Report On Readtheory and Writing Project

REPORT ON READTHEORY AND WRITING PROJECT AT
TECHNICAL TRAINERS COLLEGE, RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA
TRIMESTER 2 2016
APRIL 2016
DJ van der Merwe
1
INDEX
1. INTRODUCTION 5
2. INTRODUCTION OF THE PROJECT TO THE STUDENTS 7
3. TERMINOLOGY: 9
3.1. ReadTheory
3.2. Pretest
3.3. Posttest
3.4. Lexile
3.5. Typical Reader Measures, by Grade
4. ANALYSES OF RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES TAUGHT 13
4.1. PT 4A+B 13
4.1.1. Grade level scores
4.1.2. Lexile level scores
4.1.3. Writing scores
4.1.4. Conclusion
4.2. MTF 3-1B 18
4.2.4. Conclusion
2
4.3. MTF 1A + B 22
4.3.4. Conclusion
4.4. MTF 2-2A 29
4.4.4. Conclusion
4.5. MTF 2-2B 34
4.5.4. Conclusion
4.6. Average totals of all the classes for Grade level, Lexile level and Writing
Scores 39
4.6.3. Total averages for Writing for all classes
5. DETERMINING THE CORRELATION BETWEEN READING ABILITY AND

THE FINAL OVERALL MARK FOR THE TRIMESTER 43
6. THE OVERALL READING ABILITY OF THE FOUR CLASSES COMPARED

TO WORLD STANDARDS 56
3
7. IS AN EXPONENTIAL IMPROVEMENT IN READING ABILITY ASSOCIATED
WITH AN INCREASED FREQUENCY OF READING? 59
8. CONCLUSION 60
9. REFERENCES 63
10. APPENDICES 64
4
1. INTRODUCTION
The Technical Trainers College in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, is a unique college in this
sense that the Saudi, Arabic speaking students receive their technical training in
English and they are expected to be able to teach their technical discipline in
English after receiving their Bachelor’s degree. The course is a three year course
divided into nine trimesters. Three trimesters of twelve weeks each equals one
year. During the first three trimesters the students receive twelve contact hours of
English teaching per week and from trimester four to six, four hours per week. The
last three trimesters are spent on writing a thesis which is a requisite of the course.
During the course the student has to master the English technical language of his
discipline as well as speak, write, read and listen fluently in English. The students
that are admitted to the course are of variable abilities in spite of them completing
an admittance test. There are students that cannot converse in English and
consequently ask their friends to act as translators when speaking to the lecturer.
On the other hand there are students that can speak, read, write and listen fluently
in English and are far more competent than their classmates concerning the
mastery of English. The lecturer has a huge challenge when trying to cater for
students with such vast differences in language competence.
After I had taught for one semester at the college I experienced frustration. There
were students that, according to me, should not be on the course, and it felt as if I
had not had much success with my students as a whole. In spite of assessing the
four skills there were still shortcomings in the process I thought. I could not assess
the progress the students had made in a trimester of twelve weeks. I wanted to
determine if the students were progressing in the acquisition of English as their
second language and I was concerned at the majority’s level of English.
I realized that the students had to use the language as much as possible during the
English lessons. From experience and studies I also knew that natural readers
always had an advantage in their studies and performed well. This notion is also
supported by much research. Stephen Krashen’s “The Power of Reading” and “The
Book Whisperer” by Donalyn Miller are only two of many that validate this
assumption. Krashen found that students’ motivation to read was higher when they
get the opportunity to read in school and this is how I eventually stumbled upon
ReadTheory.
The thinking was that if reading had such a positive influence on all the skills of
English why not introduce a reading programme. ReadTheory was introduced to
the students and all of them were registered on the programme. The programme
5
is internet based and the students use their mobiles in the class and do one quiz
each per lesson.
A quiz consists of a reading passage and questions set on the passage read. The
first quiz that they do is called the Pretest quiz. The aim of this quiz is to determine
the students’ reading with comprehension level (Grade level) and Lexile level. Once
this is determined the student then has quizzes to complete at his level. He scores
points and he is given a percentage of his success rate. When he achieves between
90%-100% for his quiz he is moved up a grade level. The grade levels are from 1-
12, based on the American school system. That means that if you have a grade one
average then you are at the level of a Grade One American school going child. The
lexile level progresses with the grade level. The higher the grade level the higher
the lexile level.
In conjunction with the quiz that the students undertook, it was also decided to
introduce a writing exercise. The students would have to write what they had read
in three minutes. The idea was to get them to write as quickly as possible and to
note how many words they could write in three minutes. This writing was not
assessed.
After they had done the quiz and the writing the students would record their scores
on the log provided (Appendix A). They could then track how they were
progressing. This process was completed after five or six weeks. The students were
encouraged to do as many quizzes as possible at home to improve their reading.
The majority of the students did this with one student completing 120 quizzes. The
writing was confined to the English lessons only.
6
2. INTRODUCTION OF THE PROJECT TO THE STUDENTS
Initially when ReadTheory was introduced to the students they were told that
their progress and how many quizzes they had done would be monitored and
accordingly they would be awarded a mark for Participation and Homework.
Unfortunately this did not have the desired effect in some cases. Some saw it as a
real quiz and understood that the marks that they achieved in the ReadTheory quiz
would be reflected in the final marks. Accordingly some reverted to Google
Translator and especially the Pretest marks were inflated. This resulted in a high
Grade and Lexile level which was not a true reflection of the student’s abilities.
Unfortunately this would also have a negative effect on the Result score when
determining the final outcome of the student’s progress. Some students would
receive a negative result because of a high Pretest score and a lower Posttest score.
I consulted with ReadTheory and they advised me not to put too much weight on
the Pretest score as it was only a guide and rather to set a date and determine the
improvement from that date to a future date.
Keeping these constraints in mind it was then decided to add three more columns in
trying to determine whether the students had profited from doing ReadTheory. A
Lowest, Highest and End Score column were added. The Lowest would be the
lowest grade level that the student had descended to and conversely the Highest
would be the best he had achieved. The End Score would be last score he achieved
when doing ReadTheory in the class.
The Lexile level scores were treated similarly as the Grade Level scores.
The writing of the students was independent of ReadTheory but was included as a
resort to help students improve their writing, speaking and listening skills.
Initially it was thought that the students should write about the passage they had
read but it was discovered that it was difficult for many to write quickly on the
topic. They were then informed to write about different familiar topics like; “What
did you do last weekend”. The reasoning being to let them write as many words as
possible within three minutes. It was thought that it would quicken the process of
thinking in English as opposed to thinking in Arabic, translating to English and then
writing. The topics that were given then would be such that they could easily relate
to. To help the students in this process a speaking component was introduced. The
students would work in pairs and tell each other their stories. They would then
write their own story when given the signal to begin writing. As the students
improved their writing speeds they were then required to write the story that their
friend had told them. Here they had to listen more carefully. There was a definite
7
drop in the speed of their writing. However, the final speeds that were recorded
were of relevant and familiar topics.
8
3. TERMINOLOGY
3.1 ReadTheory:
What is Read Theory? Read Theory is a powerful educational tool that offers online
reading activities for all ages and ability levels. Our custom web application adapts
to students’ individual ability levels and presents them with thousands of skill
building exercises that suit their needs. Is Read Theory right for my child? Our
quizzes span the full range of reading levels, beginning with elementary school
reading and ending with the most demanding college-level passages. Our program
meets national benchmarks and is aligned with the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS). How can Read Theory improve English Language Arts instruction? Read
Theory fosters a dynamic classroom environment. Teachers who use our program
gain the freedom to provide more individualized instruction, and we provide
detailed reports so teachers can track student progress using statistics, graphs, and
charts. Will my child enjoy Read Theory? We want our program to be fun and
motivational. That's why we've implemented an array of game mechanics into our
program. Students earn points and achievement badges along with their reading
scores. We find that they love tracking their own progress.
3.2 Pretest
Upon entering our program, each student will be prompted to complete our
pretest—a quick 10-question diagnostic that gives you baseline information about
your students’ reading comprehension and critical thinking abilities.
3.3 Posttest
After completing our pretest, students will begin taking regular quizzes, or “posttest
quizzes” in the main area of our program. Using posttest quiz data, progress can be
tracked, analyzed, and compared to pretest scores.
3.4 Lexile
There is no direct correspondence between a specific Lexile measure and a specific

