Action Research Proposal Template.docx - Weeblylattinr.weebly.com/uploads/4/9/5/3/49530073/lattin_resea… · Web viewReading comprehension provides the foundation for all other

Running Head: IMPACT OF QUESTION-ANSWER RELATIONSHIPS ON READING COMPREHENSION

How Will Explicit Instruction in Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) Improve First Grade

Students’ Reading Comprehension?

Roberta Lattin

East Carolina University

IMPACT OF QUESTION-ANSWER RELATIONSHIPS ON READING COMPREHENSION

Abstract

The purpose of this action research study was to determine how the use of explicit Question-

Answer Relationships (QAR) instruction would affect first grade students’ reading

comprehension achievement. This quasi-experimental pre/posttest design study included 39

students from two classrooms. The intervention group implemented the QAR strategy, while the

comparison group used the traditional questioning method during reading instruction. An

independent t-test using the mean gain scores from the pre and post MCLASS data (two-tailed

p=0.03) and the common formative assessment data (two-tailed p=0.02) indicated the

intervention positively impacted the reading comprehension achievement of the students.

Keywords: Question-Answer Relationships, reading comprehension achievement

2


The “Read to Achieve” initiative, which challenges educators to ensure all students

develop strong reading comprehension skills, was passed into law during the 2012-2013 North

Carolina legislative session. This initiative requires every student in kindergarten through third

grade to be assessed using a valid, reliable, formative, and diagnostic reading assessment. To

meet the guidelines of this law, public schools throughout the state began using MCLASS

Reading 3D to assess students’ reading proficiency. The text reading and comprehension (TRC)

portion of the assessment requires students to read a text, provide a retell, and answer

comprehension questions. In order for a student to attain proficiency, they must learn to read

closely in order to determine what the text says explicitly while also making logical inferences.

They must also cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions

drawn from the text. The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of an action research

study that explored the impact of explicit instruction using Question-Answer Relationships

(QAR) on first grade students’ reading comprehension.

Teachers implement questioning strategies to guide and monitor student learning and to

promote higher-level thinking in their students during reading instruction. QAR is a reading

comprehension strategy developed to help students approach the task of reading texts and

answering questions (Raphael, 1986). QAR instruction teaches students where information can

be found “In the Book” or “In my Head” by helping them realize the need to consider both

information in the text and information from their own background knowledge or schema.

Raphael’s (1986) research showed that students’ ability to correctly answer reading

comprehension questions improved after being explicitly taught the QAR strategy. Therefore,

QAR is a beneficial tool for students to utilize during reading comprehension instruction. A

literature review that supports the use of the QAR reading strategy follows.

3


Literature Review

Reading Comprehension

Today’s teachers share a common goal of teaching students to become strategic

readers who are able to successfully comprehend different types of text (McLaughlin, 2012). The

most recent 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results reveal that more

than 30 percent of fourth graders attending public schools were unable to able to make simple

inferences, locate information in text, identify supporting details, describe characters’

motivations and mood, and describe the problem in narrative text (Connor, Phillips, Kaschak,

Apel, Kim, Otaiba, Crowe, Thomas-Tate, Johnson, & Lonigan, 2014). Many factors affect a

students’ success in learning to read with understanding including: genetics, home literacy

environment, health, poverty, stress, preschool experiences, parenting, peers, and motivation

(Connor et al., 2014, p. 380). Research by Connor et al. (2014) supports the assertion that the

achievement gap between students living in poverty and their more affluent peers continues to

exist. Therefore, all teachers must have the instructional goal to improve each student’s

comprehension and understanding, regardless of their achievement level.

Defining Reading Comprehension

Harvey and Goudvis (2013) explain that reading comprehension is the act of thinking

and constructing meaning before, during and after reading by integrating the information

presented by the author with the reader’s background knowledge. Reading comprehension is not

an ability that students automatically possess. It is an active mental process, which needs to be

explicitly taught, developed and nurtured. Strategic reading requires students to think about

reading in ways that enhance their learning and understanding (Harvey & Goudvis, 2013).

Reading comprehension provides the foundation for all other learning in every content area and

4


is the key to a student’s academic success (Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, & Randolph, 1996).

A major focus of reading comprehension research has been to identify effective reading

strategies. Researchers report that reading comprehension is a multifaceted process (McLaughlin,

2012). Knowing how to read words has little value if the student is unable to construct meaning

from the text. Students who struggle with reading comprehension do not retain information about

what was read and often lack the motivation to read altogether. Therefore, it is imperative that a

student understands, as well as, retains the information he/she is reading. Comprehension is an

integral part of learning; it is also a multifaceted process with many levels of understanding.

Students are able to construct meaning from text when they are able to successfully make

connections between what they are reading and their prior knowledge or schema. Background or

prior knowledge is imperative to creating meaning. The more background knowledge students

have with a particular subject, the easier it is for them to make connections between what they

already know and what they are learning (McLaughlin, 2012). It is essential that teachers help

students activate their background knowledge prior to reading a text so that connections can be

easily made (Pardo, 2004). The focus of reading comprehension is to teach students strategies

that will enable them to turn new information into accessible knowledge (Harvey & Goudvis,

2013). Students are able to enhance their understanding through meaningful discussions with

their peers.

According to Harvey and Goudvis (3013) one of the best predictors of a student’s ability

to comprehend text is his or her ability to decode. However, some children can read with

automaticity, but still have limited comprehension. It is important that students monitor their

reading and keep track of their thinking while they are reading. Therefore, teachers must

explicitly model and teach their students to listen to their inner voice or internal conversation

5


while they are reading and to stop, think, and react to information rather than simply reading

without understanding (Harvey & Goudvis, 2013).

Ness (2011) explains that explicit strategy instruction intentionally and directly teaches

students to monitor their comprehension and build their understanding of text. Reading

comprehension develops as a child engages in the process of reading. Rereading texts leads to

increased fluency and improved comprehension. Comprehension is also enhanced when children

read in pairs, discuss their reading, and receive feedback from an adult or peer. Comprehension

is the ultimate goal of reading instruction (Ness, 2011).

Comprehension Continuum

Harvey and Goudvis (2013) explain that the goal of comprehension is to acquire and

actively use knowledge; therefore, they developed the comprehension continuum. The different

levels on the comprehension continuum build on one another and gradually progress from easy,

answering literal questions, to more difficult, actively using knowledge. It is imperative that

teachers ask a variety of questions across the different levels of the comprehension continuum

(see Appendix A for more information on the comprehension continuum). Harvey and Goudvis

(2013) argue that reading comprehension is most effective when it is explicitly taught, as well as,

when students incorporate and flexibly use reading and thinking strategies across a wide variety

of texts. Making it essential that students learn to connect their prior knowledge to the new

information they are acquiring as they read. Teachers need to model these skills by

demonstrating how reading and thinking strategies are used across the curriculum and support

students as they practice (Harvey & Goudvis, 2013).

Emma Phillips (2013) examined how a teacher’s questioning during guided reading

helped to scaffold students’ understanding of reading. Student observations and interview data

6


showed that questioning statements and teacher involvement increased student engagement and

understanding of the text. While insufficient wait time and open questions with a closed intent

seemed to stifle the children’s understanding of reading. The findings of this study indicated that

a range of questioning techniques is necessary in order to create a guided discussion for

children’s comprehension to develop (Phillips, 2013). Follow-up questions promote higher-level

thinking in all students and is directly related to student achievement (Gilson, Little, Ruegg, &

Bruce-Davis, 2014).

Correlation Between Reading Comprehension and Writing

Mason, Davison, Hammer, Miller, and Glutting (2013) explored the interrelationship

between reading comprehension and writing. Two studies were actually conducted during this

research The first experimental components analysis study included 77 urban and rural low-

achieving fourth-grade students with and without disabilities. Students were randomly assigned

to a group. The second study expanded the evaluation of reading comprehension instruction or

reading comprehension instruction plus writing to include written semantic and syntax

performance. The data from this study indicated that students in reading comprehension

instruction or reading comprehension plus writing instruction outperformed the control group on

oral and written retelling, a standardized reading test, and semantic measures. However, syntactic

measures did not show statistically significant differences by treatment group or control group.

Therefore, this study helped reinforce the belief that reading and writing go hand in hand.

