to modify them if bias arises.
For the purpose of this study the following operational definitions are given:
Guided reading is an educational practice of reading instruction given to small-groups of
students who read at similar reading levels. It is differentiated instruction designed to teach
students reading strategies so that they can become successful independent readers.
A students oral reading level refers to the level at which a student reads connected text
aloud with accuracy, speed, and appropriate phrasing.
A students reading comprehension level refers to the level at which the student
understands, infers, and applies the text that was read.
Fountas and Pinnell reading levels are a system of leveled texts created by Irene Fountas
and Gay Su Pinnell to support guided reading. Text is leveled based on a variety of factors such
as word count, number of different words, number of high-frequency words, sentence length,
sentence complexity, etc. Students are assessed and assigned a reading level at which they are
instructed on during guided reading.

The Qualitative Reading Inventory-5 (QRI-5) is a reading inventory used to determine

how well students can identify words and comprehend texts. A students reading level is
determined by graded word lists and passages within the QRI-5. Not only does the QRI-5
determine a students reading level, it also assists in grouping students for guided reading groups
and recording student growth.
A running record is a type of reading assessment used to determine a students reading
level. Running records assess accuracy and the types of errors made. The analysis and results of
a running record are used to inform reading instruction for the student.
Design, Methodology, and Procedures
The study will follow a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest comparison group design.
The treatment group will be taught by a second grade teacher using the students comprehension
levels to select texts and instruct guided reading, while the comparison group will be taught by a
second grade teacher using the students oral reading levels to select texts and instruct guided
reading. Both groups will be administered the QRI-5 and a running record at the beginning and
end of the study. Comparing pretest and posttest scores will measure growth in reading
comprehension. The design of the study is illustrated below.
Quasi-Experimental Pretest-Posttest Comparison Group Design
Group
G1
G2

Pretest
O1
O3

Treatment
X1
X2

Posttest
O2
O4

The population for this study is struggling second grade readers with poor comprehension
skills (students who have stronger word reading skills than comprehension skills). It is inspired
by a real life situation where a teacher was in the Wake county school district teaching this
particular population of students and was instructed by the literacy specialist to drop the reading
6

level down to the students comprehension level for guided reading instruction. This teacher
then moved to the Orange county school district teaching the same population of students and
was instructed by a different literacy specialist to teach guided reading based on the students
oral reading level, regardless of the fact that the students were not able to successfully
comprehend at that higher level. The subjects for this particular study are struggling second
grade readers who have poor reading comprehension skills from two different school districts.
The students who participate in this study will be determined by their pretest scores in order to
control the threat of subject characteristics. Because it will not be a random sampling it is
important to determine that these students are all a part of the same population. The two groups
(treatment group and comparison group) will each contain four to six students since that is the
average number of students in a guided reading group. The two teachers in this study will be
second grade teachers from two different school districts with similar backgrounds, teaching
experience, and credentials.
The two teachers will be refreshed on the teaching procedures of guided reading as
outlined by Fountas and Pinnell (2012). All students will begin the study by being assessed
using pretest running record and QRI-5 scores. The treatment group will have books picked on
their comprehension reading level. The comparison group will have books picked on their oral
reading level. The two teachers will introduce the text, students will read the text, there will be a
discussion of the text, the teachers will make teaching points, and the teachers will provide word
work to help the students become efficient in solving words (Fountas and Pinnell, 2012). The
two groups of students will be instructed on their appropriate reading levels for four weeks.
After four weeks they will be assessed again using a running record and QRI-5. Their reading
comprehension growth will then be measured.

The running record assessment will be used to calculate each students reading rate, error
rate, and self-correction rate. It can also be used to record student behaviors as the student is
reading. After the student reads they will do an oral retelling of the story to check for
comprehension. Similarly, the QRI-5 assessment will measure comprehension through retelling,
use of look backs, and thinks alouds at higher levels and will assess listening, oral, and silent
reading behaviors. The QRI-5 assesses word identification, fluency, and comprehension.
To analyze the data a t-Test for independent means will be used. It is a test used to
compare the average of group 1 with the average of group 2 before and after the treatment is
given. This is used to measure any gains between the pretest and the posttest. To further analyze
the data a correlated t-Test will be used with the pretest and posttest averages to measure gains
for the two groups and for individual students.
Independent t-Test Table
Independent t-Test for Growth in Reading Comprehension
Group
Control
Treatment
Separate variances
Pooled variances

N
xx
xx
t = x.xxx
t = x.xxx

Mean
xx.xxx
xx.xxx
df = xx
df = xx

SD
xx.xxx
xx.xxx
prob = .xxx
prob = .xxx

Correlated t-Test Table

Correlated t-Test on Oral Reading Level vs. Comprehension Reading Level
Mean Oral Reading Level = xxx.xxx
Mean Comprehension Reading Level = xxx.xxx
CI = x.xxx to x.xxx
SD Difference = x.xxx
t = x.xxx
df = xx Prob = x.xxx
Significance of the Proposed Research
8

When analyzing the results of the independent t-Test I expect to find the average of the
two groups on the pretest to be equivalent, but there to be statistical differences in the averages
of the two groups on the posttest. When analyzing the results of the correlated t-Test I expect to
see the greater gains in the treatment group (guided reading level based on comprehension level)
than the comparison group. Fountas and Pinnell (2012) mentioned guided reading to be an
essential element of high-quality literacy education today. Since it is such a prevalent practice it
is vital to know the appropriate way to implement it in our nations classrooms. Our common
goal as educators should be to give the students the tools they need to be successful independent
readers. In order to achieve this goal educators should also use common practices that reap the
greatest benefits. The results of this study will fill a gap that has been found in the
implementation of guided reading, ultimately benefiting our nations students the most.

Bibliography

Fisher, Anne. (2008). Teaching comprehension and critical literacy: investigating guided reading
in three primary classrooms. Literacy, 42(1), 19-28. DOI: 10.1111/j.14679345.2008.00477
Ford, Michael P., Opitz, Michael F. (2008). A national survey of guided reading practices: what
we can learn from primary teachers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(4), 309-331.
DOI: 10.1080/19388070802332895
Ford, Michael P., Opitz, Michael F. (2011). Looking back to move forward with guided reading.
Reading Horizons, 50(4), 225-240.
http://search.proquest.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/docview/858669664?accountid=10639
Fountas, Irene C., Pinnell, Gay Su. (2012). Guided reading: the romance and the reality. The
Reading Teacher, 66(4), 268-284. DOI: 10.1002/TRTR.01123

Halladay, J. L. (2012). Revisiting Key Assumptions of the Reading Level Framework. The
Reading Teacher, 66(1), 53-62. DOI: 10.1002/TRTR.01093

10