1

Does Ticket to Read Improve Comprehension in Struggling Readers?

Jennifer Dino

Kennesaw State University

April 2106

2

Abstract

Literacy and reading is key in education and a successful learning experience.

There are many methods in reading instruction and computer based learning is gaining

momentum in today’s classrooms. This action research takes a look at a specific Computer

Assisted Instruction reading program called Ticket to Read in order to view growth in reading

comprehension in struggling readers that use the program. Quantitative data was collected

spanning a 14 week time frame during the 2015-2016 school year. Seven 5th grade students who

were reading below grade level were selected to participate in the Ticket to Read program. The

participants’ Lexile levels were measured through the Scholastic Reading Inventory at four

intervals during the research period. Data indicated that progress was made by all students who

used the program.

3

Introduction

Background

Literacy is at the core of education. I have worked with students who are struggling

readers for many years. I have participated in trainings, workshops, and independent studies

looking for quality research based curriculum and tools in order to help my students make

progress and be successful. Haager & Klingler (2005) state that no topic in education has been

more controversial than how to teach reading. As our nation’s education continues through the

21st Century, we as teachers must prepare ourselves to teach differently. More specifically we

must differentiate and provide direct instruction to those students who struggle in reading. Early

intervention and effective remedial programs are necessary to foster improved reading skills and

prevent future reading difficulties (Potocki, Magnan, & Ecalle, 2014). These difficulties can

lead to a lack of motivation and unwillingness to use traditional strategies and in some cases lead

to school dropouts (Stetter & Hughes, 2011). One such innovative and more engaging teaching

method includes the use of technology in order to support and improve skills in struggling

readers. Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) programs are being designed to promote better

comprehension and fluency skills and are growing at an unprecedented speed.

Demographics

The location of the research study is a high achieving school in a suburban area of a large

metropolitan city in the Southeast. The community is above average on the socio economic

status scale in relation to the state average. The average annual household income in the school

zone is $99,000 (Demographic and socioeconomic details, 2012). The majority of students have

4

a great deal of life experiences and opportunities that provide them with more than basic

readiness skills to succeed. Parental involvement within in the school is high. The school

receives a great deal of support from PTA, the school foundation, and community business

partners. Currently, with a student body of approximately 900, 84% of the student body is

Caucasian, 6% is Asian, and 3% each for Black and bi-racial ethnicities. Less than 4% of

students qualify for free or reduced lunch, and 8% of students qualify for special education

services.

With a 98% achievement rate in reading and math on state standardized tests it is difficult

to show annual growth. The Career and College Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) that the

state has adopted expects annual growth. Our school improvement plan strives for students who

exceed expectations to maintain their level, students who have met expectations to show growth

or exceed, and for students who have not met expectations to meet the minimum standard.

When considering struggling readers, they typically fall into the “does not meet” or

“barely meets” categories. In order to help push them to the next level we must provide

continued quality and direct instruction. CAI is one option in addressing this goal and therefore

indicates relevance to this study.

Impact

A child’s family, community, and certainly their school play an important role in helping

them develop reading and literacy skills. Another impacting factor is the teaching strategies

employed by the educator. It is well known that more learning is achieved when students are

active listeners, learners, and readers. More academic reading growth is seen when this occurs.

However, teachers’ reading instruction strategies vary. It is suggested that with organized

5

strategy instruction students benefit. A 1996 report from the United States Department of

Education indicated that reading instruction in the United States was beginning to transition.

The data suggested that teachers were using more explicit strategy instruction with literacy and

reading comprehension (Binkley & Williams, 1996). The pendulum was once again swinging,

and this time it was away from the previously adopted Whole Language system. Where are we

now with regard to teaching comprehension? And how can we help struggling readers become

successful readers?

Problem and Research Question

It is true that good readers have an organized approach. However, just because a student

demonstrates that he/she is a “good reader” when they are young does not mean that as they age

they will continue to fall into the same category without continuing to improve their organization

and strategy in reading. Therefore, it is necessary to continue instructing students and providing

opportunities for their abilities to grow. Likewise, while good readers have an organized

approach to reading, literacy, and comprehension, the struggling reader may not even notice or

recognize organization as a strategy to integrate knowledge and understanding. These tools must

be given to all readers where they are in relation to their skill levels.

