Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 68

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

Integrating Technology With Reciprocal Teaching Kimberley Gilbert East Carolina University

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Abstract The purpose of this quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design study was to determine if the integration of technology with literature circles would improve reading comprehension. The study involved 38 fourth graders from two language arts classrooms that shared the same teacher. During a six-week period, the control group met face-to-face during their reciprocal teaching literature circles while the intervention group used Google Docs and Edmodo during reciprocal teaching literature circles. After the intervention, the mean change scores of the pretest and posttest were analyzed to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in reading comprehension.

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

Technology-based Literature Discussions and Reading Comprehension While there is research to support that peer-led discussions improve comprehension strategies, there is very little research that shows the effects of technology based literature circles on reading comprehension (Berne & Clark, 2008). Research related to the usage of technology in literature discussions has shown that students learn a sense of community and how students were able to respond to prompts (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006; Larson, 2009). Also, when using various types of prompts, Larson (2009) found that the students replied less frequently to prompts related to cognitive skills. The participants chose to reply more to the prompts that were related to their feelings and experiences rather than prompts that required critical thinking. Also, the participants very rarely responded to prompts that focused on clarifying information. The purpose of this research project is to describe the impact of combining technology with literature circles that are based on reciprocal teaching. The literature review that follows will present information about the integration of technology as well as how technology has been integrated with literature discussions in several research studies. Literature Review Introduction During the 21st Century, technology has changed the way people live their lives. In particular, social networking has become the norm for this generation. Students may spend hours reading responses on social networking websites, yet it can be difficult to get them to read for ten minutes in class. Although the language used on social networking may be abbreviated or incorporate text messaging, the students have learned to comprehend the language. Educators want to see their students read, interact with others, and build reading comprehension. Since

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

social networking has already taught students some of the behaviors educators desire to see, such as reading text and responding to others, then it makes sense that social networking could be integrated in the educational setting. This literature review aims to explore the answer to the following research question: How does the integration of technology and reciprocal teaching literature circles impact fourth grade students reading comprehension? In particular, the focus will be on how the usage of electronic journals (ejournals) and threaded digital discussions will affect the students understanding of reading fiction text (Larson, 2009). Also, the literature review that follows gives evidence from research in support of technology usage in literature discussions. Integration of Literature Circles with Technology Over the past decade, literature circles have become a way of teaching students how to read and take on roles as members of a group; however, research has shown that using traditional literature circles does not always produce authentic discussions. According to Mills and Jennings (2011), literature circles can lose effectiveness and authenticity when the routine does not lend itself to literature discussions. Lloyd (2004) found that the literature discussions for her fifth graders had been stagnant and were driven more by the assignment versus an authentic discussion. Also, some teachers have found that the discussions were not productive once the teacher was no longer present with the group (Grisham & Wosley, 2006). One area of concern has been the role sheets. According to Daniels (2002), the role sheets did not work to the extent that he intended for them. The sheets were initially intended to get students engaged and to get the discussions started as they performed different jobs during literature circles. Also, the purpose of the sheets was to help the students with reading comprehension by having the roles and sheets geared toward specific comprehension skills.

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Daniels noted that instead of the role sheet helping the students, it could possibly hinder them.

As Daniels traveled around to different schools, the teachers informed him that the students were just reading from the sheets. In a survey of fifth graders, the majority of the students preferred the discussions without the role sheets (Daniels, 2002). Also, 90% of the students understood the importance of completing the role sheet after reading, but they did not want to use the sheet during the discussion. Daniels realized through this survey that the bottom line of the issue with literature circles was the role sheets. Despite the issues, Daniels (2006) believed that the role sheets should still be used. He advised that teachers should keep an eye out for when the discussions begin to just be driven by the sheets. A Shift: Integrating Technology Into the Language Arts Program Technology may be one of the solutions to the problems with literature circles; however, educators need to keep in mind that computers should be used as instruments to solve problems and not just a device to use during instruction (Morrison & Lowther, 2010). Also, they have to consider that technology itself demands that students know how to read the new forms of literacy (Larson, 2009). Some examples of these new literacies are wikis, blogs, Google Docs, Chrome, Skype, and social networking websites (Leu et al, 2011). These new literacies require more than the traditional literacy strategies used to comprehend print. They involve students being able to solve problems (Leu et al., 2011; Mokhtaki, Kymes, & Edwards, 2008). As students try to solve problems, they engage in thought processes that are necessary for comprehending what they read online. Students should be able to do the following: recognize vital questions, search for information, use critical thinking when assessing information, combine information, and communicate information (Henry, Castek, O'Byrne, & Zawilinski, 2012; Leu et al., 2011; Mokhtaki et al, 2008). As a result, teachers are required to provide opportunities for students to

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING extend their learning beyond the four walls of the classroom (Larson, 2009). Integrating technology into literature circles would be a way to extend the students learning as well as provide them with opportunities to practice some of strategies needed to help the students understand new literacies. Integrating Face-to-Face with Online Discussions Since the literacy has changed, teachers must provide opportunities for students to collaborate and communicate using technology (Larson, 2009). Some researchers have integrated technology into the literature circle while continuing to have the students meet faceto-face. Research has shown that online discussions and face-to-face discussions complement each other as well as make the discussions more authentic (Grisham & Wosley, 2006; Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). During a study with sixth graders, Day and Kroon (2010) questioned how technological innovations could enhance their teaching, so they incorporated online discussions with their literature circles and continued to have face-to face discussions in classrooms. They found that face-to-face discussions benefited students who were not well acquainted with technology (Day & Kroon, 2010). In a study of eighth graders, Grisham and Wosley (2006) found that the face-to-face discussions helped to facilitate online discussions.

Therefore, research has shown that it is a valid practice to have both forms of discussions within the context of literature circles. The Structure of Literature Circles Integrated with Technology The structure of literature circles involving technology varies. In many studies, researchers use questioning (Day & Kroon, 2010; Larson, 2009; Lloyd, 2004; Scharber, 2009). Questioning requires students to analyze the text as well as make inferences (Lloyd, 2004). Some teachers provide the students with the questions at the beginning of the discussions. When

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING the teachers pose the questions, the students respond to the question as well as the comments of others (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009; Scharber, 2009). On the other hand, several teachers have conducted mini-lessons to teach the students how to ask open-ended questions by using read-alouds to model (Larson, 2009; Lloyd, 2004). Then, the students become responsible for leading the discussions.

Many researchers incorporated journals in their study of literature circles as well. Some researchers used paper and pencil journals for the students to write their thoughts and questions prior to the online discussions. Then, the students chose posts from their journals to use in the online discussions (Day & Kroon, 2010). Rizopoulos and McCarthy (2009) mentioned that students who have trouble writing may need to use paper and pencil before responding online. Larson (2009) allowed the students to use electronic journals instead of having them produce written responses. In addition to questioning and journals, researchers allow the students to have literature discussions. Both asynchronous and synchronous forms of communication have been integrated into literature circles. The term synchronous refers to discussions taking place within a specific period of time (Morrison & Lowther, 2010, p. 107). Discussions conducted using synchronous software occur mostly using chats and instant messaging, and all participants must be present at the specified time in order to participate. When Scharber (2009) used this form of technology in her book clubs, she found that the chats were the favorite of the book club members. As the librarian and facilitator of the book club, she scheduled one session in the chat room each week. While observing the sessions in the chat room, she noticed that the comments were mostly social and a place for the students to get know each other (Scharber, 2009).