Wallace, Pearman, Hail, and Hurst (2007) reiterate the importance of the close

connection between reading and writing. The authors offer four research-based writing strategies

that teachers can use to improve reading comprehension. The writing strategies include:

About/Point, Cubing, Four Square Graphic Organizer, and Read, Respond, Revisit, Discuss.

7


Wallace et al. (2007) state these writing strategies will improve reading comprehension by

strengthening student skills “at summarizing, thinking in-depth from multiple perspectives,

activating and organizing numerous thoughts, and creating interest through meaningful social

interactions” (p. 41).

The authors discussed the difference between learning to write and writing to learn.

Learning to write involves learning the skills of letter formation, encoding, sentence structure

and the stages of writing. Writing to learn is writing for comprehension. Writing to learn

provides students with the opportunity to recall, clarify, and question what they read (Wallace et

al, 2007). In conclusion, reading and writing need to be integrated throughout instruction in order

to improve the quality of each. The four writing strategies can be used in any content area to help

students gain more from texts and help them improve their comprehension skills.

Question Answer Relationships (QAR)

Many third, fourth and fifth grade students still expect to open a text and find the answer

to a question written in one sentence. They often become easily frustrated searching for the

answers to questions they can’t easily find in the text (Kinniburgh & Prew, 2010). Raphael

(1986) developed QAR as a tool for clarifying how students can approach the task of reading

texts and answering questions. This strategy helps students realize the need to consider both

information in the text and information from their own background knowledge. QAR instruction

helps students analyze, comprehend and respond to text questions (Raphael & Au, 2005).

QAR was based on the Pearson and Johnson (1978) question taxonomy. The idea

behind the question taxonomy was that questions should not be identified in isolation. Questions

need to be identified in relation to both the text being read and the reader’s prior knowledge

(Raphael, 1986). Students of different ages benefit from different amounts of QAR instruction.

8


Students prior to second grade respond best when introduced initially to just the first two levels

of QAR “In the Book” and “In My Head” (Raphael, 1986). Kinniburgh and Prew (2010) argue

that it is imperative to introduce the QAR strategy to students in kindergarten and continue it

through first and second grades. When kindergarten students are able to understand that some

answers are not found in the text they are getting a strong foundation of how questions work.

“Promoting high levels of literacy for all children is a core responsibility for today’s

teachers” (Raphael & Au, 2005, p. 206). The QAR framework has the potential of closing the

achievement gap because it addresses the four problems that currently stand in the way of

moving all students to a higher level of literacy. Those problems include: a need for a shared

language, a need for a framework for organizing questioning activities across grade levels and

subjects, the need for accessible and straightforward whole-school reform for higher level

thinking literacy instruction, and the need to prepare students for high-stakes testing. QAR

moves all students, especially those of diverse backgrounds, to a higher level of thinking about

the text they read. The QAR framework provides benefits to schools, teachers, and students in a

relatively small amount of time and effort (Raphael & Au, 2005). Students who understand how

questions are written are better prepared to answer questions.

Reading comprehension is an essential skill for achieving success in school and future

learning. Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, and Randolph (1996) state “One approach for enhancing

reading comprehension skills has been to teach students a strategy called Question Answer

Relationship” (p. 64). QAR is a metacognitive approach that teaches students to classify

questions into two categories: information found in the text and information acquired from

background knowledge or personal experiences. QAR instruction teaches students to locate

information, determine text structure, and determine when an inference is required in order to

9


answer a question (Raphael, 1986). QAR allows students to demonstrate their ability to

determine importance, make inferences and monitor their comprehension. Studies of QAR have

shown that students that use this strategy outperform those that do not when completing reading

comprehension questions.

QAR explicit instruction includes modeling and guided practice. Teachers demonstrate

to students how the type of question determines the thinking process needed to appropriately

respond (Helfeldt & Henk, 1990). The recommended sequence of QAR instruction steadily

reduces the amount of teacher guidance and gradually increases the amount of learner

responsibility. When teaching the QAR strategy it is important to remember four principles: give

immediate feedback, progress from shorter to longer texts, build independence by guiding

students from group to independent activities, and provide transition from the easier task of

recognizing an answer to the more difficult task of creating a response from more than one

source of information (Raphael, 1982). During QAR instruction students receive feedback on

their ability to identify the type of question, their ability to use the QAR to locate the information

needed to respond, and their ability to provide an acceptable response (see appendix B for more

information on QAR).

QAR Research

Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, and Randolph (1996) examined how well students were able

to maintain question-answering skills with fiction and nonfiction books after receiving QAR

instruction. This study included 34 students from two fourth-grade classrooms in a Pittsburgh

public school. Both classes received Language Arts instruction from the same teacher at different

times. The intervention was introduced throughout the fourth grade academic year through a

multiple (4) probe approach involving the four types of QAR questions. The frequency data was

10


analyzed using a logit-model analysis, exploring the relationship between response accuracy,

intervention, and question type.

The study focused on whether or not students who participated in QAR training were able

to maintain their question answering performance over time, as well as, whether or not they were

able to answer questions to expository texts to the same extent they were able to answer

questions to narrative texts. The ability to answer implicit, as well as, explicit questions was also

examined during this study. Students were able to maintain their answering skills very well on

the Right There and Putting it Together questions and not as well on the Author and You

questions. The intervention was ineffective for the On Your Own questions (Ezell, Hunsicker,

Quinque, & Randolph, 1996). Results were similar with both types of text (narrative and

expository).

Kathleen Lawrence (2002) planned and implemented a 10-week unit to help third and

fourth grade students prepare for standardized testing. The author wanted to increase

comprehension of informational text, help students effectively respond to short answer questions,

help students recognize and locate textual evidence, and provide students with practice writing a

balanced essay. Emphasizing that all questions are not equal, Lawrence implemented QAR

instruction with a traffic light analogy. The green light represented the “right there” questions,

the yellow light represented the “think and search” questions and the read light represented the

“on my own” questions (Lawrence, 2002). Standardized test scores in the school slowly

improved.

Kinniburgh and Prew (2010) studied how QAR can be effectively taught to students in

the primary grades. The four-week study was conducted in a Title I school in the southwestern

United States. It included a kindergarten, first grade, second grade, and a special education

11


classroom. A total of four teachers and 69 students participated in the study. The teachers were

all trained in the use of the QAR reading strategy prior to the intervention. They taught and used

the QAR strategy every day over a four-week period using a variety of activities.

At the end of the four-week intervention the four teachers and all students were

Interviewed. A pre and post reading comprehension test from the basal reading series was

administered to all first and second grade students. The results showed gains in reading

comprehension for both grade levels. The data for students in the kindergarten and special

education classrooms consisted solely of student interviews. The results from the student

interviews showed that all students enjoyed learning the QAR strategy. Students also felt it

helped them better understand the stories and to answer questions regarding the stories

(Kinniburgh & Prew, 2010).

QAR Across Content Areas

QAR is a research based reading strategy that benefits every type and level of learner

(Raphael, 1986). The QAR strategy easily and authentically enhances comprehension across a

variety of content areas and encourages the use of a common language for strategy use

throughout the school day (Raphael & Au, 2005). Neufeld (2005) warns that comprehension

instruction should be an essential part of content area instruction, because learning from texts

encompasses all subject areas. Students that are only taught comprehension strategies in

language arts often have a difficult time transferring the strategies and skills to expository texts

in other content areas.

Draper and McIntosh (1996) argue that if students are to successfully solve

mathematical word problems, they must use a combination of both text-based (information

provided by the text) and brain-based (information acquired from personal experiences) thinking.

12


“QRA is not meant to replace content instruction, but to accompany it” (p. 123). Kinniburgh and

Shaw (2009) state that using the question-answer relationship reading comprehension strategy

during science instruction increased students’ reading comprehension of science texts.

Consequently, student strategic reading of scientific texts will increase test scores in science and

reading. Cortese (2003) incorporated pictures with QAR instruction with primary grade children

with language disorders. Cortese concluded that the Picture-Question-Answer Relationships (P-

QAR) strategy reduced “the cognitive linguistic burden on students by extricating processing

demands from text” (p. 376).

