Reading Strategies for Ninth Grade English Language Learners

Vanessa S. McQueen

Student Number: 000-02-7502

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements with the Degree with Masters in Reading with Concentration in Inclusive Education

The College of The Bahamas

October 2013

Abstract

Research in the field of reading strategies has been conducted repeatedly to ascertain the effectiveness of these strategies in assisting English Language Learners (ELL) to construct meaning from texts. However, little research has been done in The Bahamas to determine what Bahamian educators can do to support second language learners in their classrooms.
This paper assesses: 1. The impact of Sustained Silent Reading on comprehension for ELLs 2. The impact of Think Aloud and Read Aloud on reading comprehension for ELLs. This research suggests that the use of these strategies can play an important role in students’ abilities to read and comprehend texts on their own. Direct instruction and modeling of the think aloud strategies increased the students’ confidence levels and the likelihood that they will use the strategies on their own.

Key words: English Language Learners, Sustained Silent Reading, Teacher Think Aloud, Comprehension, Scaffolding, Schema, Prior Knowledge

Reading Strategies for English Language Learners In the past ten years, The Bahamas has seen a significant increase in the number of immigrants coming to its shores. In fact, Fielding, Balance, Scriven, McDonald & Johnson (2008) assert that in 1963, the Haitian community accounted for 3.2% of the population; while in 2000 it represented 7.1% and was numerically the largest migrant group in The Bahamas. Because Haitian migrants are frequently associated with poor education, classroom teachers can no longer simply focus on the traditional method of teaching reading. Teachers must now employ a range of strategies that will benefit all students, be they second language learners or native speakers. All students will benefit from both traditional instructional practices as well as practices motivated by constructivist and sociocultural theories posit Graves, Juel, Graves and Dewitz (2011, p. 408). They assert that teachers should focus on academically relevant tasks, scaffold students’ efforts, use cognitive modeling and provide instruction in students’ zone of proximal development (pp. 408-409). Fielding, et al., (2008) assert that language is a barrier which prevents Haitian migrants from fully participating in society and makes them distinct from the general population. According to Vaughn, Bos and Schumm (2011) classroom teachers must strive to develop a culturally responsive teaching (CRT) style. Many students who come from ethnically diverse communities do not find school exciting or inviting, since they are living in a society which marginalizes them. By using the CRT, teachers will be “using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, and performance styles of diverse students to make learning more appropriate and effective for them; because it teaches to and through the strengths of these students” (Vaughn et al., 2011, p.95). According to Cushner, McClelland and Safford (2012) a relatively high dropout rate characterize children who live in ethnically diverse communities, in spite of significant efforts at bilingual education in the United States. Since a person’s language provides the symbols used to understand the world, “Children whose symbols differ from those of the dominant group are likely to see the world from a different perspective, to look for meaning in different ways, and to attribute meanings to common objects and processes” (Cushner, et al., 2012, p. 18). In The Bahamas, Fielding, et al., (2008) declared that in 2002 for persons over the age of 15, the most likely education level attained by Haitian nationals was either elementary or high school, with about 12% having no schooling at all. Although English Language Learners may be perceived as a challenge to the educational system, “one consequence of successfully accommodating this diversity is that students, teachers, and communities will become more knowledgeable, more accepting, and better skilled at communicating with people from different backgrounds” (Cushner, et al., 2012, p. 18).

According to Navarro (2008), “background knowledge of a text has a major impact on whether or not a reader can comprehend the text” (p. 8), so it is imperative for English Language Learners’ schema to be probed. This background knowledge is vital for it provides “scaffolding for incorporating text, facilitates a reader’s ability to decide where to pay close attention, helps make inferences, provides a guide to search for memory, aids in editing and summarizing, and helps produce hypotheses about information that is missing” (Navarro, 2008, p.154). In order to comprehend a message, a reader must bring a schema to mind that will give an accurate account of the events and content described in a given message.

In August 2013, the Bahamian society waited anxiously for the national examination results for the Grade Level Assessment Test (GLAT), Bahamas Junior Certificate (BJC) and The Bahamas General Certificate of Secondary Education (BGCSE) to be announced. Although there were hopes within the Department of Education of an increased national average, hopes were dashed as the present Minister of Education, the Honorable Jerome Fitzgerald voiced profound distress over the national ‘D’ average. “My major concern is that we have students leaving grade 12, leaving school, who are not functionally literate or numerate - that is a major, major concern for me. It’s a major concern for the ministry” (2013).

Examining statistics obtained from the Examination and Assessment Division, it is clear that although there are pockets of success in English Language, there is a tremendous need to increase the level of comprehension proficiency in students. On the Grade 3 GLAT, 70.9% of the 5, 166 candidates who sat the exam scored A-C in Language Skills, whereas only 33 % of them scored A-C in Reading Comprehension. On the Grade 6 GLAT, 38.8% scored A-C in Reading Comprehension of the 5, 252 candidates who sat the exam, while 27.3% scored A-C in overall Language Skills. On the BJC examination, of the 6, 475 candidates who sat the examination, 55.7% scored A-C and on the BGCSE examination, 39.7% scored A-C of the 5, 266 candidates (Examination and Assessment Division of The Department of Education, 2013).