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Asynchronous software is the opposite of synchronous software. When asynchronous software is used, the discussions can happen at any time (Morrison & Lowther, 2010). The asynchronous sources used most often are wikis and discussion boards (Edmondson, 2012; Grisham & Wolsey, 2006; Larson, 2009). When using wikis, the teacher may assign a wiki to the group and have a page for each role that the students will perform (Edmondson, 2012). Establishing the roles and responsibilities to go along with the wiki has been found to create a sense of community. Another form of asynchronous software is the discussion board. When students are on the discussion board, they use threaded discussion to help them communicate.

During the threaded discussions, students send messages, which leads to a list of posts connected to the message sent (Grisham & Wosley, 2006). Some researchers use social networking to conduct their literature discussions. Stewart (2009) studied a librarian who incorporated Facebook into her literature circles. The librarian posted comments on Facebook, and the students wrote questions on their wall. Also, the students used the chat component to voice their views, interests, and issues that focused on the novel they were reading. Positive Effects of Integrating Technology into Literature Discussions There have been positive results when technology was integrated into literature circles. One result has been the increase in student participation. Students who did not normally speak in class were willing to participate in the discussions (Day & Kroon, 2010). Also, the students were able to gain more confidence because they had more time to think about their responses prior to responding to their classmates (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). Another result has been the social growth of the students. Many of the students grew as a team and appreciated the responses of others (Edmondson, 2012). They became willing to share their thoughts and to consider the opinions of others (Larson, 2009). Also, using technology had an impact on the

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING time needed for discussions. At times, the online discussions occurred faster than the face-to-

face discussions (Day & Kroon, 2010). Although the time needed for talking is less, the students seemed to actually talk more. In addition, the integration of technology into the discussion has impacted the motivation in students. Edmondson (2012) noticed that the students were willing to take on their responsibilities and roles. Also, the students were motivated to read their assigned books as well as showed interest in reading the books that the other groups were reading (Day & Koon, 2010; Edmonson, 2012). Furthermore, researchers have noted that the students tended to be engaged in deep thoughts and responses during their literature discussion (Grishaw & Wosley, 2006; Larson, 2009). Although there were advantages for both real-time (synchronous) and thread discussions (asynchronous), the threaded discussions helped struggling readers more than the chats. The fact that the students had 24-hour access to the discussion was a bonus for the asynchronous discussion board (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). In particular, the students had extra time to create and post their comments and questions (Grishaw &Wosley, 2006; Larson, 2009). Also, since the responses were posted on the thread, the group members were able to see that the struggling students were not responding as frequently as others. In some instances, the other students asked specific questions to a student with special needs to get that student more involved in the discussions (Day & Koon, 2010). Also, English Language Learners (ELL) benefit from the threaded discussions. Since ELL students need more time to think about language, the threaded discussion allows them extra time to complete their assignments. The additional time allows the more proficient readers to help clarify words during their posts to ELL students (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). Challenges with Integrating Technology into Literature Discussions

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING There have been a few challenges with using technology during reading discussions.

10

While English Language Learners benefit from extra time, they have struggled with the lack of personal contact during the online discussions. ELL students like to talk with others and read their nonverbal cues (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). The ELL students miss the opportunity to draw inferences based on the nonverbal cues when they are online. Also, issues have occurred with students getting off the topic (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009; Scharber, 2009). Some teachers have created rubrics to help deal with this issue. They graded the students based on the level of thinking in their responses (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). Also, teachers have taught students different prompts that led to more in-depth responses (Larson, 2009). In addition, threaded discussions can be difficult for students who have problems writing. A proposed solution to this problem has been to allow the students to write their responses on paper first and then transfer their thoughts into the discussion board (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). Also, teachers have observed that the posts were sometimes two word statements that showed just the students agreement with others responses. This problem was addressed by having the students use bookmarks with prompts on them (Day & Kroon, 2010). As the students wrote questions, they referred back to the bookmarks for guidance. How do Students Feel about Online Discussions? The opinions of students should be considered. It is difficult to incorporate something new if the students do not approve. Day and Kroon (2010) would agree that students have positive attitudes toward the online discussions. The sixth graders felt that it was the best part of middle school, and they had hoped that their other teachers would incorporate this into their classrooms. When Scharber (2009) surveyed her participants, she found their favorite part of the book club was the chatting. While interviewing students, Larson (2009) found that the students

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

11

enjoyed reading and responding to the threads. While there were positive responses, there were negative responses as well. During their study, Grisham and Wosley (2006) discovered that the problems were mostly computer-related, such as issues with passwords and technological skills. Also, Day and Kroon (2010) found that some of the students got irritated with their classmates when they were stuck on one topic constantly during the discussions. Based on the research, students both like and dislike using technology to engage in book discussions. Conclusion With the advancement of technology, there has to be an adjustment in the methods that teachers use to teach. According to the research, integrating technology into the literature circles is a valid way to combine traditional reading instruction and new literacies in the 21st Century. Based on the studies conducted on this topic, the benefits and advantages of literature circles with technology exceed the disadvantages. While literature circles are examples of researchbased strategies that have transformed the way educators teach reading, there is still room for improvement. Although there have been many studies conducted concerning technology and literature discussions, very few studies have shown the impact of integrating technology into literature discussions on reading comprehension. As a result, the following research question will be investigated: How does the integration of technology and Reciprocal Teaching literature circles impact fourth grade students reading comprehension? Details concerning the methodology of this study will follow. Methodology The quasi-experimental pretest-posttest research design was used to show the affects of the technology on reciprocal teaching literature circles. Within this research design, the data from both the control group and intervention group were used to determine the affects of integrating technology within the literature circles. Before this research study began, permission

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

12

was granted by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) from East Carolina University to conduct this study (see Appendix A). Also, a parent meeting was held to give parents information about the study. The parents were given a week to return the consent forms (see Appendix B and C). After the consent forms were returned, the students were given the opportunity to assent (see Appendix D and E). Prior to the intervention beginning, the students were given a reading comprehension pretest using Curriculum Based Measurements (CBM) from the easyCBM website and the Motivation to Read Profile (see Appendix F and G). Participants and Setting This research study took place at a Title 1 school in Eastern North Carolina. This school serves 722 students for 3rd grade through 5th grade. Thirty-six percent of students receive free and reduced lunch. The participants in the study were students from two 4th grade classes. The 4th graders at this school attended one classroom for English language arts and social studies and another classroom for science and math. The research was conducted in the classroom of the researcher, their English language arts teacher, for both the intervention group and the control group. The researcher had IRB training (see Appendix H) and currently holds an undergraduate degree with 16 years of teaching experience. The first block was the intervention group. This class had a population of 24 students with 13 girls and 11 boys. The students ages ranged from nine to eleven years old. The ethnicity of the class consisted of thirteen Caucasians, eight African Americans, two Hispanics, and one Asian. There were three students who were in the exceptional childrens program, but two of them did not participate in the study because they go out to the resource room for reading. Three students were in STRIDE, which stands for Striving Toward Responsible Intellectual Development in Education, and four students were in the Academically and Intellectual Gifted

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING (AIG) program for reading. One student had a 504 plan, a federal plan that provides modifications for students. Overall, 22 students participated in the intervention. Consent and assent were received for all of the students who participated in the intervention group.