grade level. Within any classroom or grade, there will be a range of readers and a
range of reading materials. For example, in a fifth-grade classroom there will be
some readers who are ahead of the typical reader (about 250L above) and some
readers who are behind the typical reader (about 250L below). To say that some
9
books are "just right" for fifth graders assumes that all fifth graders are reading at
the same level. The Lexile®Framework for Reading is intended to match readers
with texts at whatever level the reader is reading.
MetaMetrics® has studied the ranges of Lexile reader measures and Lexile text
measures at specific grades in an effort to describe the typical Lexile measures of
texts and the typical Lexile measures of students of a given grade level. This
information is for descriptive purposes only and should not be interpreted
as a prescribed guide about what an appropriate reader measure or text
measure should be for a given grade. NOTE: These bands do not
represent performance levels or performance standards. They provide
descriptive information and are appropriate for norm-referenced interpretations
only
The tables below show the middle 50% of reader measures and text measures for
each grade. The middle 50% is called the interquartile range (IQR). The lower
number in each range marks the 25th percentile of readers or texts and the higher
number in each range marks the 75th percentile of readers or texts. It is important
to note that 25% of students and texts in the studies had measures below the
lower number and 25% had measures above the higher number. Data for the
reader measures came from a national sample of students
3.5 Typical Reader Measures, by Grade
Reader Measures, Mid-Year

Grade
25 percentile to 75th percentile (IQR)
th
1 Up to 300L
2 140L to 500L
3 330L to 700L
4 445L to 810L
5 565L to 910L
`6 665L to 1000L
7 735L to 1065L
8 805L to 1100L
9 855L to 1165L
10 905L to 1195L
10
11 and 12 940L to 1210L
Data for the first column of text measures came from a research study designed to examine
collections of textbooks designated for specific grades (MetaMetrics, 2009). The "stretch" text
measures (defined in 2012 through studies related to the development of theCommon Core State
Standards for English Language Arts) in the second column represent the demand of text that
students should be reading to be college and career ready by the end of Grade 12.
3.6. Typical Text Measures, by Grade
Text Demand Study 2009

Grade 2012 CCSS Text Measures*
25th percentile to 75th percentile (IQR)
1 230L to 420L 190L to 530L
2 450L to 570L 420L to 650L
3 600L to 730L 520L to 820L
4 640L to780L 740L to 940L
5 730L to 850L 830L to 1010L
6 860L to 920L 925L to 1070L
7 880L to 960L 970L to 1120L
8 900L to 1010L 1010L to 1185L
9 960L to 1110L 1050L to 1260L
10 920L to 1120L 1080L to 1335L
11 and 12 1070L to 1220L 1185L to 1385L
*COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS FOR ENGLISH, LANGUAGE ARTS, APPENDIX A

(ADDITIONAL INFORMATION), NGA AND CCSSO, 2012
11
3.7. Grade Level
On ReadTheory, individual passages are never assigned manually. After our

