Robinson Elementary
Effects of Small Group Intervention on Improved Fluency
Primary Researchers
Grace Drobek, Intern, Baylor University
Jessica Richardson, Mentor Teacher, Robinson Elementary, Robinson ISD
Stacey Voigt, Ed.D., Intern Supervisor, Baylor University
Rationale/Introduction
In observing my third-grade reading language arts students, I noticed that a group of four students' reading scores were aligned with grade level expectations for the 3rd-grade middle-of-the-year benchmark. However, they exhibited lower proficiency levels in terms of fluency. Their progress monitoring for reading fluency and comprehension, measured by running records and BAS testing, indicated a clear need for supplementary fluency-specific practice and instruction. To address this need, research was conducted in the classroom with three girls and one boy of diverse ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds. The objective was to assess the effectiveness of a 20-minute fluency intervention conducted twice a week, administered by myself in a small group setting, to enhance the students’ accuracy, rate, and prosody.
Question/Wondering
Does explicit small group intervention two times a week improve students’ fluency, specifically their accuracy, rate, and prosody when reading a grade level text?
Methodology/Results
My research was centered on four specific students within my class, comprising three girls and one boy. Although these students are reading at grade level, their fluency levels, as determined by ongoing progress monitoring scores derived from running records and BAS testing, indicate room for improvement.
My research concentration was directed towards four specific students within my classroom whose reading abilities align with grade-level standards but demonstrate deficiencies in fluency. Before initiating my research procedures, I collaborated with the students' homeroom teacher to ensure the selection of appropriately challenging reading materials, activities, and assessments tailored to the individual reading levels of the four students I focused on.
Data was collected over the course of six weeks. At the beginning of this period, a formal observation of each student's fluency was conducted using an oral reading fluency assessment. This assessment involved students orally reading a designated passage for one minute while I marked any errors they made. Subsequently, I calculated the number of words read per minute, errors, words read correctly per minute, and overall accuracy. This initial assessment served as a benchmark to determine fluency, with the same assessment administered following the implementation of research procedures. Over the next three weeks, following the initial assessment, a targeted intervention strategy was employed for a select group of four students. This intervention occurred twice weekly during designated stations, wherein these students were pulled to engage in focused small-group sessions aimed at enhancing specific fluency skills. The three skills addressed were accuracy, rate, and prosody.
During the first week of intervention, emphasis was placed on prosody. This involved collaborative activities wherein students alternated selecting voice cards and reading sentences aloud, with the facilitator, including myself, demonstrating various techniques to convey meaning and emotion through their voice. In the second week, the intervention centered on rate improvement. Activities involved group members taking turns reading passages punctuated differently, thus requiring an adjustment in reading speed and voice. This built upon the skills acquired in the previous week, encouraging students to apply correct vocalization for each punctuation mark. The third and final week of intervention concentrated on accuracy refinement. Group participation in a Reader’s Theater facilitated the monitoring of students’ application of appropriate reading pace and accuracy. Additionally, students were evaluated on their ability to use appropriate expression, including pauses, inflection, and intonation, while also demonstrating proficient silent reading and responsiveness to spoken cues. Following the culmination of these intervention sessions, a post-assessment mirroring the pre-assessment was administered to measure the effectiveness of the intervention strategies employed.
Pre-Assessment
Student | WPM | Errors | WCPM | Accuracy |
Student A | 119 | 6 | 113 | 94% |
Student B | 106 | 5 | 101 | 95% |
Student C | 119 | 2 | 117 | 98% |
Student D | 109 | 6 | 103 | 94% |
Post-Assessment
Student | WPM | Errors | WCPM | Accuracy |
Student A | 122 | 0 | 122 | 100% |
Student B | 114 | 1 | 113 | 99% |
Student C | 118 | 1 | 117 | 99% |
Student D | 104 | 3 | 101 | 97% |
The data presented in the table above demonstrates notable improvement in fluency for each of the four students following the three-week small group intervention. Key metrics include words read per minute (WPM), errors, words correct per minute (WCPM), and overall accuracy. All students exhibited improvement in reading accuracy, with discernible reductions in error rates between the pre and post-assessment. Examining the data reveals that Student B and Student D experienced the most significant progress by increasing their reading speed, reducing errors, and showing overall improvement in their reading fluency. Student C, although displaying less substantial growth, still demonstrated improvement. Furthermore, despite a slight decrease in words read per minute in the post-assessment for Student D, notable advancements were observed in reading accuracy, resulting in a fewer number of errors.
The results demonstrate the success of targeted small-group intervention aimed at refining accuracy, rate, and prosody in enhancing the fluency of all four students. A detectable improvement was observed from the initial assessment to the final evaluation, partially evident in the reduction of errors and improvement in reading accuracy. These findings align with existing literature that shows the effectiveness of skill-specific interventions in improving student fluency.
Implications/Recommendations
The findings of my action research indicate that explicit small-group intervention conducted twice weekly significantly enhances students' fluency, particularly in their accuracy, rate, and prosody. Understanding the efficacy of fluency-specific interventions informs significant adjustments in my instructional strategies going forward. Introducing educational tools such as voice cards, punctuation sentence scripts, and Reader’s Theater not only foster fluency development but also cultivate improvements in accuracy, rate, and prosody among students. Furthermore, fluency interventions can be seamlessly tailored to complement whole group instructional content and activities. Reflecting on the implementation of these procedures in my classroom, I recognize opportunities for improvement. Primarily, alongside the successful methodologies employed during the six weeks, I would incorporate additional strategies to further enhance effectiveness. Strategies such as choral reading, fostering group reading activities, and repeated readings could be combined to promote synchronized pacing and boost confidence in reading abilities. Moreover, I am intrigued by the potential impact of technology on fluency development. In the future, I will involve the integration of audio recordings featuring fluency reading models for student engagement. Additionally, incorporating activities where students record and assess their oral readings will enable them to refine pacing, expressions, and comprehension skills.