13

The second block of students was the control group. There were 23 students in this class, which was comprised of 12 girls and 11 boys. The students ranged in ages from nine to eleven years old. The class was racially diverse with fourteen Caucasians, six African Americans, two Asians, and one multi-racial student. Three students were in the exceptional childrens program (EC), but they were in the resource room during reading instruction. There were five students in STRIDE, and three students were in the AIG Program for reading enrichment. Two of the students had a 504 plan. Consent was obtained for 20 students, but 16 students gave assent. One of the EC students originally began the study, but about three weeks into the study he began to receive EC services. So, he was not longer a participant in the study. Overall, only 16 students participated in the control group. Variables The independent variable was reading instructional strategies. This independent variable had two levels. The first level involved reciprocal teaching literature circles with face-to-face discussions and interactions. At the beginning of each session, the students met in their literature circles to assign jobs and to read their books. These sessions included reading the text in various ways; writing predictions, clarification of words, questions, and summaries in literature circles journal; and performing literature circle jobs while sharing responses from their journal. The second level was the reciprocal teaching literature circles with technology. After reading the text, the students in the intervention group recorded their predictions, summaries, and clarification in their reciprocal teaching notebooks, and then they used recorded their responses

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

14

in their electronic journals using Google Docs and typed their threaded discussions on Edmodo. Using Google Docs created some issues. Our network in our school did not allow some of the students to get directly on Google Docs from the link in their emails. Also, students were changing the format of the charts on Google Docs and some of them were erasing the responses of others. About midway through the study, the electronic journals were discontinued, and the students just recorded their responses in Edmodo. The dependent variable, reading comprehension, was operationally defined as a score on the Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) from the easyCBM website. The students were all given the same online version of a 4th grade reading passage. The test had 20 multiple-choice questions. Each question offered four answer choices. Also, the students given an abbreviated form of a reading survey created called Motivation to Read Profile. The original reading survey had the following two sections: Reading Survey and the Conversational Interview (Gambrell, Palmer, Codling, & Mazzoni, 1996, p. 519). For the purpose of this study, the students were given the Reading Survey portion, which consists of 20 multiple-choice items. The survey was given in a whole class session and was read aloud to English Language Learners in a small group. At the end of the study, the students were given the same CBM comprehension test and the Motivation to Read Profile in order to see change over time. Threats to the Study In this study, there were some threats that could impact the validity and reliability of this intervention. The threats included in this study were the mortality threat, history threat, attitude of subjects, and data collector bias (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). The mortality threat was one threat. One of the students from the control group began receiving EC services about halfway into the study. Since he left the room on a daily basis for reading instruction, he no longer

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING received reading instruction within the regular classroom. Therefore, his data was not used in the study.

15

Another threat was the history threat. There were many unanticipated events concerning the technology issues during the first few weeks of the intervention. The initial issue was that some of the students were not able to get on Google Docs. The issue was that when the students clicked on the Google Doc link for the electronic journal, the browser for the student Gmail was opening in Internet Explorer. So, it took time away from the online discussion for the students to go through a different route to get to the Google Docs. Also, time was lost a few days when the students tried to use the laptop cart. Some of the students were not able to log in. In addition, some of the students were erasing responses on the Google Doc (electronic journal) and changing the layout of the journal, which resulted in a loss of data and time. Three weeks into the intervention, the electronic journal, using Google Docs, was eliminated, and the students were only allowed to respond on Edmodo. Due to absence of the media coordinator during the entire action research study, there was very little assistance with the technological issues A major threat to the validity of this study was the attitude of the subjects. Originally, this threat was minimized when the students were told that the control group would have the opportunity to use the technology after the study. So the attitude issues were not based on the possibility of a special privilege. The attitude issues stemmed from the conflicts that students were having within the groups. Students in the intervention group became frustrated with each other at times. In particular, they complained about their group members erasing responses. Also, the negative attitude of some of the students was apparent in the Edmodo post near the end of the intervention. The control group experienced friction within the groups as well. Sometimes the personalities clashed during the lengthy period of time that they spent together.

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Another threat to validity was bias of the data collector. This was particularly an issue because I administered the assessments to both the intervention group as well as the control group. Procedures

16

The intervention began the second week in January after the administration of the survey and pretest. The students were allowed to choose their top three picks between the following five novels: Indian in the Cupboard (1980), Sounder (1969), Tales of the 4th Grade Nothing (1972), The Cay (1969), and The Mouse and the Motorcycle (1965). I took the students choices into consideration as I formed the groups. At the beginning of the intervention, the students worked cooperatively in their groups as they worked on categorizing the Revised Blooms Taxonomy questions into the four Question Answer Relationship (QAR) categories. As a result, a QAR bookmark was created, which the students from both groups used during the study (see Appendix I). Also, the new discussion bookmark was introduced to both the intervention and control groups (see Appendix J). For the first couple of days, I explained the process and used a screencast to show the students how to go to their Google Doc and modeled for them how to go to Edmodo. Then, the students met in their groups to decide on the pages to readThe discussion director assigned the following reciprocal teaching jobs: predictor, clarifier, summarizer, and questioner (Oczkus, 2003). Then, the questioner assigned the QAR type for every member of the group so that the group would have questions on various levels during their discussions. Although the students were not responsible for completing all of the reciprocal teaching jobs, they were required to code the text. As they read, they had to write a p for prediction, c for clarification, s for summarizing, and q for questioning on sticky notes (see Appendix K). Along with the code, the students could write a few words on the sticky notes as well. The

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING purpose of coding the text and making notes was so that the students would still be using the reciprocal teaching strategies while reading as well as be more prepared to respond to others during the literacy discussions.

