Christ, Tanya

Duke, Nell K.

Martin, Nicole M.

Reynolds, Julia M.

English

Scholarworks@GVSU

Michigan Reading Journal Volume 44 Issue 1 Article 7 January 2011 Research Worth Knowing About: Four Recently Published Studies Julia M. Reynolds Nell K. Duke Nicole M. Martin Tanya Christ Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj Recommended Citation Reynolds, Julia M.; Duke, Nell K.; Martin, Nicole M.; and Christ, Tanya (2011) "Research Worth Knowing About: Four Recently Published Studies," Michigan Reading Journal: Vol. 44 : Iss. 1 , Article 7. Available at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj/vol44/iss1/7 This Other is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Reading Journal by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact scholarworks@gvsu.edu. Research Worth Knowing About: Four Recently Published Studies MRA RESEARCH COMMITTEE: JULIA M. REYNOLDS, NELL K. DuKE (Co-CHAIR), NICOLE M. MARTIN (Co-CHAIR), TANYA CHRIST, AND KATHRYN L. ROBERTS This is the fifth installment in our Research Worth Knowing About series. In this edition, we look at four different types of research, all of which have something different to offer. First, we look at a meta-analysis on bilingualism, which reveals several cognitive benefits for those who are functionally bilingual. Next, we take a look at the results of a formative experiment in which researchers successfully used a combination of research-based practices to improve middle school students' writing of explanatory texts. In the third sum-mary, we describe a study that examines correlations between pre-Kand kindergarten teachers' vocabulary instruction practices and children's outcomes on measures of receptive vocabulary. Finally, we present the results of a study in which the investigators compared measures of oral reading fluency that were inclusive of many fluency facets (i.e., accuracy, rate, prosody, and comprehension) to the oft-used proxy measure for read-ing fluency, a 1-minute assessment measuring rate and accuracy, in order to determine whether the two types of assessments are well-aligned. If you would like to learn more about each of these studies, the full reference is provided before each summary. Adesope, 0. 0., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80, 207-245. Approximately one quarter of Americans are bilin-gual, if bilingual is defined as being able to speak and understand a second language well enough to hold a conversation (McComb, 2001). A number of studies have examined cognitive skills in bilingual individuals. A recent meta-analysis examined 63 of these studies. They researchers found that, as com-pared to monolinguals, bilinguals have, on average: • greater combined metalinguistic and metacognitive ability (ability to think about language as language and ability to think about one's own thinking). • stronger abstract and symbolic representation (for example, recognizing earlier that the letters in a word represent the sounds in a word). • stronger problem-solving skills (for example, in block design), perhaps due in part to the greater cognitive flexibility required to choose among and draw upon multiple languages. • greater attentional control, perhaps due to considerable practice suppressing the intrusion of one language into another when communicating. There was no set of cognitive skills shown to be negatively associated with bilingualism, on average. Results of this meta-analysis show that bilingual-ism is associated with a number of benefits beyond the obvious ability to communicate with a greater number of speakers in a greater range of settings. Findings suggest that bilingualism should be supported-not viewed as a deficit-in language and education policy. Reference: McComb, C. (2001, April 6). About one in four Americans can hold a conversation in a second language. Gallup. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1825/ About-One-Four-Americans-Can-Hold-Conversation-Second-Language.aspx FALL 2011, VoL. 44, No.l 49 Klein, P. D., & Rose, M.A. (2010). Teaching argument and explanation to prepare junior students for writing to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 433-459. Klein and Rose conducted a formative design experi-ment (similar to action research but with the inclu-sion of specific elements to increase its methodologi-cal rigor) in which they collaborated with the teacher of an urban fifth- and sixth-grade classroom to: (a) administer pretests, (b) teach learning through the writing of argumentative texts, (c) modify the origi-nal approach, ( d) teach learning through the writing of explanatory texts, and (e) administer posttests. Their final teaching approach involved: • conducting literacy activities in content area instruction, • communicating that writing is learning, • explicitly teaching genre features, • analyzing exemplary models, • using writing as an inquiry tool, • conducting writing conferences and scaffolding student revisions and editing, • encouraging and supporting self-evaluations of students' writing, and • incorporating motivational elements (e.g., engaging topics, student choice). The researchers conducted a post-assessment to see whether the participating students had improved their abilities to use writing as a tool for learning in the content areas. Klein and Rose asked the 18 students (and a control group of 16 fifth and sixth graders) to take a science pre-test, write argumenta-tive and experimental texts about nutrition, and take a science post-test. Compared to the control students, the experimental students (a) knew more about argu-mentative texts, explanatory texts, and science and (b) produced significantly higher-quality explanatory texts. The researchers concluded that their approach to teaching writing can help students to use writing as a learning tool. Silverman, R., & Crandell, J. (2010). Vocabulary practices in prekindergarten and kindergarten classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 318-340. Silverman and Crandell observed 16 prekindergarten and kindergarten classrooms to identify the teaching methods used by teachers to facilitate children's vocabulary learning. They identified five practices that were used to teach word meanings: act/illustrate (using gestures, pointing, and kinesthetic acts), analyze (compare/contrast word meanings, consider multiple meanings, and identify synonyms/ant-onyms), contextualize (use word in unique context), define (definition or explanation of meaning), and word study (prompt children "to use a word