placement pretest, students will be placed at a level, and our program will draw a
passage at random from within that level for the student.
Each time a student passes a full quiz (scores between 70% and 89%), the
student remains at the same level. If the student fails the quiz (scores 69% or
less), then the quiz is replaced into the pool of available quizzes and the student's
level decreases. If the student performs outstandingly on the quiz (scores 90% or
more), the student's level increases. In each case, a new quiz will be randomly
drawn from the appropriate pool of available quizzes at the student’s level.
The results of the different classes taught, PT 4A+B, MTF 3-1B, MTF 1A+B, MTF 2-
2A+B, will be analyzed in the next chapter. The Grade Level, Lexile Level and other
appropriate scores will be utilized to determine whether there was an improvement
in the students’ reading comprehension and writing after completing five to six
weeks of ReadTheory and writing exercises.
12
4. ANALYSES OF RESULTS FOR THE FOUR DIFFERENT CLASSES
TAUGHT
ReadTheory supplies the students with their Pretest, Posttest and Total test scores.
It was decided to add a Lowest, Highest and End score as well. These scores could
be used if it was deemed that of the ReadTheory scores were unreliable. The End
score was the last score that the student accomplished when he did a ReadTheory
test. The Result column was the difference between the Pretest and the Posttest
while the Final Exam mark was the mark that the student received when he wrote
the final paper for English. The Total Score is the mark that he received after all the
other English skills were included to determine the final mark.
Students are numbered to ensure confidentiality of the marks that have been
awarded to individual students.
4.1 PT 4A+B
4.1.1. Grade Level scores
PT 4 A+B: Grade level scores (1-12)
Posttest score
Pretest score
Total score
Final Exam
Total tests
End score
Highest
Pretest
Lowest
Result
1. 1 1 4 3 25 1 2.15 1.15 60% 65.00%
2. 1 1 3 2 31 1 1.59 0.59 55% 64%
3. 3 1 4 4 24 3 2.68 -0.32 80% 77%
4. 5 1 5 4 33 5 2.79 -2.21 78% 80%
5. 5 2 5 4 13 3 3.14 0.14 73% 80%
6. 3 1 5 3 32 3 3.12 0.12 70% 72%
7. 5 2 6 6 50 5 4.25 -0.75 88% 86%
8. 3 1 4 1 66 3 1.76 -1.24 73% 76%
9. 1 1 3 1 41 1 1.36 0.36 70% 66%
10. 5 5 8 5 15 5 5.75 0.75 95% 96%
11. 5 1 5 1 35 5 1.47 -3.53 53% 56%
12. 5 2 6 3 19 5 3.9 -1.1 70% 74%
13. 3 1 4 3 30 3 2.39 -0.61 53% 66%
14. 9 6 11 8 13 9 8.21 -0.79 100% 96%
15. 2 1 4 4 30 2 1.9 -0.1 55% 61%
16. 3 3 5 4 22 3 3.91 0.91 80% 85%
17. 1 1 3 1 47 1 1.35 0.35 45% 61%
18. 1 1 3 2 33 1 1.74 0.74 65% 64%
19. 5 1 5 1 16 5 1.94 -3.06 68% 63%
13
20. 3 1 4 3 32 3 2.18 -0.82 70% 72%
21. 1 1 2 2 5 1 1.17 0.17 60% 50%
Average grade level scores 3.3 1.7 4.7 3.1 29.1 3.24 2.8 -0.44 70% 72%
Table 1
The most obvious route to determine whether ReadTheory had benefited the
students would be to compare the Pretest score with the Posttest score. When this
is done there are 11 students out of 21 (52%) that scored less in the Posttest than
in the Pretest. The average between the Pretest and the Posttest is also negative (-
0.44). Can one then conclude that when more than half of the class did not benefit
from ReadTheory that it was not beneficial for the students?
Unfortunately there are factors that could create a wrong impression when only
taking these two scores into consideration. The first is that some students used
Google Translator and scored a high Pretest score and ultimately had a low Posttest
score e.g. -3.53(11), -3.06(19), -2.21(4) and -1.24(8) = -10.04. When the total
score of these four students is ignored, the average score becomes 0.89 which is
nearly one grade level higher that the class has improved on average.
The reliability of the Pretest score was taken into account and other scores were
then considered that might give a truer reflection of the students’ abilities. The
difference between the average of the Lowest score (1.67) and the End score (3.1)
or Posttest score (2.8) were 1.4 and 1.1 respectively. These totals reflect the same
trend that was noticed when comparing the Pretest and Posttest scores with the
absence of the four students who had most probably used Google Translator. There
seems then that there was an improvement, excluding the four outliers, of between
0.89 to 1.4 of a Grade level in the PT 4A+B class.
The results of the final English exam and the Total mark received by the student
were added as extra columns to notice if there were a correlation between marks
received and the ReadTheory scores. Also the number of quizzes taken were added
and will be discussed in more detail later in the paper.
14
PT 4 A+B: Lexile level

scores
Posttest score
Pretest score
Total score
Final Exam
Total tests
End score
Highest
Pretest
Lowest
Result
1. 40 30 690 350 26 40 310 270 60% 65.00%
2. 40 20 490 310 31 40 229 189 55% 64%
3. 510 100 700 550 24 510 426 -84 80% 77%
4. 620 20 730 560 33 620 441 -179 78% 80%
5. 910 170 910 530 13 910 511 -400 73% 80%
6. 480 150 940 490 32 480 506 26 70% 72%
7. 750 270 980 770 50 750 610 -140 88% 86%
8. 640 20 750 700 66 640 277 -363 73% 76%
9. 30 20 670 70 41 30 179 149 70% 66%
10. 780 460 1110 630 15 780 773 -7 95% 96%
11. 600 20 910 130 35 600 191 -409 53% 56%
12. 630 290 960 540 20 630 569 -61 70% 74%
13. 720 120 800 470 30 720 405 -315 53% 66%
14. 1180 720 1260 800 13 1180 997 -183 100% 96%
15. 280 30 560 560 30 280 296 16 55% 61%
16. 470 440 900 870 22 470 589 119 80% 85%
17. 40 20 480 180 47 40 173 133 45% 61%
18. 100 20 690 250 33 100 274 174 65% 64%
19. 580 40 580 80 16 580 266 -314 68% 63%
20. 480 30 910 500 32 480 335 -145 70% 72%
21. 40 40 200 150 5 40 113 73 60% 50%
Average lexile level scores 472 144 772 452 29 472 403 -69 70% 72%
Table 2
Similarly to the grade level scores there were also distortions in the Lexile scores
due to the use of Google Translator. As a matter of fact the scores seemed to be
more inflated and obvious than the grade level scores. There were huge differences
between the Pretest score and the Posttest score e.g. -409(11), -400((5), -363(8),
-315(13), -314(19), -179(4). The average Result score would, therefore, be
15
deemed unreliable. However, when looking at some more reliable scores there
seemed to be a definite upward trend.
When comparing the average of the Lowest score (144) to that of the End score
(452) and the Posttest score (403) an improvement of 308 (314%) and 259
(180%) respectively, is noted.
One could then make an assumption that ReadTheory did improve the Lexile level
of the PT 4 A+B class quite substantially.
However, it must be borne in mind that lexile scores have different ranges e.g.
Grade 3 from 330-700 lexile.
PT 4 A+B: Writing scores