17

The intervention followed a pattern similar to the structure that Larson (2009) used in her study in which the students read their books and made responses in their electronic journals during a 30-minute period. After the reading, the students spent 15 to 20 minutes on the message board (Larson, 2009). One difference between Larsons study and this action research was that the students had to record their responses in their reciprocal teaching notebook prior to completing the electronic journal in this study. The students drew their four squares and only recorded information concerning his or her reciprocal teaching job and questions (see Appendix L for example of reciprocal teaching template for the reciprocal teaching notebook.) The questions had to include the answer and page number to match. (This information was not included in Edmodo.) Due to the fact that we have 40-minute blocks in the library for computer usage, the students spent between 20 to 25 minutes in the classroom reading prior to going to the library. Just prior to the reading of the text, the discussion director decided how the group would read. The groups either read as a whole chorally, aloud page-by-page, aloud paragraph-by-paragraph, in pairs, or independently. (The groups mixed with lower level readers did not read independently so that these students could get support from their classmates.) Then, the students wrote in their reciprocal teaching notebook. After the students were finished, they went to the computers and logged into their Gmail accounts. Next, the students located the email that included the link to their electronic journals in the Google Document for their group. Once they clicked on the link, the students typed in their information from the reciprocal teaching chart,

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

18

except the questioner (see Appendix M). The questioner posted his or her question in Edmodo while the rest of the group completed their entries in the electronic journal. The groups spent 20 to 25 minutes on the Google Doc electronic journal. After everyone typed his or her initial posts in the electronic journals, they replied to the posts of others. Once they responded, the students went to Edmodo and responded to the questioner as well as posted their questions. The Edmodo sessions were scheduled to last for at least 20 minutes. The sessions followed this schedule for two to three days a week (see Appendix N for a sample lesson plan). On the other days, the students were taught reading comprehension mini-lessons that could be applied to what they had read. After a reading objective was taught, the students continued to use the strategies as they completed their literature circles discussions. Table 1 shows the layout of the weekly schedule. Table 1 Weekly Schedule of the Intervention Monday Reciprocal teaching with technology Tuesday Comprehension Strategy Wednesday Reciprocal teaching with technology Thursday Comprehension strategy Friday Reciprocal teaching with technology

Data Sources and Data Collection This action research study followed the quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test design. The data was collected from five sources to ensure triangulation of data. The initial data came from a reading survey and a reading comprehension pretest. During the intervention, data was collected from the students journals, using both paper and pencil as well as electronic journals. Also, responses on Edmodo, a safe and private social networking website, were analyzed (Harper, 2010). In addition, I used a researchers log through Google Docs (see Appendix O). Responses were recorded on the chart several days a week.

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING The students voiced their opinions on a reading survey created called Motivation to

19

Read Profile. For the purpose of this study, the students were only given the 20 multiple-choice items in the Reading Survey portion. By administering the first portion of the survey, I was able to obtain information about how the participants saw themselves as readers and the value that the readers placed on reading. Furthermore, the purpose for administering this survey to the intervention group was to determine if the students attitude toward reading changes after they had the opportunity to engage in literacy discussions using Google Docs and Edmodo. The intentions behind allowing the control group to take the survey was to see if there was a change in the students motivation as they continue to perform the usual Reciprocal Teaching literature circles. The students responded to reading comprehension questions. The pretest was given the second week of January. The 4th reading comprehension passage came from Curriculum Based Measurements (CBM) located on the easyCBM website. When Curriculum Based Measurements were first created, the purpose of this measurement was for teachers to be able to formatively assess their teaching (Deno, 2003). According to Fuchs, Fuchs, and Hamlett (2007), CBM is reliable and gives valid indication of the competency of students. The students were given the online version of a 4th grade reading passage titled Tims Donation to the Youth Club, which consisted of 20 multiple choice questions. Originally, I had planned to give passages on a higher grade level, if the students achieved a perfect score on the 4th grade reading comprehension test; however, none of the students scored a 100 on the 4th grade reading passage. So, only the 4th grade passage was administered. More data sources were the researchers log, the students journals, and Edmodo. I used the researchers log to record observations, student responses, and teacher reflections during both

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING the intervention and control groups. The intervention group recorded their predictions,

20

summaries, clarification, and questions in their reciprocal teaching notebook. Then, they posted their responses in their groups electronic journals on Google Docs (see Appendix P). In addition, I used data from the Edmodo website (see Appendix Q). On the electronic journal and Edmodo, I was able to see if the students were posting the reciprocal teaching strategies correctly. Also, I was able to observe the group members responses to the post of others. In addition, I used the posts of others to address issues with the intervention group. At times, I recorded notes from Edmodo in the researchers log. Alongside the Edmodo posts, I recorded data from the control group in order to compare and contrast the two groups. The control group continued to use their reciprocal teaching literature circles journal with paper and pencil. Data Analysis Once the intervention was completed and the posttest had been administered, the mean change scores of the intervention and control group were calculated using Dr. Del Siegles t-test (Siegle, 2002). A t-test was chosen because it is a parametric statistical test that compares the mean scores of two groups, which in this case are the intervention group and the control group, to see if there is a significant difference (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). The quantitative data was analyzed using a ratio scale. Also, the type of variance test was based on the probability level, or p-value. In addition, the t-test was a two-tailed p because the hypotheses were non-directional. To analyze the data of the change mean score for the pretest and posttest, an equal variance was used because the variance for the independent samples, meaning the intervention group and control group, were similar (see Appendix R). There was not a significant difference that would require an unequal variance. In addition the equal variance was used to analyze the pretest and posttest mean change scores because the p of F-Max was greater than 0.05. Since the variances were different for the Motivation to Read Profile survey between the two groups and

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING the same sizes were different, the unequal variance t-test was used. Also, the unequal variance was
utilized because the p of F-Max was less than 0.05 (see Appendix S).

21

Findings/Results Pretest and Posttest Scores After the six weeks of intervention, posttests were administered to both the intervention and control groups in order to collect quantitative data. The Curriculum Based Measurements (CBM) was administered prior to the intervention and after six weeks of instruction with the intervention group (n=21) and the control group (n=16). Based on the data from Figure 1, the intervention groups average scores on the CBM grew more than the control group in reading comprehension between the pretest and posttest. However, it is better to analyze the mean change scores to determine how significant the growth was between the retest and posttest. According to the comprehension scores from a 4th grade passage in CBM, the intervention groups mean change score was 0.81 with a standard deviation score of 2.02. The effect size was 0.22 and the degree of freedom was 35. The mean change score for the control group was 0.13 with a standard deviation score of 3.10. Based on the equal variance, the total mean difference was 0.685 and the t-value was 0.814. The two-tailed p value was 0.421. Since the two-tailed p value was greater than 0.05 and the effect size was around 0.2, which is considered to be small, then there was no significant difference between the mean change scores of the intervention and control groups for the 4th grade passages used from CBM. Figure 1 displays the mean scores of the CBM pretest and posttest the intervention group and the control group.

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Figure 1 Mean Scores of CBM
14.4 14.2 14 13.8 Intervention Group 13.6 13.4 13.2 13 CBM Pretest Mean CBM Posttest Mean Control Group

22

The Motivation to Read Profile was administered to the students as a pretest and posttest to the intervention group (n=22) and the control group (n=16). According to the survey results from the 20 multiple-choice questions, the intervention groups mean change score was 3.24 with a standard deviation score of 6.11. The effect size was 0.39 and the degree of freedom was 15. The mean change score for the control group was 0.94 with a standard deviation score of 10.70. Based on the unequal variance, the total mean difference was -4.176 and the t-value was -1.40. The two-tailed p value was 0.174. Since the two-tailed p value was greater than 0.05 and the effect size was around 0.39, which is considered to be small, then there was no significant difference between the mean change scores of the intervention and control groups for the Motivation to Read Profile. Table 2 shows the data from the t-test scores for the CBM and the Motivation to Read Profile.

