After discussing my plan with my site supervisor, we changed the test used for assessing reading levels before and after the intervention. Additionally, we eliminated the participation of the eighth graders because Accelerated Reader is not a program used by this grade level. My site supervisor also informed me that I would need the participating teachers to sign an informed consent. He provided me with a template to use for my action research project.
************************************************************************************
Action Research Plan (REVISED)
Objective: Determine the benefits of using Accelerated Reader versus silent sustained reading in grades 6-7 to increase reading comprehension in all content areas.
Action Step 1: Select six core content classes (2 per grade) to participate as part of my sample group. One class will have mostly English Language Learners and the other class will have native English speakers.
Person Responsible: Olivia, Site Supervisor
Timeline: September 1, 2010 – September 30, 2010
Needed Resources: Master schedule
Evaluation: Classes will be identified by mid-September.
Action Step 2: Identify the students’ reading levels prior to beginning their assigned activities.
Person Responsible: Olivia, Participating teachers
Timeline: September 15, 2010 – September 30, 2010
Needed Resources: TAKS test, STAR assessment results
Evaluation: Student’s reading levels from the participating classes will be determined through data disaggregation.
Action Step 3: Assign one class in each pair to work on the Accelerated Reader program and the other group to engage in silent sustained reading. Each group will spend an hour on their assigned activity three days per week.
Person Responsible: Olivia, Participating teachers
Timeline: October, 2010 – May, 2011
Needed Resources: Accelerated Reader reports, Teacher lesson plans
Evaluation: Teacher lesson plans will reflect student participation in assigned activities.
Action Step 4: Observe students during their activity.
Person Responsible: Olivia
Timeline: Every nine weeks between October, 2010 – May, 2011
Needed Resources: Field note collection method
Evaluation: Each class will receive two observations each semester.
Action Step 5: Interview teachers to gather feedback and their daily observations.
Person Responsible: Olivia, Participating teachers
Timeline: December, 2010 and March, 2011
Needed Resources: Interview protocol
Evaluation: Interview notes will be recorded.
Action Step 6: Collect and compare student work.
Person Responsible: Olivia
Timeline: Every nine weeks between October, 2010 – May, 2011
Needed Resources: Student work
Evaluation: A portfolio of student work before and after the project will be maintained to determine growth over time.
Action Step 7: Disseminate research findings.
Person Responsible: Olivia, Site Supervisor
Timeline: July – August, 2011
Needed Resources: 2011 TAKS Test scores; Pre and Post STAR assessment results
Evaluation: Action research findings will be shared with the faculty during a faculty meeting and will be available through the creation of a summary report.
Objective: Determine the benefits of using Accelerated Reader versus silent sustained reading in grades 6-7 to increase reading comprehension in all content areas.
Action Step 1: Select six core content classes (2 per grade) to participate as part of my sample group. One class will have mostly English Language Learners and the other class will have native English speakers.
Person Responsible: Olivia, Site Supervisor
Timeline: September 1, 2010 – September 30, 2010
Needed Resources: Master schedule
Evaluation: Classes will be identified by mid-September.
Action Step 2: Identify the students’ reading levels prior to beginning their assigned activities.
Person Responsible: Olivia, Participating teachers
Timeline: September 15, 2010 – September 30, 2010
Needed Resources: TAKS test, STAR assessment results
Evaluation: Student’s reading levels from the participating classes will be determined through data disaggregation.
Action Step 3: Assign one class in each pair to work on the Accelerated Reader program and the other group to engage in silent sustained reading. Each group will spend an hour on their assigned activity three days per week.
Person Responsible: Olivia, Participating teachers
Timeline: October, 2010 – May, 2011
Needed Resources: Accelerated Reader reports, Teacher lesson plans
Evaluation: Teacher lesson plans will reflect student participation in assigned activities.
Action Step 4: Observe students during their activity.
Person Responsible: Olivia
Timeline: Every nine weeks between October, 2010 – May, 2011
Needed Resources: Field note collection method
Evaluation: Each class will receive two observations each semester.
Action Step 5: Interview teachers to gather feedback and their daily observations.
Person Responsible: Olivia, Participating teachers
Timeline: December, 2010 and March, 2011
Needed Resources: Interview protocol
Evaluation: Interview notes will be recorded.
Action Step 6: Collect and compare student work.
Person Responsible: Olivia
Timeline: Every nine weeks between October, 2010 – May, 2011
Needed Resources: Student work
Evaluation: A portfolio of student work before and after the project will be maintained to determine growth over time.
Action Step 7: Disseminate research findings.
Person Responsible: Olivia, Site Supervisor
Timeline: July – August, 2011
Needed Resources: 2011 TAKS Test scores; Pre and Post STAR assessment results
Evaluation: Action research findings will be shared with the faculty during a faculty meeting and will be available through the creation of a summary report.
This plan looks well thought out. i agree with the supervisor about the consent forms. Will students and parents have to do one? Just wondering if they had that option. Before the completion and you share your findings could you possibly update participants mid way on project just as a way to keep them vested if they know how they or students are doing. This seems vere measurable and manageable. Those were two emphasis that my supervisor felt strongly about.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great idea for a research action study. I was wondering how your Accelerated Reader program worked on campus, since ours includes SSR as part of the AR program itself. The students use SSR time to participate in the reading and testing they do for AR. Considering how much money and time are invested in the AR program, it would be great to see how it actually affects student performance compared to just having the students read without the assessment part.
ReplyDeleteThe level of organization on your plan is important. I agree, our plans are similar in topic and it would be wise to monitor each others work during this study. I too am curious about SSR. I noticed that in order to enforce it the techer couldn't speak to the students for fear of interupting the reading of others. They get distracted fairly easily. I am ready to see how our studies will work out.
ReplyDeleteYou have a well thought out plan of action. I am at the high school level and do not have much knowledge about acclerated reading programs. I hope to learn more about it while following your progress. I appreciate the input from your site supervisor about getting the participating teachers to sign an informed conset. This is something that is important for everyone to be aware of when doing research.
ReplyDelete