After the statistics of the 2013 national examination results from a southwestern public school on the island of New Providence were analyzed, it was found that 57% of the ELLs who sat the English Language BJC examination and 63% of ELLs who sat the English Language BGCSE scored D-G grades. After examining the statistics, it is clear that many are leaving high school without the necessary prerequisite to find gainful employment. Therefore, providing English language learners with reading strategies is fundamental in their successful engagement of texts to create meaning which will enhance their overall comprehension skills. These skills will hopefully translate across the curriculum to other subject areas and spill into their communities where they will become critical independent thinkers, and provide invaluable contributions to the country. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the impact of intentionally teaching and explicitly demonstrating research-based reading strategies in a ninth grade Bahamian classroom setting with ELLs. The results of this study will build on existing research and may shed some light on the issue of whether explicitly taught and demonstrated reading strategies can aid ELLs with comprehension proficiency. This research will attempt to answer the following research questions: 1. What is the impact of explicitly taught and demonstrated reading strategies on English Language Learners’ reading comprehension proficiency, specifically the think aloud and sustained silent reading with after reading conversation? The think-aloud strategy to bolster reading comprehension of science concepts, is based on theories of using schema to build comprehension. Schema, as defined by Ortlieb and Norris (2012) is a concept that describes how knowledge experiences are stored and play a role in the comprehension process. Schema theory states that all knowledge is organized into units and because of students’ varying backgrounds and experiences, their level of understanding of a text will lead to different interpretations. Therefore, it is pertinent for “readers to make sense of all new knowledge by connecting it with their prior knowledge through using logical inferences” (Ortlieb and Norris, 2012, p.2).

Vygotsky theorizes that with adult supervision, children complete jobs that they would not normally be able to without having assistance. Scaffolding is the process through which support that is needed, is given, until eventually an individual gains the ability to use skills independently (Ortlieb and Norris, 2012).In the classroom, gradually the teacher shifts the responsibility for learning to the child for the teacher provides less support as the student gains proficiency (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). The ultimate goal of teaching the think-aloud strategy to students is to allow them to use it when completing reading tasks on their own for their own comprehension.

According to Navarro (2008), is it important for ELLs to build and activate their background knowledge. When readers fail to do this during reading, there may be varying degrees of non-comprehension. She argues that background knowledge of a text has a major impact on whether or not readers can comprehend the text; therefore it is imperative that their schema be probed. Navarro (2008) states further that ELLs are unable to activate their schema because they are often reading material for which they have no prior knowledge. In primary and high schools, scaffolding is obvious in many classrooms in which teachers use a question-answer session with their students to ascertain if mastery of a concept has taken place. There have been many studies conducted as stated by Ortlieb and Norris (2012) where teachers have been observed using a scaffolding model. It has been found that it has led towards the growth of independent learners. Some of these guidelines include “establishing what the learner already knows, beginning with what students can do, and knowing when it is time to stop scaffolding” (Ortlieb and Norris, 2012, p.2). It must be noted that scaffolding works best when the teacher knows the students’ learning abilities and is there to provide support for them so as to encourage successful learning.

Using the think aloud is a strategy that teachers use to scaffold their students’ learning. It is a strategy that allows a teacher to verbalize thoughts while reading orally, modeling for students how the process of comprehension works (Harris & Hodges as cited in Block & Israel, 2004). This strategy can be used as a scaffolding model to develop higher thinking and learning, and allows for the clarification of difficult concepts or tasks. According to Ortlieb and Norris (2012), teachers can use the think aloud strategy as a way to scaffold students’ reading comprehension. In a think aloud, teachers model their own thinking and reading strategies for the students as necessary. The goal of the think aloud strategy is that eventually students will develop a similar thinking process when they are reading independently, thereby improving their comprehension.

For the think aloud to be successful in classrooms, students must be explicitly taught listening skills and their relationship to reading (Hart and Risley, 2005). The relationships between listening and reading comprehension have found that the syntactic features of the language can be transferred via read alouds and oral language (Hart and Risley, 2005). These listening skills will develop comprehension skills that transfer to independent reading.

For success to be noted in the classroom, these comprehension strategies need to be taught explicitly and modeled over a long period in order for students at all grade levels to achieve independence (Block & Pressley, 2002). Students should be given opportunities to practice these strategies with the support of the teacher until they have a full understanding of how the strategy works and can use it successfully and independently. When comprehension strategies are taught explicitly for students, they learn how to select the appropriate strategy. Comprehension should be taught separately and collectively. Effective think alouds show how good readers do things before, during, and after readings which assist students in their own learning (Pardo, 2004).

