Given that  in some inner-city public schools, more than 50 percent of the students leave before graduating  (Bialo and Sivin, 1989a, p. 35), educators are constantly searching for intervention programs and resources to reverse this trend (Moskowitz, 1989; Ryan and Brewer, 1990; Vescial 1989). Because the computer has been lauded for its ability to assume different software-driven roles, it is especially well-suited to the needs of at-risk students (Bialo and Sivin, 1989a, 1989b; Knights, 1988; Brooks, 1989; Knights, 1988)

Wepner, Shelley B.

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage ArtsVolume 32Issue 4 March/April 1992 Article 34-1-1992"Real-Life" Reading Software and "At-Risk"Secondary StudentsShelley B. WepnerThe William Paterson College of New JerseyFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizonsPart of the Education CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the SpecialEducation and Literacy Studies at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. For moreinformation, please contact maira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationWepner, S. B. (1992). "Real-Life" Reading Software and "At-Risk" Secondary Students. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage Arts, 32 (4). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol32/iss4/3MiL"Real-Life" Reading Softwareand"At-Risk" Secondary StudentsShelley B. WepnerGiven that "in some inner-city public schools, morethan 50 percent of the students leave before graduating"(Bialo and Sivin, 1989a, p. 35), educators are constantlysearching for intervention programs and resources to reverse this trend (Moskowitz, 1989; Ryan and Brewer, 1990;Vescial, 1989). Because the computer has been lauded forits ability to assume different software-driven roles, it isespecially well-suited to the needs of at-risk students (Bialoand Sivin, 1989a, 1989b; Knights, 1988; Brooks, 1989;Knights, 1988).Notwithstanding technology's capability to provide at-risk students with varied multi-sensory opportunities to readand write about their own concerns and issues, manyeducators resort to using basic skills software to remediatethese students' reading and writing deficiencies (Bialo andSivin, 1989a, 1989b). While this latter type of softwareaddresses specific curricular objectives, its content typicallyis not written to address the needs and interests of thisspecial population. Research is needed to determinewhether reading software, written specifically for thispopulation, affects students' attitudes and achievement.280 READING HORIZONS, 1992, volume 32, #4This study was designed to examine the effects of"real-life" reading software versus skill-based reading software. One purpose was to determine whether softwaremakes a difference in students' attitudes toward their workwith computers and themselves as readers and writers.Another purpose was to determine whether software affected students' achievement in reading and writing.MethodologySubjects and procedures. Seventy-three eighthgrade students (86 percent Afro-American, 14 percentHispanic) from an inner-city school in Paterson, New Jersey,participated in this yearlong study which was funded in partby the New Jersey Department of Higher Education. Thesestudents were part of a special project that qualifies them forsupport services (e.g., tutoring; educational, recreationaland enrichment activities; preparation for college entranceexaminations) to help them succeed in school. If these students get into college, they will be awarded a full tuitionscholarship to a New Jersey state college or any one of 40or more other participating colleges.Before the 1989-90 academic year, students weregrouped by their teachers according to their CaliforniaAchievement Test (CAT) scores into three sections: aboveaverage, average, and below average. Students withineach section then were randomly assigned to either the experimental or control groups, thereby forming six groups.Groups varied in size from 11 to 18 students. Because ofabsenteeism and student work schedules, group size variedfrom week to week.Once a week, during students' regularly scheduledreading time, I met with the six student groups in the Applecomputer lab for approximately 40 minutes, alternatingREADING HORIZONS, 1992, volume 32, #4 281between experimental and control groups within eachsection. During the rest of the week at reading time, all students worked with the district's basal series. The basal activities did not resemble students' software reading experiences.In the computer lab, the experimental group workedwith 14 stories from Reading Realities (Teacher SupportSoftware, 1989), a software package that uses a DirectedReading-Thinking Activity framework (Stauffer, 1975) forstories built around three themes: real-life issues such ascheating, stealing, addiction, and pregnancy, jury series(real court cases with students acting as jurors), and careers such as lawyer, secretary, hairdresser, pilot. Studentsread 12 stories from the real-life issues theme and one storyfrom each of the other two themes. The control groupworked with 10 reading skill-based software packages fromMinnesota Educational Computing Consortium as well astest preparation software for the reading portion of the HighSchools Proficiency Test (HSPT), New Jersey's statewidetest for high school graduation. Control students spent 85percent of their time with the MECC software and 15percent of their time with the HSPT software. Each grouphad 20 instructional sessions in the computer lab.All students had folders in which to record their reactions to each computer session. To keep the sessions similar for both groups, I used the same daily procedures: 1)students recorded computer assignment in folder; any newprocedures were explained; 2) students engaged in computer activity while I walked around to troubleshoot computer and/or procedural problems; and 3) students reactedto the session in their