There is a great deal of research available on many teaching formats from Whole

Language to skills and phonics programs. Reports from national organizations such as the

National Assessment of Educational Progress (2013) indicate that students in the US are only

performing above proficiency in the fourth and eighth grades at an average of 35.5%. Students

with disabilities scored in the 11th percentile of proficiency. It is evident that explicit instruction

is necessary to foster progress and students must be given opportunity for engagement to help

with motivation in order to succeed (Bryant, Kim, Ok, Kane, Bryant, Lang, & Son, 2014). With

6

so much growth in technology it is important to discover how new digital resources can be used

in education to motivate and promote increase comprehension skills.

Software programs have been developed over the last 15 – 20 years in order to create a

positive impact on student learning in many subject areas. Reading comprehension is one of

these. Studies have been performed to test the overall efficacy of such programs. I have used

several different programs ranging from traditional explicit strategy instruction to CAI programs

in reading. With this growth and change in our teaching and learning options I am led to do my

Action Research on the impact of CAI and reading comprehension. One of the programs

available is called Ticket to Read. Therefore, my specific research question is: does Ticket to

Read improve reading comprehension in struggling readers?

7

Definition of Terms

Terms important to this study are defined as follows:

Autism- a spectrum of complex disorders in brain development, present from early childhood,

characterized by difficulty in communicating and forming relationships with other people and in

using language and abstract concepts

CAI – computer assisted instruction. Software or programs designed for the computer to aid in

student learning or practice.

CBI – computer based instruction. Software or programs designed for the computer to aid in

student learning or practice.

Digital natives – today’s students (K-college) who have grown up understanding digital

technology

Explicit strategy instruction- refers to the practice of- teaching students learning strategies clearly

and systematically.

IEP – Individual Education Plan: a written statement of the educational program designed to

meet a child's individual needs. Every child who receives special education services must have

an IEP.

Lexile Level/Score – the numeric representation or “score” of an individual’s reading ability.

The term is also used to describe a text’s readability.

Other Health Impaired - having limited strength, vitality or alertness, including a heightened

alertness to environmental stimuli resulting in limited alertness with respect to the educational

environment that is due to chronic or acute health problems

8

PTA- Parent Teacher Association

RTI – Response to Intervention: a multi-tier approach to the early identification and support of

students with learning and behavior needs. The RTI process begins with high-quality instruction

and universal screening of all children in the general education classroom.

SRI – Scholastic Reading Inventory – research based, computer assessment used to determine a

student’s reading level or ability using a Lexile score.

Specific Learning Disability – a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes

involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an

imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations

Target – the district name for the advanced learning program. Students must meet specific

criteria in intelligence, motivation and creativity to qualify.

9

Literature Review

Introduction

My Action Research is stationed within the literature about reading comprehension and

strategies that impact its growth and progress. Reading comprehension is vital to academic

success. A goal for all elementary students is to attain adequate reading comprehension, as it is

the building block for continued learning across the curriculum and their educational career

(Spörer, Brunstsein, & Kieschke, 2009). In this section, I review and report theories and

empirical research on this topic including focus on general comprehension and literacy,

strategies used to improve comprehension, and the specific strategy of the use of Computer

Assisted Instruction (CAI); including pros and cons found within the research.

Literacy and Comprehension

Reading comprehension is the ability to process and understand written text. Students

who struggle with reading often have deficits in this area. Successful reading is a complex

interaction of language, sensory perception, memory, knowledge, and motivation. Students who

struggle to learn to read require intense amounts of practice: therefore, special care must be taken

to ensure that motivation is maintained (Allor & Chard 2011). The RAND report (2002) divides

comprehension “into three elements: the reader, the text, and the activity or purpose for reading”

(pg.11). Each reader has his/her own level of cognition, purpose, knowledge, and experience.

Comprehension is also impacted by the specific type of text. The various genres available

require different strategies for understanding. Finally, there is impact based on the purpose of

reading, as different strategies for comprehension are used for processing different types of text.

10

According to studies in the United States, 90% of students with learning disabilities have

difficulty with independent reading and comprehension (Vaughn, Levy, & Coleman 2002). This

can preclude students from being successful in content area reading because they simply do not

have the foundation to be able to understand what they are reading. “Such challenges raise

considerable barriers to academic performance.” (Hall et al., 2014 p. 72), and “teachers are left

trying to adapt curricula to meet the varied needs of their students while devising creative ways

to engage all students” (Coyne, et al., 2006 p.10).