Reference(s)
Begeny, J. C., Krouse, H. E., Ross, S. G., & Mitchell, R. C. (2009). Increasing Elementary-aged Students’ Reading Fluency with Small-group Interventions: A Comparison of Repeated Reading, Listening Passage Preview, and Listening Only Strategies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18(3), 211–228. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41824462
The Effect of Pencil Grip on Handwriting
Primary Researchers
Lauren Francis, Intern, Baylor University
Amanda Foster, Mentor Teacher, Robinson Elementary, Robinson ISD
Jina Clemons, Intern Supervisor, Baylor University
Rationale/Introduction
As an intern in a second-grade classroom, I have experienced moments of frustration from both the students and teachers when it is difficult to decipher what they have written. Students cannot remember what they have written, and the teachers cannot tell because of poor letter formation. I have noticed that a lot of my students have abnormal pencil grips, which I believe may be the cause of their improper and messy letter formation. I hope to help my students become more independent in deciphering their own work and being proud of the work that they do by making their handwriting neater. In modifying their pencil grip and practicing holding the pencil correctly, I hope to increase accuracy on letter formation, leading to neater and more efficient handwriting.
Question/Wondering
How will modifying pencil grip (from abnormal to tripod) in small-group practice and during the school day affect letter formation and the efficiency of writing?
Methodology/Results
Due to extenuating circumstances of sickness, I only was able to implement my intervention over two weeks. In this time, I was able to meet with my small group three times, and teach specific formation of nine letters. Despite only meeting three times, my students had their pencil grips for ten full school days. I met with my small group of four students for 15-20 minutes at a time (depending on the time available that day) for intensive instruction on specific letters. I chose the order of letters by analyzing my students’ handwriting samples that I took as a baseline and watching the video footage of their letter formation, looking to see which letters were most commonly formed incorrectly. I found that letters a-e, g, k, q, and w were specifically what these four students needed first; I created an intervention schedule in which these would be first, followed by the rest of the alphabet. As I was out with sickness, I was only able to specifically teach the most needed letters, but I hope to continue the rest of the alphabet during my remaining time in my internship to see if my students make further progress.
Before I was able to begin, I took baseline data in the form of handwriting samples. Each of my twenty-two students wrote the sentence, “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog,” so that I could decide which students needed intervention; I took video footage of their hands as they wrote so that I could look back to analyze their grip and letter formation. I found four students in particular with abnormal grips, who also struggled with incorrect letter formation, whether it was upside down letters, backwards letters, only writing in uppercase, or not following a handwriting line. Before beginning any handwriting instruction, I introduced these four students to their rubber grips that would be on their pencils from now on. I explained to them that they would be using these at all times of the day, not only when I was working with them. I showed them how to put it on their pencil independently (as they switch pencils during the day instead of sharpening), where to put each of their fingers in the grip, and how their hand would look different while holding a pencil. All four of my students in my small group previously had an abnormal (non-tripod) grasp, so I allowed time for them to acclimate and practice writing before a day of intervention.
During the implementation of the letter formation instruction, I used different modalities of learning. Before the students wrote, I would first speak the steps of the correct letter formation, use my finger to trace a larger version of the letter, and then have the students do the same. Only after we practiced it together were they able to pick up their pencil and begin to write in their own workbooks. Two of my four students needed additional support to reinforce the handwriting practice we were doing by repeating the steps aloud on each letter they wrote. I had each student trace lines of greyed-out letters (with a dark dot that reminded them where to start) first, then had them write their own in the space between. Before moving on, the students wrote their ‘best version’ of the letter at the top of its page. If students finished before the others were ready to move on, I had blank handwriting paper in the back of each workbook where more of the letter could be practiced, without the extra support of tracing. At the end of the last intervention day, I took a final handwriting sample of the same sentence written on their baseline sample, “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.”; each student wrote this on the blank handwriting paper in the back of their workbook. Alongside this instruction, I observed my students’ writing throughout the school day, occasionally reminding them to use their pencil grips and the steps taken to correctly form letters we had practiced previously; I watched their grip, the letter formation, and their efficiency of writing.
Implications/Recommendations
Through this study, I found the combination of a tripod grasp and intensive letter formation instruction to improve legibility and speed of my students’ handwriting. Despite the intervention being shorter than planned, with less letters intervened upon, I still saw improvement in my students’ final samples. The majority of my students expressed that it was easier to hold their pencil and write with the tripod grasp, even without the use of the rubber grip. Even though I was less focused on writing speed and more on legibility, I noticed that my students took less time to write their final sample than their baseline; each student wrote more efficiently, and with more correct letter formations. There were still errors on their final samples (no doubt due to the incompletion and inconsistency of the intervention), but I saw less upside down letters, backwards letters, uppercase letters, and inability to write on a handwriting line than I saw in their baseline data. Overall, I believe that this intervention benefitted my small group of students, and I look forward to continuing to see what progress they continue to make.
Reference(s)
Lifshitz, N., & Har-Zvi, S. (2015). A comparison between students who receive and who do not receive a writing readiness interventions on handwriting quality, speed and positive reactions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(1), 47–55. https://doi-org.ezproxy.baylor.edu/10.1007/s10643-013-0629-y
Mackenzie, N. M., & Spokes, R. (2018). The why, who, what, when and how of handwriting instruction. Practical Literacy: The Early & Primary Years, 23(1), 17–20.
Benefits of Student Engagement during Small Group Instruction in Math
Primary Researchers
Gracie Platt, Intern, Baylor University
Audrey Swoveland, Third Grade Teacher, Robinson Elementary, Robinson ISD
Stacey Voigt, Ed.D., Intern Supervisor, Baylor University
Rationale/Introduction
In my experience, math can be a frustrating subject for many students especially when there is a wide range of ability levels amongst the students in the class. Whole group instruction is necessary, but small groups are a way to group students by ability so the teacher can better teach to a specific group. My mentor teacher, Audrey Swoveland, loves having students in small group. She groups the students by ability level so they can get the instruction they need.