folders. Any individual discussionsand reading/writing assistance occurred spontaneously for282 READING HORIZONS, 1992, volume 32, #4both groups. I also kept a journal to record observationsand students' comments during each session.Instruments. To determine differences in students'attitudes and interests toward reading and writing with computers as well as their perceptions of themselves as readersand writers, a 22-item pre-post teacher-designed surveywas used. All students completed this survey anonymouslyby circling one of five numbers for each item, with "5"meaning "all the time" and "1" meaning "never" (seeAppendix). To control for students' response accuracy,sixty percent of the statements were positive (e.g., "I readmaterial on the computer that is interesting," "I'm gettingbetter as a reader") and forty percent of the statementswere negative (e.g., "I don't read material on the computerthat is interesting," "I'm not getting better as a reader").Since Cronbach's coefficient alpha was .92 for the pretestand .97 for the posttest, the survey was treated as a unitaryfactor.To determine differences in students' readingachievement, alternate forms of the Gates-MacGinitieReading Tests (Gates-MacGinitie), Levels 7-9, were used.Both multiple-choice subtests, the 45-item vocabulary andthe 48-item comprehension section, were administered.To determine differences in students' writing ability,Part 1 of the writing section of the HSPT, in which studentshave to write an essay on a stated topic, was administered.Two different essay topics, used in previous statewideassessments and available to all students in New Jersey aspractice exercises, were used. Two readers - teachersfrom a different New Jersey district trained in registeredholistic scoring - rated students' essays for organization/content, usage, sentence construction, and mechanics.READING HORIZONS, 1992, volume 32, #4 283Scores for both essays could range from "1" ("inadequatecommand" of written language) to "6" ("strong command" ofwritten language). All assessment measures were administered in September, 1989 and June, 1990.ResultsResults for the three assessment instruments weresubjected to separate analyses of variance (ANOVA).There was a significant main effect for group for the attitudi-nal survey (F(1,72) = 26.67, p < .001), indicating that theexperimental group felt significantly better than the controlgroup about their work with the computer and themselvesas readers and writers.There were no significant differences attributable togroup for the posttest vocabulary and comprehensionscores of the Gates-MacGinitie (vocabulary F(1,72) = 0,n.s.); comprehension (F(1,72) = 2.98, n.s.), indicating thatthe experimental group did not do significantly better thanthe control group with identifying synonymous words orunderstanding passages of prose and simple verserespectively. However, analysis of total reading scores forthe CAT (administered schoolwide in May, 1990) indicatedthat, when the vocabulary and comprehension scores of theGates-MacGinitie served as covariates (to adjust for reading scores prior to entering into program), there was a two-way interaction between section and group (F(2,71) = 5.90,p <.01), with the below average group doing significantlybetter.There were no significant differences attributable togroup for the posttest writing samples of the HSPT(F(1,72) = .43, n.s.), indicating that the experimentalstudents did not have a stronger command of writtenlanguage than the control students.284 READING HORIZONS, 1992, volume 32, #4Discussion and implicationsSignificant attitudinal differences indicated that thecontent of the software can make a difference in students'work with technology. Inasmuch as the experimental groupwas reading stories about their own real-life experiences,they could and did relate personally to the content. For example, as one student read the story entitled "Deserted"about a father who is estranged from his wife and turns toalcohol, he told me how his own dad had just gone throughthe same experience. Another student told me about herpregnant friend whose boyfriend left her the way the boy leftthe girl in the "Pregnancy" story.The experimental group also had options for manipulating how they read (e.g., speech, control for reading rate,type of reading mode such as word-by-word, phrases, orwhole screen), which also may have contributed to theirpositive attitudes. Interestingly, by the midpoint of the year,the above average students use of these options wasdifferent from the below average students manner of use.Because the above average students were more confidentwith their reading, they no longer used the speech option.They also chose to read in the whole screen mode so theycould monitor their reading rate. In contrast, the belowaverage students continued to use the speech optionthroughout the year and read in the word-by-word phrasereading mode so that the computer was reading aloud moreslowly to them.On the other hand, the control group was readingcontent which eluded them much of the time (e.g.,information about Albert Einstein's work or facets of JuliusCaesar's life). Students often could not even pronouncewords that were critical for understanding a passage orREADING HORIZONS, 1992, volume 32, #4 285sentence, let alone bring any prior knowledge to theirreading. Yet the readability level of the control software wassimilar to the experimental software, since both weredeveloped for students reading between the second andsixth grade levels.Informal observations and students' journal recordingsrevealed that the computer became much more invisible forthe experimental group than the control group, with the experimental group relating to the content of the stories ratherthan the technology perse. Experimental students wouldwrite in their journals, "I was upset because the mothershouldn't have left the kids," while control students wouldwrite, "the computer was good