Browsing by Author "Dr. Barbara Fox, Committee Member"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Effects of a Three Part Strategy Cluster on Reading in Differentiated Vs. Whole Group Instructional Setting
(2007-04-25) Coughenour, Kimberly Walker; Dr. Hiller Spires, Committee Chair; Dr. Barbara Fox, Committee Member; Dr.Lori Holcomb, Committee Member
The first purpose of this study was to determine if a three part strategy cluster combining an anticipation⁄reaction guide, advance organizer, and Question Answer Relationship strategy significantly increases reading comprehension and content knowledge in students reading on a fourth grade level. Secondly, this study examined if the strategy cluster increased students' ability to formulate reading response questions at four levels. Third, students' attitudes towards reading and question answering were measured. Finally, this study determined if there is a significant increase in students' reading performance in a differentiated classroom versus a whole group instructional setting. There was no significant difference between control and treatment groups for reading comprehension at the study's conclusion. Both instructional settings were shown to be effective for different purposes. Whole group instruction works well for presenting content and the classroom discussions that are facilitated during that time are beneficial in students' ability to make connections with the text. Students in this group reported a positive change in reading attitude for liking to read, thinking about the story while reading, and utilizing a strategy while reading. Differentiated instruction is effective for teaching students new reading skills. In small groups students are reading text on their instructional level and practicing strategies with teacher feedback. Students in this group reported that they felt better about answering comprehension questions at the end of the study. It is important to consider the type of instructional setting when teaching skills or content. In this study the instructional setting was an important factor in student success.
Good Reader/Poor Writers: An investigation of the strategies, understanding, and meaning that good readers who are poor writers ascribe to writing narrative text on-demand
(2002-08-21) Honeycutt, Ronald Lee; Dr. Barbara Fox, Committee Member; Dr. Ellen Vasu, Committee Member; Dr. Terrance O'Brien, Committee Member; Dr. Ruie Pritchard, Committee Chair
This study explores the strategy applications, perceptions, and emotions that good readers who are poor writers experience when writing narrative text on-demand (given a prompt in a timed session). Eleven fifth grade students (approximately 12 years old) were identified as good readers who are poor writers based upon their academic history of passing the state-required End-Of-Grade Reading Test when they were in the third and fourth grades but failing the state-required Fourth Grade Narrative Writing Test. Special Needs students who exhibited an identified behavioral or learning disability were eliminated. Each subject participated in individual in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. Three types of procedures (Denzin, 1989) were used to verify the data: across collection methods (document analysis, scores on the Writer Self-Perception Scale, individual interviews, and focus groups), across data sources students and teachers), and across investigators ("critical friend," formal member-checking in focus groups, and informal member-checking with individuals). Data were systematically classified according to their relationship to the two construct categories (a basic profile of good readers who are poor writers, and the impact of the Writing Academy), and/or to a theme category (strategies, common experiences, and emotions). To develop the findings, constant comparative analyses were used to code: (a) transcripts of the individual student interviews; (b) notes from the student focus groups;(c) notes from the teacher focus group; (d) samples from students' writing portfolios; and (e) teacher/researcher notes from conferences and lesson plans. From these data, the researchers generated a basic profile of good readers who are poor writers. Results indicate that good readers who are poor writers understand the difference in cognitive demands in reading and writing - reading is perceived as acquiring information and writing as generating information/knowledge. They also recognize the similarities of text features in reading and writing narrative text. Yet they are unable to generalize and apply concepts recognized in texts they read to the texts they compose because they: (a) lack knowledge and application of both prewriting strategies and story grammar schema to plan and generate narrative texts; (b) do not employ self-regulation strategies to evaluate and to revise the texts they compose; (c) are inhibited in their writing by strong, negative emotions coupled with recognize the similarities of text features in reading and writing narrative text, but are unable to generalize and apply concepts recognized in texts they read to the texts they compose the perception of themselves as poor writers; and (d) benefit from participating in a structured writing workshop aimed at addressing the above mentioned problems. These findings are discussed as they relate to the professional literature on the reading/writing relationship, using reading to improve writing, lower-order components shared by reading and writing, social cognition as it relates to reading and writing, flow, and audience awareness. Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.