Words per 3 minutes.
Result: Avg, 9+10 - Avg.1+2
Total score
Final Exam
Writing 10
Avg. 9+10
Writing 1
Writing 2
Writing 9
Avg. 1+2
1. 11 27 19 20 42 31 12 60% 65.00%
2. 23 34 29 48 58 53 24 55% 64%
3. 35 40 38 60 72 66 28 80% 77%
4. 50 50 50 52 65 59 9 78% 80%
5. 20 43 32 55 67 61 29 73% 80%
6. 50 67 59 69 55 62 3 70% 72%
7. 35 45 40 60 55 58 18 88% 86%
8. 49 38 44 94 90 92 48 73% 76%
9. 19 24 22 31 27 29 7 70% 66%
10. 23 56 40 68 62 65 25 95% 96%
11. 19 36 28 46 32 39 11 53% 56%
12. 38 65 52 62 54 58 6 70% 74%
13. 23 23 23 24 43 34 11 53% 66%
14. 33 42 38 59 54 57 19 100% 96%
15. 6 17 12 30 43 37 25 55% 61%
16. 21 49 35 84 62 73 38 80% 85%
17. 14 38 26 50 40 45 19 45% 61%
16
18. 16 50 33 72 60 66 33 65% 64%
19. 26 28 27 33 39 36 9 68% 63%
20. 35 40 38 85 86 86 48 70% 72%
21. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60% 50%
Average writing scores 27.3 41 34 55 55 55 21 70% 72%
Table 3
The recording of the writing scores were not as problematic as the Grade level and
Lexile level scores. Initially the students found it difficult to write. This could have
been due to the topic given, or them not being given time to think about the topic
and the time limit imposed on them. The result was that for the first writing
exercise the students generally scored low. To be fairer to the students the average
of the first two writings were compared to the average of the last two writing
exercises. The topics given were relevant and familiar topics that the students could
easily write about. The aim of the exercise was to increase the writing speed of the
students and thereby enhancing their thinking in English.
All the students improved. From an average of 3 words in 3 minutes to an average

of 48. On average the students improved by 21 words that is by 62%. When the
first average score (27) is compared to the last average score (55) there is an
improvement of just over 100%.
4.1.4. PT 4 A+B Conclusion
The question asked at the beginning of the chapter was whether ReadTheory would
improve the reading with comprehension ability and if the writing speed of the
students could be improved.
When taking cognizance of the different factors that could have an influence on the
scores, the following results were achieved. The minimum improvement of the
scores of the different activities can be summarized as follows:
Grade level scores: 0.89
Lexile level scores: 180%
Writing speed scores: 62%
It would seem then that in all three categories there was a definite improvement
after 12 periods of engagement spreading over 6 weeks. The engagement time
would vary between 20 -30 minutes each.
17
4.2. MTF 3-1B
MTF 3-1B: Grade level scores (1-

12).
Posttest score
Pretest score
Total score
Final Exam
Total tests
End score
Highest
Pretest
Lowest
Result
22.
1 1 4 3 14 1 2.13 1.13 60.00% 72.00%
23.
2 1 6 6 29 2 3.23 1.23 80% 87%
24.
3 3 7 7 24 3 5.24 2.24 95% 95%
25.
3 1 3 3 28 3 1.86 -1.14 70% 70%
26.
2 2 5 5 29 2 3.3 1.3 70% 74%
27.
3 1 3 2 40 3 1.63 -1.37 50% 62%
28.
1 1 3 3 41 1 2.24 1.24 53% 62%
29.
2 1 5 4 42 3 2 -1 70% 70%
30.
5 1 4 2 47 3 2.83 -0.17 93% 87%
31.
5 2 8 4 35 5 4.58 -0.42 78% 80%
32.
5 3 6 5 32 5 4.61 -0.39 70% 82%
33.
3 1 3 1 27 3 1.36 -1.64 45% 70%
34.
4 2 6 6 54 4 4.18 0.18 75% 82%
35.
1 1 3 1 57 1 1.14 0.14 63% 70%
Average grade levels 2.9 1.5 4.7 3.7 499 2.8 2.9 0.11 69% 76%
Table 4
In this class there seemed to be less discrepancies between the Pretest score and
the Posttest score. Here, under Result, it indicates a positive value of 0.11.
However, this average could be higher if the higher discrepancies (-1.14(25), -
1.37(27), -1.64(33) are disregarded because of a possibility of them using Google
Translator. The score then improves from 0.11 to 0.5 of a grade level. The highest
improvements were 2.24(24), 1.23(23) and 1.3(26). This is after 5 weeks, with an
average of 36 tests completed after implementing ReadTheory.
If the Pretest score is discarded because of its unreliability and it were replaced by
a more reliable Lowest score and it then compared to the Posttest score and the
End score the results are as follows: Posttest (2.9) – Lowest (1.5) = 1.40 and End
18
score (3.7) – Lowest (1.5) = 2.20. This shows that there has been an improvement
as well.
4.2.2. Lexile Level scores
MTF 3-1B: Lexile level scores
Posttest score
Pretest score
Total score
Final Exam
Total tests
End score
Highest
Pretest
Lowest
Result
22.
40 20 700 150 14 40 201 161 60.00% 72.00%
23.
350 130 910 900 29 350 508 158 80% 87%
24.
490 460 990 820 24 490 694 204 95% 95%
25.
470 30 700 70 28 470 301 -169 70% 70%
26.
210 200 870 870 29 210 498 288 70% 74%
27.
750 20 750 320 40 750 249 -501 50% 62%
28.
40 30 770 470 41 40 365 325 53% 62%
29.
170 20 720 640 42 170 295 125 70% 70%
30.
910 70 910 400 47 910 458 -452 93% 87%
31.
550 460 1090 780 35 550 681 131 78% 80%
32.
530 470 1000 890 32 530 694 164 70% 82%
33.
500 30 500 180 27 500 172 -328 45% 70%
34.
520 350 960 850 54 520 611 91 75% 82%
35.
70 30 820 690 57 70 362 292 63% 70%
Average lexile levels 400 166 835 574 499 400 435 34.9 69% 76%
Table 5
The discrepancy in the Lexile level scores are more prominent than in the Grade
level scores. The discrepancy is also repeated with the same students indicating
that they most probably did use Google Translator.
Has ReadTheory improved the Lexile level of the students? According to the above
table there was an average improvement of 34.9 which is not much after five
19
weeks of applying ReadTheory. However, when the four outliers are disregarded,
there is an average improvement of 194 which is substantially higher than 34.9.
When the Pretest score is regarded as unreliable and replaced by the Lowest score
average (166) and deducted from the End score average (574) and Posttest score
average (435) then there has been an average improvement of 408 and 269
respectively.
The range of improvement, disregarding the outliers, would be between 194 and
408.
MTF 3-1B: Writing

scores
Total score
Final Exam
Writing 10
Avg. 9+10
Writing 1
Writing 2
Writing 9
Avg. 1+2
22. 15 50 33 50 65 58 25 60.00% 72.00%