Based on my background research, I learned that small groups allow students to work together towards a common goal. (Harvard.edu). It can serve as both a motivation and a way for them to collaborate and help each other. Research has shown that working in groups allows students to develop a deeper understanding of the content. Also, working in groups generally improves students’ attentiveness and grit as well as helps students develop socially. Furthermore, small group instruction encourages students to speak up who might not normally, encourages group participation, and allows students to collaborate with students they may not normally interact with. It also allows students to develop confidence and self-esteem because it creates a safe space for them to learn, fail, and grow. It’s important as an educator that students are educated on what small-group instruction looks like so it can run properly as it can be a great tool if used correctly. Students often lack quality engagement while the whole group lesson is being taught. Therefore, I will track their engagement in small groups to see how it increases during small group.
Question/Wondering
How does working in small groups impact student engagement and academic progress during math instruction?
Methodology/Results
Based on an article on alludo learning.com, small group instruction should take place after whole-group instruction and is considered a form of differentiated instruction. This form of learning allows for teaches to evaluate students’ learning from the whole group lesson, and it allows for better collaboration between teachers and students. This article touched on similar points as other research done on this topic.
While the classroom teacher, Audrey Swoveland. was teaching the whole group, I monitored the engagement of five students. These students varied in race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background. They were also a mixture of boys and girls who needed intense instruction based on their backgrounds and abilities. I also collected their engagement when they were in small group instruction with her. I monitored their engagement through engagement forms. I collected one form a week for three weeks.
What I found from this study was astonishing. Their engagement while in the whole group lessons averaged 40%. I found that they were easily off task, distracted, or not engaged. This was due to them feeling overwhelmed in whole group. Another factor affecting their engagement was their hesitancy to answer any questions. Several students were quick to answer all the questions which could be intimidating to these lower students that were unsure. Another factor I observed was sometimes these students get lost in the crowd of whole group. They could look unengaged but that didn’t mean they weren’t giving their full attention to the lesson. When students transitioned to small group, their engagement jumped to an average of 90%. I noticed when the students were in a smaller group, they felt and looked more relaxed. It took the pressure off of them to feel the needed to get the “right” answer. The small group created an environment where the students knew and felt that they had the teacher’s full attention, and as a result, they gave her their full attention. The smaller group also allowed Ms. Swoveland to keep a closer eye on their engagement and participation. It also created a more calming environment. The five students already struggled in class, so they were less likely to share in whole group for fear of getting the answer wrong. Getting in small groups not only increased their engagement, but it increased how much work they got done as well as their overall learning. They could safely answer questions and try their best to grasp understanding of these concepts. It also allowed them to speak up and ask questions if they felt they did not understand something. These students working in small groups provided a more calming and welcoming environment that enhanced their learning and maintained their engagement.
Implications/Recommendations
Based off the weeks of data, I would recommend small group instruction in math after the lesson has been taught to whole group. After the lesson has been taught, I would send students to work in small groups for further practice. I would pull the lowest group of students to my teacher table. This is the best way to monitor their comprehension of the lesson, and it allows me to track their progress through the work I have them do. Pulling small groups also allows me to keep students accountable in their engagement of the material. I would recommend pulling small groups every day after the whole group lesson.
References
Harvard.2014. “Guide to Small Group Learning.” Harvard Kennedy School. Strengthening, Learning, and Teaching Excellence. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Academic%20Dean's%20Office/Guide%20to%20Small-Group%20Learning.pdf
Francis, J. August 17, 2022. “5 Benefits of Small Group Instruction.” Aludo. https://blog.alludolearning.com/benefits-of-small-group-instruction
Rosie, B. 2024. “How Does Small Group Instruction Help Our K-2 Students”. Simply B Teaching. https://www.simplybteaching.com/small-group-instruction-help-students/
Behavior Intervention with Male Students in Second Grade
Primary Researchers
Jenny Tharp, Intern, Baylor University
Katie Paradoski, Mentor Teacher, Robinson Elementary, Robinson ISD
Stacey Voigt, Ed.D., Intern Supervisor, Baylor University
Rationale/Introduction
When I began my internship in second grade, I quickly became aware of a highly prevalent issue in the classroom. Frequent and intense behavior outbursts from my students significantly disrupted learning and negatively affected all students. My resolve to address the issue was only strengthened when my research revealed that the existence of these challenging behaviors in young students was “the single best predictor of delinquency in adolescence, school dropout, gang membership, adult incarceration, and early death.” Other concerning effects included peer rejection, punitive contact with teachers, unpleasant family interaction patterns, predictable school failure, and lack of community integration (When Nothing Else Works, DeMeo, 2014.) I began to wonder if I could find proactive, differentiated strategies specific to the needs of my most challenging students. This wondering grew into the following questions: What accommodations did these students need? What would this practically look like if I were to introduce them in the classroom? And how would it affect my students, if at all?
Question/Wondering
How will implementing targeted strategies that address cognitive, social-emotional, and academic development in non-compliant second grade students affect their behavioral success over time?
Methodology/Results
To research this question, I chose to focus on five second-grade boys, four of whom were white and one black, with challenging behaviors I considered high priority. To begin, I typed up a document similar to a case file for each boy including the following areas: antecedents or triggers to the problematic behaviors, the behaviors themselves, the typical consequences, anecdotal notes, their interests, and finally what kind of data I would need to determine growth for that specific student. After doing this, I realized the boys had many triggers and challenging behaviors in common. I created four goals for the boys. The goals stated that the students would 1) learn to manage anger/ frustration using healthy strategies to decrease the number of daily outbursts/tantrums, 2) learn healthier ways to manage peer conflict to decrease the overall number and intensity of arguments and impolite remarks concerning others, 3) decrease the number of times their behavior caused a significant disruption resulting in removal from class, and 4) reduce unsolicited comments and redirect their enthusiasm in a less disruptive way. As I researched how to collect data for behavior intervention research, I found three common measurement tools used by professionals in the field: frequency, intensity, and duration (DeMeo, 2014). I created a Google Sheet with four recording sheets corresponding to the four goals. I added data to the charts including the date, the name of the students, the intensity of the behavior, and the duration of tantrums. I chose to implement a variety of interventions.