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING


Table 2 Independent Samples t-test for Quantitative Analysis Measures Curriculum Based Measurements Motivation to Read Survey Group Intervention Control Mean Change 0.81 0.13 SD 2.02 3.06 t 0.814 df 35 p-val 0.421 ES 0.221

23

Intervention Control

-3.24 0.94

6.11 10.70

-1.40 15

0.174

0.390

Researchers Log A researchers log was used to keep a record of qualitative data. Data were recorded from before the intervention began until the day before the posttests were given. The researchers log was used to record observations, student responses, and teacher reflections during both the intervention and control groups. The log includes data about the implementation of the intervention as well as some comparisons and contrasts of the intervention group and the control group. Since this action research involved technology, notes were made concerning technology usage. The journal showed how the intervention group had forgotten about how to complete reciprocal teaching, so their Day One lesson lasted for two days. On the next day, the students were not able to complete the electronic journal because there were technological issues with Google Documents. Some of the electronic links from the student Gmail accounts were opening in Internet Explorer, which created issues everyday when we tried to get in the electronic journals. The media coordinator from a neighboring school suggested that I should share the electronic journals versus just sending them the link. Most of the students were able type in the electronic journal without any problems. A few of them were still having issues because when

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING they clicked on the link, it continued to open up in Internet Explorer instead of in Google Chrome. In addition, the log includes information about the laptop carts. The server would not

24

allow some of the students in, and some of the computers were taking way too long. Also, some of the students were unable to log in to the computers. So, I allowed those students to use the other computers in the classroom. After this incident, I noted that I would have the students log on earlier the next time that we utilized the carts. As noted above, I had planned for the students to complete the section of the electronic journal that represented his or her reciprocal teaching job, except the questioner would initiate the conversations on Edmodo by asking a question to begin a threaded discussion. Students made additional posts after the Questioner began the discussion. This format did not work very well because of the technological issues with Google Docs as well as the students altering the set-up of the journal and erasing others responses. After corresponding with my professor, I resorted to just using Edmodo, which gave me more time to devote to analyzing the responses on Edmodo rather than spending so much time on technological issues. The students were required to post the predictions, clarification, and summarization prior to posting questions. Also, they had to respond to those three components of the reciprocal teaching before they were allowed to respond to the questions. When responding to all of the components of reciprocal teaching, the students used their discussion bookmarks. Their responses had to include evidence from the text. Another issue documented in the researchers log was the fact that during the intervention the discussion directors did not have anything to do until the other members posted their responses. This became an issue because some of the discussion directors started spending too much time telling the group members what they were doing incorrectly rather than spending that

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING time to have a discussion about the book. So close to the end of the study, I assigned the discussion director to do a comprehension skill. During the action research, I had to make some changes. The log shows where the seating arrangements were changed to eliminate some of the talking at the computers. Also, I changed the way that the control group wrote in their reciprocal teaching notebooks so that it would be the same and not become another variable in the study. Discussion/Conclusions The purpose of this action research study was to see if integrating Edmodo with

25

reciprocal teaching literature circles would increase reading comprehension more than reciprocal teaching literature circles without technology. According to the equal variance on the Del Siegel t-test for the CBM, there was a difference between the mean change score of the intervention group and the control group, but the difference was not significant. Also, the effect size showed that there was only a small effect. The students were given a survey as a pretest and as a posttest to determine if there was a difference in motivation for the intervention group by the end of the study and to compare the mean change scores of the intervention group to the control group. The quantitative data from the Motivation to Read Profile showed that the students, in the intervention group, were less motivated by the end of the intervention than they were at the beginning. The unequal variance on the Del Siegel t-test for the survey showed that the mean change scores were more negative than positive for the intervention group while the control group showed a positive mean change score. Some of the results of this study were similar to the literature included in this study. For example, I could see evidence of the students self-monitoring in their groups. Larson (2009)

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING noticed this skill during her study as well. It was evident that the students were beginning to hold each other accountable without the need of adult intervention. Also, Larson (2009) noted that the students in her study were having conversations and interacting with each other during their online discussions. The conversations were evident in this study as well. As time progressed, the students began interacting more and responding to posts versus just looking through a critical lens. This new look into the posts created an atmosphere in which the

26

students had to consider the point of view of others (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006). Also, the students were able to make multiple comments online in response to the perspectives of the other group members (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). Conducting a study using technology helped to make two specific connections. Edmondson (2012) expressed the need for educators to build bridges to connect the school to home. This was evident in this action research study. One day, I noticed that the students seemed to be off task. When I investigated further, I found out that a student had logged in to Edmodo at home and had changed his avatar and the students were talking about it. Another connection referenced in the literature was the need to building a bridge to connect the old literacies to the 21st Century (Scharber, 2009). Prior to the action research, the students in the intervention group had been meeting face-to-face in literature circles, but with the implementation of the intervention, they were able to connect their past literature discussions with the online discussions. Specifically, they were able to take an old-school strategy like reciprocal teaching and enhance it through technology. The results of this study were a little different from some of the literature. Some studies have shown that threaded discussions give the students more time to respond (Grisham & Wolsey, 2006; Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). I found that the students had very little time to

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

27

respond. This lack of time was due mostly to the fact that there were technological issues. Also, the length of the chapters often took a long time for some groups to complete. Due to our tight schedule, it was not very easy to make up for lost time online, especially since I only have the students for half of the day. Another difference between this study and the literature is the impact of technology on motivation. Day and Kroon (2010) observed the excitement that the students had about their online literature discussions. As a result of the discussions, the students wanted to read the books that some of the other groups were reading. In contrast, the students in this action research study actually seemed to lose interest. In fact, the mean scores of the mean score showed that they lost interest in reading. Limitations There were some limitations in this study. One of those limitations was in relation to the questioning. At the beginning of the study, both the intervention group and control group were given the opportunity to categorize the Revised Blooms Taxonomy question stems that they had used previously into the four categories for Question Answer Relationship (QAR). This allowed the students to be able to discuss the text using the four categories (Right There, Think and Search, Author and Me, and On My Own), especially since many of the groups had four people. According to Raphael and Au (2005), teaching QAR helps students to have a discussion and to answer questions. While the Edmodo conversations showed that the students engaged in answering the questions, it also showed that the students spent a lot of time correcting their classmates because the QAR category and their questions did not match. The incorrect questions and the conversations about the mistakes limited the amount of time that the students could have been having an authentic conversation.

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Another limitation centered on the interactions between the students while online.

28

Larson (2009) noted that the students thanked each other and complimented each other. There was very little of this on Edmodo. In fact, the dynamics in some of the groups were beginning to become an issue. Some of the Edmodo entries were showing some negative emotions. Some of the students seemed to be critical of others and began using capitalization to show their emotions. The duration of the study caused some limitations as well. This study was implemented over the course of six weeks. Almost four weeks into the study, the format of the intervention was changed. Since there were so many issues with the electronic journal in Google Docs, the students began to just use Edmodo only. But, they were only able to do this for the last two weeks. So, for two weeks the students were finally able to have online discussion with very few technological issues. Implications for Educators Both the advantages and disadvantages should be taken into consideration before integrating technology into the reading block. According to the findings of this study, using technology in literature circles may not have a great impact on reading comprehension. Just incorporating technology into lessons does not guarantee positive results. Some students who have issues with writing may still struggle with posting online. Due to language issues, English Language Learners may continue to struggle at times. Also, some students may get off the topic during the discussions (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). Despite these disadvantages, research supports that allowing students to have online discussions is an experience with many advantages as well (Day & Kroon, 2010; Grishaw & Wosley, 2006; Larson, 2009; Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009; Scharber, 2009; Stewart, 2009).