23. 31 44 38 55 60 58 20 80% 87%
24.
31 49 40 48 67 58 18 95% 95%
25. 19 29 24 40 43 42 18 70% 70%
26.
18 39 29 44 60 52 23 70% 74%
27. 6 11 9 25 24 25 16 50% 62%
28. 12 21 17 22 36 29 12 53% 62%
29. 24 24 24 54 50 52 28 70% 70%
30. 63 64 64 87 88 88 24 93% 87%
31.
40 36 38 45 51 48 10 78% 80%
32. 29 28 29 59 66 63 34 70% 82%
33. 10 21 16 33 40 37 21 45% 70%
34.
22 28 25 68 77 73 48 75% 82%
35.
40 41 41 53 53 53 12 63% 70%
Average writing scores
26 35 30 49 56 53 22 69% 76%
Table 6
20
How did the writing exercises improve the writing speed of the class? According to
Table 6 the average improvement was 22 words in the time limit of three minutes.
The highest improvement was 48 words. He also improved his Grade level by 0.18
and his Lexile level by 91. He did a total of 54 tests. The next highest improvement
was 34 words. There was a decrease of -0.39 in his Grade level score but an
increase of 164 in his Lexile level score. The lowest average was 9 words and he
increased by 16 on average. Unfortunately he was one of the outliers in the Grade
and Lexile level scores so that one cannot get a clear indication of how he improved
there when using the Pretest score as guide. However, when using the Lowest
Grade level score (1) and comparing it to the Posttest score (1.63) he improved by
0.63 and similarly with his Lexile scores: 20 to 249 = 229 improvement. Could this
imply that if your reading improves that your writing would also improve? This point
is discussed at a later stage in the paper.
4.2.4. Conclusion
After the introduction of ReadTheory and the writing project the Grade Levels
improved by at least 0.5. The Lexile Level improved to at least an average of 190
and the writing by 22 words to an average of 53 words per 3 minutes.
21
4.3. MTF 1A+B
Although these are two different classes they were combined for my lectures. They
will then be treated as one class in spite of their scores being on two different
sheets.
MTF 1A: Grade level scores(1-12)
Total score
Final Exam
Total tests
End score
Posttest
Highest
Pretest
Pretest
Lowest
Result
36. 3 1 3 3 25 3 1.7 -1.35 54% 74.00%
37. 1 1 3 2 23 1 2.1 1.08 78% 80%
38. 5 3 7 4 16 5 4.2 -0.76 80% 80%
39. 2 2 7 4 42 2 3.7 1.67 78% 85%
40. 7 3 7 3 34 7 4.2 -2.77 83% 85%
41. 5 4 8 4 20 5 5.9 0.9 94% 95%
42. 3 2 6 5 20 3 3.7 6.71 74% 81%
43. 8 3 8 4 9 5 4.7 -0.3 78% 85%
44. 2 1 3 3 57 2 1.7 -0.31 77% 78%
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86% 86%
45. 3 1 5 1 37 3 3.3 0.34 76% 78%
46. 11 8 11 10 12 11 9.5 -1.46 94% 95%
47. 7 5 9 6 24 7 6.3 -0.68 88% 90%
48. 5 1 5 1 57 5 2 -3.02 80% 81%
49. 1 1 5 5 92 1 2.7 1.73 68% 81%
50. 1 1 3 3 25 1 1.5 0.5 85% 82%
51. 5 1 5 4 120 5 2.5 -2.52 94% 95%
52. 2 1 5 2 55 2 1.6 -0.43 83% 83%
53. 5 1 5 3 42 5 2.4 -2.63 71% 70%
54. 1 1 4 2 42 1 2.2 1.16 80% 76%
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80% 84%
55. 5 1 5 4 86 5 2.9 -2.06 81% 86%
56. 3 1 3 1 63 3 1.3 -1.75 56% 72%
57. 5 1 5 2 19 5 1.8 -3.2 63% 62%
58. 1 1 6 6 11 1 3.3 2.25 78% 78%
Average grade level scores 4 2 5.6 3.6 40.5 3.83 3.3 -0.3 82% 82%
Table 7
22
MTF 1 B: Grade level scores(1-12)
Total score
Final exam
Total tests
End score
Posttest
Highest
Pretest
Pretest
Lowest
Result
59. 3 1 4 2 39 3 2.1 -0.87 43% 80.00%
60. 5 4 10 7 41 5 5.8 0.76 73% 81%
61. 6 2 8 5 39 6 4.4 -1.57 73% 85%
62. 2 1 5 3 55 2 2.3 0.34 54% 72%
63. 2 1 3 3 57 2 1.8 -0.21 61% 79%
64. 1 1 4 4 30 1 2.2 1.16 70% 79%
65. 1 1 2 2 32 1 1.1 0.09 45% 66%
66. 5 1 6 3 90 5 3 -2.03 66% 90%
67. 5 2 5 3 19 5 3.4 -1.6 88% 96%
68. 5 1 5 3 38 5 2.4 -2.62 67% 71%
69. 5 1 5 3 56 5 2.2 -2.79 67% 79%
70. 1 1 3 3 25 1 1.5 0.5 51% 82%
71. 3 1 4 3 64 3 2.1 -0.95 66% 75%
Average grade level scores 3.38 1.4 4.9 3.38 45 3.4 2.6 -0.75 63% 80%
Table 8
Similar problems were encountered in this class concerning Google Translator than
in the previous classes. In both classes the average Result between the Pretest and
the Posttest were negative, -0.3 and -0.75 respectively. The same argument
applies here regarding the main outliers as in the previous classes. The difference
between the Pretest and the Posttest is thus regarded as unreliable and not brought
into the equation. The Lowest average score could be regarded as more reliable and
is thus used as a comparison between the End score and the Posttest score. When
the Lowest average score is compared to the End score and the Posttest score, the
results are as follows: MTF 1A: +1.6, +1.3 and MTF 1B: +2.0, +1.2 improvement
of a Grade Level.
23
MTF 1A: lexile scores
Total score
Final Exam
Total tests
End score
Posttest
Highest
Pretest
Pretest
Lowest
Result
36. 590 30 590 590 25 590 240 -350 54% 74.00%
37. 110 20 690 540 23 110 332 222 78% 80%
38. 610 470 1030 530 16 610 618 18 80% 80%
39. 280 170 920 560 42 280 546 266 78% 85%
40. 830 460 910 910 34 830 580 -250 83% 85%
41. 600 460 1110 460 20 600 754 154 94% 95%
42. 470 150 1000 600 20 470 579 109 74% 81%
43. 1090 350 1090 350 9 1090 626 -464 78% 85%
44. 190 20 510 510 57 190 253 63 77% 78%
-. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86% 86%
45. 570 90 800 130 37 570 523 -47 76% 78%
46. 1150 80 1240 1190 12 1150 1095 -55 94% 95%
47. 780 530 1180 910 24 780 771 -9 88% 90%
48. 760 20 800 170 57 760 317 -443 80% 81%
49. 30 30 910 620 92 30 428 398 68% 81%
50. 80 20 520 520 25 80 204 124 85% 82%
51. 630 20 910 470 120 630 379 -251 94% 95%
52. 360 20 910 560 55 360 231 -129 83% 83%
53. 500 40 720 670 42 500 369 -131 71% 70%
54. 100 30 670 240 42 100 328 228 80% 76%
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80% 84%
55. 540 40 910 740 86 540 479 -61 81% 86%
56. 520 20 520 90 63 520 153 -367 56% 72%
57. 620 20 620 90 19 620 247 -373 63% 62%
58. 180 100 770 770 11 180 478 298 78% 78%
Average lexile scores 503.9 139 840.4 531.3 40.5 504 457.8 -45.7 82% 82%
Table 9
24
MTF 1B: Lexile scores
Total score
Final exam
Total tests
End score
Posttest
Highest
Pretest
Pretest
Lowest
Result
59. 470 30 610 250 39 470 315 -155 43% 80.00%
60. 590 460 1220 760 41 590 760 170 73% 81%
61. 750 240 1090 610 39 750 647 -103 73% 85%
62. 390 20 810 540 55 390 386 -4 54% 72%
63. 350 20 560 490 57 350 263 -87 61% 79%
64. 20 20 830 830 30 20 350 330 70% 79%
65. 200 20 200 150 32 200 117 -83 45% 66%
66. 580 20 960 530 90 580 460 -120 66% 90%
67. 600 200 780 520 19 600 522 -78 88% 96%
68. 900 20 900 600 38 900 394 -506 67% 71%
69. 580 20 750 580 56 580 341 -239 67% 79%
70. 80 20 520 520 25 80 204 124 51% 82%
71. 500 20 750 580 64 500 319 -181 66% 75%
Average lexile scores 462.3 85.4 767.7 535.4 45 462.3 390.6 -71.7 63% 80%
Table 10
In both classes there was a decrease in the average Result score namely, -45.7 and
-71.7. MTF 1A has an average of 139 for the Lowest score and when deducted from
the average of the End score and the Posttest score they are +392 and +319. The
student(49) with the highest average improvement was 398 after 92 tests. The
student(51) who completed the highest number of tests (120) decreased by -251.
The fluctuation between his Lowest score (20) and his Highest score (910) is huge,
namely 890. This could have been caused by a number of factors which could
include lack of commitment, distraction, and others factors.
In MTF 1B when the average of the Lowest score is used as guide and deducted
from the End score and Posttest score then the results are +392 and +450
respectively. The highest average improvement was 330 after a total of 30 tests.
The student(66) who completed the most tests (90) had decreased in lexile level by
an average of -120. This could be due to the huge fluctuation in scores from 20 to
960 which could have been caused by lack of commitment and just trying to
25
increase the total of tests. However, there was an increase in lexile level in both
classes discussed.
MTF 1A: Writing scores