In conclusion, several research studies have shown that the use of the question-answer

relationships (QAR) strategy has improved reading comprehension in students from varying

backgrounds and grade levels. Many different research articles discussed the benefits of

providing QAR instruction for every type and level of learner across a variety of content areas.

Reading comprehension is an essential skill that provides the foundation for all other learning

(Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, & Randolph, 1996). Therefore, the research question for this action

research study was, “How will explicit instruction in question-answer relationships (QAR)

improve first grade students’ reading comprehension?” The methodological details of this action

research study follow.

Methodology

This action research study utilized the quasi-experimental pre/posttest comparison

group design. The independent variable, reading comprehension instruction, was assigned two

levels: Traditional and Question-Answer Relationship (QAR). Traditional instruction consisted

of continuing to simply ask students a combination of text explicit and text implicit

comprehension questions based on the book they were reading. The comparison classroom

13


received traditional reading instruction throughout the research study. During whole group read

aloud with accountable talk the teacher read a text to the students while asking them reading

comprehension questions before, during, and after the read aloud. During small group guided

reading instruction the students read with the guidance of the classroom teacher while she asked

them reading comprehension questions before, during, and after reading the text. The students

devised answers to the comprehension questions and responded.

QAR instruction consisted of teaching students how to analyze comprehension

questions in order to identify whether the answers could be found “In the Book” or “In my

Head” (Appendix B). The intervention group received QAR instruction throughout the research

study. During whole group read aloud with accountable talk the teacher read a text to the

students while asking them comprehension questions before, during, and after the read aloud.

During small group guided reading instruction the students read with the guidance of the

classroom teacher while she asked them comprehension questions before, during, and after

reading the text. Throughout whole group and small group QAR instruction the teacher modeled

and coached students on how to analyze the questions, identify where the answers could be

found, and how to appropriately respond (Appendix C). The dependent variable was

comprehension achievement. The gain scores from the pre and posttest on the MCLASS Reading

3D TRC reading assessment and The Snowy Day pre and post common formative assessment

(Appendix D) defined the students’ achievement of text comprehension.

Intervention Students: Guided

Reading/Question Answer

Relationships Instruction

Comparison Students: Guided

Reading/Comprehension

Questions

Dependent Variable: 1. MCLASS Reading 3D TRC 1. MCLASS Reading 3D TRC

14


reading

comprehension

achievement

assessment (pre and post)

2. The Snowy Day Pre and Post

Reading Comprehension CFA/

Question-Answer Relationships

Checklist

3. Researcher Log

observations/QRA Checklist

assessment (pre and post)

2. The Snowy Day Pre and Post

Reading Comprehension CFA/

Question-Answer Relationships

Checklist

Figure 1. Independent Variable: Reading Comprehension Instruction

Participants and Setting

The research study was conducted in two first grade classrooms in a public STEM school

in western North Carolina. The Title I K-5 elementary school serviced approximately 489

students of which 56% received free or reduced lunch. The students in each first grade classroom

were placed at the beginning of the year by the principal to ensure a balance of ethnicity, gender,

and academic achievement. The intervention group consisted of 19 students, including nine girls

and ten boys. Five of these students were Latino, four of the students were African American,

one of the students was Multi-Racial, and nine of the students were Caucasian. The comparison

group consisted of 20 students, including 11 girls and 9 boys. Six of these students were Latino,

six of these students were African American, and eight of the students were Caucasian. The

researcher received parental permission (Appendix G) and student assent for all participants in

the study.

Mrs. Lattin was the teacher of record for the intervention group and was the researcher.

She had six years of teaching experience and ten years of teaching assistant experience. This was

her second year as a first grade teacher. Mrs. Berg, who had two years of teaching experience,

15


was the teacher of record for the comparison group. This was her second year as a first grade

teacher.

Intervention

Research supports that consistent QAR instruction helps students develop strategies to

analyze questions and utilize appropriate strategies and language in order to provide apt

responses (Raphael & Au, 2005). Therefore, the researcher implemented QAR instruction each

day during read aloud with accountable talk (whole group for approximately 15 minutes per day)

and guided reading groups (small group for approximately 20 minutes per group). The researcher

began QAR instruction on Wednesday, January 21st and provided the intervention for five weeks

concluding on February 25th. QAR instruction helps students recognize whether or not

information is present in the text or if they also need to tap into their own schema in order to

provide an acceptable response (Raphael, 1986).

Raphael suggested to begin QAR instruction by introducing and modeling the

two main levels of questions “In the Book” and “In my Head” (Appendix C). The researcher

explained that these two levels tell students where they can find the answers to the questions. She

emphasized to the students that finding answers to questions is what good readers do in order to

better understand the text they are reading. Once the students became proficient at the two main

levels of QAR, which required differentiated instruction according to each reading group, the

researcher began to introduce the two types of questions at each level including: Right There,

Think & Search, Author & Me and On My Own. (Raphael & Au, 2005).

The two types of questions at the “In the Book” level are classified as either “Right

There” questions or “Think and Search” questions (Appendix B). The answers to “Right There”

questions are found in the text, and are usually very easy for students to find. The words used to

16


make up the questions and the words used to answer the questions are “right there” in the same

sentence. Students can simply scan the text to find the answers. The answers to “Think and

Search” questions are pieced together using information from different parts of the text. The

words for the questions and the words for the answers are not found in the same sentence,

therefore, students need to put together different pieces of information to find the answers.

The two types of questions at the “In my Head” level are classified as either “Author and

Me” questions or “On My Own” questions (Appendix B). The answers to “Author and Me”

questions are not found in the text. These questions require students to think inferentially.

Students must think about what they already know, what the author is telling them, and how both

pieces of information fit together. The answers to “On My Own” questions can be answered

without even reading the text. The answers to these questions rely completely on a students’ own

experiences.

On Monday of the first week, the researcher introduced and modeled the two main levels

of questions “In the Book” and “In my Head” during the whole group mini lesson (Appendix C).

She explained and modeled where the answers to these two types of questions can be found. The

researcher read the nonfiction text Palm Trees by Marcia S. Freeman and asked the students a

combination of both types of questions. They had to answer the questions and respond whether

they found the information (or answer) in the text or if the information was acquired from their

own personal experiences (or in their head). The researcher made an anchor chart and wrote the

questions under the appropriate heading after the students told her where the answers could be

found “In the Book” or “In my Head”. Throughout the rest of the week, during the mini-lesson

for Reader’s Workshop, the intervention group reviewed the main two levels of questions. The

researcher then rotated meeting with each of the four reading groups. She met with two groups

17


each day for about 20 minutes per group in order to provide them with more individualized

instruction and support. During small group instruction the students took turns reading a book at

their reading level and answering a combination of questions. Students also had to tell the

researcher where they acquired the information to answer the questions either “In the Book” or

“In my Head”.

The second week, during the whole group mini-lesson for Reader’s Workshop, the

researcher introduced, modeled, and provided guided practice with “Right There” questions

(Appendix C). She read the text Beavers and Their Lodges by Martha E. H. Rustad. After

reading each page, she called on students to come up with a “Right There” question to ask their

peers. Throughout the rest of the week during the mini-lesson for Reader’s Workshop the

intervention group reviewed “Right There” questions. Then, the researcher rotated meeting with

each of the four reading groups. She met with two groups each day for about 20 minutes per

group in order to provide them with more individualized instruction and support. During small

group instruction the students took turns reading each page of a text at their reading level and

asking their peers a “Right There” question that could be answered from the page they just read.

The third week, during the whole group mini-lesson for Reader’s Workshop, the

researcher introduced, modeled, and provided guided practice with “Think and Search”

questions (Appendix C). She read the book Sun Up, Sun Down by Gail Gibbons and asked the

students questions. The researcher told the students to really pay attention and listen to the story

because “Think and Search” questions are found throughout the text and not just on one page or

in one sentence. Throughout the rest of the week during the mini-lesson for Reader’s Workshop

the intervention group reviewed “Think and Search” questions. Then the researcher rotated

meeting with each of the four, guided reading groups. She met with two groups each day for

18


about 20 minutes per group in order to provide them with more individualized instruction and

support. The students took turns reading each page of a text at their individual reading level and

were asked “Think and Search” questions where/when appropriate so that they had to think and

search the text for the answers.

