Technically, I guess, what I have been working on this last year isn't a thesis because the n size is too small or something. It's an action research project. Semantics. For me, it's a thesis. The results are interesting to me and I thought maybe they would be interesting for other people to read about. I'm just copying and pasting straight from my capstone project draft so if you have more questions about the project, write a comment.
Background: This project was studying the effect of using dialogue journals (two way written journals between the students and myself) by introverted students (only five in this project--two girls, three boys) on my ability to assess their reading comprehension during guided reading (small group reading).
Also, please remember that this hasn't been submitted yet, nor is this my final draft of the paper. But I was excited by the results and wanted to share them.
Here it goes...
Results
The purpose of
this project was to determine if and how the use of dialogue journals by
introverted students increased the teacher’s ability to assess those students’
reading comprehension during guided reading in a third grade classroom. This chapter will present the findings for
each student from the data, including the number of sentences in the dialogue
journals, the journal entry scale scores, and the scores from guided reading
anecdotal notes. Additionally, the data from the journals will be compared with
the guided reading anecdotal notes from November 3 to January 21.
The journal information and guided reading scores for
each week is organized by the week of the year (e.g. the week of November 3,
2014 is written as week 45 in the table). Children in the study have a
designated letter corresponding to their work to maintain anonymity. No guided
reading score was given for week 48 because no guided reading groups met.
Group Data
Looking at the
data overall, I needed to convert the GR Comp scores into a numerical scale so
that they could be analyzed. As such, a *=0, P=1, A=2, and an E=3. Over a week
timeframe, during which two scores were given, these would be the amounts each
child could receive: *P=1, PP=2, AP=3, AA=4, AE=5, EE=6. This data, then, for the whole group showed
that on average the mean number of sentences per entry was 1.5 sentences per
entry, and the average GR Comp score was 3.7 for the group.
Table
6
Introverted Group’s Dialogue Journal Data
and Guided Reading Comprehension Scores
Weeks
|
Average of Average # Sentences per Entry
per Week
|
Average of Guided Reading Comprehension
Score
|
2014
|
1.50952381
|
3.733333333
|
45
|
1.3
|
4
|
46
|
1.8
|
4
|
47
|
1.516666667
|
3.2
|
48
|
1.6
|
|
49
|
2.25
|
3.6
|
50
|
1.1
|
4
|
51
|
1
|
3.6
|
2015
|
1.5
|
3.066666667
|
2
|
2.2
|
3.8
|
3
|
1.2
|
3
|
4
|
1.1
|
2.4
|
Grand Total
|
1.506666667
|
3.511111111
|
This information
becomes even clearer when shown graphically (see Figure 1). Over time, the
average number of sentences that were written by the group in their dialogue
journals decreased, and so did their average GR Comp scores. While there are
weeks when the average number of sentences increased, the GR Comp scores did
not always follow the same pattern of rising and falling.
Figure 1
Graph of Introverted Group’s Dialogue
Journal Data and GR Comprehension Scores
An interesting
finding that surfaced as the data was being analyzed was the differences in the
boys’ and girls’ entries and number of sentences.
Table 7
Introverted Group’s Dialogue Journal Data
Organized by Gender
Student
|
Average of # Sentences per Entry per Week
|
# of Entries
|
Total # of Sentences
|
Boy
|
1.666666667
|
30
|
50
|
Girl
|
2.231884058
|
69
|
154
|
Grand Total
|
2.060606061
|
99
|
204
|
While I had
recognized the differences between the boys’ and girls’ journals in length of
their entries and the number of entries as I was going through them, seeing the
average number of sentences per entry being around double the amount for the
girls. Plus, the girls wrote more than double the amount of entries that the
boys wrote.
Additionally, when
the GR Comp scores are combined with the data by gender, the differences
between the two groups is startling. The mean was taken from the average number
of sentences per entry per week so that it could be compared with the averages
of the GR Comp scores by week.