Words per 3 minutes
Total score
Final Exam
Writing 10
Avg. 9+10
Writing 1
Writing 2
Writing 9
Avg. 1+2
36. 45 50 48 59 65 62 14 54% 74.00%

37. 32 34 33 48 57 53 20 78% 80%
38. 30 43 37 57 62 60 23 80% 80%
39. 37 38 38 78 76 77 39 78% 85%
40. 42 52 47 98 105 102 55 83% 85%
41. 60 41 51 62 66 64 13 94% 95%
42. 41 58 50 67 58 63 13 74% 81%
43. 28 50 39 64 52 58 19 78% 85%
44. 15 27 21 57 45 51 30 77% 78%
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86% 86%
45. 34 53 44 63 61 62 18 76% 78%
46. 53 40 47 53 41 47 0 94% 95%
47. 27 39 33 42 60 51 18 88% 90%
48. 25 41 33 71 87 79 46 80% 81%
49. 35 56 46 82 86 84 38 68% 81%
50. 30 35 33 67 75 71 38 85% 82%
51. 41 39 40 60 43 52 12 94% 95%
52. 35 26 31 29 38 34 3 83% 83%
53. 17 27 22 71 78 75 53 71% 70%
54. 50 56 53 55 73 64 11 80% 76%
72. 42 39 41 40 45 43 2 80% 84%
26
55. 28 38 33 54 49 52 19 81% 86%
56. 11 43 27 42 43 43 16 56% 72%
57. 25 10 18 38 45 42 24 63% 62%
58. 43 31 37 42 53 48 11 78% 78%
Average writing scores 34 40 38 50 61 60 22 82% 82%
Table 11
The writing of the MTF 1A class improved by an average of 22 to a total average of

60 words in three minutes. The highest improvement was an average of 53 words
per three minutes. He began with 17 words in three minutes. The lowest average
improvement was 0.
MTF 1 B: Writing scores

