The Principal’s Role as a Leader of Change

- -

Critical Element Paper 3

Presented to the Department of Educational Leadership

And Postsecondary Education

University of Northern Iowa

- -

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the

Masters of Arts in Education

- -

by

Sarah Lucas-Carr

Taylor Elementary School

Cedar Rapids, IA

11-30-13

- -

Dr. Gilson

Lucas-Carr Interactive Read-Aloud

Introduction 

Over the past three years Taylor Elementary’s reading comprehension data has been

decreasing.

*Percent of students proficient on writing prompt.All Students2012-2013

Benchmark Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6K 0% 3% 76% 91% 881 0% 2% 34% 35% 88% 85% 89%2 26% 41% 51% 56% 50% 82% 91%3 8% 32% 54% 58% 76% 92% 85%4 27% 60% 77% 90% 82% 89% 69%5 31% 61% 63% 88% 78% 80% 89%

Total 15% 30% 52% 62% 74% 86% 86%

If students are unable to understand what they are reading, then they are not gathering

new information or retaining it. Therefore, these decreasing scores become an enormous

problem. I wanted to boost my student’s scores. In order to do this I needed new methods and

strategies. “As new best practices in reading comprehension instruction are developed and

researched, teaching strategies need to evolve as well.” (Closs, 2007, p. 7) Clearly, what we were

doing was not working and I needed to increase student understanding of written text. I wanted

to evolve as a teacher. My instructional coach attended a training on Interactive Read-Alouds by

Sharon Walpole and Michael McKenna (2012). After a full day of instruction and looking

through literature my instructional coach deduced that this would boost reading instruction and

should be added to whole group instruction lessons. Walpole’s interactive read-alouds prompt

students to interact and engage with the text. Using this method is an effective means of

accomplishing a range of instructional goals (Walpole & McKenna, 2012). A teacher can teach

vocabulary, comprehension strategies, grammar, and on demand writing all in one lesson.

2

Lucas-Carr Interactive Read-Aloud

Overall, my focus was to increase my student’s comprehension by using a repetitive interactive

read aloud with text beyond my their readability level.

Review of Related Literature

Research showed listening comprehension and vocabulary development will not increase

if stories are only read out loud to the students by teachers. Read alouds should not be used

solely for entertainment. “Repeated interactive read-alouds, a systematic method of reading

aloud, allow teachers to scaffold children's understanding of the book being read, model

strategies for making inferences and explanations, and teach vocabulary and concepts (McGee &

Schickedanz, 2007, p. 742). These read-alouds expose children to new vocabulary, build

background knowledge, teach comprehension strategies, introduce text structures, develop

syntactic knowledge, expose students to excellent writing, prompt students writing, and promote

interest in reading (Walpole & Mckenna, 2012). Thus, you can target and focus these reading

lessons to enrich student’s understanding of a variety of reading expectations.

Because… children’s listening comprehension likely outpaces reading comprehension until the middle school years, it is particularly important that students in the earliest grades build knowledge through being read to as well as through reading, with the balance gradually shifting to reading independently. By reading a story or nonfiction selection aloud, teachers allow children to experience written language without the burden of decoding, granting them access to content that they may not be able to read and understand by themselves. Children are then free to focus their mental energy on the words and ideas presented in the text, and they will eventually be better prepared to tackle rich written content on their own. Whereas most titles selected for kindergarten and grade 1 will need to be read aloud exclusively, some titles selected for grades 2–5 may be appropriate for read-alouds as well as for reading independently. Reading aloud to students in the upper grades should not, however, be used as a substitute for independent reading by students; read-alouds at this level should supplement and enrich what students are able to read by themselves. (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010, p.27)

Read-alouds are an effective means to accomplish a range of instructional goals. Instead of

sporadic read-alouds with twenty percent student engagement you can now have a power packed

3

Lucas-Carr Interactive Read-Aloud

fifteen minute lesson with one-hundred percent engagement.