The fourth week, during the whole group mini-lesson for Reader’s Workshop, the

researcher introduced, modeled, and provided guided practice with “On My Own” questions

(Appendix C). She gave each student a clipboard, sheet of paper, and a pencil. While the

researcher read the book Amazing Grace by Mary Hoffman, she stopped periodically and asked

the students “On My Own” questions. She told the students to write their answers to the

questions on their sheet of paper in order to keep all students actively engaged in the activity.

The researcher called on one or two students to share their answers with the class. Throughout

the rest of the week during the mini-lesson for Reader’s Workshop the intervention group

reviewed “On My Own” questions. The researcher then rotated meeting with each of the four

guided, reading groups. She met with two groups each day for about 20 minutes per group in

order to provide them with more individualized instruction and support. The students took turns

reading each page of a text at their reading level and were asked “On My Own” questions

where/when appropriate.

The fifth week, during the whole group mini-lesson for Reader’s Workshop, the

researcher introduced, modeled, and provided guided practice with “Author and Me” questions

(Appendix C). She gave each student a clipboard, sheet of paper, and a pencil. While the

researcher read the book The Little Red Hen by Paul Galdone, she stopped periodically and asked

the students “Author and Me” questions. She told the students to write their answers to the

questions on their sheet of paper in order to keep all students actively engaged in the activity.

19


Then she called on one or two students to share their answers with the class. Since there was

only two days of school this week due to the snow, the researcher decided to do a whole group

activity rather than trying to pull all four guided reading groups.

Therefore, during the whole group Reader’s Workshop mini-lesson, the researcher

reviewed “Author and Me” questions and passed out clipboards and pencils to the students. They

wrote their names and the date on the top of the paper. The researcher told them that she would

stop periodically while reading the story to ask them one of the questions on the paper and they

would have a minute or two to write their responses. There were seven questions already typed

up on the sheet of paper for the students to answer while the researcher read the book Ned’s New

Old Sled by Robin Bloksberg. Then she called on one or two students to share their answers with

the class.

Data Sources and Data Collection Procedures

Three data sources were utilized during this study. Student scores on MCLASS

Reading 3D TRC were used for the pre/posttest quantitative data. The MCLASS TRC

benchmark (pre-test) was administered January 7th through January 16th and MCLASS TRC

progress monitoring (post-test) was administered February 25th through March 4th. The Snowy

Day common formative pre-assessment (CFA) was administered between January 7th and

January 16th and the post CFA was administered between February 25th and March 4th (Appendix

D). The CFA also provided quantitative data. Anecdotal records and reflections were kept in a

researcher log throughout the research study. A Question-Answer Relationships checklist was

used throughout the research study to observe students and notate whether or not they were able

to identify and appropriately answer the different types of questions. The checklist was part of

20


the researcher’s log. The QAR checklist and researcher’s log provided qualitative data for the

research study.

MCLASS Reading 3D is an on-going formative and diagnostic assessment with three

benchmark periods and a progress-monitoring component created by Wireless Generation.

MCLASS provided immediate feedback about the instructional needs of individual students and

identified appropriate, individualized interventions and strategies. Text Reading and

Comprehension (TRC) was an individually administered assessment that used leveled readers

from a book set to determine a student’s instructional reading level. This measure required

students to read an authentic text, provide a retell and answer oral or written comprehension

questions.

The Snowy Day by Ezra Jack Keats (Appendix D) was a teacher created common

formative assessment (CFA) that consisted of ten questions from the two main levels of QAR

instruction (“In the Book” or “In my Head”). Students were expected to identify and name the

type of question (“In the Book” or “In my Head”), locate and/or articulate where the answer can

be found and provide an adequate response to the question. Students were required to follow this

process for each of the questions on the assessment. Each question was worth a total of two

possible points: one point for identifying the type of question and one point for locating and/or

articulating where the answer could be found while providing an adequate response (Appendices

E & F). The number of possible points a student attained were divided by a total of 20 points (10

questions worth a possible two points each) in order to determine a percentage for each student

(Appendices E & F). I administered the CFA to only six students from each classroom (two

lower readers, two medium readers, and two higher readers). After the CFA was scored the

results of the pre and posttest were graphed (Figure 3).

21


Figure 2. Data Collection Timeline. This timeline shows the dates each data source was collected throughout the intervention.

Data Analysis

After the data was collected, the pre/posttests were compared and analyzed using

the independent samples t-test to determine if significant gains were achieved, between the mean

gains score for the independent and comparison group (Appendices H & I). Both the researcher’s

log and the checklist were analyzed and coded for themes related to the research question.

Validity and Reliability or Trustworthiness

Over the course of the five-week action research project, four possible threats to validity

existed. Intervention participants were not randomly chosen which posed a selection threat. The

intervention participants were chosen because they were in the researcher’s classroom. This

could not be controlled; however, this did not pose any discrepancies in data because students

were placed at the beginning of the year by the principal in an effort to ensure a balance of

ethnicity, gender, and academic achievement.

Collector bias posed a threat to the research project. This posed a threat because when

22

Data Sources Date Administered

MCLASS Reading 3D TRC

Assessment

January 7th – January 16th (pre-test)

February 25th – March 4h (posttest)

The Snowy Day CFA January 7th (pre-intervention)

February 25th (post-intervention)

Researcher Log &

QRA Checklist

January 7th – March 4th (throughout

the entire research study)


collecting and analyzing data, there is the possibility that the researcher might inadvertently view

and record data in ways that favor their hypothesis. The implement/implementation threat was

another possibility if the researcher were to unintentionally treat the students in the intervention

group differently based on a desire to obtain results that supported the study. Both of these

threats were controlled by the integrity of the researcher, teacher code of ethics, and the desire to

attain accurate results. Also, the validity and reliability of MCLASS Reading 3D TRC

assessments would make it difficult for the researcher to influence results.

The school in which the study was conducted is located in a low-income, highly

transitional neighborhood and students frequently move in and out of the attendance area.

Therefore, experimental mortality was another possible threat to the validity of this study. This

threat could not be controlled and did not pose any discrepancies within the study. Data

triangulation was used to ensure reliability of this study. However, the study is not generalizable

to all first-grade classrooms. The results of this research project are specific to the classroom of

students that were provided the intervention.

Findings/Results

Quantitative Data

At the conclusion of the five week study, the results from the pre/posttests of the

MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) and The Snowy Day Common Formative

Assessment (CFA) were analyzed to find the difference in means and the standard deviation

(SD). The analysis of the mean score data for the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension

shows that the intervention group (n=19) had a mean gain of 1.10, while the comparison group

(n=20) had a mean gain of 0.75. The standard deviation was 0.56 for the intervention group and

0.44 for the comparison group (See Table 1 and Figure 3). These results indicate that the

23


intervention group made more gains than the comparison group. Therefore, the Question-Answer

Relationships (QAR) instructional reading strategy had a positive effect on the MCLASS reading

comprehension achievement of the students in the intervention group.

Analysis was also done to determine the mean gain score and the standard deviation

for The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA). The data shows that the intervention

group (n=19) had a mean gain of 4, while the comparison group (n=20) had a mean gain score of

1.66. The standard deviation was 1.67 for the intervention group and 1.36 for the comparison

group (See Table 1 and Figure 3). These results indicate that the intervention group had a higher

mean gains than the comparison group. Therefore, the QAR instructional reading strategy also

had a positive impact on The Snowy Day CFA comprehension achievement scores of the students

intervention group. However, in order to more accurately determine the effect of the intervention

(QAR instruction) further data analysis was conducted.

Table 1

Pre and Posttest Means

MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC)

Mean SD

Intervention 1.10 0.56

Comparison 0.75 0.44

The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA)

Mean SD

Intervention 4 1.67

Comparison 1.66 1.36

Note: Intervention N=19; Comparison N=20

24


MCLASS Pre/Posttest

Mean

MCLASS Pre/Posttest

SD

The Snowy Day Pre/Posttest

Mean

The Snowy Day Pre/Posttest SD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Intervention GroupComparison Group

Figure 3. Bar graph of the pre/posttests for the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) and The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA). This figure shows the difference in means (Mean) and standard deviation (SD) results from the pre and posttests for the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) and The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA); the data is presented in Table 1.