Words per 3 minutes
Total score
Final exam
Writing 10
Avg. 9+10
Writing 1
Writing 2
Writing 9
Avg. 1+2
80.00
59. 23 42 33 39 49 44 11 43% %
60. 30 50 40 59 59 59 19 73% 81%
61. 52 44 48 56 60 58 10 73% 85%
62. 59 49 54 25 61 43 -11 54% 72%
63. 20 33 27 58 54 56 29 61% 79%
64. 37 54 46 54 67 61 15 70% 79%
65. 23 30 27 36 37 37 10 45% 66%
66. 32 32 32 37 38 38 6 66% 90%
67. 48 42 45 67 76 72 27 88% 96%
68. 39 59 49 50 52 51 2 67% 71%
69. 35 41 38 61 70 66 28 67% 79%
70. 28 44 36 50 40 45 9 51% 82%
71. 32 40 36 50 60 55 19 66% 75%
Average writing scores 35.2 43.1 39.3 49.4 55.6 52.7 13.4 63% 80%
Table 12
27
MTF 1B had an average increase of 13 words written in three minutes to an
average of 53 words. The highest improvement was 29 with the next being 28 and
27 words. The least was an outlier of -11 and then 2 and 6.
CONCLUSION
When the same constraints are taken into account as in the previous classes, there
was also an improvement in reading and writing. The average minimum
improvement measured in reading for MTF 1A was: +1.3, MTF 1B was +1.2
respectively. The improvement in Lexile Level was: MTF 1A +319, MTF 1B +392. In
the Writing exercise the average improvement was MTF 1A +22 words to 60 words
and MTF 1B +13 words to an average of 53 words in three minutes.
28
4.4. MTF 2-2A
MTF 2-2A: Grade level scores(1-12)
Total score
Final exam
Total tests
End score
Posttest
Highest
Pretest
Pretest
Lowest
Result
73. 2 1 5 3 36 2 3.75 1.75 79 87
74. 3 2 5 4 23 3 3.75 0.75 84 54
75. 4 1 4 3 24 4 2.72 -1.28 72 80
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76. 2 2 7 3 60 2 4.16 2.16 95 85
77. 5 4 8 3 37 5 5.47 0.47 93 86
78. 2 1 4 4 27 3 2.14 -0.86 94 79
79. 7 4 7 4 11 7 5 -2 91 83
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80. 7 3 9 6 90 7 5.41 -1.59 87 88
81. 5 3 9 5 41 5 5.45 0.45 98 96
82. 3 2 6 4 22 3 3.96 0.96 94 91
83. 3 2 6 3 40 3 3.73 0.73 89 95
84. 2 1 3 3 28 3 2.03 -0.97 94 83
85. 3 3 7 7 20 3 5.38 2.38 91 95
86. 3 2 5 4 26 3 3.22 0.22 88 90
87. 2 1 3 3 46 2 1.77 -0.23 83 75
88. 7 5 7 7 23 7 6.33 -0.67 89 92
Average grade level scores 4 2.5 6.3 4.4 554 3.9 4.02 0.15 88.8 84.9
Table 13
The MTF 2-2A showed an average improvement of 0.15 in their grade level scores
overall. There were three outliers of note namely, -2.0, -1.59 and -1.28. If they
are disregarded then there would have been an average improvement of 0.55 of a
grade level. In this class there were 9 (56%) students out of 16 that improved their
grade levels with the highest being 2.38 and followed by a 1.75.
When the average of the Lowest score (2.5) is compared to the End score and the
Posttest score then scores of (6.5-2.5) 4.0 and (4.02-2.5) 1.52 are achieved. This
29
then indicates that when a more reliable, the Lowest score, is applied the
improvement is higher.
The student(80) that completed the most tests (90) did not improve exponentially
but had a negative result between the difference of the Pretest score (7) and the
Posttest score (5.41) of -1.59. This can be the result of using Google Translator.
The second highest reader(76) was 60 and he did improve considerably. He
improved by 2.16. The following reader(87) completed 46 tests and decreased
minimally by -0.23. After them there are four (41, 40, 37, 36) that improved which
seems to prove that the more quizzes completed there is an exponential
improvement in the reading grade level.
When the Posttest score is utilized as the most reliable mark of a student’s reading
skills then there seems to be a correlation between the Posttest mark and the Final
exam mark and the Total score mark. For instance, the student with the highest
Final exam mark (98) and Total score mark (96) had the second highest Posttest
score (5.45) in the class. All the students that scored above 90% had grade level
scores of 3.22 and above.
The student with the lowest Posttest score (1.77) also scores the lowest mark
(75%) in the Total score column (barring 53% which was due to extenuating
circumstances). This supports the notion that there is a correlation between reading
and the mark achieved in the final examination.
30
4.4.2. Lexile levels
MTF 2-2A: Lexile scores
Total score
Final exam
Total tests
End score
Posttest
Highest
Pretest
Pretest
Lowest
Result
73. 170 150 980 860 36 170 551 381 79 87
74. 470 200 910 530 23 470 553 83 84 54
75. 610 70 720 530 24 610 446 -164 72 80
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76. 450 250 1030 490 60 450 620 170 95 85
77. 630 350 1110 750 37 630 726 96 93 86
78. 170 40 760 640 27 170 343 173 94 79
79. 780 500 830 830 11 780 713 -67 91 83
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80. 910 410 1160 920 90 910 747 -163 87 88
81. 630 350 1130 410 41 630 708 78 98 96
82 520 170 990 530 22 520 613 93 94 91
.83. 770 200 890 640 43 770 566 -204 89 95
84. 200 20 690 670 28 200 326 126 94 83
85. 470 480 1020 780 20 480 721 241 91 95
86. 700 250 910 570 26 700 516 -184 88 90
87. 400 30 640 480 46 400 277 -123 83 75
88. 750 510 1060 990 23 750 848 98 89 92
Average lexile scores 539 249 927 664 554 539.4 579.6 39.6 88.8 84.9
Table 14
There was an overall average improvement of 39.6 in the Lexile levels of this class
when comparing the Pretest and Posttest averages. When the same three outliers
(-164, -163, -67) as from the grade levels are disregarded then the average moves
to 79.1. In this class there were 10 students of 16 (63%) that improved their lexile
scores with the highest improvement being 381 between Posttest and Pretest and
241 the next best.
There seems to be a correlation between the high lexile levels and the performance
of the students in the exam. When the average Posttest lexile score is compared to
the Final result mark 5 of the students who scored 90% and above have a lexile
31
level of 550 and above up to a maximum of 848. The lowest Total score was 75%
and that student also had the lowest lexile level (277). The student following had
79% with a lexile score of 343. These figures support the notion that there is a
correlation between performance and lexile scores.
MTF 2-2A: Writing scores