As I continued to research effective ways to manage behavior, I began to understand the importance of teaching a growth mindset. Every day after lunch, we began to watch a series of short videos that outlined how to practically apply the idea of a growth mindset in our real lives. After watching each one, we would discuss the topic of that day’s video. I hoped that this intervention would help students achieve goal 1 by learning to create a healthier mindset when encountering difficult situations. I decided to continue showing students short videos, this time targeting goal 2. I began showing an inspiring series called Kindness 101, which involved kids discussing and showing examples of various character traits such as empathy and gratefulness. I also implemented a kindness sticker chart for each student. I told the students that if I saw them doing something kind, I would add a sticker to their sticker chart. When they received ten stickers, they would earn a prize. Another important intervention was the continuation of a folder system for three of the boys I was working with. Each boy had a folder with a theme and a reward specific to his interests. Each folder had targeted behaviors such as not blurting out, transitioning correctly, raising a hand to speak, and being respectful. One of my mentor teachers would meet with the boys after each class to co-evaluate their success in achieving their goals that day. Each student had a specific goal to meet to earn their personalized reward. I also chose to provide a notebook for one of the boys who struggled with speaking out of turn/blurting out in class to jot down every new thought he had during a lesson. He could then tell me everything he’d written after instruction was completed. Additionally, I attempted to improve my behavior management style. I researched how to best address problematic behavior and practiced being more patient and calmer, but direct, firm, and consistent in my expectations as well as consequences.
To analyze the data, I observed how the frequency and intensity of behaviors changed over time based on the data I had recorded from data I manually input in the recording sheets. Ideally, I would have collected quantitative data daily, but this proved to be very difficult to do while simultaneously teaching and actively managing behavior. I mainly compared data from my recording sheets from March 12 with data from March 22. These results were somewhat inconclusive because there wasn’t enough data from separate days to truly make an accurate and fair comparison. I decided that the most reliable and accurate source of data would be my informal observations and notes since I was present daily and could confidently describe the frequency and intensity of behaviors. For goal 1, I did see improvement in all the boys. One student had disruptive behaviors including pouting, stomping, refusing to do work, very low-quality work inconsistent with his ability level, and excessive anger and frustration when doing any independent or group task. He would often come up to me during work time to tell me that he was done within the first few minutes, say he couldn’t do it, or follow me around the room until I gave him one-on-one assistance. Over time, I noticed this student applying a growth mindset and perseverance skills when he was frustrated with a task. On March 22, he was given a poetry assignment and began his usual behavior pattern. He was frequently redirected and was given explicit directions multiple times. Though he was still visibly frustrated, instead of pouting and shutting down, he would follow directions and try. I saw very similar patterns in the other boys. Over time, I did not see significant improvement in the behaviors related to goal 2. The boys still frequently argued occasionally at an intensity even worse than before. On March 20, a verbal altercation turned into a physical altercation between the two boys. However, in both boys, I noticed a small increase in restraint that did not previously exist. There were multiple instances on March 22 in which I saw and was able to prevent a verbal argument from becoming physical. I also saw one student begin to apologize more frequently. Though the behavior was not minimized yet, he seemingly began to realize the weight of his actions more often and express genuine remorse. Goal 3 proved to be one of the more successful goals. Between the period of March 12 and March 22, students were pulled from class much less frequently. One student of particular concern significantly decreased how often he was sent outside to the bench for a break, how often we contacted the behavior specialist for assistance, along with office referrals and days spent in in school suspension. Not only did the intensity of challenging behaviors decrease, but these students were able to receive more quality instructional time. The boys also improved in goal 4, which consisted of reducing verbal disruptions. Students would be required to write their names and corresponding marks on the board if they were continually blurting out and had been given multiple warnings. Over the period when quantitative data was collected, I noticed that there were fewer names and marks on the whiteboard each day. Between reinforcement of hand-raising and increased enforcement of consequences, I saw a decrease in unsolicited remarks. Overall, the data from my observations confirmed the effectiveness of research-based behavior interventions and strategies and suggested an answer to my original wondering: specific targeted interventions can positively impact behavior in second-grade boys, and the degree to which it does so depends on how well and consistently the interventions are implemented.
Implications/Recommendations
Though I was very passionate about this research project, I quickly came to terms with the difficulty in what I had set out to accomplish. I have learned that it would be most effective for teachers with multiple students with behavior issues to focus on one student at a time. Taking the time and effort to make a personalized intervention plan for one student, then proceeding to another student once strategies have proven successful or problematic behaviors have decreased, is much more effective than trying to implement interventions for multiple students at once. With that being said, I learned many relevant things from my research. I would first recommend emphasizing a positive classroom culture and individual relationships with students. I believe my research would have been less effective had I not spent time focusing on each student detailing their specific behavior issues, and their triggers, and thoughtfully considering their personalities and interests. As often as possible, allow students to share thoughts, ideas, writing, and other interests. Embracing students’ natural joy and enthusiasm can positively influence learning and behavior. I also recommend being consistent, firm, and fair. My research has taught me that having high expectations and consistently enforcing them is beneficial for students. This includes using a calm tone of voice regardless of escalating behavior, ignoring minor attention-seeking behaviors, relating the consequence to the infraction, and knowing your students well.
References
DeMeo, W. (2014). When nothing else works: What early childhood professionals can do to reduce challenging behaviors. Gryphon House.
Motivating Students to Become Independent Learners
Primary Researchers
Kendall Thompson, Intern, Baylor University
Michelle Donner, Mentor Teacher, Robinson Elementary, Robinson ISD
Stacey Voigt, Ed.D., Intern Supervisor, Baylor University
Rationale/Introduction
In a third-grade classroom, it was observed that the students in the class were unmotivated to learn, and students were lacking problem solving skills. These same students who were not independent learners also lacked confidence in their learning abilities. I sought to change the classroom environment from unmotivated to having a classroom of independent, hard-working learners. Research was conducted in the classroom and baseline data was collected through pre and post observations and daily notes over students learning habits.