The effect the intervention had on the students’ reading comprehension achievement

was calculated by the mean gain scores of the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension

(TRC) and The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA). An independent samples t-

test was conducted to compare first grade students’ reading comprehension achievement in

Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) instruction and traditional reading instruction. There was

a significant difference in the mean change scores on the MCLASS TRC for QAR instruction

(M=1.10, SD=0.56) and traditional instruction (M=0.75, SD=0.44) with a two-tailed p value of

p=0.03. There was also a significant difference in the mean change scores on The Snowy Day

CFA for QAR instruction (M=4, SD=1.67) and traditional instruction (M=1.66, SD=1.36) with a

two-tailed p value of p=0.02. In order for a two-tailed p value to show a significant gain, it must

be <0.05. In both of the analyses that were completed, p-value was less than 0.05, showing great

25


significance (See Table 2 and Figure 4). Therefore, the results of this study suggest that QAR

instruction positively impacts reading comprehension scores more than traditional instruction.

Table 2

Independent t-Test on Reading Comprehension Achievement on Pre/ Posttest MCLASS Text

Reading & Comprehension (TRC) and The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA)

Assessment Mean

Difference

SE t-

value

df two-tailed

p

Effect

size

MCLASS Text Reading and

Comprehension (TRC)

0.35 0.16 2.18 37 0.03 0.79

The Snowy Day Common

Formative Assessment (CFA)

2.33 0.88 2.64 10 0.02 1.70

Note: p<.05 = gains are attributable to the intervention and are not just chance

Mean D

iffer

ence SE

t-valu

e df

two-ta

iled p

Effect

Size d

=0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

MCLASS Pre/PosttestThe Snowy Day Pre/Posttest

26


Figure 4. Bar graph of the Independent t-Test on Reading Comprehension Achievement on Pre and Posttest MCLASS Text Reading & Comprehension (TRC) and The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA). This figure shows the results for the Mean Difference, Standard Error (SE), t-value, two-tailed p, and the Effect Size for the intervention and comparison groups; the data is presented in Table 2.

Qualitative Analysis

During the five week intervention, the researcher created and maintained a researcher

log to record anecdotal notes of observations, reflections, and evidences of student learning. The

researcher took thorough notes during each Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) instructional

lesson in order to qualitatively analyze how the intervention group was progressing throughout

the intervention. She documented the context of the lesson, teacher and student questions,

student responses, student reactions, teacher reflections, and next steps during each instructional

period in order to note common themes related to the study.

Recognizing, Answering, and Asking “In-The-Book” and “In-My-Head” Questions

After carefully reviewing and analyzing the notes in the researcher’s log, the researcher

observed that the students had an easier time recognizing and answering “In the Book” and

“In my Head” questions than they did coming up with these types of questions for their peers.

While reading the text Palm Trees by Marcia S. Freeman, the researcher asked the question,

“What is a frond?” A student responded, “The leaves on a palm tree.” The researcher then asked,

“Where did you find the answer to that question? Did you find it by looking in the book or in

your head?” The student replied, “In the book.”

A few days later the researcher read a similar text Pine Trees by Marcia S. Freeman to

the students. She read the first page, “Pine trees grow to be big trees. They have straight trunks.”

Then she called on the same student to ask an “In the Book” question to her peers. The student

asked, “Where do pine trees grow?” She asked the student if she was asking an “In the Book” or

27


“In my Head” question. The student responded, “In the book.” The researcher read the page

again then asked the student, “Did the author mention where pine trees grow on this page?” She

replied, “No, but it could be an in your head question if you know where pine tress grow.” The

researcher provided a lot of guided practice to help students gain a better understanding of asking

their peers questions about the text they are reading. However, many students had to continue to

be redirected and coached throughout the process.

The researcher also noticed that most students had a more difficult time coming up

with “In my Head” questions than they did with “In the Book” questions. While observing

students during whole group, small group, and independent reading time, the researcher noted

that students asked their peers more “In the Book” questions than “In my Head” questions if

given the choice. When students were required to ask their peers an “In my Head” question the

researcher often had to coach the students through the process.

Making Connections

A second theme that was evident after a close analysis of the researcher’s log was that

students were able to easily make text-to-self connections. During whole group and small group

reading instruction the researcher noted that students anxiously answered the “In my Head”

questions. They would often blurt out their answers and talk over top of one another in order to

be heard by the teacher and their peers. Students were able to quickly tap into their schema and

relate their own personal experiences to the story they were reading.

During a small group lesson the researcher was reading the text Bobbie Goes on

Vacation by Monica Hughes. She stopped and asked the students, “Have you ever gone on a

vacation?” All four of the students in the small group began to blurt out a reply. The researcher

reminded them to raise their hand if they wanted a turn to answer the question. She called on the

28


student whose hand went up first. He responded, “Yes, two times and I found snakes. I found a

family of snakes and I ran!” Another student quickly blurted out, “Yeah, and I’m going to

Yellowstone this summer!”

During a whole group reading lesson the researcher read the book Amazing Grace by

Mary Hoffman. She asked the students, “If you could pretend to be anyone, who would you

pretend to be? Why?” Many of the students began to call out their responses. The researcher

reminded them to please raise their hands if they would like to share their response. Most of the

students raised their hand in the air. She called on one of the students to answer the question. The

student responded, “I sometimes act out a zoologist and a jungle discoverer. I do it outside with

my dog. I made a map with my own notebook and we explore and do investigations.” The

researcher noted that the students were very eager to talk about their own personal experiences

and were very creative in their responses.

Rereading, Skimming and Scanning the Text

A third theme that became apparent after a careful review and analysis of the

researcher’s log was that students were beginning to utilize their texts to answer questions.

During small group instruction the students began looking back through their books to answer

the researcher’s questions. They started rereading, skimming and scanning the text in order to

find an appropriate response to “Just Right”, “Think and Search” and “Author and Me”

questions. Students searched through their leveled readers in order to provide text evidence to

support their answers.

Main Idea

A fourth theme that became quite obvious to the researcher during the “Author and Me”

29


portion of the intervention was that the students had a very difficult time answering questions

about the main idea or lesson of a story. While reading the story The Little Red Hen by Paul

Galdone the researcher asked the students, “What is the main idea of the story? What lesson is

the author trying to teach us?” One student responded, “Um, they weren’t helping at first, but

they helped her.” A second student answered, “That you shouldn’t be lazy because maybe your

friend will leave and you won’t see them.” A third student replied, “It’s about the little red hen

teaching the cat and the frog a lesson. Don’t be lazy if you are the person who is doing all the

work won’t give you anything.” Another student added, “I think it’s about teaching a good

lesson about not being lazy.” Throughout the rest of the intervention the researcher continued

discussing, modeling and providing guided and independent practice to help students learn to

identify the main idea or lesson of a story.

Dominate Students

Another theme that emerged from the researcher log was the fact that a handful of

students dominated both small group and whole group discussions. The researcher noted that a

few of the same students’ names appeared throughout the researcher log. These were the students

that continually offered their responses to the questions the researcher asked. This observation

was especially apparent during whole group read aloud with accountable talk. The researcher

noticed that the same students overshadowed their quieter classmates every time they met for

whole group instruction. Therefore, the researcher had to work to ensure that all students had a

voice during whole group reading instruction. She accomplished this by having students provide

a written response to questions and selecting different students to share their responses during

QAR instruction.

30


Discussion and Conclusions

The purpose of this action research study was to determine how the use of explicit

Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) instruction would improve the reading comprehension

achievement of first grade students. The anticipated outcome of this study was that the classroom

of students that received explicit instruction in QAR (intervention classroom) would show an

increased ability to analyze, comprehend and respond to text questions on the MCLASS Reading

3D TRC assessment. The researcher expected this intervention would help students learn to read

closely in order to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it,

as well as, cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn

from the text.




(SD). The results indicated that the intervention group made more gains than the comparison

group (See Table 1 and Figure 3). An independent samples t-test was also conducted to compare

first grade students’ reading comprehension achievement in Question-Answer Relationships

(QAR) instruction and traditional reading instruction. The results indicated that the two-tailed p

value for each of the measures was less than 0.05 (See Table 2 and Figure 4). Therefore,

quantitative data showed that there was a significant difference between the use of QAR

instruction and traditional instruction on the reading comprehension achievement of first grade

students.