Parr and Maguiness (2005) contend that generally, there is an insignificant impact of Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) on the academic achievement or comprehension of text of English Language Learners although there are various aspects of SSR that are positive. However, after conducting investigations on SSR, the researchers found that bringing talk into SSR can encourage students to read and help teachers to know their students. Parr and Maguiness (2005) affirm that adding conversation to SSR has been shown to “make positive changes in motivation, engagement and comprehension including perceived teacher support, mutual respect, and the promotion of interaction. They determined that “interaction and collaboration with the text disposes students to read more independently” (p.99). Additionally, they found that” through the use of talk, teachers and students shared experiences and this exchange of information assisted with the practice of choosing and participating with texts” (p. 100). Similarly, Hale, Skinner, Williams, Hawkins, Neddenriep and Dizer (2007) agree with this notion of allowing talk during the SSR. The writers assert that “requiring students to read passages aloud, as opposed to silently, does not hinder and may actually improve comprehension" (p.17). They suggest further that those less skilled readers such as ELLs may benefit from reading aloud, “as hearing the word and the additional concentration and attention required to read aloud may enhance comprehension” (p. 16). Further, Hale et al. (2007) and Parr and Maguiness (2005) note that when students are reading silently, there is no way of knowing whether they are actually reading and whether they have read the entire passage. However, when students read orally, teachers can confirm that the entire passage is read aloud. Therefore, the significantly higher level of comprehension for the oral passages relative to the silent passages may have been caused by students’ failure to read the entire passage in sequence under the silent-reading condition. Furthermore, Hale et al. (2007) surmise that when “teachers are able to track students’ errors; they are able to implement various procedures to address these limitations” (p. 17). Additionally, when children are read to, they acquire some awareness of the process of reading comprehension. Instructive adult readers will reveal the process of text comprehension as they read. The interactive read-aloud experience also builds knowledge of the world and of text structure in particular. The more prior knowledge that students have about a topic, the easier it is to comprehend a text about it. Albright and Ariail (2005) assert that reading aloud to children is “the single most important activity for building the knowledge required for eventual success in reading” (p. 582). They stipulate that” motivation, interest, and engagement are often enhanced when teachers read aloud to middle school students” (p.587). In addition, they surmise that students see the read-alouds as “scaffolds to understanding because the teacher helps to make the text more comprehensible or more interesting to them” (p. 588). Think alouds require a reader to stop periodically, reflect on how a text is being processed and understood, and relate orally what reading strategies are being used. Moreover, the writers posit that reading aloud to middle school students can introduce them to books they might not locate on their own. This suggests that teacher read-alouds in middle grades can have positive outcomes for both motivation and learning. McKeown and Gentilucci (2007) agree that students’ actively interacting with texts is crucial to the construction of the literary experience. “The reader does not come to the text empty, hoping to be filled, but brings meaning to the text” (p.137). They also surmise that ELLs actively employ comprehension-monitoring tools such as the think-aloud which allows them to improve the quality of dialogues, generate summaries of the main points in their own words, and ask questions related to the main ideas of the text, rather than less important details. They stress that students whose teachers model think-aloud strategies for recognizing comprehension problems and select repair strategies, score better on tests of comprehension than those whose teachers do not. Additionally, they emphasize the importance of following an instructional pattern that include teacher modeling, direct instruction and explanation, and individual practice. Additionally, Oueini, Bahous and Nabhani (2008) assert that the material to be read aloud may be fiction and nonfiction books, poems, articles or book. They state that reading aloud establishes a mutual relationship between the teacher and the students through encountering the same stories and characters and experiencing common reactions towards the events. Oueini et al. (2008) studied 53 five to six year-old kindergarteners from economically disadvantaged homes, who were learning French as a second language. The read aloud strategy was used and findings revealed gains in children’s vocabulary and comprehension skills. The students were able to use new vocabulary words and engage in analysis and synthesis as they participated in discussions of the read-aloud stories. They argue then that reading stories aloud also means developing children’s “concepts about print, story structure, and other elements of text” and “provides the child with a wealth of information about the processes and functions of written language” (p.141). It develops their attention span and listening skills and improves the exactness of recall, sequencing ability and effortlessness in writing. Reading aloud to children gives them new understandings on various subjects that they encounter only through books (Terblanche, 2002). Martinez & Roser (1995) add that discussing books gives children a “chance to say what they think, to share their connections with text, and to collaborate in group-constructed meanings” (p.33). Students will hopefully then use these strategies throughout their lives as necessary to comprehend text. Discussing text ideas rather than listening only to them does not involve quick or one word answers but allows children to think deeply and analyze the story events and ideas (Oueini et al., 2008). Book talk is thought to be proficient when children work hard to grapple with main ideas, observe and compare, ask questions and relate the story to their lives (Martinez & Roser, 1995). Moreover, McCarrier, Pinnell, & Fountas (2000) point out that read aloud stories introduce students to new topics that they can use when they engage in writing and provide a good model of how writers express their thoughts. They also explain that reading aloud also expands children’s repertoire and teaches a large number of new vocabulary words in context rather than in isolation which affects their reading ability as teachers involve them in discussions about the content of the book. Teachers encourage them to use the words and expressions from the text in their responses and guide them to talk about the book using higher order thinking skills (Oueini et al., 2008). Although the writers have expounded on the various positive aspects of interactive think aloud, they caution teachers to not make the mistake of considering think alouds as a one-size-fits-all approach and apply them equally to all levels of ELLs. August, Branum-Martin, Cardenas-Hagan and Francis (2010), assert that “making alterations to accommodate the needs of ELLs can build on their strengths and supplement their inadequacies” (p.4). Using consistent instruction can help to make the content clear to students through the use of visuals, modeling, and ongoing discussion. Additionally, students’ English oral proficiency is developed in thorough explicit vocabulary instruction, and guided reading” (p. 5). While much work remains to be done, “gains in vocabulary and content are possible for both ELLs and English proficient students when a common approach to instruction that is designed to be optimal for the English learner is used” (August, et al., p. 5).
Research Design For the purpose of this study a qualitative research design was used. According to (Sandelowski, 2000) “Researchers conducting qualitative studies want to collect as much data as they can…” Base line testing, ongoing informal assessment post testing, and anecdotal notes were kept.
School History This southwestern public school was chosen because it is the only government school on New Providence which has a population of both junior and senior high students. It is hoped that after working with these students in the junior school, their progress will be continually monitored in the senior school. These students have been identified as struggling readers by their subject teachers and Subject Coordinators of the various departments in the school. After viewing their final grades for English Language and English Literature, it was noted that they have consistently failed these subjects since entering the school in 2011. They have been recommended to participate in this research by their subject teachers based on their annual report cards. After the ninth grade students were selected, they were led in a discussion by the researcher in a small group setting. Here they were given the freedom to ask any questions about the research. Their main concern was missing subjects and grades with other teachers. They attended regular Language Arts classes with the researcher, and from Monday through Thursday, spent one extra period in the resource room which amounted to two and half extra hours per week of intense instruction. During the resource sessions, participants’ attendance was recorded as well as their behavior and attitude towards the instruction. They were given a schedule of activities. Students were given tests in two week intervals to determine if any gains could be seen in their comprehension skills. They were also interviewed by the researcher during the sessions on their thoughts of the strategies. Additionally, anecdotal notes were taken although this was done usually after the students had left the room. Journal entries were also written in which keen observations were made on how students interacted with each other and with the researcher. It must be noted that these students have been participating in a larger study since June 2013, during the annual summer school program held by the school and funded by the Department of Education. On Friday, the researcher conducted sessions within the general classroom, and observed the teacher giving students direct instruction in the strategies.