Teaching Comprehension Strategies

Research indicates multiple strategies to be used in reading comprehension. However, the

strategies all fit under the umbrella of two main types: cognitive and metacognitive. Souvignier

& Mokhlesgermai (2006) explain that metacognitive strategies are the checks and balances to

ensure the cognitive strategies supported true understanding of what was read. They categorize

this with the OECM–schema, as presented in Figure 1 which indicates that Organization

(strategies that summarize text) and Elaboration (strategies that go beyond a text) fall into both

Cognitive and Metacognitive strategies. Cognitively, we see organization strategies including the

task of underlining important information and summarizing important details. While elaboration

strategies would include thinking about the headline or generating imaginations. Metacognitive

organization strategies are demonstrated through recall of main ideas and elaboration includes

asking questions and checking understanding. One such organization strategy is the use of

graphic organizers, however it is important to note that its effectiveness can be diminished when

students are overwhelmed with extraneous processing—that is, cognitive processing that does

not serve the instructional goal (Ponce, Mayer, & Lopez 2013). Training and direct teacher

involvement must be a part of teaching students to use strategies.

11

Strategies that summarize a text

(Organization)

Strategies that go beyond a text

(Elaboration)

Cognitive Strategies - Underline important information

- Summarize important ideas

- Think about the headline

- Generate imaginations

Metacognitive Strategies - Check, if main ideas can be

remembered

- Ask questions

- Check understanding

Fig. 1. Categorization of reading strategies by the ‘OECM’-schema.

The RAND Reading Study Group published the following findings showing what works

for comprehension growth and pertains to the present topic:

(1) Enhancing reading fluency has a significant effect on word recognition but moderate

effect on reading comprehension.

(2) Instruction on specific learning strategies and monitoring mechanisms has proved

effective in fostering reading comprehension.

(3) Low-achieving students benefit particularly from explicit teaching of comprehension

strategies.

(4) Curricular integration of comprehension strategies into specific content domains, such

as history and science, further develop reading comprehension.

(5) Teachers should dedicate more time and offer more support to students in the

classroom, particularly in primary and upper elementary grades, to teach specific reading

comprehension strategies (Rand, 2002).

Computer Assisted Instruction

In a world in which electronic reading is becoming increasingly common, the reading

platform today has shifted from traditional text to hypertext (Lan et al., 2014). Today’s 21st

century students are “digital natives” as defined by Prensky (2001). They process and learn in a

12

very different manner than students did in the not so distant past. For this reason alone, it is

obvious that “the same methods that worked for the teachers when they were students will work

for their students now” is no longer valid (Prensky, 2001, p. 3). CAI or the use of computer

based instructional programs to improve reading comprehension is a growing option to provide

effective support to struggling readers. “Computer technology is theorized to be a part of a long

term solution for improving instruction for students with learning and attention problems due to

the inherent nature of technology that can provide consistent highly specialized instruction and

practice for a relatively low cost” (Regan et al., 2014, p. 107; Stetter & Hughes, 2011). Delacruz

(2014) suggests that the use of multimedia meets more metacognition needs and provides the

opportunity for more in depth thinking. Studies have indicated that new technologies could

present better ways to serve students in reading, compared to a traditional print book (Robinson

& Stubbered, 2012). Not only does CAI aim to improve comprehension in students with learning

disabilities, but it can be of great benefit to teachers and the quality of instruction that meets

individual needs of students (Coyne, Ganley, Hall, Meo, Murray, & Gordon 2006). However, as

with any strategy, success is dependent on the quality of training and instruction provided to the

student by the teacher.

Teaching explicit reading strategies takes a great deal of planning and understanding of

the strategy on the part of the instructor. The use of computer assisted instruction can “create a

proper environment for teaching assistance which can relieve teachers from their burden in

implementing strategy instruction and help them to increase students’ opportunities and

willingness to use reading strategies outside the classroom” (Sung, Chang, & Huang 2007). In

general, empirical evidence demonstrates that multiple-strategy instruction integrated into the

13

curriculum can work well in schools and can improve reading comprehension over students

instructed with traditional methods (Rand, 2002).