This action research project allowed the researcher the opportunity to explore and

31


implement a new reading instructional strategy in the classroom. Not only were students more

capable and successful in comprehending and responding to text, but the researcher also gained

insight into a new skill and teaching method. In order to substantiate the intervention used was

evidence-based, the researcher first investigated the QAR method of instruction. Previous

evidence-based research supported the use of QAR as an effective reading comprehension

strategy.

Reading comprehension is an essential skill for students to learn in order to achieve

success in school and future learning (Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, & Randolph, 1996). While

administering the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) pre-test, the researcher

observed that most of the students in the intervention group were able to read texts with 96

percent to 100 percent accuracy. However, they had difficulty responding to the oral and written

comprehension questions that they were required to answer in order to move on to the next

reading level. Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, and Randolph (1996) state “One approach for

enhancing reading comprehension skills has been to teach students a strategy called Question

Answer Relationship” (p. 64). Studies using QAR reading comprehension instructional strategies

have shown that students using these strategies outperform other students when answering

reading comprehension questions (Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, and Randolph, 1996). Raphael and

Au (2005) believe “All readers at all grades can benefit from learning to think in terms of

information sources for answering and asking questions” (p. 220).

The QAR strategy equips students with the tools to successfully decode and

comprehend what they read. Raphael (1982) states that students “need to be taught how to

analyze a question in order to find the correct answers” (p. 186). The QAR strategy helped raise

student awareness of the need to look through the text in order to answer comprehension

32


questions. The researcher noted that students began utilizing their texts to look back through the

story in order to answer questions and to use text evidence to support their response.

The findings from this action research project on QAR confirms its value as a reading

comprehension strategy. It also affirmed the importance of helping students make connections

between the texts they read and the world around them. For many students a lack of prior

knowledge and schema often hampers their performance when answering “On my Own”

questions. QAR instruction helped students answer higher-order, text implicit questions, which

require students to make inferences and tap into their own schema. Raphael and Au (2005)

explain “We believe QAR provides a framework that offers teachers a straightforward approach

for reading comprehension instruction with the potential of eventually closing the literacy

achievement gap.” Providing students with strategies to activate prior knowledge or schema to

make text-to-text, text-to-self, and text-to-world connections definitely improved their ability to

answer higher-order comprehension questions.

Limitations

There were several limitations to this action research study, including sample size,

length of the intervention, and inclement weather. The first limitation was the small sample size

of only 39 students. There were 19 students in the intervention group and 20 students in the

comparison group. Due to the small sample size it would be difficult to generalize these findings.

Therefore, more research should be conducted with larger sample sizes in order to analyze

whether or not the results are consistent.

A second limitation was the length of the action research study. The QAR reading

comprehension intervention was implemented in the classroom for only five weeks. A third

limitation was inclement weather. During the final two weeks of the study school was closed for

33


seven out of nine days due to snow and ice. Longer research studies should be conducted in order

to see if they yield different results.

The final limitation was researcher bias. The researcher administered The Snowy Day

Common Formative Assessment (CFA) to students in both the intervention group and the

comparison group. Students were expected to identify the type of question “In my Head” or “In

the Book” and provide an appropriate response. The researcher reviewed the students’ responses

for the intervention group and the comparison group and decided whether or not they were

acceptable responses. Unfortunately, this process may have allowed the opportunity for

unintentional researcher bias.

Implications for Educators

The results of both the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) assessment

and The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment (CFA) indicate that the mean gain score for

the intervention group was higher than the mean gain score for the comparison group. Also, the

two-tailed p value for both assessments was less than 0.05, which demonstrates great

significance. Therefore, the quantitative data for this study showed that there was a positive

significant difference in the achievement of students’ reading comprehension due to Question-

Answer Relationships (QAR) instruction rather than through traditional instruction. These results

support Raphael when he states that students “need to be taught how to analyze a question in

order to find the correct answers” (p. 186).

The ability to ask and answer questions is a fundamental part of the comprehension

process and is critical to the effectiveness of all other reading strategies. Question-Answer

Relationships (QAR) instruction teaches students three comprehension strategies: locating

information, determining text structures and how they convey information and determining when

34


an inference is required or invited. Raphael and Au (2005) believe “All readers at all grades can

benefit from learning to think in terms of information sources for answering and asking

questions” (p. 220). Knowing the results of this research study is beneficial to educators because

it gives them the opportunity to implement research-based reading comprehension strategies with

their students. The QAR comprehension strategy has the potential of increasing students’ reading

comprehension achievement.

Future Directions for Research

Although the quantitative results of this action research study showed a positive

significant difference between Question-Answer-Relationships (QAR) reading instruction and

traditional reading instruction, there are still many more opportunities for research in this area.

More studies need to be conducted using much larger sample sizes, different age students, and

for longer periods of time. Due to the small sample size a lack of generalizability exists. The

findings for this action research study are only relevant to the intervention classroom, its students

and its unique characteristics. The QAR intervention may yield different results in a different

classroom, grade level, school, community, etc. The use of a researcher who is not also the

teacher of record in that classroom might also change the results of the study.

Reflection

As I reflect on my first journey as a teacher researcher, I breathe a sigh of relief. The

light at the end of this long, winding tunnel is finally in sight. I found the process of conducting

an action research project very complex and often overwhelming. However, at the same time I

found it to be extremely enlightening and rewarding. The process of attaining IRB approval

(Appendix J) was particularly new to me and a little unnerving.

The purpose of this action research study was to determine how the use of explicit

35


Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) instruction would improve the reading comprehension

achievement of my first grade students. The anticipated outcome of this study was that by

introducing, modeling, and providing guided and independent practice in QAR instruction my

students would show an increased ability to analyze, comprehend and respond to text questions

on the MCLASS Reading 3D TRC assessment. I hoped this intervention would help my students

learn to read closely in order to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical

inferences from it, as well as, cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support

conclusions drawn from the text.

After administering the initial MCLASS assessment in the fall, I noticed that 47.9 percent

of my students scored below benchmark (level D). Many of my students were able to fluently

read the text, however they had a difficult time responding to the oral and written comprehension

questions. Therefore, I decided to make one of my Personal Development Plan (PDP) goals to

have 100 percent of my students increase their reading placement by at least three levels by

February. When I re-administered the MCLASS Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) pre-

test, in early January, once again most of my students were able to read the texts with 96 percent

to 100 percent accuracy. However, they still had difficulty responding to the oral and written

comprehension questions that they were required to answer in order to move on to the next

reading level.




(SD). The results indicated that my students (the intervention group) made more gains than the

comparison group. An independent samples t-test was also conducted to compare first grade

36


students’ reading comprehension achievement in Question-Answer Relationships (QAR)

instruction and traditional reading instruction. In both of the analyses that were completed, p-

value was less than 0.05, showing great significance (See Table 2 and Figure 4). Therefore, the

results of this study suggest that QAR instruction positively impacts reading comprehension

scores more than traditional instruction.

While completing my action research study, I learned the importance of exploring and

applying research based instructional strategies. I also learned the importance of critically

analyzing student observations and performance data in order to determine the instructional

needs of my students. By reviewing, analyzing and reflecting on my quantitative and qualitative

data I was able to plan instruction that was rigorous, coherent, and substantiated within a

theoretical and philosophical base. Part of the requirements for this project was to create and

maintain a researcher’s log. This helped me helped me reflect on my teaching, as well as, my

student’s learning and performance. These reflections helped guide my instruction and develop

effective QAR reading comprehension lessons that maintained student engagement, promoted

student progress, and ensured overall student success.

One strategy that I began implementing in order to maintain student engagement during

whole group read aloud with accountable talk (asking students the four different types of

questions for QAR instruction) was allowing all students to write a written response to each

question. One day during whole group, I noticed a few students beginning to lose interest while

their classmates were responding to the questions I was asking. They began playing with their

shoes, looking away, etc. So, I decided to give all of my students a clipboard, a sheet of paper,

and a pencil so that they all had an opportunity to respond to each of my questions. While

students were writing I would call on one or two of them to verbally share their response with

37


their peers. I was quite satisfied with how well this activity turned out. Most of my students

remained very engaged in the story and the lesson I was teaching. I was pleasantly surprised to

see that all of my students answered every one of the questions I asked them. I could tell that

many of my students put a lot of thought and effort into each one of their responses.