Discussion and Findings

The six students that participated in this research, whose names have been changed to protect their identities, are all in the ninth grade. Four of the 6 subjects are English language Learners. They are all struggling readers who were recommended by a minimum of five subject teachers to participate in this study. It must be noted that all participants are male students which may have an impact on the findings. Although this research paper does not analyze this impact, it is noteworthy and readers should bear this in mind. Pertinent background knowledge of the participants is presented in Table 1. It is clear that these students are struggling in all subject areas. Their cumulative grade point averages are the averages of four end of term examinations which were taken in grades seven and eight. Their reading interest levels indicate that they have very little concern for it with 0 being the lowest and 3 being the highest. It must be noted that none of the students chose zero, so they have some interest in reading although it may not be at the level that teachers would prefer.

Table 1

Background Knowledge of Students

|Name |Nationality |Age |Cumulative Grade Point |Interest Levels in Reading|
| | | |Average |a Book |
| | | |(December 2011-June 2013) |(0-5) |
| | | | |(0 being no interest and 5|
| | | | |being the highest |
|Mark Paul |Haitian-Bahamian |14 |0.09 |2 |
|Stephen Joseph |Haitian-Bahamian |13 |0.70 |2 |
|Randy St. Jean |Haitian-Bahamian |13 |0.15 |1 |
|John Smith |Bahamian |14 |0.19 |2 |
|Matthew Pierre |Haitian-Bahamian |13 |0.75 |3 |
|Ruben Russell |Bahamian |13 |0.52 |3 |

Initial Assessment Students were administered the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test. It must be noted that although the participants are in the ninth grade, they are all reading at minimum, six grades below their actual grade. Ruben and Mark are reading at a grade three level, while Randy, John and Matthew are reading at the primer level. This means that they are in fact nine grades below their actual grade level which can account for their poor performance in school. The results are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2
Pre-Test Scores of Gates MacGinitie Reading Test
|Name |Grade |Pre-score |
|Ruben Russell |9 |3.8 |
|Mark Paul |9 |3.5 |
|Stephen Joseph | |2.5 |
| |9 | |
|Randy St.Jean | |Primer |
| |9 | |
|John Smith | |Primer |
| |9 | |
|Matthew Pierre | |Primer |
| |9 | |

