Educational Programming

The title of the article is The Role of Television Viewing in the development of Reading Comprehension. The longitudinal research study looks at children's comprehension of television shows as compared to the aural reading of a story. The researchers cited past research that hypothesized television shows impair cognitive skills needed for comprehension. The past investigations have produced mix findings about the impact of television on children. The present research seeks to answer what effect does television have on pre-school students and their later achievement in reading comprehension. The study looked at 28 pre-school four year olds and 95 first grade students. Participants were asked to view a televised program and then they were asked to answer a series of comprehension questions. They also took a series of comprehension tests. The researchers found that children performed better on the television memory and comprehension than on the aural story and memory comprehension task. This article only presented preliminary results. All of the data was not yet collected when the article was written. Further analyses of the data would reveal the relationship between early literacy skills and comprehension and memory. After reading the article, I researched and found a follow-up article that will hopefully give me more definitive results. This article was discarded from the pile and was only used to gather more information.

Rereading with a Critical Eye

At this point in my research, I have read a significant number of articles and studies for my literature review-some good and some not so good. Also, when I get stuck in the writing process, distracted or just need a break, I look up more articles and studies to add to my collection. The paper piles on my dining room table have now extended to piles on the floor along the wall not to mention the piles on my kitchen table-too much information.

The study by Werts, Lambert & Carpenter (2009), What Special Education Directors Say About RTI, that I reread this week with a more critical eye, is a qualitative study using e-mail surveys. I think this was a good study overall with information clearly organized. The introduction gives a full background on the history of RTI and an operational definition of the topic in the first sentence. The authors state, “…the lack of consensus on many important issues related to RTI, we conducted a short online survey…” This was an effective alternative to writing “The purpose of this study…”

The research questions were well written to illicit the information needed from a survey. Tables in the study gave a graphic representation of the study. Table 1 included the survey questions and percentages of responses and table 2 gave the demographic information for the respondents and were added to the results section of the study.

The discussion section is clearly written with several interesting conclusions drawn from the data. Limitations of the study are discussed and include areas that I thought about as I was reading the research. Bias, survey return rate, self-selected representation were also discussed. Werts et al. (2009) found the validity a concern due to the nature of having the data collected through a survey format. The survey was only sent to one state, and the “…return rate of usable questionnaires was less than 50%.” Werts et al. (2009) also stated that the data was self-reported but because the questions asked for opinions, there was “less propensity for making themselves ‘look better’ because of practices they may or may not want to admit.” The authors also noted that since the state department officials trained the special education directors, this might have had an influence on the participants’ perception of the process.

Creswell (2007) discusses validation strategies and recommends that qualitative researchers use at least two of them in a given study (p. 207-209). This study included rich, thick descriptions, external audits and triangulation.

Under the Procedures section in this study, the questionnaire was developed through a systematic process of reviews. A team of volunteers consisting of professionals working and teaching in a university department included: a special education teacher, a principal, a special education director, two professors in special education, and an adjunct professor in the special education department. These volunteers reviewed the preliminary draft of the survey and were asked to suggest additional items, recommend deletion of items and make revisions in the wording of items that yielded a second survey that was then given back to the same team for feedback. A final draft was then written by the authors and used in this study (Werts et al., 2009).

Under the Data Analysis section, “analytical rigor was attained by having a third investigator independently review the tabular data and written responses. Any areas of ambiguity or disagreement were marked and discussed by the team until consensus was reached (Werts et al., 2009).

I thought this study added to the understanding of RTI from the perspective of a particular group (special education directors) in one state (North Carolina) and it would be interesting to compare these results with the results of another state like Connecticut.

Werts, M. G., Lambert, M. & Carpenter, E. (2009). What special education directors say about RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 245-254.

Critiquing a Study

Hale, A.D., Hawkins, R.O., Sheeley, W, Reynolds, J.R. Jenkins, S., Schmitt, S.J. & Martin, D.A. (2011). An investigation of silent versus aloud reading comprehension of elementary students using maze assessment procedures. Psychology in the Schools, (48)1, 4-13.

The purpose of the above study was to examine "the possible differences between silent and aloud reading comprehension scores on Maze assessment probes."  The participants were 89 first and second graders from general education classes at a private school in the southeast. The researchers used grade-level appropriate Aimsweb Maze passages to assess "aloud and silent Maze comprehension." (The Maze test consists of a complete first sentence, after which every seventh word is deleted. Students have to choose from three words given in parentheses and circle the correct answer.) To compare results, the authors also used grade-level appropriate DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) reading passages and norm-referenced passages from the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. The assessments were conducted over a three-month period in the spring. The tests were given individually in a private room attached to the classroom and administered by "one primary investigator and five graduate students." The "primary investigator ensured that each graduate student could administer each assessment appropriately and score each assessment reliably." Each child read three passages silently and three orally within a period of five consecutive school days "to limit the possible effects from increased skill development." 
Results indicated that reading silently or orally did not affect the students' understanding of the tested material.
The authors mention that the "sample size was relatively small and came from a private school district." Therefore, "the generalizability of the results of this study are limited." They also state that most of the children were above grade-level readers.
I'm satisfied wtih the way this study was conducted. In my opinion, the authors come across as upfront and truthful. There was triangulation of sorts, in that there were several administrators, all of whom followed the same testing and scoring procedures. The tests were timed and needed right-or-wrong responses, so there was no room for subjectivity. There was "rich data," in that different assessments were used, and the oral reading was tape-recorded.  Finally, although Hale et al. place a limit on the overall  generalizability of the results, the study does seem to have internal generalizability, which Maxwell defines as "the generalizability of a conclusion within the setting or group studied" (p. 115).