I believe this technique really helped keep my students on task throughout the lesson.

Many times a handful of my students will never want to share during whole group and they often

become quite easily distracted. This strategy helped ensure that all of my students had an

opportunity to respond and share their thoughts either verbally or in the form of a written

response. It is also imperative that my students practice the skill of writing in response to

comprehension questions in order to successful complete the on written part of the MCLASS

Text Reading Comprehension (TRC) assessment. I will continue using this strategy to keep my

students engaged during whole group reading instruction and I also began implementing it

during whole group math and writing instruction.

I really thought that the “On my Own” questions would have been the most difficult for

my students since text-to-self connections are usually quite difficult for young students to

answer. However, once my students learned how to analyze a question, identify the type of

question and know where they needed to look in order to appropriately respond they seemed to

really enjoy “On my Own” questions. Children love to talk about themselves and what better

way to incorporate talking about themselves into a lesson than asking them these types of

questions.“

Throughout this study, I have gained a wealth of knowledge about evidence-

based, effective reading comprehension instruction. I learned that the ability to ask and answer

questions is an essential part of the comprehension process and is critical to the effectiveness of

38


all other reading strategies. Modeling strategies for students is imperative to the success of

comprehension instruction. Guided and independent practice allows teachers the opportunity to

monitor students and provide individualized feedback. The ultimate goal for teachers is to help

our students become self-regulated learners, which are able to independently use comprehension

strategies to understand the texts they read.

The ability to read is a fundamental skill that is vital to the attainment of knowledge in all

content areas (Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, & Randolph, 1996). Reading immerses children in

language and exposes them to new ideas and experiences. Therefore, providing children a means

to understanding the world around them. I believe that reading is the key that unlocks the door to

academic success and infinite possibilities. Our goal as educators is to nurture and motivate our

students while teaching them the skills necessary to read with fluency and comprehension. I

believe it would be beneficial to teach QAR to all students, starting in kindergarten and

continuing throughout high school. I definitely plan to continue using QAR as a part of my

reading comprehension instruction throughout the remainder of this year and throughout my

teaching career.

39


References

Connor, C. M., Phillips, B. M., Kaschak, M., Apel, K., Kim, Y., Otaiba, S. A., Crowe, E. C.,

Thomas-Tate, S., Johnson, L. C., & Lonigan, C. J. (2014). Comprehension tools for

teachers: Reading for understanding from prekindergarten through fourth grade.

Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 379-401. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9267-1

Cortese, E. E. (2004). The application of question-answer relationship strategies to pictures.

The Reading Teacher, 57(4), 374-380. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/docview/203277273?accountid=10639

Ezell, H. K., Hunsicker, S. A., Quinque, M. M., & Randolph, E. (1996). Maintenance and

generalization of QAR reading comprehension strategies. Reading Research and

Instruction, 36(1), 64-81. doi: 10.1080/19388079609558228

Gilson, C. M., Little, C. A., Ruegg, A. N., & Bruce-Davis, M. (2014). An investigation of

elementary teachers’ use of follow-up questions for students at different reading levels.

Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(2), 101-128. doi: 10.1177/1932202X14532257

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2013). Comprehension at the Core. Reading Teacher, 66(6), 432-

439. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.1145

Helfeldt, J. P., Henk, W. A. (1990). Reciprocal question-answer relationships: An instructional

technique for at-risk readers. Journal of Reading 33(7), 509-514

Kinniburgh, L. H., & Prew, S. S. (2010). Question answer relationships (QAR) in the primary

grades: Laying the foundation for reading comprehension. International Journal of Early

Childhood Special Education, 2(1), 31-44. Retrieved from

http://www.int-jecse.net/files/SESL1EHUMIG76LBM

Kinniburgh, L. H., & Shaw, Edward L., Jr. (2009). Using question-answer relationships to build

40


reading comprehension in science. Science Activities, 45(4), 19-26. Retrieved from


Lawrence, K. M. (2002). Red light, green light, 1-2-3: Tasks to prepare for standardized tests.

The Reading Teacher, 55(6), 525-528. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20205094

Mason, L. H., Davison, M. D., Hammer, C. S., Miller, C. A., & Glutting, J. J. (2013).

Knowledge,

writing, and language outcomes for a reading comprehension and writing intervention.

Reading and Writing, 26(7), 1133-1158. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9409-0

McIntosh, M. E., & Draper, R. J. (1995). Applying the question-answer relationship strategy in

mathematics. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39(2), 120-131. Retrieved from


McLaughlin, M. (2012). Reading comprehension: What every teacher needs to know. The

Reading Teacher, 65(7), 432–440. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01064

Ness, M. (2011) Explicit reading comprehension instruction in elementary classrooms: Teacher

use of reading comprehension strategies. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,

25(1), 98-117. doi: 10.1080/02568543.2010.531076

Neufeld, P. (2005). Comprehension instruction in content area classes. Reading Teacher, 59(4),

302-312. Retrieved from


Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The Reading

Teacher, 58(3), 272-280. Retrieved from


41


Phillips, E. (2013). A case study of questioning for reading comprehension during guided

reading. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years

Education, 41(1), 110-120. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2012.710106

Rapael, T. E. (1982). Question-answering strategies for children. The Reading Teacher, 36(2),

186-190. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20198181

Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher,

39(6), 516-522). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20199149

Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across

grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 206-221. Retrieved from


Wallace, R., Pearman, C., Hail, C., & Hurst, B. (2007). Writing for comprehension. Reading

Horizons, 48(1), 41-56. Retrieved from


Strategy

Instruction

42


Appendix A

Comprehension Continuum (Harvey & Goudvis, 2013)

43


Appendix B

Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) Question Stems and Answer Strategies

Question Type Where is the Answer? StrategiesRight ThereWhat did…?Who did…?

How many…?When did…?

What does…mean?Give one example…

In one place in the text. Reread Scan Look for key words

Think & SearchHow do you…?

What happened to…?What examples…?

Where did…?Compare and contrast…

Explain….

In more than oneplace in the text.

Skim or reread Look for important

information. Summarize

Author & MeWhat do you predict…?Why did the author…?Do you agree with…?What will happen…?Why do you think…?

What do you picture when…?

The answer is not given in the text. Think about how what you know and what is in the

text fit together.

Reread Predict Think about what you

already know and what the author says.

On My OwnHave you ever…?

What do you think…?In your opinion…?

What do you know about…?Do you believe…?

What would you do if…?

The answer is not in the text. Use your own thoughts and opinions when you answer.

Make connections Think about what you

already know. Think about what

you’ve read before.

44


Appendix C

Intervention Timeline

Date InterventionJanuary 7th – January 16th MCLASS Reading 3D TRC Benchmark

Assessment (pre-test)The Snowy Day pre CFA

January 21st – January 28th Introduce and model the two main levels of questions “In the Book” and “In my Head”.

Explain and model where the answers to these two types of questions can be found.

Coaching students through guided and independent practice with the two main levels of questions “In the Book” and “In my Head”.Begin QAR Checklist (observing students and

noting those that are able to identify and appropriately answer “In the Book” and

“In my Head” questions).January 28th – February 4th Introduce, model and provide guided &

independent practice with“Right There” questions.

QAR Checklist (observing students and noting those that are able to identify and appropriately

answer “Right There” questionsFebruary 4th – February 11th Introduce, model and provide guided &

independent practice with“Think and Search” questions.

QAR Checklist (observing students andnoting those that are able to identify

and appropriately answer“Think and Search” questions).

February 11th – February 18th Introduce, model and provide guided & independent practice with“On My Own” questions.

QAR Checklist (observing students andnoting those that are able to identify

and appropriately answer“On My Own” questions).