Question/Wondering
How will motivating a third grade class of mixed learners through daily prizes help them develop the ability to be independent, hard-working problem solvers who are engaged in their learning?
Methodology/Results
Throughout my first couple weeks of my internship in my third grade class, I realized how unmotivated my students were to learn, and this was very frustrating to me because my mentor teachers and I realized we were losing instruction time due to students not being problem solvers and independent learners. I believed I could help engage students into being responsible learners by providing daily prizes to students who led by example. I wanted to set guidelines for students on how to be an independent, responsible, problem solver so they could begin to learn how to be an “independent hard worker.” My goal was to make third grade students more independent in their learning by helping them set goals and keep track of their learning.
I started by looking at patterns in my students. There were some students who were very responsible and very good problem solvers, and there were other students who wanted answers handed to them. The students who were already showing great problem solving skills were high achieving students who were active in class participation and were receiving high grades. Students who did not engage in learning and wanted answers handed to them were less responsible, not problem solvers, and they received lower grades. I wondered if having daily motivation would help these students gain independence and be more responsible for their own learning experience.
I wanted to outline what requirements made a responsible learner. The criteria I developed for being a responsible learner were as follows:
- Before coming to the teacher with a question, did you ask 3 before me (did you ask any of your peers to see if they knew the answer to your question)?
- Do you do what is asked of you without the teacher having to repeat themselves (Going to the bathroom as you arrive in the morning, getting supplies you need before the day starts, have your Chromebook, follow instructions, and follow directions)?
- Are you engaged in learning?
- How can you solve problems on your own (What to do if Chromebook died, if you know you do not understand a topic to come to the teacher table, and what to do when you do not have supplies you need)?
- Can you efficiently complete assignments?
- Are you a weak follower or a strong leader?
- Do you often interrupt the class and try to be funny?
My research helped me throughout this process as well. While researching, I read the book, Making Thinking Visible by Ritchart, Church, Morrison (2011). This book was very helpful by outlining the student thinking process and to show the students that you, as the teacher, were also a learner and how I needed to model for them how to develop those skills. Explicitly teaching the skills they needed and help reinforcing these things will allow students the skills and the ‘toolbox’ they needed to be independent. I noticed that I needed to teach explicitly what it meant to be independent and responsible to the students. This meant modeling my thinking and pointing out what was good and what was bad so students could understand and grasp the large concept of being responsible and independent. But I found myself thinking how I could bring this into the classroom. I found an article, How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement by Reeves (2013). This article helped me find how I could reinforce these ideas in my classroom. I noticed that by creating motivation and opportunities by showing these skills that students could grow and gain these skills. By also including structured and tiered teaching of the release of responsibility to students, they could learn the value of what they were learning and become responsible of how they were learning. The students in tiered instruction were gaining the responsibility needed to complete assignments.
This research has really helped me understand what I needed to do in order to instill these principles in my students, and my action research was using these principles to teach them how to take these principles and create proper motivation to instill them in students. I collected data on what kinds of questions I asked in a day and looked back to see if those where solvable by the student or did they need help. Next, I introduced my method to make them more independent by outlining what it meant to be responsible and telling them about the daily prizes that would be offered to the responsible student of the day. I did this by discussing what I noticed in the classroom and made an anchor chart as a reminder of what it meant to be an independent learner. The anchor chart served as a reminder to the students of what was laid out for them and what they could do to earn the award at the end of the day. I collected data on each student to see how they improved daily according to the guidelines I set forth for what it meant to be a responsible, independent learner. I observed their behavior throughout the day and would pass out at the beginning, lollipops, and towards the end of the year started switching to House points for the student’s house at Robinson Elementary. The students were very eager to be the independent learners and were excited to work hard. I saw improvements in many students’ academic achievement as well. This method has allowed students to learn how to be independent and what it looks like in a classroom.
Implications/Recommendations
Based on what I witnessed in my classroom, I recommend placing importance on hard work and explicitly teaching how to be a hard worker. I witnessed students getting excited to learn and being much more engaged in lessons. This helped my students’ grades and understanding how to ask proper questions as well as learning problem solving skills to help them through tough problems. From the beginning of the semester to the end, I noticed great strides in my students and how hard they have worked. The students have started holding each other accountable for their behavior, and I noticed them being hard workers and being responsible without me even reminding them. I also noticed lessons have gone by faster, and students have increased their engagement. I believe that implementing this in a classroom will increase the positive atmosphere and productivity.
References
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579-595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Part One Some thinking about thinking. In Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. essay, Jossey-Bass.
Snodin, N. S. (2013). The effects of blended learning with a CMS on the development of Autonomous Learning: A Case Study of different degrees of autonomy achieved by individual learners. Computers & Education, 61, 209-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.004
Teacher Modeling to Improve Fluency
Primary Researchers
Megan Ward, Intern, Baylor University
Sarah Forro, Mentor Teacher, Robinson Elementary, Robinson ISD
Stacey Voigt, Ed.D., Intern Supervisor, Baylor University
Rationale/Introduction
As a student teacher, I am always looking to make an impact on my students, even if it is only a small change. As the days passed and the lessons were taught, I was able to grasp a deeper understanding regarding the way each of my students embraced learning and acted in the classroom. Whole group instruction is a great way to build a community and guides students to build off each other’s ideas; however, I was able to truly connect with my students when it came to one-on-one instruction. Right from the start, I noticed there was a wide variety of readers in my classroom. After meeting with my students for guided reading practice, I found fluency to be a topic of struggle. Several of my students lacked expression that matched the tone of the text and often read in robotic word chunks. I began thinking to myself how I could make a change that would truly help my students read at a faster and smoother pace. While reading together, I often reminded my students to watch for punctuation and read with expression. This helped improve their fluency for the short period of time that we worked together, but it never seemed to stick. I noticed with each meeting; it seemed like my words were slipping away. I understand the importance of teacher modeling during whole group read-alouds and the immense impact it has on students’ reading development; therefore, I wanted to bring the same modeling down to the personal level. This would give the students a chance to hear how their teacher reads a passage and apply what they noticed to their own reading of the same passage. In, A Study of the Effects of Readers’ Theater on Second and Third Grade Special Education Students’ Fluency Growth, Corcoran and Davis (2005) highlight the use of echo reading to improve students' reading fluency. During echo reading, the teacher reads fluently with proper emotion and pace, while the students mimic the lines read by the teacher. This allows the student to take on the reading of their teacher and get a feel for what reading should sound like. Knowing this information, I was further inspired to test my ideas regarding fluency and modeling.