Hall, Cohen, Vue, and Ganley (2014) point out that using technology based reading

instruction can not only help students improve, but are an asset to teachers. With the use of CAI

the data is collected and analyzed by the program thus, freeing the teacher to spend more time

instructing students in the deficit areas that are quickly reported by the programs. “In addition,

the visual aspect of the graphed data…assisted teachers in easily reading and

analyzing data to determine whether changes needed to be made. The same visual

aspect served a dual role of enabling students to be self-reflective on their work,

potentially enhancing their motivation.” (Hall, et al., 2014 p. 82)

Computers are generally more available in classrooms today than ever before. Benefits

of using CAI include immediate feedback for students and teachers, provide opportunity for

interdependence and self-pacing, and enhance motivation. (Sung, et al., 2007). Research supports

increased motivation and engagement with the use of computer based instruction (Laverick,

2014). The greatest purpose of the use of CAI is to boost a learner’s strategies and

comprehension (Sung et al., 2007). However, it should be noted that while computers are more

available many times appropriate software is not. Schools often do not supply adequate

materials or provide programs that do not meet the needs of all learners.

Stetter and Hughes (2011) conducted research to find if the use of story mapping through

CAI would improve reading comprehension in their students and to discover the students’

perceptions about utilizing computer based instruction as a support. While participants did not

show growth on the formative quizzes given during the study period, four out of six showed

improvement on the standardized pre and posttest, the Gates-MacGinitie. Other studies suggest

14

that students improve their ability to comprehend due to their increased ease of referencing story

text, and important vocabulary when presented in computerized form (Pearman, 2008). Stetter

and Hughes (2001) point out that while many students “enjoy” using the computer programs they

do not always use the resources within the program to actually benefit from the strategies being

offered. They also caution us to be aware that not all students prefer reading on the screen,

therefore may not perform as well as with the use of traditional print.

During the study of a specific CAI program called Lexia SOS, the purpose was to find

correlations between the use of the software and improved reading scores for students with mild

disabilities in specific skill areas of reading. Findings suggested that the program resulted in

positive outcomes in basic decoding and fluency (Regan, Berkley, Hughes, & Kirby 2014).

Struggling readers need multiple options in order to find what works best for them. It is unlikely

that their reading deficits will improve without intervention. When children are reading below

expectations they typically do not like to read which exacerbates the situation. “The gap

between them and their skilled peers therefore increases (Stanovich, 2000; Potocki, Magnan, &

Ecalle 2014). Explicit intervention has been proven to be effective to support these deficit areas

in struggling readers. The use of computerized programs are also demonstrating general gains in

decoding and comprehension.

In a quantitative study by researchers Cullen, Alber-Morgan, Schnell, & Wheaton (2014),

the goal was discover the effect of the use of the Headsprout Comprehension program in students

who were categorized as having with high-incidence disabilities. In addition, they inquired

about the opinions of the students using the program. Standardized test scores, interview and

surveys were used with the participants. The overall outcome indicated positive results and

15

showed this CAI to be an effective intervention for increasing the reading comprehension skills

of students with high-incidence disabilities (Cullen et al., 2014).

Another specific CAI program is Ticket to Read. “Ticket to Read is an interactive, Web-

based, student-centered learning component that promotes practice of actual text reading and

provides sequential, structured lessons in phonics” (Peyton & Macpherson, 2009 p.2).

Motivation is a key factor in the use of CAI. Students must continue to be challenged and

interested in order to remain engaged. This program offers interactive feedback to the students

through animated characters. This offers virtual social interaction between the student and the

program as support and motivation.

Researchers address another issue in a study on the effectiveness of computer supported

software in comprehension instruction. They ask whether cognitive strategies for reading

comprehension can be taught effectively within a computer-based system that systematically

uses direct instruction and practice. Overall, the major findings reported in the foregoing sections

are that a computer-based program (e-PELS) for teaching a collection of reading comprehension

strategies resulted in more improvement in reading comprehension performance than traditional

instruction, and the effectiveness of e-PELS was particularly strong for lower-achieving students.

(Ponce, Lopez, & Mayer, 2012).