Guiding Research Questions

With the demands of the new common core; more rigor, attention to text complexity,

streamlined foundational skills, new attention to writing across the curriculum, and new focus on

nonfiction teachers must ensure that every second of instruction time is valued. Students’ ever-

present reading comprehension deficiencies at my school and lack of interactive read alouds

made me curious to see if this would boost my students comprehension. This was new and

hadn’t been tried before at our school. I wanted to be the first to pave the way and give it a go.

Therefore, I wanted to know if this new interactive repetitive read loud, above my students

readability level, would increase their overall comprehension. How does an interactive read-

aloud, three times a week, impact the listening comprehension as measured by the Unit Reading

Test listening prompts and Scholastic Reading Inventory?

Description of the Intervention and Data Collection

To begin I looked first at three units of data with no interactive read-aloud instruction

present. I was simply reading to my student with no structure to my questions or engagement.

Additionally, students were given the Scholastic reading inventory gather baseline

comprehension data for the project. This was my jumping off point. Next, I gathered my read

aloud books that were well beyond students reading level, both fiction and non-fiction. I needed

to use the prescribed lesson plan template to potentially produce the desired results. After

choosing my books I needed to create comprehension questions and stopping points in each of

them. In both nonfiction and fiction books you begin by introducing the author and illustrator.

However, for a nonfiction you need to introduce key vocabulary first. Next, you discuss text

structure, how the book is set up. Is it sequential, topic-subtopic, simple listing, problem-

4

Lucas-Carr Interactive Read-Aloud

solution, or compare and contrast text. After this brief mini lesson I would begin reading the

story stopping at my predetermined points to ask students questions. They would either write

their answers, times-pair-share, or round-robin (all students get a turn to speak around the table,

one at a time) with their cooperative learning teams. Upon completion of the book I would

expect the students to complete a writing prompt of the step by step sequence of the story and the

end result of reading the story. We would use the structure of Sketch-Draft-Summarize (see

appendix a). Finally the last piece to this prescribed lesson format would be the written sentence.

You are asked to pick out a sentence from the text and insert blanks and have the students create

their own version. This is where you include a mini grammar lesson.

A similar process is used for fictional pieces of literature. The differences include

comparing what the author wants you to know and what the readers already know. Also you do

not complete a picture walk, you wouldn’t want to give away any opportunities for predictions.

Similarly, there is no pre-teaching of the tier two vocabulary words. Instead, as the story is read

the words become introduced using paragraph clues. Once the group has determined the meaning

of the word then you post it. From there you lead students through a comprehension strategy;

making connections, asking questions to aid understanding, creating sensory images, inferring,

determining importance, synthesizing, or self-monitoring. I would stop at the preplanned

stopping points and as a class we would fill out our story map. In the writing prompt students are

asked to put themselves in the story, what would they do, where would they go, or what would

they take with them. Similar to running a nonfiction story, the teacher leads the students through

a sentence composing activity. Again choose a sentence from the story, blank out some words,

and have the students complete. This is the time to teach grammar and look at sentence structure.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

5

Lucas-Carr Interactive Read-Aloud

Overall my results were helpful and encouraging. I did have multiple students grow and

increase their lexile level, as measured by the scholastic reading inventory. Out of 18 students, 9

of them increased their score, 2 made no growth, and 7 decreased in their scores.

This was the test I used as my overall comprehension baseline. I believe the decrease, by some,

was due in part to the time of day and week we took this test. The students had just finished the

Iowa Assessments and Smarter Balanced testing. Also, we took the test at 3:00pm. I also think

this was a factor because they were worn out from the school day and simply brain dead.

Therefore I believe that had the test been taken at a different time and not linked up with the

other important standardized tests I would have seen better results. However student in class

comprehension has improved. Even though we did not see as great of gains as we would have

liked, I can still conclude that this is a valuable and worthwhile program to include in your

6

Lucas-Carr Interactive Read-Aloud

classroom.