Table
8
Introverted Group’s Dialogue Journal Data
Organized by Gender with GR Comp Scores
Row Labels
|
Average of Average # Sentences per Entry
per Week
|
Average of Guided Reading Comprehension
Score
|
|
Boy
|
0.994444444
|
3.259259259
|
|
45
|
0.666666667
|
4
|
|
46
|
1.166666667
|
4
|
|
47
|
1.111111111
|
2.666666667
|
|
48
|
1
|
||
49
|
2.333333333
|
3.333333333
|
|
50
|
0.666666667
|
4
|
|
51
|
0.416666667
|
3.333333333
|
|
2
|
2.25
|
4
|
|
3
|
0.333333333
|
2.333333333
|
|
4
|
0
|
1.666666667
|
|
Girl
|
2.275
|
3.888888889
|
|
45
|
2.25
|
4
|
|
46
|
2.75
|
4
|
|
47
|
2.125
|
4
|
|
48
|
2.5
|
||
49
|
2.125
|
4
|
|
50
|
1.75
|
4
|
|
51
|
1.875
|
4
|
|
2
|
2.125
|
3.5
|
|
3
|
2.5
|
4
|
|
4
|
2.75
|
3.5
|
|
Grand Total
|
1.506666667
|
3.511111111
|
|
Summary of Results
From the
information in this chapter, we see that for Students A, C, and D there is a
pattern between the average number of sentences and their GR Comp score. While
for Students B and E, there seems to be no pattern at all between what they
wrote or did not write in their dialogue journals and their GR Comp score. For
the group as a whole, it appears that over the course of the ten weeks writing
in their dialogue journals, that the average number of sentences decreased, as
did the GR Comp scores of the group. Additionally,
an interesting note was made about the differences in writing between the boys
and girls amount of writing in their dialogue journals and their GR Comp
scores.
Group Data. The data from looking at
the introverted group as a whole provides a much clearer answer to the research
question than the results from the individual students’ data. From the group’s results, the trend lines for
both the average number of sentences per entry per week and the average of GR
Comp scores is decreasing. So while there are weeks when the average sentences
per entry increased, and there are weeks when the average guided reading
comprehension score increased, the summation of this project shows that the effectiveness
of my ability to assess these five students reading comprehension in guided
reading decreased.
It should be noted
that while the trend line for the mean of the average number of sentences per
entry is decreasing, it is a slight decrease; it almost remains at a constant
1.5 for the entirety of this project.
This finding is very interesting to consider, especially in the context
of looking for evidence that the research question is being met: Since the
average number of sentences per entry is almost at a constant 1.5 for the ten
weeks of this project, it shows me that the students were not becoming excited
about or connected to their reading choices and wanting to write about
them.
With the interest
level in reading being low, it is easy to conclude that their comprehension of
their reading was not as high as it could have been because they weren’t
engaged with their reading. Perhaps they were reading because they were being
forced to read a certain book for guided reading or a book club and they would
never have chosen that book to read on their own. Perhaps they were not
selecting books of interest to them to read. Or perhaps they were not
connecting their personal reading with the reading comprehension questions that
were posed each day for their dialogue journal writing, maybe they only
considered the reading that was done as a class assignment to be of value to me
as their teacher when they decided on which book to write.
Gender Data. Additionally the results
regarding gender and the group were interesting for me to consider. On average,
the girls wrote double the amount of sentences per entry per week that the boys
wrote. Also, the two girls wrote 69 entries, compared to the three boys
combined total of 30 entries over the ten weeks. That disparity is astounding! Those two girls
wrote more than double the amount of three boys. Furthermore, when this
information is compounded with the results from the average of the GR Comp
scores by gender, it provides the opposite conclusion that comes by looking at
the group data: the boys wrote less by half on average in their dialogue
journals than the girls and their average GR Comp score was about a 3.26, while
the girls’ average GR Comp score was 3.89.
Therefore, when
answering the research question looking at the data in terms of gender, my
ability to assess the reading comprehension of my introverted students
increased when they used their dialogue journals. Since the group data is skewed a bit because
of the huge gap between how frequently the girls wrote and how much less the
boys wrote—even though the quality was generally good when they did write—perhaps
this conclusion is the most accurate for this project.
Limitations of the Project
An obvious
limitation of this project is the size of the population that was studied. If more students were involved in this
project, the effectiveness of using dialogue journals would have been clearer
to determine and more accurate when generalizing the results. As it stands, since the group that was
studied was only five students—three boys and two girls, with no IEPs and no EL
students—no generalizations can be made.
Another limitation
to this project was the length of the project and the months when it was
conducted. If it had been a longer
study, with more guided reading comprehension scores recorded, perhaps more
information could be gleaned from these students showing their growth and
change throughout the school year. Also, since it was conducted around two
major holidays and break times, the results could be skewed because of
excitement for a break decreasing writing or the desire to do better in school
as a New Year’s goal increasing writing. However, these holidays may have
inflated or deflated the amount and length of journal responses and the quality
of their responses and interactions during guided reading.
