It’s not me—it’s you: Students as a motivation for literacy research

1. It’s not me—it’s you: Students as a motivation for literacy research Chase Young, PhD

2. Failed Titles • How monotony, inadequacy, and frustration kick-started a research agenda • Why not? And other legitimate reasons for educational research • My inadequate teaching and how my students indirectly called me out • The desire to be effective, efficient, and technologically awesome • My Research Agenda

3. The Dissertation

4. The Problem Some Literature Circles are Unproductive

5. GAP In Research Investigating individual factors or behaviors that may influence LC discussions

6. Pilot Study In a pilot study conducted with third-graders, a regression correlated higher reading ability, increased extroversion, and lack of conscientiousness with increased quality of verbal engagement

7. Research Questions To what extent did personality factors, reading proficiency, and gender explain the quality of verbal engagement in literature circle discussions? How did students facilitate peer-led literature circle discussions?

8. Assumptions/Limitations Teacher controls text difficulty to promote comprehension Small N (17) resulting in low degrees of freedom and low power

9. METHOD The researcher video-taped 17 fourth-grade students’ literature circle discussions for a total of 136.7 minutes collected on two separate occasions across two weeks. To answer the first question student contributions in discussions were quantified into a measure of quality of verbal engagement score (cf. Costa & Kallick, 2000). This quality of verbal engagement score served as the dependent variable in a multiple regression. The seven independent variables were (1) extroversion, (2) agreeableness, (3) conscientiousness, (4) emotional stability, (5) openness, (6) reading ability, and (7) gender.

10. METHOD – Calculating QVE

11. METHOD – TEN ITEM PERSONALITY Inventory

12. METHOD – reading ability This project used the spring 2012 administration of the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP; Northwest Evaluation Association, 2011) to determine students’ reading achievement. The Reading MAP test is a computer assessment that assesses student reading achievement and progress based on grade-level norms. The MAP provides a percentile score based on the normed performance of students at the same grade level. The test is an adaptive test using item-response theory where the test reacts to student responses, thus becoming more difficult or easier depending on prior student performance.

13. RESULTS – regression model

14. RESULTS – post hoc regression model

15. Quantitative Results • Emotional Stability was significant (p<.05) in regression • This did not corroborate the pilot study, and needs further research • Group size was significant in post hoc regression (p<.01) • The post hoc regression model was also significant (p<.05) and explained 66% of the variance

16. Methodological Modifications • Coding Changes: Tharp and Gallimore (1988) deemed insufficient and felt forced on the data • Modeling – What is it in the context of peer-led LCs? • Contingency Managing – Should students be responsible for this? • Feedback – Does all feedback facilitate discussion? • Questioning – Do all questions instigate deeper level discussions? • Cognitive Structuring – Should this definition include how the brain changes? • Instructing – Is this the job of the students?

17. Methodological Modifications • Coding Changes: Li et al. (2007) deemed insufficient and felt forced • Planning and Organizing – Should this be done by the teacher prior to LCs? • Topic Control – How do students control the topic? • Acknowledgement – Is mere acknowledgement beneficial in LCs? • Argument Development – Development assumes a thread of discourse rather than an utterance • Turn Management – Does this inhibit free-flowing discussions?

18. FLOW OF CODING Facilitative Functions • Non-Facilitative • Feedback • Unrelated • Deemed Facilitative • Exploratory Talk (CC) • Elaborative Feedback (CC) • Topic Management (CC) • Confessionals (Open) • Accountability (Open)

19. Qualitative Results The researcher observed students facilitating discussions in five ways: • Exploratory Talk • Asking questions that are open ended that expect high-level responses and statements that allow for debate • Elaborative Feedback • Agreeing or disagreeing and providing reasoning or text evidence • Topic Management • Introducing important topics and big ideas as well as changing topic through facilitation • Confessionals • Admitting when meaning breaks down and asking for help from group members • Accountability • Making sure all group members participate and back up their contributions and questions with text-evidence

20. Further Research Teaching Facilitative Functions to improve student discourse Facilitative Function Order of Importance Benefits of LCs on higher and lower readers Personality’s impact on LC discussions Personality’s impact on LC discussions across grade levels Group size and quality of LC discussions Measuring comprehension on the go

21. bor·ing/ˈbôriNG/AdjectiveNot interesting; tedious.

22. Building Fluency • Second Grade Class at Eagle Elementary • 79% Economically Disadvantaged • Title 1 • 31% ELL • Reading Level Mean - Below Grade Level • Boring Level Mean – Below Exciting • Readers Theater Project (Young & Rasinski, 2009)

23. Future Research • Reading Fluency Strategies • Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension • Explore link (bridge?) between traditional fluency enhancing strategies and reading comprehension (e. g. NIM Plus)

24. ob·vi·ous/ˈäbvēəs/AdjectiveEasily perceived or understood, apparent

25. Intervention • The Reading Room • Students identified as TIER 3 for reading at Eagle Elementary (reading at least 1 year below grade level) • Effective and Efficient (Mohr, Dixon, & Young, 2012

26. Future Research • Appropriate Assessments • Assessment Analysis • Effective and Efficient Interventions

27. fear  /fi(ə)r/NounAn unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.

28. Anecdote • I can empathize with struggling writers. I remember when my mom asked to read my homework. We both knew it would end it tears, but sadly it was a necessary ritual. She read and pointed out mistakes while I defended my perfectly constructed story. School was no different. However, instead of crying, I cut-off each of the teacher’s verbal corrections with a quick, “I know!” or “I meant to fix that!” I had a double deficit when it came to writing—not only did I struggle, but I was also terrified of critique. This double deficit is not uncommon because I see it everyday in my classroom. I see kids that timidly hide their writing and genuinely fear writing conferences. We dedicate these alternative 21st Century revision methods to you.

29. Technology and Writing • Conferring with an Avatar (Young & Swanner, 2012) • Using Blogs to Revise Student Writing (Stover & Young, in press)

30. Future Research • Creating Agentive Writers through Technology-Based Revision/Editing Strategies • Integrating Technology into other aspects of the writing process

31. fun  /fən/AdjectiveAmusing, entertaining, or enjoyable

32. Literacy with a Purpose • Student Produced Movies as a Medium for Literacy Development (Young & Rasinski, in press) • Enhancing Authors’ Voice Through Scripting (Young & Rasinski, 2011) • Future Research is Endless