Can Teachers Teach Talented Readers?

Signature SeriesAddressing the Needs of Today’s Gifted Learners: Putting Research into Practice

Dr. Liz Fogartyfoga0017@umn.edu

Talented readers receive

little challenging instruction, instead doing work that is simple and

redundant for them. (Archambault et al., 1993; Reis et al., 2004; Reis, Westberg,

Kulikowich, & Purcell, 1998; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993; Westberg et al., 1998)

Integral Aspects of Reading Instruction for Talented Readers

Use of higher-level questioning techniques

Self-selected reading Independent research projects Development of research skills

(Dole & Adams, 1983; Reis & Renzulli, 1989; Renzulli, 1977)

Reading Comprehension Strategies Lower Level Higher Level Decoding/Phonics SynthesizingSlowing down/Rereading Making

Inferences Using pictures Making Connections Knowledge Determining Importance Other Visualizing

QuestioningMetacognition

Keene & Zimmerman, 1997; Harvey & Goudvis, 2000

Sample 10 treatment teachers

5 elementary 5 middle school

6 control teachers 3 elementary 3 control

100% Caucasion 87% Female 83% M.A. or Specialist Degrees

Instrumentation ITBS - Iowa Test of Basic Skills CBM - Oral Reading Fluency Indicators Teaching Reading: Attitudes and

Practices Reading Classroom Practices Record SEM-R Treatment Fidelity Scale

Methodology1. Developed manual & trained co-

researchers to use RCPR. 2. Analyzed ITBS & CBM fluency data to find

H, A, & L students. Randomly chose one from each level for each teacher.

3. Conducted 80 observations, 5 of each teacher – used 20% for interrater reliability.

4. Analyzed data using the constant comparative method, inferential statistics.

Determining Achievement Level

Reading Achievement

Level

ITBS National Percentile

Norms

CBM National Percentile Norms

High Achiever (H) 90-99 90-99

Average Achiever (A) 40-60 40-60

Low Achiever (L) 1-30 1-25

Table 3.6

Interrater ReliabilityQuestions

AskedStrategy

Instruction

Strategy Codes

Pre-discussion

Strategy Codes

Post-discussion

Whole Group

Total (N=16) .64 .86 .87 .97 SEM-R Classes (N=9) .59 .91 .95 1.0

Control Classes (N=6) .70 .79 .74 .92

Conferences

Total .84 .72 .81 .93 High .84 .67 .80 .93

Average .81 .67 .84 .96

Low .85 .83 .79 .91 Table 3.9

Research Question #1 Do types of reading strategy

instruction differ in treatment and control classrooms?

Analysis

Constant comparative methodDescriptive StatisticsIndependent samples t-test

Results for RQ 1: Methods

Control classrooms frequently used: Round Robin reading, test preparation, guided reading, worksheets, and novels.

SEM-R classrooms used: read-alouds, supported independent reading, and conferences.

Constant Comparative Method

Results for RQ1: Higher Level Questions Used in Whole Group Instruction

Treatment Classes 68%

Control Classes 54%

Descriptive Statistics

Results for RQ1: Higher Level Questions Used in Whole Group Instruction

There was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of higher order strategy questions used between treatment and control classrooms at [Z = 2.882, p<.01] within the elementary sample. The difference in the proportion of higher level strategy questions used at the middle school level was not significantly different [Z = -1.589, ns] in the two conditions.

Proportion Comparison

Results for RQ 1: Minutes ReadControl Classrooms (M = 10.80, SD = 3.82) Treatment Classrooms (M = 35.68, SD = 5.94)

These differences were significant (t = -9.604, p = .01) indicating that students in the treatment classrooms spent about 3 times as many minutes reading than students in control classrooms.

Inferential: t-test

TreatmentControl

Experimental Condition

40

30

20

10

Mea

n N

umbe

r of M

inut

es R

ead

per C

lass

95% Confidence Intervals of Minutes Read

M = 35.68 minutes

M = 10.80 minutes

Research Question #2a Is there a difference between reading

comprehension strategy questions used with students of high, average, and low reading achievement levels?