Questions have been raised over the delivery of reading instruction. Researchers wonder

how the effectiveness of electronic material compares to material presented in print (Dolenc,

Abersek, & Abersek 2015). Historically, direct instruction of comprehension methods and

strategies have been presented by a teacher using text from printed sources using paper and

pencil for showing understanding. There are conflicting opinions about print versus screen

16

education. Lots of research has been compiled comparing the two. Both sides agree direct

strategy instruction improves metacognition, which in turn improves comprehension.

Lenhard, Baier, Endlich, Schneider, and Hoffman (2013) studied comprehension impact

via direct strategy instruction and computer based practice. Their belief is that CAI aims to

improve comprehension. They selected two programs to compare. For traditional direct strategy

instruction they employed the Reading Detectives program. The computer based program was

conText. Both programs focused on strengthening summarizing skills. Pre-test scores of all

participants did not present any significant difference in fluency, verbal intelligence,

metacognitive knowledge or reading comprehension. While data from both groups showed

improvement, greater gains were shown in the conText group. They conclude that their findings

suggest that guided practice support through computer based instruction distinguished by

repetition and practice and provides immediate feedback to students, “is superior to explicitly

teaching strategy knowledge” (Lenhard et al, 2013). Conversely, another group of researchers

completed a study in 2013 in which the purpose was to also find the impact of reading on certain

aspects of reading comprehension. The results were not favorable for the screen presentation.

They indicated that this type of reading led to poorer comprehension than reading the same text

on paper due to reading speed and processing which they found to be slower in the computer

based lesson. (Dolenc, Abersek, & Abersek 2015). However, findings from other studies

conclude that there was no significant difference in the effects on comprehension when

comparing printed text to screen (Aydemir, Ozturk, & Horzum, 2013; Doty, Poppelwell, &

Byers, 2001; Maynard & McKnight, 2001).

17

Summary

In summary, comprehension in reading is the foundation for all that we learn from the

written word. Some students have stronger cognitive abilities which makes comprehending an

easier task; a task that they may not have to really even think about. On the other hand, some

students have weaknesses in cognition which impact their understanding. Direct reading

instruction to improve meta-cognition provides strategies or tools for struggling readers to use

when reading. There are varying opinions about what kind of instruction is most effective.

Studies for all types of instruction intervention have been completed and have had varying

results. However, one point they all seem to agree upon is students do benefit from reading

instruction interventions, overall. With the technology boom, more options have continually

been made available for intervention with CAI. Based on previous research outcomes that have

indicated varying results, it is apparent that continued research in the field of CAI is necessary.

This raises the question: How does the use of CAI impact Lexile level and comprehension?

Methodology

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine how we can use new technologies and digital

resources to improve reading. Various computer programs that claim to promote improved

comprehension have been studied with varying outcomes. I believe that more research and data

is needed on this topic. I will seek more information to discover the impact on comprehension

with the use of CAI, specifically the Ticket to Read program.

18

Setting

The specific classroom is a fifth grade co-taught inclusion setting. The classroom make

up is close to being equally divided between girls and boys with a total of 25 students. Ten

students qualify for Target (advanced learning program), three students are on Tier 2 in the RTI

process, and seven have IEP’s. The student’s with disabilities include eligibility categories of

Specific Learning Disability, Other Health Impaired, and Autism.

Participants

Participants in the study will include seven students who are reading below grade level.

Not all students in the study receive special education services. Results of the Scholastic Reading

Inventory (SRI) were used to determine the Lexile level of each student. The participating

students scored a Lexile level of 825 or below. Grade level expectations are between the ranges

of 830-1010. Four of the students are currently receiving special education services through an

IEP and three of the students are on Tier 2 in the RTI process. The parents of all participants are

actively involved in their child’s education, providing support at home as well as within the

school itself. All student participants have internet access at home.

Design

Data will be collected through a quantitative design. As the students complete tasks and

levels within the CAI program, quantitative data will be recorded over nine weeks. This will

consist of formative and summative assessment scores that are given within and throughout the

Ticket to Read program. Additionally, Lexile scores will be measured before, midway through,

and at the end of the data collection period. Scores will be compared and analyzed using

measures of central tendency and dispersion by calculating mean, median, and the range.

19

Intervention

Each student will be enrolled in a computer based supplemental reading program called

Ticket to Read in which they will begin at an entry level determined by the program based on a

pre-assessment within the platform. It is a self-paced, student-centered online program that aims

to improve reading performance as they complete tasks in the areas of foundational skills,

fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Students will read electronic books and complete a

series of tasks following the readings which include vocabulary acquisition, oral and silent

reading fluency, and comprehension questions. Levels passed are determined by the scores and

performance.