The 3-Minute Reading Assessments Test (Rasinski & Padak, 2007) was also administered. This test was administered to assist in diagnosing strengths and weaknesses of the participants. After evaluating the results, a specific program was designed for the students. The results are outlined in Table 3. When students read at an independent level, this means that they are able to read and understand the text by themselves. They are able to pronounce the words and figure out the meanings of unfamiliar words if there are any, by themselves. They are also able to analyze the text on their own, so this type of book is recommended for students to complete at home assignments. When students are reading at an instructional level, this means that they need support and scaffold. They need an adult or another peer who is a literate reader to assist them in understanding the text. Although the majority of the text is to their level, there may be words or concepts that are far too advanced for them to read the book alone comfortably. When students read at a frustration level, this means that the text is incomprehensible to them. They are simply calling words with little to no connection to the text. When teachers discover that texts are at students’ frustration level, it is recommended that another simpler text is chosen for study. When analyzing this test, teachers are determining if students are able to identify the main idea of the passage as well as recall supporting details. If they are able to do this successfully, then they are connecting with the text and can comprehend what they are reading.
Table 3
3-Minute Reading Assessments Test Scores
|Name |Independent Level |Instructional Level |Frustration Level |Comprehension Level |
|Mark Paul |Grade 1 |Grade 2 |Grade 3 |3 |
|Stephen Joseph |Grade 1 |Grade 2 |Grade 3 |3 |
|Randy St.Jean |- |- |Grade 1 |1 |
|John Smith |Grade 1 |Grade 2 |Grade 3 |4 |
|Matthew Pierre |Grade 2 |Grade 3 | |4 |
| | | |Grade 4 | |
|Ruben Russell |Grade 2 |Grade 3 |Grade 4 |9 |

It must be noted that no prescribed text books on the Language Arts or English Literature Curriculums is at a grade level below grade eight. It is expected that these students study the same books as the other students in junior high schools in The Bahamas. For these students to be successful in their classes, modifications to the prescribed texts must be made. This is a clear indication why these students are failing their classes because they cannot read beyond a grade four level independently. In fact, Randy St. Jean cannot read independently at a grade one level which indicates that he has major reading challenges. Below is a more in-depth analysis of the students’ behaviors as they completed the test.

Mark Paul –Mark was able to recall the main idea of a passage with just a few supporting details. Mark started to retell the passage from the middle and it seemed that he was randomly giving information as it came to his memory. It seemed not to be a careful recall of the story going from beginning to end, but rather, simply stating what he remembered. His word recognition accuracy is at 88% while his fluency-automaticity is 36 word count per minute (wcpm). His expression and volume is rated 1; phrasing and intonation, 1; smoothness, 2, pace, 1 which gives him a total score of 5.

Stephen Joseph –Stephen was able to recall the main idea of a passage with a few supporting details. He spoke loudly and at a normal pace. He was adept at recalling, seeking to give details in the order in which they happened. There were times when he inserted a piece of information simply because he remembered it, rather than placing it in chronologically order. His word recognition accuracy is at 93% while his fluency-automaticity is 75 wcpm. His expression and volume is rated 2; phrasing and intonation, 1; smoothness, 2, pace, 2 which gives him a total score of 7.

Randy St.Jean - Randy had minimal recall of only a fact or two from the passage. The facts that Randy gave were in no sequential order. It was obvious from the manner in which he was sitting that he was uncomfortable with recalling details. He was hunched over and turned away from the researcher. It seemed that he was simply saying words because he was asked to do so. The ideas that he gave were not in complete sentences with little thought to the passage read. His word recognition accuracy is at 22% while his fluency-automaticity is 7 wcpm. His expression and volume is rated 1; phrasing and intonation, 1; smoothness, 1, pace, 1 which gives him a total score of 4.

John Smith - John was able to able to recall the main idea of a passage along with a fairly robust set of supporting details. He was able to give details with some confidence although he kept his voice low. He would make eye contact at times to get confirmation whenever he gave a bit of information. When the researcher nodded, he would then continue. John seemed to take the time to figure out the order and made real attempts to give the details in order. When asked if he could give the main idea of the passage, he did not hesitate. His word recognition accuracy is at 87% while his fluency-automaticity is 54 wcpm. His expression and volume is rated 2; phrasing and intonation, 2; smoothness, 2, pace, 2 which gives him a total score of 8.

Matthew Pierre –Matthew was able to recall the main idea of the passage along with a fairly robust set of supporting details. He kept looking to the researcher for confirmation and would only continue when it was given. He sat up straight and maintained eye contact with the researcher. His word recognition accuracy is at 88% while his fluency-automaticity is 74 wcpm. His expression and volume is rated 2; phrasing and intonation, 3; smoothness, 2, pace, 2 which gives him a total score of 9.

Ruben Russell –Ruben was able to recall the main idea of a passage along with a fairly robust set of supporting details although it must be noted that Ruben started to retell the story from the end. This could have been intentional or due to the fact that it was the last bit of information that he heard. His word recognition accuracy is at 91% while his fluency-automaticity is 74 wcpm. His expression and volume is rated 3; phrasing and intonation, 2; smoothness, 2, pace, 2 which gives him a total score of 4.