Question/Wondering
How does a teacher modeling proper fluency independently with students weekly help the students grow in their fluency by becoming more expressive, fast, and smooth readers?
Methodology/Results
My study focused on two third grade boys around the age of eight who are of mixed races. I chose these students because of their space to grow regarding their reading abilities. During my study, I wanted to have an accurate gage of the students’ improvement. Their reading levels included level K and level M. Over the previous months, I had worked with these two students during guided reading time; therefore, I had a strong understanding of the areas where improvement was needed. I noticed both students specifically needed to work on their expression and prosody while reading to reach proper fluency goals.
I met with each student separately weekly to conduct my study. On the first week of my study, my focus was to gather pre-assessment data. I had my two students read the same passage out-loud. I gathered anecdotal notes on their fluency while also conducting a running record and one-minute reading assessment. The initial data helped me gauge both students’ tone, pace, and accuracy while reading and set a point for us to work up from. The next four weeks I worked with my students to model proper fluency. Each week, there was a new short text for my students to read. This text included pages from different guided reading books or a short, printed passage. I started out each meeting by asking the students about the important points they think about while reading. This open form of communication allowed my students to verbalize their ideas with me. I created a small fluency tips poster for the students to read each tip and explain its importance. This provided the students with a visual of the points they should focus on. Then, I read the text out-loud to my students while they followed along on their own sheet. As I read, I modeled how to use expression that matched the tone of the text, how to read at a steady pace, and how to pause for punctuation. I then asked the students to tell me what they noticed about how I read the passage. Finally, I had both students read the same text after hearing me read fluently. On the last week, I repeated the same steps, but this time completed one last running record and took anecdotal notes on their reading. These weekly reads allowed me to document whether my idea of independent modeling of fluency for the students helped them grow in their own fluency.
During the first week, the students were reading at a choppy rate with little to no expression. My first student’s score for their running record was 92 words per minute with 6 errors and my second student’s score was 85 words per minute with 4 errors. Their reading sounded as if it was a struggle, and I could tell they were focused on decoding words rather than enjoying the reading. There was a strong lack in all areas of their fluency regarding accuracy, rate, and prosody. Both the boys read in monotone and skipped over punctuation. I began implementing my modeling plan and already saw improvement between the first and second week. Each week, we repeated the process of me modeling a text and the students applying the modeling as they read the same text back to me. I observed a change in attitude each time I met with my students. They became more confident in themselves while reading and were able to describe their ideas in more detail. My students would ask when we would be reading together or state they had practiced their skills. The results conveyed clear growth. Each student’s reading improved by the fifth and final week of my research. There was a clear difference from the first day we worked together to the final day. Both my students were actively applying the fluency tips I taught them. Their expression while reading accurately depicted the tone and punctuation within the text. The ending running record scores consisted of my first student scoring 119 words per minute with zero errors and my second student scoring 96 words per minute with zero errors. Additionally, their rate of reading switched from choppy word chucks to confident smooth sentences. It was clear the findings from Corcoran and Davis were supported in my research. Students using echo reading after a teacher modeling proved to be beneficial.
Implications/Recommendations
This study has proved the idea that teacher modeling independently with a student directly impacts the students’ fluency while reading. Based on the growth seen in my two students, I will continue this reading practice in future instruction. While whole group read alouds are a vital source of modeling for students, it is important to bring the modeling down to the independent level. It is clear students’ fluency improves by working one-on-one with a teacher and echoing the teacher’s fluency while reading. A strength of my study is my consistency and structure of my plan. I was able to implement my research clearly and repeat the steps seamlessly. I took voice recordings of my students as they read which helped when I needed to review their reading each week. There were clear ways for me to collect qualitative and quantitative data. An area of weakness is the limited number of times we met each week. If I could change a part of my research, I would implement more days of practice reading with my two students. I believe this would have showed even greater growth within the five weeks. Lastly, I wonder if this study would produce similar result if students were paired with partners. The students could complete the same steps and give each other feedback. Overall, after conducting my research project, I am proud of the results as they align with what I projected. Watching as my students applied the reading strategies made me smile and truly see the impact of my teaching. I can only imagine the further increase in reading levels if the practice was continued.
References
Corcoran, C. A., & Davis, A. D. (2005). A Study of the Effects of Readers' Theater on Second and Third Grade Special Education Students' Fluency Growth. Reading Improvement, 42(2), 105-111. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1994303330?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&imgSeq=6
Effects of One-on-One Math Intervention
Primary Researchers
Lexi Whitney, Intern, Baylor University
Cassidy Gibbs, Mentor Teacher, Robinson Elementary, Robinson ISD
Stacey Voigt, Ed.D., Intern Supervisor, Baylor University
Rationale/Introduction
As an intern in third grade, one of my responsibilities is to facilitate a math small group where I reteach concepts to my class’s lower-scoring students. Over the course of the fall semester, I noticed a particular female student struggling significantly more than her peers. She took far longer to work through addition and subtraction problems, and her solutions would often be incorrect. Instead of solving these problems abstractly, she would frequently draw dots for each number and attempt to count them all up. When prompted to solve basic problems, such as 4+4, she would either guess the wrong number or count on her fingers.