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

29

One of the great things about using social networking technology is that the students have access to the same technology at home. During the study, some of the students were accessing their Edmodo accounts at home even though this was not a part of the study. Even after the study, one of my students used Edmodo to communicate to me that she would be absent. These instances showed that what we did in the classroom was on the students minds, even at home. This transfer of learner from school to home is what educators want to see. There are some steps to take in order to help smoothly integrate technology into the reading block. First, time must be taken to teach netiquette in order to avoid the pitfalls associated with social networking. Encourage them to speak positively and to consider the opinions of others (Larson, 2009). At the beginning of the implementation of online discussions, the teacher needs to post the prompts or questions first (Larson, 2009; Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). Also, instruction on how to have a literacy discussion should take place far in advance before adding threaded discussions. By the time online threaded discussions are introduced, the students should be very versed in how to have a productive book discussion. In addition, the students may need to have more freedom to decide on the length of their posts as well as the topics that they discuss (Larson, 2009). Future Directions for Research Since the results of this action research did not show a significant improvement in reading comprehension, this study should be redesigned. One way to restructure this research would be to only integrate one form of technology into the study. Choose a technology that is kid-friendly. Although Google Docs is meant for collaboration, some age groups may not be ready to use it properly. Also, a larger sample size may be needed as well as a longer duration of time for the intervention should be taken into consideration.

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING When using technology in a research study, there are a few things to still keep in mind.

30

Plan the study for more than the typical six to eight weeks. This will allow for days to be missed due to technological difficulties. Also, consultations should be performed with the technical department to make sure that the technology being used is compatible with the network in the school. In addition, stay up-to-date with any technological issues that have occurred in the past and take these into consideration when planning a study that involves technology. Continue to research various ways to implement online discussions. Significance of Evidence-Based Research The intervention implemented in this action research study was based on literature involving digital discussions. According to the research, students are no longer just completing role sheets in literature circles. In fact, role sheets were not intended to be long term (Daniels, 2002). The sheets were to be a scaffolding strategy that would lead students toward the usage of metacognitive strategies on their own as readers. At times, the role sheets hindered the conversations (Lloyd, 2004). Using technology allows the students to gradually move towards authentic conversations and interact socially with their peers (Larson, 2009; Grishaw & Wosley, 2006). In order for students to have online reading comprehension, they must be able to communicate (Leu et al., 2011; Mokhtaki, Kymes, & Edwards, 2008). Online threaded discussions foster communication. Using online discussions causes students to consider the opinions of others (Grishaw & Wosley, 2006; Larson, 2009). Also, it helps them to build a sense of community within the educational setting (Edmondson, 2012; Grishaw & Wosley, 2006; Larson, 2009). In particular, threaded discussions allow students to have the time needed to respond to others that they would not normally have in face-to-face discussions (Larson, 2009; Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009; Day & Kroon, 2010). On the other hand, research shows that

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING students should still have some face-to face interactions (Day & Kroon, 2010; Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009). In fact, online discussions can have a positive impact on face-to-face discussions (Grishaw & Wosley, 2006). Online discussions are intended to enhance what educators already do in the classroom. Reflection I think that teachers should engage in action research studies. Trying out various

31

instructional strategies is something that we do on a weekly basis already. The only difference is that we do not always formally collect data and use statistical information to assess what we do to the extent of what is done in an action research study. Also, teachers are highly encouraged to use research-based strategies. Many times we are told what strategies to use, but no statistical data is given with the presentations at staff development to convince us that implementing such strategies will work in our classrooms. As a teacher, I must take on the role of being a researcher. It is more comforting to research and see where others have implemented the strategies in their classrooms. Then, I am able to get a bigger picture of the advantages and disadvantages of the strategies, which will help me to plan more effectively when we begin implementation. Since I performed the research and implemented online threaded discussions in my classroom, I have a better understanding of how to organize my lessons next year and gradually release the students by allowing them to eventually use technology with their discussions. Throughout my teaching career, I have been a reflective teacher. None of the past 16 years of teaching have looked the same because I realize that I cannot just offer my students a cookie cutter education. Completing this study has shown me how to analyze and examine what I do in the classroom even more closely. While implementing technology is great, I

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING understand that it has its advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that I am able to monitor what my students are doing more carefully. I was able to give my students feedback

32

quickly and help them improve their discussions for the intervention group, but I struggled with not knowing exactly what my control was doing while I was observing another group. Although I had been using literature discussions in my classroom for a few years, I had never felt the way I did during this study. I was no longer comfortable with not knowing exactly what was going on in the face-to-face literature discussions when I was not around. As a result of this study, I have changed the way that I conduct my reading block. Now, the students go through a rotation. At least once a week, the students are scheduled to use Edmodo engage in digital literature discussions. On the rest of the days, they either meet for guided reading, or they have face-to-face literature discussions independently in their groups. Next year, I plan to incorporate technology in my reading blocks as well. I think that I will teach the skill to one group, and use them as an example as I integrate technology gradually into the other groups. Early on in this study, I learned that it would be overwhelming to try to implement this in two classes just from the experiences that I had at the beginning of this study. Although the results of this study did not show a significant difference when technology was added, I still think that online discussions are worthwhile. I believe that as I continue to integrate technology into my lessons, I will see even more growth in my students. Implementing this study was a great experience that has changed the way I conduct literature circles.

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING References Berne, J., & Clark, K. (2008). Focusing literature discussion groups on comprehension strategies. The Reading Teacher, 62(1), 74-79. doi: 10.1598/RT.62.1.9 Daniels, H. (2002). The literature circle: Rethinking role sheets. Voices in the Middle, 10(2), 44-45. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/journals/vm Daniels, H. (2006). Whats the next big thing with literature circles?. Voices in the Middle, 13(4), 10-15. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/journals/vm Day, D., & Kroon, S. (2010). "Online literature circles rock!" Organizing online literature circles in a middle school classroom. Middle School Journal, 42(2), 18-28. Retrieved from http://www.amle.org/Publications/MiddleSchoolJournal/tabid/435/Default.aspx Deno, S. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184-192. Retrieved from http://sed.sagepub.com/ Edmondson, E. (2012). Wiki literature circles: Creating learning communities. English Journal, 101(4), 43-49. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/journals/ej Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. (7th ed., pp. 166-171). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. (2007). Using curriculum-based measurement to

33

inform reading instruction. Reading and Writing, 20(6), 553-567. doi: 10.1007/s11145007-9051-4 Gambrell, L., Palmer, B., Codling, R., & Mazzoni, S. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518-533. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/General/Publications/Journals

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Grisham, D., & Wolsey,T. (2006). Recentering the middle school classroom as a vibrant

