Findings/Results

Quantitative Data Analysis

For the quantitative analysis, the growth data was entered into an equal variance
independent samples t-test. One spreadsheet was completed for the pre and posttest data
(See Appendix E) and another for the MCLASS Reading Assessment (See Appendix F).
The mean gain scores were recorded onto the Del Siegel spreadsheet. After the change
scores were documented, the spreadsheet calculated the mean and standard deviation for
each group using an independent samples t test.
At the conclusion of the study, the results of the comprehension pre/post tests
were analyzed. The analysis was used to determine if discussion of text improves reading
comprehension. The study was calculated using the mean gain scores of both quantitative
data tests. The intervention group consisted of 24 students and the comparison group of
20 students. For the intervention group, n=24. For the comparison group, n=20. The
intervention group had a higher mean growth of 19.54 with a standard deviation of 28.41.
The comparison group had a mean growth of 17.2 with a standard deviation of 26.22.
Although the intervention group had a higher mean gain score, the difference was not
significant to justify the intervention.

Pre/Post Comprehension
Test

Intervention Group Group

1
Mean Gain
Standard
Deviation (SD)
19.54
28.41

Comparison Group Group

2
Mean Gain
Standard
Deviation (SD)
17.2
26.22

Intervention Group
Comparison Group

Figure 3: Table and Bar graph with analysis of quantitative data for intervention and
comparison groups. Mean Gain scores for Pre/Post comprehension test.
The equal variance, two-tailed p-value for the pre/post comprehension test was
0.78. For a p-value to determine significance due to intervention the value must be less
than 0.05. The value is greater than 0.05 and therefore the higher growth scores from the
intervention group cannot be attributed to the intervention. The effect size for the
comparison group on the pre/post comprehension test was 0.16. According to Cohen, this
is considered to be a small effect. A small effect size does not change the results of the
intervention.
At the conclusion of the study, the results of the MCLASS Reading Assessment
were analyzed. The analysis was used to determine if discussion of text improves reading
comprehension. The growth of this study was calculated using the mean gain scores to
determine growth of reading level. For the intervention group, n=24. For the comparison
group, n=20. The intervention group had a higher mean growth of 0.41 with a standard
deviation of 1.25. The comparison group had a mean growth of 0.2 with a standard
deviation of 1.4. Although the intervention group had a higher mean gain score, the
difference was not significant to justify the intervention.

Pre/Post Comprehension
Test

Intervention Group Group

1
Mean Gain
Standard
Deviation (SD)

Comparison Group Group

2
Mean Gain
Standard
Deviation (SD)

0.41

1.25

0.2

1.4

Intervention Group
Comparison Group

Figure 4: Table and Bar graph with analysis of quantitative data for intervention and
comparison groups. Mean Gain scores for MCLASS Reading Assessment.
Qualitative Data Analysis
The teacher as researcher for the intervention class kept a researcher log during
the intervention process. The researcher log included observations, wonderings, and
reflections. The notes from the researcher log were then used to analyze for common
topics throughout the study when relating discussing text to improving reading
comprehension. One common topic throughout the study was how students continued to
go back to the text to validate their discussion points. They used sticky notes in their
groups to cite evidence from the text.
The researcher observed the groups discussing the text and described these
observations in her researcher log. When observing group 3 while reading the book
Holes, the researcher noticed how they were all curious about why Stanley was arrested.
The students wrote down their predictions on what they think he did to get arrested.
Lauren predicted that he took something that didnt belong to him. The researcher noticed
while meeting in groups that students were using reading strategies and predicting what
their books were about. In group 4 with the book Ralph S. Mouse, Crystal asked her
group why they think the book is called Ralph S. Mouse. The students said that they think
thats the characters name and hes a mouse. The students predicted from the cover that
he would get trapped in places such as the basket on the book cover.

When observing the four literature groups, the researcher was impressed with how
well they did in their first discussion groups. The students stayed on task and were
discussing the text. The researcher had students reflect on what went well during group
discussion today and what they need to improve on for next time. The consensus of the
class was that talking about the book helped them understand the book. When the
researcher asked them why, David said, When I had a question about something in the
book, my group was able to help me understand the book! Students mentioned that there
were words they didnt know and they were able to figure out the meaning of these words
with their groups. For example, the students in the group Stone Fox had trouble with
the word Wyoming and Jacob explained how it was a state. The researcher decided then
to focus on using context clues to determine the meaning of unknown words.
The researcher had to speak to group 2 about voice level. She stated the
importance of being respectful when others are talking and to not talk when someone else
is talking. The researcher decided to incorporate a talking stick and would keep a chart of
behavior guidelines for groups on the wall. Students that have the talking stick will be
able to discuss the text and ask questions. When someone would like to answer the
question and continue the discussions, the student will be given the talking stick. This
helped with students talking over each other. This also reminded students the importance
of listening when someone else is talking and to be mindful of being respectful towards
each other. David did a great job discussing the text and answering the questions using
the passage. For example, he said, The answer to number 2 was C because when
someone struts, they think that they are important. In the story, Max moved down the
hallway in his new clothes and he thought that he was special. The students were able to
use background knowledge when discussing the text.

The researcher spent time observing each group and noticed how students wanted
to use sticky notes when answering the questions and as a way to write down key
discussion notes to share with their group. The sticky notes really benefited all students
and provided evidence for the answers they had in the passage. On day three of
interventions, the researcher noticed Cody and Katie providing evidence to the text. For
example, Cody said that the answer to number one was D because When you say
something is a big deal, that means that it is very important. I found this answer in
paragraph 2.The teacher as researcher noted how he went to the passage to answer the
question and provided textual evidence. After reviewing the answers to the
comprehension passages that the students in the class answered as a group, the researcher
realized that all of the students made a 5/5 besides one student that got three questions
correct. Students such as Catherine and Jessica, who normally struggled when answering
comprehension questions, were able to get the correct answers when discussing the
questions in groups. The researcher also noticed how students verified their answers
when reading the passages. For example, Lauren stated that the answer for question A
was the ship moved slowly back and forth because she found the answer in paragraph 1.
She was able to share the paragraph with her group members. She stated, The ship
moved like her grandmas rocking chair, means that the ship was moving. She then said
that rocking chairs move back and forth like a ship.
At the conclusion of interventions, students shared why they think talking about
the text improves comprehension. When discussing what has helped them in groups,
Catherine said, I was able to answer questions by talking out the answers with my
group. She explained how it helped her having to explain the answers. She realized that
she would have answered the question wrong but after discussing the answer with her

group, she was able to make sure the answer was correct. Many students continued using
this strategy when taking the post-assessment because they wrote an explanation of why
they chose the answer.