Instruments and Procedures

Instruments used for data collection include Lexile measurement in four week intervals to

obtain a score using the computer based Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) program. Students

will silently read passages based on their current grade level placement. After each passage is

read they will answer a comprehension question based on the reading. The passages increase in

difficulty as the student continues to answer correctly. The program then provides the student

with a Lexile score. Data will also be collected using scores from the CAI program Ticket to

Read as students complete tasks, activities, and levels within the program.

Once the student’s baseline Lexile score is determined they will begin the Ticket to Read

program on a correlating level using their Lexile score. Next, they will complete assignments

within the program including leveled passage reading with correlating comprehension questions

and fluency passages that students can record and score. At the end of the study, the students will

take the SRI again to determine the impact of the program and reading growth.

20

Data Analysis and Interpretation

The quantitative data will include formative and summative assessment scores from the

Ticket to Read program. During each “lesson” students complete tasks that are scored and

reported through the SRI will be used to assess Lexile levels at the beginning of the study and at

the end. Scores will be graphed and analyzed after completing the specified number of weeks

and/or lessons.

Results

Research was conducted over a 14 week time period which included two breaks from

school. During this time students participated in the CAI (Computer Assisted Instruction) Ticket

to Read program.

Each student’s Lexile score prior to using the program was recorded and then checked in

four week intervals. From beginning to end, all participants demonstrated growth in Lexile

performance. Figure 1.1 shows the average growth in Lexile score was 143.5, however it should

be noted that this includes an outlier for the student participant who was reading just at grade

level expectation at the beginning of the research while other student participants were below or

far below grade level. The median was 135 and the range was 200. There was no applicable

mode in the data set.

Students were able to use the Ticket to Read program at school and at home, therefore

their session participation numbers vary. The mean of session participation was 24.5. The

median and mode were 25, while the range was 26. It should be noted that one student

participant experienced a great deal of absences due to illness during the research period and

only completed 9 sessions which is much lower in comparison to other students.

21

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2 indicates an upward trend progress for all student participants. The student

participant who is categorized as “far below” grade level based on his Lexile score, did show

some progress. However, his total Lexile growth was the least of the students not reading on

grade level. Also, the student participant who was reading at or on grade level did not show as

much progress/growth as the others.

Figure 1.2

22

Conclusion

This action research demonstrated how the CAI, Ticket to Read impacted struggling

readers who participated in the program. Greater gains were seen in struggling readers who are

reading below grade level, as opposed to the participant who was very close to grade level

comprehension when beginning the program. However, the overall results positively support the

research question. Ticket to Read does improve reading comprehension in struggling readers.

Noted limitations include the following: It is unknown how much additional, traditional direct

reading instruction each participant received during the research period. Also, this program is

internet dependent. Part of the participation time was completed before or after school hours,

therefore on occasion some students experienced connectivity issues for various reasons

sometimes causing a stressful experience for the student. Finally, this is not a free resource and

funding must be allocated for its annual subscription.

Technology advances in education and differentiation in instruction are not going away.

Embracing these changes and finding quality instructional and engaging programming for our

students must be part of the 21st Century teacher’s job description. This study indicated that this

group of struggling readers responded positively to Ticket to Read. This program is designed for

students in first through eighth grade. Additional research should be conducted to see if this

growth is supported by the use of Ticket to Read across other grade levels.

23

References

Allor, J. H., & Chard, D. J. (2011). A comprehensive approach to improving reading fluency for

students with disabilities. Focus On Exceptional Children, 43(5), 1-12.

Aydemir, Z., Ozturk, E., & Horzum, M.B. (2013). The effect of reading from the screen on the

5th grade elementary students’ level of reading comprehension on informative and

narrative type of text. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(4), 2272.

Coyne, P., Ganley, P., Hall, T., Meo, G., Murray, E., & Gordon, D. (2006). Applying universal

design for learning in the classroom. In D. Rose & A. Meyer (Eds.), A practical reader in

universal design for learning (pp. 1–13). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Cullen, J.M., Alber-Morgan, S.R., Schnell, S.T., & Wheaton, J.E. (2014). Improving reading

skills of students with disabilities using Headsprout Comprehension. Remedial and

Special Education 2014, Vol. 35(6), 356–365. doi: 10.1177/0741932514534075

Delacruz, S. (2014). Using Nearpod in elementary guided reading groups. Tech Trends, 58(5),

63-70.