today."Although students' reading achievement scores werenot significantly different, possibly because of the sensitivityof the assessment instrument and the experimental students' completion of only one-third of the package, thisshould not discourage teachers from working with this typeof software since students' interests were piqued, which isan important first step in getting them to read-One way of encouraging at-risk students to read moreis to use "real-life" stories on disk as a stimulus for readingfictional and nonfictional trade books about similar topics.For example, Stephen Roos' (1987) Confessions of aWayward Preppie, written at the sixth grade level for secondary students, deals with the issue of cheating, and JoanPhipson's (1985) Hit and Run, written at the same level,deals with the issue of stealing. Both narratives provide students with insights about other teenagers' experience withthese issues.286 READING HORIZONS, 1992, volume 32, #4Interestingly, after working with students for a fewmonths, the lack of difference in writing scores was expected based on my observations of how students used theexperimental software. Students' writing experiences withthe experimental software was not as frequent as I hadanticipated at the beginningof the study. Experimentalstudents had four activity choices: 1) multiple choice; 2)cloze (every 5th, every 9th, or highlighted vocabulary fromstory); 3) discussion (questions about the main character(s)and events from the story); or 4) creative writing (open-ended questions about the main issue from the story). Thelatter two options require students to word process their answers. Invariably, students chose to do only the multiplechoice and cloze activities, for which they were reinforcedwith some type of accuracy score. Since this study was developed to observe students' reactions and work with software written specifically for them, I gave very little teacherdirection. Although tudents reacted orally to what they werereading, they did not choose to record their feelings inwriting.In addition to giving more teacher direction so that students know that they need to engage in the writing portion ofa package, there are ways to encourage students' writtenresponses. Besides orally discussing open-ended questions before recording answers, students can work in cooperative learning groups to discuss and write responses.Students also can record their ideas from the creative writing questions before introducing one of the previously mentioned books. For example, before students read a bookabout cheating, students can respond to the question, Whatwould you do ifyou were asked to cheat on an exam? Forstealing, students can respond to the question, What wouldyou do if someone tempted you to steal something that youREADING HORIZONS, 1992, volume 32, #4 287had wantedfor a long time? Discussion can precede or follow students' written responses.Because the content of software for at-risk secondarystudents does seem to impact on how students respond tothe computer, it is important to use software that is sensitiveto their needs and cognitively respectful of their backgroundexperiences so that they want to keep reading.ReferencesBialo, E.R., &Sivin, J.P. (1989a). Computers and at-riskyouth: Apartial solution to a complex problem. Classroom Computer Learning, 9, 35-39.Bialo, E.R., &Sivin, J.P. (1989b). Computers and at-risk youth: Software andhardware that can help. ClassroomComputer Learning, 9, 48-55.Brooks, J. (January/February 1989). Programs that help. Media and Methods,43-44.Knights, M. (1988). Technology projects for at-risk kids. Teaching andComputers, 6, 10-11.Moskowitz, J.B. (1989). A cry for help: Children at risk. Media and Methods,25, 27-36.Phipson, J. (1985). Hitand run. New York: Athenum.Roos, S. (1985). Confessionsof a wayward preppie. NewYork: Delacorte.Ryan, S.M., &Brewer, B. (1990). Changing the English curriculum for at-riskhigh school learners. Journal of Reading, 33, 270-273.Stauffer, R.G. (1975). Directing the reading-thinking process. New York:Harper & Row.Vescial, A. (1989). A literacy program at work. Mediaand Methods, 25, 28-29.Shelley B. Wepneris a faculty memberat The WilliamPaterson College of New Jersey, Wayne New Jersey.288 READING HORIZONS, 1992, volume 32, #4APPENDIXAttitude SurveyID# DateDirections: Circle the number that tells how you feel about each item.("5" means "all of the time," "4" means "most of the time," "3" means"sometimes," "2" means "infrequently," and "1" means "never.")1. I like to work with the computer. 5 4 3 2 12. When I read, I think about what I'mreading. 5 4 3 23. Ican write about things that I read. 5 4 3 24. I read material on the computer that isinteresting. 5 4 3 25. I don't like to work with thecomputer. 5 4 3 26. I write about interesting things on thecomputer. 5 4 3 27. When I read, I don't think about what I'mreading. 5 4 3 28. Ienjoy writing on the computer. 5 4 3 29. I'm getting betteras a reader. 5 4 3 210.1 don't read material on the computerthat is interesting. 5 4 3 211. When I read, I can tell a friend what thestory isabout. 5 4 3 212. I'm notgetting better as a reader. 5 4 3 213.1 don't write about interesting things onthe computer. 5 4 3 214.1 like to read on the computer. 5 4 3 215.1 don't liketo read on the computer. 5 4 3 216.1 like to read interesting material onthe computer. 5 4 3 217. When I read, I can't tell a friend whatthe story is about. 5 4 3 218.1 can't write about things I read. 5 4 3 219. I'm notgetting better as a writer. 5 4 3 220.1 don't enjoy writing on thecomputer. 5 4 3 221.1 don't like to read interesting materialon the computer. 5 4 3 222. I'm getting better as a writer. 5 4 3 2

Real-Life  Reading Software and  At-Risk  Secondary Students

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1571&amp;context=reading_horizons

Real-Life Reading Software and At-Risk Secondary Students

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU