Transcript The Effects of Small Group Intervention on the outcome of

This is my first year teaching 3rd grade. This is
considered a “testing year.” I had spent my first 6
years at this particular elementary school in Prince
William County teaching 2nd grade. The pressures and
the way we are expected to teach are different from my
previous experience. I found myself on a team of 5
teachers with only one teacher who had previously
taught 3rd grade. We were learning and experiencing
something new together.
 All of my students came to 3rd grade reading on a
level 28 or above (DRA II). They had all passed the
PALS (VA reading test) except for one student who was
identified for difficulties with spelling. Throughout
the year a portion of my students were not doing well
with short readings and comprehension questions.
 I was using whole group lessons and guided reading
lessons that followed our curriculum and pacing guide.
 SOL (standards of learning) benchmarks are
administered throughout the year and I noticed a
group of students whose scores were consistently low
and they were not making improvements.
 I feel there is so much pressure for the students to
pass and for the teachers to make sure this happens. I
had to find a new way to help these students
comprehend better and be able to answer multiple
choice questions at a higher passing rate.
 Will providing explicit instruction and modeling of
reading strategies for fiction and nonfiction text three
times a week for 15-20 minutes in a small group setting
improve comprehension and students’ test scores?
 Is QAR an effective reading strategy to use when trying
to improve reading comprehension and test scores?
 Wilson and Smetana (2009): If the students are aware of
their cognition they will be able to locate the information
that is needed to answer a question. They present the idea
of QAT (Questioning as Thinking). This idea consists of
Think-Alouds (Davey, 1983), QAR (Question Answer
Relationships) (Raphael, 1986), and Self-Questioning.
 Raphael and Au (2005): Over half of the questions on state
and/or national tests will require higher level thinking. The
questions will call for integration, interpretation, critique,
and evaluation of the texts they read during tests. QAR will
provide teachers an approach for teaching reading
comprehension and the students with a common language.
 QAR:
 Right There – The answer can be found in the text.
 Think and Search – The answer can be found in the text
but the reader will have to put together different parts of
the text to identify the answer.
 Author and Me – The answer is not in the text and the
reader will need background knowledge to answer the
question.
 On My Own – The answer is not in the text and the reader
needs to use what they already know and previous
experiences or ideas to answer the question. Sometimes
the reader will have to make a connection or an inference.
 Ezell, Kohler, Jarzynka, and Strain (1992) conducted a study
that investigated using QAR with third grade students.
Results - showed that low-achieving children improved
across the first three types of questions (“Right There,”
“Putting it Together,” and “Author and You”).
 Boushey and Moser (2009) created a research-based guide
and listed key strategies that will support students’
comprehension when reading. They state that readers who
are actively involved in reading ask themselves questions
before, during, and after reading a selection. This will
increase their comprehension. They also suggest using
Raphael’s (2005) QAR strategy.
 Foley (2011) conducted a study of kindergarten through
third grade on the use of an instructional strategy called
CSI (Comprehension Strategy Instruction). It begins with
explicit instruction and modeling by the teacher, then
scaffolding, and then releasing the responsibility to the
student. A few of the strategies include think alouds and
questioning which relate to QAR.
 Hall, Sabey, and McClellan (2005) investigated the effects
of a program where teachers explicitly give instruction on
expository text comprehension in a small group setting.
The results of the study showed that the small group
instruction improved the students’ comprehension over
the students who did not receive small group instruction.
 O’Connor, Harty, and Fulmer (2005) conducted a
study of three tiered intervention of kindergarten
through third grade. It was provided for students who
were at risk for reading problems, whose achievement
fell below average, and who were making little
progress. Tier 2 interventions were done in small
groups three times a week. Tier 2 worked for two
thirds of the students .
 Student A: male, African American, DRA level 30, does not
appear motivated in the classroom and does not complete
all of his work, Jan. SOL Benchmark 14/35 (5/35)
 Student B: female, Afghani (not ESL), DRA level 34, puts
effort into work, Jan. SOL Benchmark 14/35 (13/35)
 Student C: female, African American, DRA level 38,
average student, Jan. SOL Benchmark 8/35 (16/35)
 Student D: female, African American, DRA level 30, takes
longer than the average student to complete work, Jan. SOL
Benchmark 19/35 – had been getting relatively the same
scores all year
i-Openers Series (Celebration Press:
Pearson Learning Group)
Nonfiction Passage with Graphic
Organizers for Independent Practice
Grades 2-4, by Alice Boynton and Wiley
Blevins
i-test: Interactive Achievement
Program
 Study took place March 13 – present
 March 13 – Presented QAR with whole class using The
Lotus Seed. The lesson was taken from Reading with
Meaning, by Debbie Miller. I introduced the
vocabulary for QAR and the students asked questions
before, during, and after reading. We answered the
questions and color coded them.
 Starting March 19, I met with the group of four students 3
days (Tues. Wed. & Thurs.) a week for 20 minutes.
 Tuesday: Think Alouds/Questioning - We read iOPeners. I
would model asking questions and students would ask
their own questions.
 Wednesday: Think Aloud/QAR – We used previous
benchmarks or i-tests. I would model answering the
multiple choice questions using QAR.
 Thursday: Students would read a passage from Nonfiction
Passage with Organizers for Independent Practice Grades
2-4. They would independently read and answer the
questions. We would then go over it and students
explained how they used QAR.
Mar. 22
Mar. 29
Mar. 30
Study
Island
April
Apr. 12
Apr. 19
Apr. 26
i-test
4/6
3/6
4/10
Spring
Break
3/4
3/4
12/22
67%
50%
40%
75%
75%
55%
Benchmark
Sept.
Nov.
Jan.
Mar.
Number
Correct out
of 35
3
5
14
16
Mar. 22
Mar. 29
Mar. 30
Study
Island
April
Apr. 12
Apr. 19
Apr. 26
i-test
2/6
3/6
7/10
Spring
Break
0/4
3/4
12/22
33%
50%
70%
0%
75%
55%
Benchmark
Sept.
Nov.
Jan.
Mar.
Number
Correct out
of 35
12
13
14
18
Mar. 22
Mar. 29
Mar. 30
Study
Island
April
Apr. 12
Apr. 19
Apr. 26
i-test
4/6
4/6
8/10
Spring
Break
2/4
2/4
15/22
67%
67%
80%
50%
50%
68%
Benchmark
Sept.
Nov.
Jan.
Mar.
Number
Correct out
of 35
15
16
8
24
Mar. 22
Mar. 29
Mar. 30
Study
Island
April
Apr. 12
Apr. 19
Apr. 26
i-test
4/6
1/6
6/10
Spring
Break
2/4
2/4
12/22
67%
17%
60%
50%
50%
55%
Benchmark
Sept.
Nov.
Jan.
Mar.
Number
Correct out
of 35
11
16
14
19
 Student A became more successful in the small group
setting. However, his scores did not improve very
much when he took a computer test.
 Student B’s benchmarks improved slightly throughout
the year and improved again in March. However she
only had about half of the questions correct on her
recent i-test. Her small group setting quizzes went up
except for the one we took the week after spring break.
 Student C was chosen for this study because she was
not close to passing the benchmarks and then had a
significant drop in January. She did pass her March
benchmark. However, in the small group settings she
did not show much improvement.
 Student D has not shown much improvement in the
classroom all year and this continued in the small
group setting. She did increase her benchmark scores,
but only slightly.
 I had been working with these students in small
groups prior to March. My official study began in
March with a focus on the QAR.
 These students also meet with a reading resource
teacher every day/every other week for 20-25 minutes.
 They also have after school tutoring that began at the
beginning of March. Language arts is once a week.
 These students have been recommended for
intervention in both language arts and math.
 Final Outcome – SOL Test in May
 I feel I gained more from observation than from actual test
scores.
 Student B seemed to grasp the concept of QAR immediately
and often shared her answers and what type of question it
was.
 Student A was not going back to find his answers the first
couple of weeks, but in April he started applying it more.
However, he gives up easily when he can’t figure it out. He’ll
look briefly, but if it is not a right there or a think and search
that is in the same paragraph he will just guess.
 Student C and D really struggled with locating and
identifying answers. Both had difficulty understanding what
the questions were asking (i.e. where versus when).
 As a teacher researcher
 Taking notes during each interaction helps when
planning the next lesson as well as completing results.
 I observed students other than my small study group
applying QAR and I continued to use this in whole
group lessons.
 A month or two is not long enough to conduct this
study. I will begin this project at the beginning of the
year and create flexible groups based on observations
and benchmark scores.
 As a teacher leader
 Assist teachers on using QAR and support small group
instruction.
 My data moderately supports the use of QAR.
 Research and study other strategies to share with the
teachers.
 Boushey, G. & Moser, J. (2009). The café book: Engaging all