Dolenc, K., Aberšek, B., & Aberšek, M. K. (2015). Online functional literacy, intelligent tutoring

systems and science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(2), 162.

Doty, D. E., Popplewell, S. R., & Byers, G. O. (2001). Interactive CD-ROM storybooks and

young readers’ reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,

33(4), 374-384.

Haagar, D. & Klingner, J. (2005). Differentiating instruction in inclusive classrooms: the special

educators guide. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

24

Hall, T. E., Cohen, N., Ge, V., Ganley, P., & King-Sears, P. (2015). Addressing learning

disabilities with UDL and technology: strategic reader. Learning Disability Quarterly,

(2), 72.

Lan,Y Lo, Y., & Hsu, Y. (2014) The effects of meta-cognitive instruction on students’ reading

comprehension in computerized reading contexts: a quantitative meta-analysis.

Educational Technology & Society, (4), 186.

Laverick, D.M. (2014). Supporting striving readers through technology-based instruction.

Reading Improvement, 51(1), 11.

Lenhard, W.J. (2013). Rethinking strategy instruction: direct reading strategy instruction versus

computer-based guided practice. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 233-240.

Maynard, S., & McKnight, C. (2001). Children’s comprehension of electronic books: on

empirical study. The New Review of Children’s Literature and Librarianship, 7(1), 29-

53.

McKenna, M., & Kear, D. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: a new tool for teachers.

The Reading Teacher, 43,(9) Retreived November 17, 2015 from

http://www.leadtoreadkc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Professor-Garfield-reading-survey-

used-by-Lead-to-Read-KC.pdf

Pearman, C. J. (2008). Independent reading of CD-ROM storybooks: Measuring comprehension

with oral retellings. The Reading Teacher, 61(8), 594–602. doi:10.1598/RT.61.8.1

Peyton, J. & Macpherson, J. (2009). Ticket to read. Retrieved November 14, 2015 from

http://www.sjusd.org/simonds/docs/-vip-resources-3-702-3-

Ticket_to_Read_White_Paper.pdf

25

Ponce, H. R., López, M. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Instructional effectiveness of a computer-

supported program for teaching reading comprehension strategies. Computers &

Education, 591170-1183. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.013

Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., & Lopez, M. J. (2013). A computer-based spatial learning strategy

approach that improves reading comprehension and writing. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 61(5), 819-840.

Potocki, A., Magnan, A., & Ecalle, J. (2015). Computerized trainings in four groups of

struggling readers: Specific effects on word reading and comprehension. Research in

Developmental Disabilities, 45-4683-92. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2015.07.016

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards an R&D program in

reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Retrieved October 4, 2015 from

http://www.rand.org/

Regan, K., Berkeley, S., Hughes, M., & Kirby, S. (2014). Effects of computer-assisted

instruction for struggling elementary readers with disabilities. The Journal of Special

Education, 48, 106-119. doi:10.1177/0022466913497261

Robinson, S., & Stubberud, H. (2012). Student preferences for educational materials: Old meets

new. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 16(1), 367-379.

Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for

implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and

Instruction, 1657-71. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.12.006

26

Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students' reading comprehension

skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and

Instruction, 19272-286. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.003

Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new

frontiers. New York: Guilford.

Stetter, M. E., & Hughes, M. T. (2011). Computer assisted instruction to promote comprehension

in students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 26(1),

88-100.

Sung, Y., Chang, K., & Huang, J. (2007). Improving children’s reading comprehension and use

of strategies through computer-based strategy training. Computers in Human

Behavior, 24(Including the Special Issue: Integration of Human Factors in Networked

Computing), 1552-1571. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.009

Vaughn, S., Levy, S., & Coleman, M. (2002). Reading instruction for students with LD and

EBD: A synthesis of observation studies. The Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 2-13.

27

Appendix

A. Ticket to Read Student Login Dates

28

B. Weekly Summary Report Example

29

C. SRI Reports

HC

30

HB

31

AN

32

KP

33

EV

34

AW