After evaluating the results of the 3-Minute Reading Assessments (Rasinski & Padak, 2007), the miscue analysis is presented in Table 4 below. It must be noted that although all of the subjects ignored punctuations at some point in their reading, only Randy had an excessive amount of meaning changing miscue. This means that the words that he pronounced changed the meaning of the sentences and he was unable to self -correct himself. He was simply calling words rather than comprehending the text.

Table 4

Miscue Analysis of 3-Minute Reading Assessments

|Name |Substitution Miscue |Omission Miscue |
|Mark |110-160 words correct per minute |36 |
|Stephen |110-160 words correct per minute |75 |
|Randy |110-160 words correct per minute |7 |
|John |110-160 words correct per minute |54 |
|Matthew |110-160 words correct per minute |74 |
|Ruben |110-160 words correct per minute |74 |

It must be noted that these students are lagging far behind their counterparts. Their lack of word recognition and fluency is hampering their ability to comprehend the texts that they are reading. They are either reading slowly and laboriously or with an uneven mixture of fast and slow pace, with little sense of actually trying to decipher the meaning of the text. They are simply trying to get the words and not employing reading strategies to assist with their comprehension as good readers would do.

Interim Tests During the six week period, the sessions began with a read aloud where students were seated at a round table. Before each read aloud, the researcher prepared the students for reading. They were introduced to new vocabulary words as well as the context around which the stories were told. Then they were told the topic and allowed to respond on what they thought the book would be about. After reading, the researcher checked for understanding by engaging in discussions about the book. The short story The Gold Cadillac was one of the stories selected for the read aloud because the boys love cars. They were intrigued by the acts of discrimination in the story and had very distinct opinions on why the African American family was mistreated. They made connections to their own lives and also to what they had learnt in Social Studies. During the reading, the researcher employed the think aloud. She intentionally demonstrated to students how she ‘thinks’ her way through a story by making predications, validating those predictions, making connections and drawing conclusions. She used such phrases as, “I don’t quite understand what this means but when I read further I realize that….”, or “I think that this will happen because…..” She allowed the students to share their ideas as well by encouraging them to use the same phrases that she did. All students except Stephen were reluctant at first, but because this strategy was used consistently, they got used to hearing and using the phrases.

The second focus was basic sight words and word families. Emphasis was placed on repetition as a teaching strategy. In each session, after the students had reviewed the spelling and pronunciation of the sight words, they transitioned to learning the word families and using them to create new words. They focused on spelling, adding suffixes to words and identification of word patterns. Word families included ig, in, ick, ich, ish and others. For the most part, Randy was the only student who had great challenges with pronouncing the sounds of the letters. He would randomly sound out letters even if they were not a part of the word. It was clear that he has difficulty with directionality, which is an indication that further investigation is needed to determine a more precise diagnosis to evaluate if he has a specific reading disability. It was evident that he has no solid foundation in phonics and needs intense phonics instruction. Although John was a little more adept at recognizing sounds, he needs more individual attention in phonics development as well. He has a good memory and uses this to his advantage.

The third part of the session had students reading silently or with a buddy. Randy remained with the researcher for further instruction in phonics and reading strategies. Students were allowed to choose their own reading material. Selections included both fiction and nonfiction leveled readers. Books about habitats, the earth and desert animals were the favorite of the students. After they read silently to themselves or in groups, they returned to the round table and discussed what they had read and any concerns or interesting points that they came across. Although the researcher worked one-on-one with Randy, she still monitored the students in their small groups or individually. The students were encouraged to use their sight words and words they had learnt using the word families in personal responses that they wrote about the stories that were read. These responses could be any length on the condition that they had at least one sentence written correctly with capitalization and accurate end punctuation mark.

A battery of tests was created for the researcher to determine if there was any improvement from the initial formal testing. Two interim tests were given to the students to ascertain if significant gains in their comprehension skills could be determined. Assistance was given if requested by the students. Table 6 outlines the students’ results.

Table 6
Interim Tests Results
|NAME |TEST 1 |TEST 2 |TEST 3 |
| |Maze |Reading Test |Reading Comprehension |
| |(25 pts.) |(25 pts.) | |
| | |Phonics |Vocabulary |True/False |Sequencing |
| | |(10 pts.) |(15pts.) |(10 pts.) |(10 pts.) |
|Mark |18 |6 |7 |8 |5 |
|Stephen |19 |7 |9 |8 |7 |
|Randy |5 |1 |2 |4 |2 |
|John |14 |4 |9 |6 |6 |
|Matthew |18 |7 |10 |8 |7 |
|Ruben |20 |8 |15 |8 |7 |