AnalysisConstant comparative methodRepeated-measures Anova

Results for RQ2a: Differentiation in Control Classrooms

Grouping was used occasionally

Curricular modification (assignment, materials, etc.) was made once

Questioning was the same for all at the middle school, varied in two elementary classrooms

Constant Comparative Method: Open & Axial Coding

Lower Level Questions

Higher Level Questions

Achievement N M SD M SD

High 10 10.24 8.33 27.30 10.56

Average 9 10.86 4.98 27.64 9.39

Low 9 13.89 8.65 30.04 15.74

Total 28 11.66 7.32 28.33 11.90

Strategy Questions in SEM-R Classrooms

Table 4.6 Inferential: Repeated-measures Anova

LowAverageHigh

Achievement Level

35

30

25

20

15

10

Estim

ated

Mar

gina

l Mea

ns

Higher Level Strategies

Lower Level Strategies

Results for RQ2a: Questioning Patterns in Conferences

Wilks’s Λ = .36, F (1, 25) = 44.50, p <.005.Cohen’s d = .86 (large effect size)

These results indicate that the mean for teachers’ use of higher level questions was significantly higher than the mean for teachers’ use of lower level thinking questions across all achievement levels in SEM-R classrooms. The absence of an achievement by strategy interaction shows that strategy patterns were consistent across all three achievement levels.

Inferential: Repeated-measures Anova

Results for RQ 2a: Differentiation in SEM-R Classrooms

Though there is certainly differentiation going on in SEM-R classrooms due to the fact that no two reading conferences were the same, the differentiation is not necessarily providing more challenging instruction to talented readers than that which is provided to all readers.

Research Question #2bIs there a difference between reading comprehension strategy instruction used with students of high, average, and low reading achievement levels?

Descriptive StatisticsOne-way Anova Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test

Analysis

Results for RQ2b: Minutes Spent Conferencing with Students of High, Average, and Low Reading Achievement

Number of Minutes

Achievement N M SDHigh 10 7.41 2.38Average 9 8.09 2.72Low 9 7.99 2.10

28 7.83 2.35Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics

Results for RQ2b: Length of Conferences

A one-way ANOVA was conducted and it was determined that the conferences with students of high, average, and low reading ability were not significantly different in length [F (2,27) = 0.24, p = .79].

M = 7.83 minutes (SD = 2.35) minutesInferential: One-way Anova

Results for RQ2b: Prevalence of Lower and Higher Level Strategy Instruction Observed in Conferences

Reading Strategy High Avg. Low χ2 (2)

Lower Level Strategies

7 6 15 5.24

Higher Level Strategies

7 12 25 11.77*

* p < .01, Cohen’s d = .86

Table 4.10 Chi-Square Goodness of Fit

Research Question #3 What types of reading comprehension

strategy instruction are embedded into SEM-R individual reading conferences for students of differing achievement levels?

AnalysisConstant comparative method

Results for RQ3: Higher Level Strategies Used Frequently with Readers of All Achievement Levels

Treatment Making inferences:

character analysis Making

connections: text to self connections

Metacognition: monitoring

Control Making

Inferences Synthesis Metacognition

Constant Comparative Method: Open & Axial Coding

Treatment Visualizing Questioning

Control Visualizing Questioning

Results for RQ3: Higher Level Strategies Used Infrequently with Readers of All Achievement Levels

Constant Comparative Method: Open & Axial Coding

Low/Average Metacognition:

monitoring Questioning:

primarily used with low achieving elementary readers

Results for RQ3: Higher Level Strategies Used Frequently with Readers of Certain Achievement Levels

Talented Synthesis: theme Metacognition:

challenge Making

connections: self to text connections

Constant Comparative Method: Open & Axial Coding

Implications With proper training, teachers are able to

integrate high levels of questioning in reading strategy instruction and the SEM-R should be recognized as a valuable teaching method in the instruction of learners of varying ability levels.

Teachers may need additional training to adequately challenge talented readers.