It was clear to me that this student’s understanding of math concepts was far below grade level. In the small group setting, I often felt a tug to slow down to her pace and provide her with additional assistance. However, if I did that on a consistent basis, it would not have been fair or beneficial to the rest of the students I was responsible for working with. I realized that the only way for this student to get the support she needed was through one-on-one intervention. My hope was that, with increased attention to this student’s individual needs, her math skills would improve. In order to bring her ability level closer to that of her peers, she needed to develop her addition and subtraction fluency and accuracy.
Existing research demonstrates that one-on-one intervention using tactile manipulatives is able to raise both math scores and problem-solving speed. In her article, A Mathematics Improvement Program: Reaching the Struggling Intermediate Level Learner with a One-on-One Intervention, Diane McCarthy writes about a case study where a student improved from 64% accuracy to 90% accuracy on a multiplication fact test after 13 half-hour sessions of one-on-one intervention. The intervention consisted of math games, fact practice, mathematical procedure discussions, and writing about math. When managed effectively, math interventions have lasting results. The article, Does Multi-Component Strategy Training Improve Calculation Fluency Among Poor Performing Elementary School Children?, reveals that students’ addition fluency scores obtained through intervention were maintained through a follow-up conducted five months after the study (Koponen et al., 2018). Manipulatives can be used as a tool to make these interventions even more successful. As mentioned in The Effectiveness of Mathematical Manipulatives in One-on-One Intervention for Third and Fourth Grade Students, “Both researchers and developmental theorists agree that the physical use of manipulatives leads to a deeper understanding and therefore, students retain the material more successfully,” (Lantz, Miller, 2019, p. 4). I used this information to guide my intervention sessions and aim for student improvement over a three week period.
Question/Wondering
How effective is one-on-one math intervention using base-ten block manipulatives and fact practice for 20 minutes each day in improving the addition and subtraction fluency and accuracy of one low-scoring, female third-grade student?
Methodology/Results
I began my research by administering a timed pre-assessment for the aforementioned student. She solved one page of fifteen addition problems (ranging from single-digit to triple-digit addends), and one page of fifteen subtraction problems (also ranging from single-digit to triple-digit). Over the course of the next three weeks, I provided the student with 20 minutes of one-on-one intervention each day. The intervention began with repetitive practice of basic addition and subtraction facts. The student and I set a goal to memorize eight pre-selected addition and subtraction facts. Later, when this goal was met, she received a prize. As I transitioned to teaching the student how to solve longer addition and subtraction problems abstractly, I used base-ten blocks to model the reasoning behind regrouping. We discussed place value as the student practiced solving abstract problems. Manipulatives continued to be used throughout the entire intervention period. I recorded the intervention sessions and analyzed them for evidence of the most effective instructional methods. After three weeks of one-on-one intervention, I spent one day reviewing the content with the student. After the review, she completed the timed post-assessment. This was the same test as the pre-assessment, so I could easily compare her results and speed to determine how much she improved.
My student completed her addition post-assessment in two minutes and forty-five seconds, which was one minute and twelve seconds faster than her time on the pre-assessment. She raised her accuracy from 93% on the pre-assessment to 100% on the post-assessment. Her subtraction post-assessment was completed in four minutes and twenty-five seconds, which was 36 seconds faster than her pre-assessment. Her accuracy increased from 67% to 87%. To derive this data, I graded her assessments out of fifteen points and calculated the percentage of questions answered correctly. I used a stopwatch to note the amount of time it took her to complete each assessment. I also kept tally marks of the number of problems where the student counted on her fingers. On both the addition and subtraction post-assessments, she counted on her fingers one less time than she did on the pre-assessments.
The results of my study supported my previous research findings, as the one-on-one intervention with manipulatives successfully raised both the problem-solving accuracy and fluency of my student. She displayed a 7% increase in addition accuracy, a 20% increase in subtraction accuracy, significantly improved speeds with both operations, as well as an obvious gain in confidence. To answer the initial question that began my study, my data shows that one-on-one math intervention using base-ten block manipulatives and fact practice for 20 minutes each day is noticeably effective in improving both fluency and accuracy in addition and subtraction.
Implications/Recommendations
This study will affect my future instructional practices in two ways. Firstly, I will facilitate one-on-one intervention for low-scoring students as often as is feasible in a typical classroom setting. My research has shown me that this strategy is effective for improving math scores and fluency. While most teachers will not be able to meet with one student every day for three weeks, I would recommend working with severely below-grade-level students individually whenever the opportunity presents itself. Recommending these students for one-on-one tutoring outside of school may also be beneficial for meeting their individual needs. Secondly, I will integrate the use of tactile manipulatives even more heavily into my math instruction. It is clear that concrete representations of mathematical procedures can be extremely beneficial as students construct knowledge of various concepts.
One strength of my study was the use of the timed pre- and post-assessments. My student’s results gave me clear data about her level of improvement, regarding both problem-solving accuracy and speed. Another strength of my study was recording every intervention session. The ability to watch my teaching after it occurred was very helpful. I was able to notice strategies that clicked and worked well for my student, as well as those that did not. I could take note of specific problems that she struggled with, and brainstorm new activities or methods of teaching the targeted concepts. A weakness of my study is that I only completed intervention sessions with one student. If I had done these sessions with a few different students, I would have more data to see an average of how effective one-on-one intervention can be. In addition, the consistency of my intervention sessions was interrupted when my student was absent for a few days in a row.
Since completing my study, I now wonder how effective one-on-one intervention would be with versus without manipulatives. I am curious how big of a role the manipulatives played in raising my student’s accuracy and fluency. It would be interesting to facilitate interventions conducted in two different methods, where one uses manipulatives and one does not. I could compare student data from the different interventions and see how impactful manipulatives are when compared with simply receiving one-on-one assistance.
References
Koponen, T.K., Sorvo, R., Dowker, A., Räikkönen, E., Viholainen, H., Aro, M. and Aro, T. (2018). Does Multi-Component Strategy Training Improve Calculation Fluency Among Poor Performing Elementary School Children? Front. Psychol. 9:1187. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01187.