It must be noted that little improvement in students’ comprehension skills were evident as the results indicate. Randy was the only student who still struggles at a very low level with phonics and comprehension, scoring one point out of a possible 10 points. He hardly looked at the paper and only when the researcher offered help, did he seem to show some kind of interest. He was ready to leave the room before the test was placed on the desks. Ruben and Matthew have shown little improvement in their meaning making. Mark, Stephen and John have no significant improvement in their numerical results, although they seemed more confident while taking the exam. There were no hunched shoulders or needless gazing around the room. Stephen needed little prompting to complete the exam which was an improvement for him. In general, the participants seemed intent on completing the paper and with the researcher’s assistance, were able to do so.
Post-tests
After the six week period, two post- tests were administered. Participants were given the Gates MacGinitie and the 3-Minute Assessments tests (Rasinski & Padak, 2007). The results are outlined in Tables 7 and 8 below.
Table 7
Gates MacGinitie Pre-test and Post-tests Reading Test Results
|Name |Pre-test |Post-test |
|Ruben Russell |3.8 |3.8 |
|Mark Paul |3.5 |3.6 |
|Stephen Joseph |2.5 | |
| | |2.7 |
|Randy St. Jean |Primer | |
| | |Primer |
|John Smith |Primer | |
| | |2.5 |
|Matthew Pierre |Primer | |
| | |2.8 |

Although Ruben and Randy were consistent in their reading levels, Mark, Stephen, John and Matthew showed improvement in their overall reading level. Of significant note, both John and Matthew are now reading at a grade two level where before they were reading pre-kindergarten. This is noteworthy, which is indicative that explicitly taught and demonstrated reading strategies can assist students in comprehending texts.

Table 8

Pre-test and Post-test Miscue Analysis of 3-Minute Reading Assessments

Name |Substitution Miscue |Omission Miscue |Insertion Miscue |Reversal Miscue |Punctuation Ignored |Meaning Changing Miscue |Self- Correction | | |Pre |Post |Pre |Post |Pre |Post |Pre |Post |Pre |Post |Pre |Post |Pre |Post | |Mark |4 |3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |1 |0 |3 |3 |0 |2 | |Stephen |4 |3 |0 |0 |1 |0 |0 |0 |1 |0 |4 |3 |1 |1 | |Randy |18 |14 |1 |0 |3 |4 |0 |0 |3 |1 |18 |13 |0 |1 | |John |6 |4 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |1 |0 |5 |4 |2 |2 | |Matthew |6 |3 |1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |2 |0 |6 |3 |0 |2 | |Ruben |8 |3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |2 |0 |2 |3 |2 | | |

Although the students read approximately the same number of words correctly per minute, it should be noted that their errors decreased marginally.

Mark was more confident as he read, and it showed in his intonation and expression. He was able to self-correct twice which is evidence that he was monitoring his comprehension while reading. His recall of the details was more detailed and given in a more sequential order. He did not look to the researcher for approval, but rather looked straight ahead as he called off what he remembered. Although he still had an inflection when he said declarative sentences, it was not as pronounced as it was during the first reading.

Stephen was confident and read in a loud voice. He rushed a little at times but this could be due in part to his confidence. His recollection of the details was again well done. It was obvious that he was monitoring for comprehension for he asked several questions after the test simply for his own learning.

Randy who had 18 substitutions on the pretest had 14. Of those 14 substitutions, 13 of them changed the meaning of the text. He was able to self -correct once which shows that he was monitoring his comprehension. Although he still had hunched shoulders, his voice was louder and clearer, and he was attempting to actually sound out the words rather than simply saying anything that came to his mind. His recollection of the details in the passage increased as well as his understanding.

John too was confident as he sat at the table. He was anxious to begin and when he did, he rushed the reading in the beginning. After prompting him to settle down, his pace and expression improved. Like Stephen, he was thorough in identifying the main idea and recalling details in sequential order.

Matthew showed slight improvement as well. He was excited to come to the table and came smiling. He declared that he was going to read the passage in its entirety before the two minute period was up. He was clearly monitoring himself for he was able to self-correct twice. His recollection of the details was also thorough, although he had a tendency to reverse the order that the details occurred in the passage. When he realized what he was doing, he tried to correct himself which is a clear indication that he realizes when ideas are not logically sequenced.

Ruben’s results also show slight improvement. Although his expression and pace were somewhat halting, he read most of the passage quite accurately. He still lacked the ability to recall significant details from the passage. He again began with the last bit of information that he heard, and when prompted to give further details, could not. Obviously he requires more assistance in this area.

Conclusion

This research study confirms Pardo’s (2004) research that students should be given opportunities to practice reading strategies with the support of the teacher until they have a full understanding of how the strategies work and they can use them successfully and independently. When comprehension strategies are taught explicitly for students, they learn how to select the appropriate strategy. Comprehension should be taught separately and collectively. Effective think alouds show how good readers do things before, during, and after readings which assist students in their own learning (Pardo, 2004).

Using strategies such as the think aloud and sustained silent reading with after reading conversation have been beneficial to the six participants. The strategies have helped to marginally improve four of the participants’ reading levels. Moreover, students’ attitude to reading has changed. When the participants were first asked to choose a book to read, their response was sluggish. There were numerous questions asked, before a book was reluctantly chosen. After the six week research period, when they are asked to choose a book, they did not hesitate and would like to read their selected books to an audience of their peers.