34

learning community: Students, literacy, and technology intersect. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(8), 648-660. doi: 10.1098/JAAL.49.8.2 Harper, A. (2010). Social networking with edmodo: Let your digital footprints lead the way. Kentucky English Bulletin, 59(2), 19-21. Henry, L., Castek, J., O'Byrne, W., & Zawilinski, L. (2012). Using peer collaboration to support online reading, writing, and communication: An empowerment model for struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28(3), 279-306. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2012.676431 Larson, L. (2009). Reader response meets new literacies: Empowering readers in online learning communities. The Reading Teacher, 62(8), 638-648. doi: 10.1598/RT.62.8.2 Leu, D., McVerry, J., O'Byrne, W., Kiili, C., Zawilinski, L., Everette-Cacopardo, H., & Forzani, E. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literacy and learning curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 5-14. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.55.1.1 Lloyd, S. (2004). Using comprehension strategies as a springboard for student talk. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(2), 114-124. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.48.2.3 Mills, H., & Jennings, L. (2011). Talking about talk: Reclaiming the value and power of literature circles.The Reading Teacher, 64(8), 590-598. doi: 10.1598/RT.64.8.4 Mokhtaki, K., Kymes, A., & Edwards, P. (2008). Assessing new literacies of online reading comprehension: An informal interview with w. ian o'byrne, lisa zawilinski, j. greg mcverry, and donald j. leu at the university of connecticut. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 354-357. doi: 10.1598/RT.62.4.9

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Morrison, G., & Lowther, D. (2010). Integrating computer technology into the classroom: Skills for the 21st century. (4th ed., pp. 104-108). Boston: Pearson. Oczkus, L. (2003). Reciprocal teaching at work: Strategies for improving reading comprehension. (1st ed.). Newark: International Reading Association. Raphael, T., & Au, K. (2005). Qar: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across

35

grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 206-221. doi: 10.1598/RT.59.3.1 Rizopoulos, L., & McCarthy, P. (2009). Using online threaded discussions: Best practices for the digital learner. J. Educational Technology Systems, 37(4), 373-383. doi: 10.2190/ET.39.4.c Scharber, C. (2009). Online book clubs: Bridges between old and new literacies practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(5), 433-437. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.52.5.7 Siegle, D. (2002). Dr. Del Siegles t-test excel spreadsheet template. Retrieved from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/t-test/tTestExcel.xls Stewart, P. (2009). Facebook and virtual literature circle partnership. Knowledge Quest, 37(4), 28-33. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ala.org/aasl/publications-journals

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Appendix A Institutional Review Board Approval
EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY

36

University & Medical Center Institutional Review Board Office 4N-70 Brody Medical Sciences Building Mail Stop 682 600 Moye Boulevard Greenville, NC 27834 Office 252-744-2914 Fax 252-744-2284 www.ecu.edu/irb

Notification of Initial Approval: Expedited


From: Social/Behavioral IRB To: CC: Re: Kimberley Gilbert Elizabeth Swaggerty UMCIRB 12-002244 GILBERT: The Integration of Technology with Reciprocal Teaching Literature Circles

Date: 12/21/2012

I am pleased to inform you that your Expedited Application was approved. Approval of the study and any consent form(s) is for the period of 12/21/2012 to 12/20/2013. The research study is eligible for review under expedited category #7. The Chairperson (or designee) deemed this study no more than minimal risk.

Changes to this approved research may not be initiated without UMCIRB review except when necessary to eliminate an apparent immediate hazard to the participant. All unanticipated problems involving risks to participants and others must be promptly reported to the UMCIRB. The investigator must submit a continuing review/closure application to the UMCIRB prior to the date of study expiration. The Investigator must adhere to all reporting requirements for this study.

The approval includes the following items:

Name Control Group Assent form and script | History Integrating Technology with Literature Circles | History Intervention Group Assent form and script | History Motivation to Read Profile | History Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension Grade 4 Form 3 | History Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension Grade 5 Form 6 | History

Description Consent Forms Study Protocol or Grant Application Consent Forms Surveys and Questionnaires Standardized/Non-Standardized Instruments/Measures Standardized/Non-Standardized Instruments/Measures

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING


Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension Grade 6 Form 6 | History Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension Grade 7 Form 3 | History Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension Grade 8 Form 3 | History Parent Consent Form for the Control Group | History Parent Consent Form for the Control Group_Japanese | History Parent Consent Form for the Control Group_Spanish | History Parent Consent Form for the Intervention Group | History Parent Consent Form for the Intervention Group_Japanese | History Parent Consent Form for the Intervention Group_Spanish | History Standardized/Non-Standardized Instruments/Measures Standardized/Non-Standardized Instruments/Measures Standardized/Non-Standardized Instruments/Measures Consent Forms Consent Forms Consent Forms Consent Forms Consent Forms Consent Forms

37

The Chairperson (or designee) does not have a potential for conflict of interest on this study.

IRB00000705 East Carolina U IRB #1 (Biomedical) IORG0000418 IRB00003781 East Carolina U IRB #2 (Behavioral/SS) IORG0000418 IRB00004973

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Appendix B Parent Consent Form for the Intervention Group

38

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

39

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

40

Appendix C

Parent Consent Form for the Control Group

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

41

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Appendix D Assent Form for the Intervention Group

42

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

43

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

44

Appendix E Assent Form for the Control Group

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

45

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

46

Appendix F Curriculum Based Measurements Reading Passage: Tims Donation to the Youth Club

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

47

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

48

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

49

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

50

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

51

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Appendix G Motivation to Read Profile Reading Survey
Name: ___________________________________________________ Date: ______________________ Sample 1: I am in ____________. a. Second grade b. Third grade c. Fourth grade d. Fifth grade e. Sixth grade Sample 2: I am a ____________. a. Boy b. Girl 1. My friends think I am ____________. a. A very good reader b. A good reader c. An OK reader d. A poor reader 2. Reading a book is something I like to do. a. Never b. Not very often c. Sometimes d. Often 3. I read ____________. a. Not as well as my friends b. About the same as my friends c. A little better than my friends d. A lot better than my friends 4. My best friends think reading is ____________. a. Really fun b. Fun c. OK to do d. No fun at all

52

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

53

5. When I come to a word I dont know, I can ____________. a. Almost always figure it out b. Sometimes figure it out c. Almost never figure it out d. Never figure it out 6. I tell my friends about good books to read. a. I never do this. b. I almost never do this. c. I do this some of the time. d. I do this a lot. 7. When I am reading by myself, I understand ____________. a. Almost everything I read b. Some of what I read c. Almost none of what I read d. None of what I read 8. People who read a lot are ____________. a. Very interesting b. Interesting c. Not very interesting d. Boring 9. I am ____________. a. A poor reader b. An OK reader c. A good reader d. A very good reader 10. I think libraries are ____________. a. A great place to spend time b. An interesting place to spend time c. An OK place to spend time d. A boring place to spend time 11. I worry about what other kids think about my reading ____________. a. Every day b. Almost every day c. Once in a while d. Never