Looking at the listening comprehension data from the Macmillan McGraw-Hill Progress

reporter was encouraging. (see appendix b) On the unit one test where no interactive real aloud

was present 11 out of 15, 73% of student scored proficient or advanced. Students are proficient

or advanced if they score above a 71% on that particular group of questions. I was only looking

at the listening comprehension questions. On the unit two test, where no interactive read aloud

was present, 15 out of 17, 88% scored proficient or advanced. On the unit three test, where the

interactive read aloud was only present during week 5 of a six week unit, 14 out of 17, 82% of

students scored proficient or advanced. When the read aloud was running in full force, scores

increased. On the Unit 4 test 15 out of 18, 83% of the students scored proficient or advanced.

Finally on the Unit 5 test 19 out of 19, 100% of students scored proficient or advanced. This was

an exciting end to the project. To reiterate, students averaged 80.5 during units 1 &2 where we

did not use read alouds, and 91.5 pereent during units 4 & 5, where we did use interactive read

alouds. Unit 3 data was left out because it was a transitional unit. Looking at the data in this way

allowed me to see an 11% increase in student listening comprehension due to using the Walpole

repeated interactive read allowed model.

Conclusion and Next Steps

Next steps include tweaking and refining my lessons. I have been able to share them with

my co-third grade teacher. I think sharing with a colleague provides necessary feedback and adds

accountability. Additionally, I do have to mention that I was able to read the story to the students

on the Unit 5 test, instead of the computer read story. We were giving the test paper pencil, due

to a computer lab overbooking. I believe this change should be taken into account The increase

in the Unit 5 listening comprehension scores could be linked to me reading the story. The

7

Lucas-Carr Interactive Read-Aloud

computer voice can be very dry and not use any inflection. Allowing me to read the story could

have had an impact, especially if they are use to my tone and inflection from all of the read

alouds. Therefore an additional take away would be to read all of the Unit reading passages to

my students to help further their listening comprehension as well as listening to multiple

different voices and stories inflections. Similar to lesson planning, I want to become more verse

in the stories and strategies to encourage more natural questioning, quicker paced lessons, and

lesson planning time. One deterrent from the program originally was all of the necessary prep.

Although very worthwhile and absolutely beneficial to my students, it did take a long time to

plan each and every lesson. After completing the program I can see the importance of the

repeated lesson planning. The students knew what to expect and really were able to

connect with the concept. The model provided specific guidance and much needed

structure to the read aloud time slot. It’s increased rigor and student interaction increase

overall comprehension scores, especially listening comprehension. I will continue the use

of the program after seeing the benefits it provided my students. I can only hope with more

practice and continued use I will have an even higher percentage of increase. A challenging

interactive read aloud is just what students need to increase vocabulary, build background

knowledge, teach comprehension strategies, introduce text structure, expose students to

excellent writing, and promote interest in reading.

8

Lucas-Carr Interactive Read-Aloud

Appendix A

9

Lucas-Carr Interactive Read-Aloud

Appendix B

Proficiency Details

Bar Color:Proficiency Level: Below Basic

Proficiency Range: 0% to 54%

Bar Color:Proficiency Level: Basic

Proficiency Range: 55% to 70%

Bar Color:Proficiency Level: Proficient

Proficiency Range: 71% to 85%

10

Lucas-Carr Interactive Read-Aloud

Bar Color:Proficiency Level: Advanced

Proficiency Range: 86% to 100%

References

Closs, E.K. (2007). Teaching reading comprehension to struggling and at-risk readers: Strategies that work. Retrieved on April 3, 2013 from http://www.readinglady.com/mosaic/tools/TeachingReadingComprehensiontoStrugglingReaders-MastersThesisbyEllen.pdf

McGee, L.M., & Schickedanz, J.A. (2007). Repeated interactive read-alouds in preschool and kindergarten. The Reading Teacher, 60(8), 742-751.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards: Appendix A. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Washington D.C.

Pressley, M. (2000). Comprehension instruction: What works. Retrieved on April 3, 2013 from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/68

Spear-Swerling, L. (2006). Assessment of reading comprehension. Retrieved on April 3, 2013 from http://www.ldonline.org/spearswerling/10820

Walpole, S. & McKenna, M.C. (2012). Designing a rigorous ELA block. Differentiation Workshop, Grant Wood Educational Center, Cedar Rapids IA

11