In recent years, The Bahamas has seen an influx of immigrants who have either very little or no English language knowledge (Fielding, et al., 2008). English Language Learners in the classrooms need to be taught how to comprehend a variety of texts. It is vital that teachers provide them with the necessary strategies so that they are able to navigate books to create meaning. Since many literary texts do not have a single correct interpretation, students should be allowed and encouraged to construct a variety of interpretations once they can be supported. This can be achieved with the use of the teacher think aloud. Martinez & Roser (1995) posit that talking about books gives children a “chance to say what they think, to share their connections with text, and collaborate in group-constructed meanings” (p.33), as was evident by the discussions that took place within this research.

Reading and think aloud also have helpful effects on the development of vocabulary and reading comprehension. Terblanche 2002, argues that ELLs benefit more than others when they are read to because they often enter school lacking the necessary tools of literacy, and may be ‘at risk’ in developing their reading and writing skills. Reading aloud to children can be used effectively to avoid problems in reading such as poor vocabulary and lack of comprehension and motivation towards reading in general and would guarantee reading success. Bahamian educators need to provide ample opportunities for all students to engage in activities that will boost their confidence in reading and will allow them to learn from each other. Literate atmospheres need to be created with books that cover different reading levels which provide students with experiences that will enhance their background knowledge and make reading an enjoyable activity.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to remedy the entire Bahamas, but it has presented a possible solution that can be introduced to begin to repair the breakdown of comprehension in the classroom. Having such a short time frame to conduct such a research study begs for the need for future research which could give further insight into the possibilities of the strategies investigated in this paper, being useful in other schools and grades across the Commonwealth of The Bahamas.

.

References

(2013). Exams results graded a "D". Nassau: The Tribune.
Albright, L. K. and Ariail, M. (2005). Tapping the potential of teacher read-alouds in middle schools. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48: 582–591. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.48.7.4
August, D., Branum-Martin, L., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Francis, D. (2010). The Impact of an instructional intervention on the science and language learning of middle grade english language learners. SREE Conference. Retrieved September 3, 2013, from http://www.eric.ed.gov
Block, C. C., & Israel, S. E. (2004). The ABC’s of performing highly effective think-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 58(2), 154-167. doi:10.1598/RT.58.2.4

Block, C.C., & Pressley, M. (Eds.) (2002). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best

Practices. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Brown, T., & Knight, D.F. (1990). Patterns in spelling: Patterns with short vowels (Book 1).

New York: New Readers Press

Cushner, K., McClelland, A., & Safford, P. (2012). Human diversity in education: An Intercultural Approach (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Fielding, W. J., Ballance, V., Scriven, C., McDonald, T., & Johnson, P. (2008). The stigma of being “Haitian” in The Bahamas. The College of The Bahamas Research Journal, 14; 38-50. Retrieved September 5, 2013, from http://researchjournal.cob.edu.bs
Graves, M. F., Juel, C., Graves, B. B., & Dewitz, P. (2011). Teaching reading in the 21st century: Motivating all learners (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hale, A.D., Skinner, C.H., Williams, J., Hawkins, R., Neddenriep, C.E., & Dizer, J. (2007). Comparing comprehension following silent and aloud reading across elementary and secondary students: Implication for curriculum-based measurement. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8(1), 1-15. Retrieved February 10, 2013, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.

Martinez, M. G., & Roser, N. L. (eds.). (1995). Book talk and beyond: Children and teachers respond to literature. Newark: International Reading Association.

McCarrier, A., Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (2000). Interactive writing: How language and literacy come together, K-2. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

McKeown, R. G. and Gentilucci, J. L. (2007), Think-aloud Strategy: Metacognitive development and monitoring comprehension in the middle school second-language classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51: 136–147.
Navarro, A. (2008). Building schema for english language learners. The Reading Teacher, 47(2), 154-167. doi:10.156987/RT.56.2.6

Ortlieb, E., & Norris, M. (2012). Using the think-aloud strategy to bolster reading comprehension of science concepts. Current Issues in Education, 15(1). Retrieved March 6, 2013, from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/890

Oueini, H., Bahous, R. & Nabhani, M. (2008). Impact of Read-aloud in the classroom: A case study. The Reading Matrix. Vol. 8. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/oueini_bahous_nabhani/

Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. International Reading Association, 58(3), 272-280. doi:10.1598/RT.58.3.5

Parr, J. M. and Maguiness, C. (2005). Removing the silent from SSR: Voluntary reading as social practice. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49: 98–107.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M.C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.
Rasinski, T., & Padak, N. (2007). 3-Minute reading assessments: Word recognition, fluency, comprehension, vocabulary. New York. Scholastic Inc..
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Retrieved September 3, 2013, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10940958
Terblanche, L. (2002). Read-alouds: Do they enhance students’ ability to read? New York: New York City Board of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED465192)
The national statistics confidential report (2013). GLAT, BJC and BGCSE language arts confidential report. Retrieved September 13, 2013, from the Examination and Assessment Division
Vaughn, S.R., Bos, C.S., & Schumm, J.S. (2011). Teaching students who are exceptional, diverse, and at risk in the general education classroom (5th ed.) New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.