they have been taught") (2010, p. 325). To determine which practices were most effective in facilitating children's vocabulary learning, the authors compared pre- and post-test scores for the 244 children who were in these 16 classrooms. They used a test of general receptive word knowledge (PPVT-III) and a researcher-created, receptive test of target word knowledge. Then they examined correlations between children's vocabulary learning and the practices used in their respective classrooms to determine which practices were most related to vocabulary growth. In exploring these correlations, the researchers also considered (a) whether the practice occurred during a storybook read-aloud time or during another portion of the language arts block (non-read-aloud time) and (b) the child's performance on the pre-tests (initial vocabulary knowledge). Key findings include the following: • "Act/illustrate" methods during read-aloud time were effective for children with initial low vocabulary scores, but not for children with initially high vocabulary scores. • "Analyze" methods were not used frequently enough by teachers to evaluate their effectiveness with confidence. No effects were demonstrated in this study. • "Contextualize" method during non-read-aloud time was effective for all children, but most effective for children with initial high vocabulary scores. • "Define" method during non-read-aloud time had a positive effect on all children's learning, but was most effective for children with initially high vocabulary scores. 50 MICHIGAN READING JOURNAL • ''Word study" methods were effective for all children's learning both during read-aloud time and non-read-aloud time. Based on these results, it is important to use a variety of teaching methods, both during read-aloud time and non-read-aloud time, to facilitate the learn-ing of children with both high and low pre-existing vocabulary knowledge. Valencia, S. W., Smith, A. T., Reece, A. M., Li, M., Wixson, K. K., & Newman, H. (2010). Oral reading fiuency assessment: Issues of construct, criterion, and consequential validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 270-291. This study investigated various models for assessing oral reading fluency for students in grades 2, 4, and 6. The authors compared a 1-minute oral reading measure of words correct per minute (a commonly used proxy for fluency) with individual and compos-ite measures of indicators of oral reading fluency (rate, accuracy, prosody, and comprehension) to examine differences among the results. Given that 1-minute oral reading "fluency" assessments are now commonplace across the nation, it is important to know whether the results are aligned with more in-depth measures of fluency. The results indicate that assessments that included multiple indicators of oral reading fluency provided stronger understandings of oral reading fluency and fluency assessment and served as stronger predictors of general comprehension. When publisher-provided benchmarks were used to identify students at risk of reading difficulty using the results of the 1-minute assessment, authors found both false positives and negatives. For example: • • A student may read slowly but have strong comprehension (thinking while reading). Her rate would cause the student to be labeled "at risk," yet she is a strong reader who uses comprehension strategies. A student who can read quickly and accurately may not comprehend anything that he is reading. Yet, since the 1-minute assessment is based on rate and accuracy, the student would not be labeled "at risk" since his results meet or exceed the provided benchmarks. This study raises issues regarding oral reading fluency definitions and assessment beyond rate and accuracy. It also raises concerns about the wide-spread use of 1-minute measures and corresponding benchmarks to identify students at risk of reading difficulty and to plan instruction. Schools and school districts need to consider other, broader assessments in order to have a better sense of students' reading achievement. Assessment drives instruction, and inaccuracies in 1-minute assessments of oral reading "fluency" could lead to less effective instruction as compared to the use of more inclusive measures. Comments, questions, or feedback on the Research Worth Knowing About column? Please contact the MRA Research Committee at marti968@msu.edu or nkduke@msu.edu. FALL 2011, VoL. 44, No.1 51 KALEIDOSCOPE 2012 The Michigan Reading Association invites a deserving student from your school to become a published author! SPECIFIC GUIDELINES: • One entry per school building, any grade K-12. • The original manuscript may be prose or poetry; please include the student's name, grade level , school name, city and state on the word document. • Students may submit a black line drawing on a separate sheet of 8 1/2" x 11 " paper (due to space limitations, drawing may not be published). • The entry must be in "polished" form (no invented spellings): proofed and edited. • The winning submission must be typed and a copy mailed with the student information sheet. • Manuscript must also be submitted electronically as a Microsoft Word attachment to mra@michiganreading.org. Include student name and teacher contact information. • WORD LIMIT - Please count accurately. • K - 6th grade 250 words • ih - 1 ih grade 500 words • Student Information Sheet must be completed and attached to entry. Kat9l % • Mail entry to: Kaleidoscope Entry Michigan Reading Association 668 Three Mile Road Grand Rapids, MI 49544 For more information contact the Michigan Reading Association office at mra@michiganreading.org or 1.800.MRA.READ. ~ 0 "C en DEADLINE FOR ENTRIES: DECEMBER 16, 2011 ~····························· Student Information Sheet Complete and attach to entry. Title of Entry Student's Name Grade Student Address City State Zip Code School Name School Address City State Zip Code ( ) School Phone (include area code) • Teacher's Name (please print) Teacher's email (new) Principal's Signature Parent Signature (new) A submitted entry gives Michigan Reading Association permission to publish the manuscript in KALEIDOSCOPE 2012. DEADLINE: December 16, 2011 • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• I 0 ~ C, ~ Cl ~ ~ ~ C, 5:1 u :§ N V) 

Research Worth Knowing About: Four Recently Published Studies

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1346&context=mrj

Research Worth Knowing About: Four Recently Published Studies

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholarworks@GVSU