Lantz, J., and Miller, C. (2019). The Effectiveness of Mathematical Manipulatives in One-on-One Intervention for Third and Fourth Grade Students. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.bridgewater.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=honors_projects
McCarthy, D., Center for Excellence in Urban and Rural Education, & Buffalo State College. (2007, Spring). A Mathematics Improvement Program: Reaching the Struggling Intermediate Level Learner with a One-on-One Intervention. Technical Report No. 1. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=e249dab8ab30aa00650b8f0c5d99b78743674e85
Effective Strategies for Fluency Improvement in Low Level Readers
Primary Researchers
Abby Williams, Intern, Baylor University
Debra Matus, Third Grade Teacher, Robinson Elementary, Robinson ISD
Stacey Voigt, Ed.D., Intern Supervisor, Baylor University
Rationale/Introduction
In a third-grade classroom, it was observed that three male and two female students from different socio-economic backgrounds had significantly lower fluency. These eight year old students have a variety of assets that seem to hinder their ability to perform at the third-grade level. Research was conducted in the classroom and data was collected through pre and post assessments, small group instruction every day with targeted instruction, notes, read alouds, opportunities to read the texts every day, setting fluency goals and report progress, and reviewing explicit and systematic instruction for decoding words (Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. 2013). I believe this study will helped build their confidence and familiarity with sights words to propel them to a higher reading level.
Question/Wondering
How does the use of effective strategies with small grouping help lower-level reading students with their fluency?
Methodology/Results
Over the course of this school year, I have become aware of the importance of reading in our everyday life. Watching my class, I have observed great success in students who are developed at a true progress of third grade. They can read all the content while being pushed to grow at the accurate speed. Each student is different, and they need different strategies to help them build their fluency. Students progress at different speeds and with differentiated instruction. I think it is important to note that adults with lower levels of literacy and education are more likely than adults with higher levels of literacy and education to be unemployed or to earn an income that falls below the poverty level (Lesnick, J., George, R., Smithgall, C., & Gwynne J. 2010). Reading starts at a young age and those who are behind only grow more behind as they get older. Learning to read becomes reading to learn once students enter the third grade. We study many different texts in the third grade that teach important life lessons and grow their academic schema in literacy. We also see the importance of social skills in John Wiley’s research social skill subscales played significant roles in predicting promotion and retention (Miles, S. B., & Stipek, D. 2006). Having this information, I went ahead with my study for three weeks pulling a small group of male and female students from different socio-economic backgrounds to read.
My goal was to find strategies that would help them with reading to not only understand the text but also grow in confidence with their reading to improve fluency. We began to read a nonfiction text called My Uncle is A Firefighter. This is above their reading level but in the middle of a second-grade level. For thirty minutes a day, I pulled this group to listen to them read and ask comprehension questions. I started my data collection with a timed reading record over this story with comprehension questions. After giving this record, I gave directions for my students to read silently and sound out any unknown words while looking for text features. I began the tap method to have a specific student read out loud to me while the others read silently. I followed along and had them try different strategies on words they could not read. The first week, I gave all the help needed when they could not read to provide more confidence when reading. I would help them sound out words, give them words they struggled with and reread sentences to help them gain comprehension. I asked simple recall questions like “What was the uncle’s name” and “What is his job”? This was to gain a simple understanding of the text and start to familiarize themselves with words. The following week, when having students read, I showed them three different strategies to help them sound out words instead of giving them missed words. I showed them how to tap it out, how to decode, and I had them reread each sentence they struggled with. The following week, I had them read out loud with no help in hopes they would implement the strategies. To end my study, I conducted another reading record over this passage with three comprehension questions including a question on specific text features. Each week I took notes over my qualitative data collected from their comprehension data and took note of their improvement of fluency.
The results of my study did show an improvement with each of my readers after becoming more familiar with a text and specific words that seemed daunting. Giving them the time and space for struggle with encouragement and direction allowed my students to build confidence and gain the tools they needed to be able to read any text. On the pre assessment, they were incredibly low with only 9.8% WCPM. The post assessment showed great improvement with 30% increase in words correct per minute. Two of my students exceeded and passed with getting over 75% of the words correct in one minute. Even though a few of my students did not perform as well as I thought they would have, a few days later, they took the ISIP for the month of March and showed huge growth in my students. One of my students was able to move up six reading levels to get closer to the third-grade reading level. These students typically score very low on any assignment however, they showed significant growth on the post assessment average than they would have without this study. Analyzing all the data helped me conclude that giving students many kinds of strategies in small groups really improved their ability to read.
Implications/Recommendations
Based on my study, I would recommend the use of applying different strategies including but not limited to tapping it out, choral readings, repeated readings, and decoding. Throughout my study, it was clear to see the improvement in their fluency by their confidence and their understanding of the text. By the end of the study, the students that had previously performed very low, showed huge improvement in their fluency and comprehension. Being able to see and hear my student’s growth was so encouraging and seeing their confidence makes learning exciting. They began the switch of learning to read to reading to learn. This builds their determination to try hard things. Because of these results, I recommend taking the time to pull students and build their fluency and comprehension. Carving out time every day or a few times a week will affect instructional practices in a positive way because you will be able to see growth and positive engagement in their work. Because my students are not perfect, we definitely had days that they struggled to focus or desire to learn however, the work pays off and it builds the foundation for students to succeed.
References
Lesnick, J., Goerge, R., Smithgall, C., & Gwynne J. (2010). Reading on grade level in third grade: How is it related to high school performance and college enrollment? Retrieved November 15, 2023 https://www.chapinhall.org/wp-content/uploads/Reading_on_Grade_Level_111710.pdf
Miles, S. B., & Stipek, D. (2006). Contemporaneous and longitudinal associations between social behavior and literacy achievement in a sample of low income elementary school children. Retrieved November 9, 2023 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ732832
Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. 2013 “Five Evidence-Based Ways to Improve Reading Fluency in Elementary and Secondary Grades.” Retrieved Nov 14, 2023. https://www.texasldcenter.org/teachers-corner/improve-reading-fluency