February 18th – February 25th

(Had to change implementation of “Author and Me” QAR due to inclement weather)

Introduce, model and provide guided & independent practice with

“Author and Me” questions.QAR Checklist (observing students and

noting those that are able to identifyand appropriately answer

45


“Author and Me” questions).February 25th – March 4th MCLASS Reading 3D TRC Progress

Monitoring (posttest)The Snowy Day post CFA

46


Appendix D

Pre and Post Reading Comprehension CFA

Name: _______________________________________ Date: ___________________

Read and answer each question about the story The Snowy Day by Ezra Jack Keats

1. What season does the story take place? How do you know?

2. What was making the crunching sound the boy heard in the snow?

3. What is the boy’s name?

4. What were some of the things the boy did outside in the snow?

5. What happened in the story to cause the snow to fall on his head?

6. Who played in the snow with him the next day?

7. What are some ways you are like the boy in the story?

47


8. Do you remember waking up to a snowy world outside your window? What was it like? What did you do in the snow?

9. What happened to the snowball he put in his pocket?

10. When he went to sleep what did the boy dream? Did the dream come true?

48


Appendix E

QAR Individual Student Checklist (Pre & Post Data)

Student Name: ___________________________________

The Snowy DayQuestion

Date Identified Question“In-the-Book”

Identified Question“In-My-Head”

Ability to locate and/or articulate where the answer can be found and provide an adequate response to the

question12345678910

Y = Yes N = No

Grading 2 points possible per question

1 point for identifying the type of question 1 point for locating and/or articulating where the answer can be found

and providing an adequate response to the question a possible total of 20 points

Grade: __________ out of 20 points

____ = _____ % 20

49


Appendix F

QAR Intervention Classroom Checklist (Pre and Post Data)Collective Data (# of students that correctly identified, located, and responded to questions)




Ability to locate and/or articulate where the answer can be found

and provide an adequate response to the question

12345678910

QAR Comparison Classroom Checklist (Pre and Post Data)Collective Data (# of students that correctly identified, located, and responded to questions)




Ability to locate and/or articulate where the answer can be found

and provide an adequate response to the question

12345678910

50


Appendix G

Intervention Group Parent Consent Letter

Dear Parent/Guardian, As part of my Master’s of Reading Education degree requirements at East Carolina University, I am planning an educational research project that will help me learn more about reading comprehension. The fundamental goal of this project is to improve reading comprehension. I have investigated an effective instructional practice, explicit instruction in question-answer relationships (QAR) that I will be implementing during reading instruction in January 2015. I am going to track student improvement during reading instruction for 5 weeks. The MCLASS Reading 3D TRC assessment, QAR checklist, and a researcher log will allow me to track student progress. This project has been approved by my instructor at ECU, Dr. Elizabeth Swaggerty, and the ECU Institutional Review Board. I am asking permission to include your child’s progress in my project report. Your child will not be responsible for “extra” work as a result of this project. The decision to participate or not will not affect your child’s grade. I plan to share the results of this project with other educators through presentations and publications to help educators think about how they can improve reading instruction in their own classrooms. I will use pseudonyms to protect your child’s identity. The name of our school, your child, or any other identifying information will not be used in my final report. Please know that participation (agreeing to allow me to include your child’s data) is entirely voluntary and your child may withdraw from the study at any point without penalty. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at school at (704) 782-5912 or email me at [email protected]. You may also contact my supervising professor at ECU, Dr. Elizabeth Swaggerty, at [email protected], 252.328.4970. If you have questions about your child’s rights as someone taking part in research, you may call the Office of Research Integrity & Compliance (ORIC) at 252-744-2914 (days, 8:00 am-5:00 pm). If you would like to report a complaint or concern about this research study, you may call the Director of the OHRI, at 252-744-1971. Please indicate your preference below and return the form by _____________________. Your Partner in Education,------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As the parent or guardian of ________________________________________, I grant permission for _______________________ to use my child’s data in the educational

51


research project described above regarding reading comprehension. I voluntarily consent to___________________ using data gathered about my child in her study. I fully understand that the data will not affect my child’s grade and will be kept completely confidential. Signature of Parent/Guardian:______________________________________

Date____________________________

-OR-

As the parent or guardian of _______________________________, I do not grant permission for my child’s data to be included in the study.

Parent/Guardian: _______________________________________

Appendix H

52


Del Siegle Data Spreadsheet

The Snowy Day Common Formative Assessment Pre and Posttest

Value used for Group 1 ------------------> 1 This speadsheet was prepared by Del Siegle for use in EPSY 341Value used for Group 2 ------------------> 2 Note: The df for the Unequal Variance Independent t-test is an approximation.

p of F-Max--> 0.667219126 Effect SizeIndependent t-test Use Equal Variance d=

Equal Unequal

Variance Variance

Group 1 Group 2 Mean diff. 2.333333333 2.333333333

Mean 41.66666666

7 SE 0.881917104 0.881917104

SD 1.6733200531.36626010

2 t-value 2.645751311 2.645751311n 6 6 df 10 5

two-tailed p 0.02449101 0.025265825

Paired t-test Correlation-> The scores are not paired.

Group 1 Group 2 Mean diff. The scores are not paired.Mean N/A N/A SE The scores are not paired.SD N/A N/A t-value The scores are not paired.n 12 0 df The scores are not paired.

two-tailed p The scores are not paired.

Group (IV) DV 2nd DV if calculating a paired (correlated) t-test1 3 31 2 21 3 31 4 41 6 61 6 62 2 22 1 12 4 42 0 02 1 12 2 2

53


Appendix I

Del Siegle Data Spreadsheet

MCLASS Pre and Posttest

Value used for Group 1 ------------------> 1 This speadsheet was prepared by Del Siegle for use in EPSY 341Value used for Group 2 ------------------> 2 Note: The df for the Unequal Variance Independent t-test is an approximation.

p of F-Max--> 0.299635567 Effect SizeIndependent t-test Use Equal Variance d=

Equal Unequal 0.702522803

Variance Variance 0.626421828

Group 1 Group 2 Mean diff. 0.355263158 0.355263158 0.799670985Mean 1.105263158 0.75 SE 0.162667896 0.163696997

SD 0.5671308730.44426165

8 t-value 2.183978313 2.17024848n 19 20 df 37 18

two-tailed p 0.035378246 0.037040913

Paired t-test Correlation-> The scores are not paired.

0Group 1 Group 2 Mean diff. The scores are not paired. 1

Mean N/A N/A SE The scores are not paired. 1SD N/A N/A t-value The scores are not paired.n 39 0 df The scores are not paired.

two-tailed p The scores are not paired.

Group (IV) DV 2nd DV if calculating a paired (correlated) t-test1 2 21 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 2 21 1 11 1 11 1 11 0 01 2 21 1 11 2 21 1 11 1 11 0 01 1 1

54


1 1 11 1 12 0 02 0 02 1 12 0 02 1 12 1 12 0 02 1 12 1 12 0 02 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 1

55


Appendix J

IRB Approval Letter

EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITYUniversity & Medical Center Institutional Review Board Office 4N-70 Brody Medical Sciences Building· Mail Stop 682600 Moye Boulevard · Greenville, NC 27834Office 252-744-2914 · Fax 252-744-2284 · www.ecu.edu/irb

Notification of Exempt Certification

From:Social/Behavioral IRB

To: Roberta Lattin

CC:Elizabeth Swaggerty

Date: 12/18/2014

Re:UMCIRB 14-002280 LATTIN Impact of Question-Answer Relationships on Reading Comprehension

56

I am pleased to inform you that your research submission has been certified as exempt on 12/17/2014. This study is eligible for Exempt Certification under category #1.

It is your responsibility to ensure that this research is conducted in the manner reported in your application and/or protocol, as well as being consistent with the ethical principles of the Belmont Report and your profession.

This research study does not require any additional interaction with the UMCIRB unless there are proposed changes to this study. Any change, prior to implementing that change, must be submitted to the UMCIRB for review and approval. The UMCIRB will determine if the change impacts the eligibility of the research for exempt status. If more substantive review is required, you will be notified within five business days.

The UMCIRB office will hold your exemption application for a period of five years from the date of this letter. If you wish to continue this protocol beyond this period, you will need to submit an Exemption Certification request at least 30 days before the end of the five year period.

The Chairperson (or designee) does not have a potential for conflict of interest on this study.


IRB00000705 East Carolina U IRB #1 (Biomedical) IORG0000418IRB00003781 East Carolina U IRB #2 (Behavioral/SS) IORG0000418

57

Documents

Action Research Proposal Template.docx - Weeblylattinr.weebly.com/uploads/4/9/5/3/49530073/lattin_resea… · Web viewReading comprehension provides the foundation for all other