students in daily literacy assessment & instruction.
Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.
Boynton A. & Blevins, W. (2005). Nonfiction passage with graphic
organizers for independent practice: Grades 2-4. New York, N.Y:
Scholastic
Davey, B. (1983). Think aloud: Modeling the cognitive processes of
reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 27, 44–47.
Ezell, H. K., Kohler, F. W., Jarzynka, M., & Strain, P. S. (1992). Use of
peer-assisted procedures to teach QAR reading
comprehension strategies to third-grade children. Education
and Treatment of Children, 15(3), 205-227.
Foley, L. S. (2011). Exploring K-3 teachers’ implementation of
comprehension strategy instruction (CS) using expectancyvalue theory. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 195-215.
 Hall, K. M., Sabey, B. L., & McClellan, M. (2005). Expository text

•
•

comprehension: Helping primary-grade teachers use
expository texts to full advantage. Reading Psychology,
25, 211-234.
Miller, D. (2002). Reading with meaning: Teaching
comprehension in the primary grades.
Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
O’Connor, R. E., Harty, K. R., & Fulmer, D. (2005). Tiers of
Intervention in kindergarten through third grade.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 532-538.
Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships,
revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516–522.
Raphael, T. E. & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing
comprehension and test taking across grades and
content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 206220.
 Wilson, N. S. & Smetana, L. (2009). Questioning as
thinking: A metacognitive framework. Middle
School Journal, November, 20-27.
 Wishinsky, F. (2005). iOpeners: Could we live on the
Moon? Parsippany, NJ: Pearson Learning group.