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

54

12. Knowing how to read well is ____________. a. Not very important b. Sort of important c. Important d. Very important 13. When my teacher asks me a question about what I have read, I ____________. a. Can never think of an answer b. Have trouble thinking of an answer c. Sometimes think of an answer d. Always think of an answer 14. I think reading is ____________. a. A boring way to spend time b. An OK way to spend time c. An interesting way to spend time d. A great way to spend time 15. Reading is ____________. a. Very easy for me b. Kind of easy for me c. Kind of hard for me d. Very hard for me 16. When I grow up I will spend ____________. a. None of my time reading b. Very little of my time reading c. Some of my time reading d. A lot of my time reading 17. When I am in a group talking about stories, I ____________. a. Almost never talk about my ideas b. Sometimes talk about my ideas c. Almost always talk about my ideas d. Always talk about my ideas 18. I would like for my teacher to read books out loud to the class ____________. a. Every day b. Almost every day c. Once in while d. Never

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

55

19. When I read out loud I am a ____________. a. Poor reader b. OK reader c. Good reader d. Very good reader 20. When someone gives me a book for a present, I feel ____________. a. Very happy b. Sort of happy c. Sort of unhappy d. Unhappy

Gambrell, L., Palmer, B., Codling, R. , & Mazzoni, S. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518-533. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/General/Publications/Journals

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

56

MRP Reading Survey Scoring Sheet


Student name _________________________________________________________________________ Grade ______________________________ Teacher __________________________________________ Administration date ____________________________________________________________________ Recording scale Least positive response (1 point) Most positive response (4 point) Self-Concept as a Reader *recode 1. ____ 3. ____ *recode 5. ____ *recode 7. ____ 9. ____ *recode 11. ____ 13. ____ *recode 15. ____ 17. ____ 19. ____ SC survey raw score ____ Value of Reading 2. ____ *recode 4. ____ 6. ____ *recode 8. ____ *recode 10. ____ 12. ____ 14. ____ 16. ____ *recode 18. ____ *recode 20. ____ V raw score ____

Full survey raw score (Self-concept & Value) ____ Percentage scores Self-Concept ____ Value ____ Full Survey ____

Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________

Gambrell, L., Palmer, B., Codling, R., & Mazzoni, S. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518-533. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/General/Publications/Journals

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Appendix H Institutional Review Board Training

57

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Appendix I QAR Bookmark

58

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Appendix J Discussion Bookmark

59

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

60

Appendix K Coded Reciprocal Teaching Chart

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Appendix L Reciprocal Teaching Chart for the Journal

61

Title:

Date:

Prediction:
I predict that____________ because_______________ _____________________. I think that my prediction was correct or incorrect because ______________________ ______________________ ______________________

Question: _______________ _______________ Answer: ________ _______________ Page:____

Clarify: The word ____________ was difficult for me because -I did not know how to pronounce it -I did not know what it meant So I
_________________________ _________________________

Summary: Somebody: Wanted: But: So: Finally:

Therefore, I think the word ________________ means ______________________ ______________________

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Appendix M Electronic Journal

62

Date: _ Name of the Questioner: _

Predictor: _ I predict that _because _ I think that my prediction was correct/incorrect because _

Clarifier: _ The word _ was difficult for me because _ So, I used the following strategy: _ Therefore, I think the word _ means _

Summarizer: _ Somebody: _ Wanted: _ But: _ So: _ Finally: _

Comments:

Prediction:

Clarification:

Summarization:

Adapted from Macon, J., Bewell, D., & Vogt, M. (1991). Responses to literature. Newark: International Reading Association. Oczkus, L. (2003). Reciprocal teaching at work: Strategies for improving reading comprehension. (1st ed.). Newark: International Reading Association.

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Appendix N Sample Lesson Plan

63

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Appendix O Researchers Log
Date Comment or Observation My Thoughts: Intervention A New Problem: Since the technology issue has been resolved, I have been able to look more closely at the students responses. Today, I decided to go over responses in Edmodo as a class. During the discussion, we saw where students were not mostly asking questions and not posting and responding to the other RT. Also, most of the predictions, summaries, and questions were based on previous reading and not on what the students were assigned to read. On yesterday, I saw some of these same issues in the control group so Solution: I sent messages to all of the groups to remind them of the correct format to use. Also, I asked to see everyones Reciprocal Teaching chart before they were allowed to go on Edmodo. My Thoughts: Control I met with the students in a circle and we discussed the issues from yesterday. To help with the job issues, I passed out the RT job nameplates. The students were on task more and there was every little arguments. Just like the intervention group, I told the control group that I must see their RT charts before they can have the group discussions. I observed the students delegating the responsibilities.

64

My Questions

Issues with Reciprocal 2/12/13 Teaching

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Appendix P Sample of Electronic journal for Chapter 1 of The Cay
Date:1-30-2013 Name of the Questioner:Billy Predictor: Catherine I predict that the boy will either secretly go out to war or the father will make Phillip and his Mom leave.I think because you dont need to have a child around something dangerous like that,And a child cant take care of Clarifier: Wendy The word koenoekoe was difficult for me because I did not know how to pronounce it, I did not know what it meant.

65

Summarizer: Wendy Somebody: Phillip

So, I used the following strategy: I read on to find clues.

Wanted: to see the submarines

I think that my prediction was correct/incorrect because I think I had a very good explanation

But: his mom told him that he should not Therefore, I think the word koenoekoe means the countryside.

So: he went out to see them anyway.

Finally: He had to come inside and sleep.

Comments:

Prediction:

Clarification:

Summarization:

Wendy:i disagree with the statement that the boy would go out to war because at that time and in the book, I do not think they would send a boy that is maybe 11 to war.

Billy: I had trouble with that word too and I thought about it and I think it means countryside also.

Billy: I think that your summary has good information, but it could use a little more.

Billy: I don't completely understand your prediction can you explain. Catherine:I didnt say they sent them into war , I said he would SECRETLY go into war.

Wendy:I thought about about it also.It is a very complex word for me to say.

Wendy:Like which information would i need to add to it?

Billy: I could not say it either. Catherine:I did not read about what you said for finally.

Taylor, T. (1969). The cay. (pp. 9-17). New York: Yearling.

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING

66

Appendix Q Sample Edmodo Response


Sounder: Clarifiy: The word cedar was dificult for me because I didn't know what it meant so I read on to find clues therfore I think the word cedar means a type of tree.

Caleb- - I agree with Penelope because after the word cedar it said tree. (cedar tree). Angela - but did you really found what cedar means and i know it is a type or tree Caleb- I am 100% its a tree because it says the tops of the cedar trees. So it's a type of tree. Penelope-- Yes,Angela and I went back over the sentence. Angela - BUT WHAT DOSE CEDAR MEANS i dont get it what is cedar mean i know it is a tree but that is cedar Penelope- There is not a answer that could explain it all it said was a type of tree. Angela - ok then
This entry shows the clarification within a group on Edmodo. Clearly, the students put some thought in their responses and used evidence from the text

Armstrong, A. (1969). Sounder. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Appendix R T-test of Change Mean Scores for the CBM

67

Running Head: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY WITH RECIPROCAL TEACHING Appendix S T-test of Change Mean Scores for the Motivation to Read Profile

68

Вам также может понравиться