Welcome to Open Science
Contact Us
Home Books Journals Submission Open Science Join Us News
Relating ELA Classroom Activities with Reading Achievement: Evidence from the 2015 NAEP Twelfth Grade Reading Scores
Current Issue
Volume 3, 2019
Issue 2 (June)
Pages: 41-50   |   Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2019   |   Follow on         
Paper in PDF Downloads: 68   Since Jun. 28, 2019 Views: 1588   Since Jun. 28, 2019
Julie Book, Department of Teacher Education and Professional Development, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, USA.
Mingyuan Zhang, Department of Teacher Education and Professional Development, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, USA.
This study presented an analysis of data generated from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Data Explorer. Presented in this study are findings related to twelfth-grade students reading scores on the assessment along with the relationship between those scores and classroom practices/methods of instruction such as writing about something that was read, presenting a project about something that was read, and giving a presentation about something that was read. In order to gain a closer understanding of how these classroom practices and methods of instruction impacted reading scores, quantitative data was mined from the 2015 NAEP data set and presented in this descriptive research study. The findings of this study include (1) the highest frequency of projects completed in class did not result in significantly higher reading test scores for students. (2) Students who wrote a paragraph about something they read once or twice a week had the highest reading test scores. (3) Students who paraphrased readings in the class had higher test scores than students who merely summarized them. (4) Students who made presentations in class often had higher test scores. These findings make evident that the quality of the method of instruction and classroom practice may be more important than the frequency with which students complete projects, presentations, or writings about something they have read. One major conclusion related to the type of text-based assignment students complete—summary writing may not have a significant effect on students’ engagement with the text.
NAEP, Reading Achievement, Secondary Students, Literacy Proficiency, Data Mining, Classroom Practice
Mason, L. (2013). Teaching students who struggle with learning to think before, while, and after reading: Effects of self-regulated strategy development instruction. Reading & writing quarterly, 29 (2), 124-144.
Graham, S., Liu, X., Aitken, A., Ng, C., Bartlett, B., Harris, K. & Holzapfel, J. (2017). Effectiveness of literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction: A meta-analysis. Reading research quarterly, 53 (3), 279-304.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (Louise Michelle). (1988). Writing and reading: the transactional theory. Champaign, Il.: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Yang, X., Kuo, L., Ji, X. & McTigue, E. (2018). A critical examination of the relationship among research, theory, and practice: Technology and reading instruction. Computers & Education, 125, 62-73.
National Council for Teachers of English (NCTE). The relationship between reading and writing. December 17, 2017. Retrieved from http://www2.ncte.org/blog/2017/12/relationship-writing-reading/
Goen, S. & Gillotte-Tropp, H. (2003). Integrating reading and writing: A response to the basic writing “crisis”. Journal of Basic Writing, 22 (2), 90-113.
Collins, J., Lee, J., Fox, J., & Madigan, T. (2017). Bringing together reading and writing: An experimental study of writing intensive reading comprehension in low-performing urban elementary schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 52 (3), 311-332.
Graham, S., Liu, X., Aitken, A., Ng, C., Bartlett, B., Harris, K. & Holzapfel, J. (2017). Effectiveness of literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction: A meta-analysis. Reading research quarterly, 53 (3), 279-304.
Zamel, V. (1992). Writing one’s way into reading. TESOL Quarterly, 26 (3), 463-485.
Park, J. (2016). Integrating reading and writing through extensive reading. ELT Journal, 70 (3), 287–295. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv049
Truong, M. & Zanzucchi, A. (2012). Going beyond the traditional essay: How new technologies are transforming student engagement with writing outcomes. Increasing student engagement and retention using social technologies, Facebook, e-portfolios and other social networking services, 6, 263-288.
Bond, J., & Zhang, M. (2017). The Impact of conversations on fourth grade reading performance--What NAEP Data Explorer tells? European Journal of Educational Research, 6 (4), 407-417.
Summative Assessment and Aligning Activities. (2019). Teachers corner: Collecting and Using Data. United States Department of State. https://americanenglish.state.gov/resources/teachers-corner-collecting-and-using-data#child-1998
Williamson, J. & Carrington, B. (1991). Pause for thought: controversies in the teaching of reading. Educational Studies, 17 (2), 135-147.
Alghonaim, A. (2018). Explicit ESL/EFL reading-writing connection: An issue to explore in ESL/EFL settings. Theory and practice in language studies, 8 (4), 385-392.
Nash, B. (2018). “But Isn’t the Teacher Supposed to Tell Us?”: Illuminating Transactional Reading Processes Through Transmediation, (November).
Kim, J., Hemphill, L., Troyer, M., Jones, S., LaRusso, M., Kim, H., Donovan, S. & Snow, C. (2016). The experimental effects of the strategic adolescent reading intervention (STARI) on a scenarios-based reading comprehension assessment. Society for research on educational effectiveness. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED567033
Corkett, J., Hatt, B., & Benevides, T. (2011). Student and teacher self-efficacy and the connection to reading and writing. Canadian Journal of Education, 34 (1), 65-98.
Hebert, M., Graham, S., Rigby-Wills, H., & Ganson, K. (2014). Effects of note-taking and extending writing on expository text comprehension: Who benefits? Learning disabilities: A contemporary journal, 12 (1), 43-68.
Young, T., & Morgan, A. (2015). Show Me What You Know. The Reading Teacher, 68 (5), 388–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1330
What Works Clearinghouse (2017). Teaching secondary students to write effectively. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_secondary_writing_110116.pdf
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2019). An overview of NAEP. Retrieved February 18, 2019 from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/about/pdf/NAEP_Overview_Brochure_2018.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of State Support. (2015). Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies (Title I, Part A).
Cronk, B. (2014). How to Use SPSS: A Step-by-step guide to analysis and interpretation (8th ed.).
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. http://montana.summon.serialssolutions.com/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQMEg0NE
Becker, L. (2000). Effect Size Calculator. University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. Retrieved February 24, 2019. https://www.uccs.edu/lbecker/
Reading Next. (2004). A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. NY, New York: Carnegie. Retrieved from https://www.carnegie.org/media/filer_public/b7/5f/b75fba81-16cb-422d-ab59-373a6a07eb74/ccny_report_2004_reading.pdf
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2019). Select the Participants. Retrieved February 18, 2019 from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/assessment_process/selection.aspx.
Open Science Scholarly Journals
Open Science is a peer-reviewed platform, the journals of which cover a wide range of academic disciplines and serve the world's research and scholarly communities. Upon acceptance, Open Science Journals will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download.
Office Address:
228 Park Ave., S#45956, New York, NY 10003
Phone: +(001)(347)535 0661
Copyright © 2013-, Open Science Publishers - All Rights Reserved