Total score
Final exam
Writing 10
Avg. 9+10
Writing 1
Writing 2
Writing 9
Avg. 1+2
73. 70 64 67 100 126 113 46 79 87
74. 28 41 35 57 57 57 22 84 54
75. 27 20 24 54 54 54 30 72 80
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76. 35 53 44 64 54 59 15 95 85
77. 33 45 39 63 69 66 27 93 86
78. 20 25 23 41 47 44 21 94 79
79. 13 19 16 38 39 39 23 91 83
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80. 31 35 33 45 48 47 14 87 88
81. 22 55 39 65 89 77 38 98 96
82. 30 51 41 61 57 59 18 94 91
83. 33 46 40 99 102 101 61 89 95
84. 23 24 24 44 60 52 28 94 83
85. 33 29 31 56 56 56 25 91 95
86. 21 29 25 62 69 66 41 88 90
87. 46 34 40 59 61 60 20 83 75
88. 37 30 34 67 78 73 39 89 92
Average of writing scores 31 38 34.7 61 67 63.9 29.3 88.8 84.9
Table 15
32
Overall the average improvement of this class was 29.3 words per 3 minutes. The
highest improvement was 61 words. This student’s(83) grade level improved by
0.73 but his lexile level decreased by -204. He completed 43 tests. The next
highest average improvement was 46 words. This student’s(73) grade level
improved by 1.75 and his lexile level by 381. He completed a total of 36 tests.
Students with a low average improvement also tended to perform weaker in the
Total score with averages of 14 and 15 respectively. Their Total scores were 88%
and 85% respectively.
This supports the notion that a low writing average coincides with a low
performance score.
CONCLUSION
When the same factors are considered for the MTF 2-2A the minimum improvement
was 1.52 of a Grade Level for reading. The Lexile Level improved by an average
79.1 which would give a total average of (579.6 + 79.1) 658.7. The writing average
improved by 29.3 words to 63.9 words per three minutes.
33
4.5. MTF 2-2B
MTF 2-2B: Grade level scores(1-12)
Total score
Final exam
Total tests
End score
Posttest
Highest
Pretest
Pretest
Lowest
Result
89. 1001 2 1 3 3 30 2 2.23 0.23 79% 82.00%
- 1002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84% 53%
90. 1003 3 1 3 3 11 3 1.92 -1.08 60% 41%
91. 1007 2 1 3 3 26 2 1.56 -0.44 83% 91%
- 1008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
- 1009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
92. 1011 3 2 3 2 8 3 2.33 -0.67 64% 71%
93. 1012 3 1 3 2 26 3 1.63 -1.37 73% 46%
94. 1013 2 1 4 3 45 2 2.52 0.52 88% 82%
95. 1014 1 1 3 1 65 1 1.2 0.2 90% 55%
96. 1015 2 1 3 3 23 2 1.88 -0.12 93% 65%
97. 1016 3 1 3 1 27 3 1.43 -1.57 74% 73%
- 1017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
98. 1018 1 1 3 2 16 1 1.59 0.59 67% 59%
99. 1021 1 1 2 1 14 1 1.2 0.2 81% 60%
100. 1022 5 2 10 10 44 5 5.18 0.18 98% 92%
101. 1024 7 4 8 6 25 7 5.65 -1.35 99% 100%
102. 1026 5 1 6 6 38 5 3.72 -1.28 90% 78%
103. 1027 3 1 3 3 26 3 2.19 -0.81 62% 78%
104. 1029 3 2 3 2 10 3 2.64 -0.36 96% 92%
Average grade level scores 2.9 1.4 3.9 3.2 27.1 2.9 2.43 -0.45 86% 72%
Table 16
The Results of this class indicate a negative average of -0.45 for its Grade level
scores. However, there are at least four outliers, that most probably used Google
Translator, that can be identified when observing their lexile scores as well. If they
(-1.08, -1.37, -1.57, -0.81) are disregarded the average Grade level score
increases to -0.19. In this class there were 6 out of 12 (50%) that improved their
grade level scores barring the outliers. The highest improvement was 0.59 followed
by 0.52.
34
When the average of the Lowest score (1.4) is deducted from the End and the
Posttest score then scores of (3.2-1.4) 1.8 and (2.43-1.4) 1.03 are recorded.
The two students that scored the highest Total scores ( 100% and 92%) also had
the highest Posttest scores namely, 5.65 and 5.18. Similarly the lowest Posttest
scores, both 1.2, also scored low in the Total score, 55% and 60% respectively.
These results support the notion that reading ability is linked to language
performance.
MTF 2-2B: Lexile

scores
Total score
Final exam
Total tests
End score
Posttest
Highest
Pretest
Pretest
Lowest
Result
89. 360 90 700 490 30 360 380 20 79% 82.00%
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84% 53%
90. 470 40 700 700 11 470 315 -155 60% 41%
91. 420 30 750 520 26 420 235 -185 83% 91%
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
92. 490 200 590 430 8 490 385 -105 64% 71%
93. 670 40 670 300 26 670 245 -425 73% 46%
94. 180 100 790 480 45 180 383 203 88% 82%
95. 100 30 490 40 65 100 147 47 90% 55%
96. 390 20 750 590 23 390 290 -100 93% 65%
97. 480 30 720 30 27 480 204 -276 74% 73%
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
98. 190 40 480 370 16 190 234 44 67% 59%

99. 20 20 360 180 14 20 169 149 81% 60%
100. 690 150 1210 1200 44 690 704 14 98% 92%
102. 660 350 1110 930 25 660 759 99 99% 100%
103. 620 30 930 790 38 620 539 -81 90% 78%
104. 540 40 630 490 26 540 351 -189 62% 78%
105. 480 200 690 200 10 480 455 -25 96% 92%
Average lexile
scores 423 88 723 484 27 422.5 362.2 -60.3 86% 72%
35
Table 17
In this class there was an average decline of -60.3 in the lexile score. However,
when the same three outliers ( -425, -276, -189) as in the Grade levels are
discarded then the Lexile level moves up to -5.8.
When the average of the Lowest score (88) is deducted from the End and the
Posttest score then scores of (484-88) 396 and (362-88) 274 are recorded.
There were 7 (54%) students that improved their average lexile level when the
three outliers are not taken into account. The highest improvement was 203 to a
posttest of 383, when compared between Pretest and Posttest, with 149 being the
next highest.
Similarly there seems to be a correlation between the high lexile level scores and
the performance of the students in the exam. When the average lexile score of the
Posttest is compared to the Total score the top two students(100) (101) with lexile
scores of 704 and 759 respectively also had the highest Total scores (92%, 100%).
The opposite is also true namely, that the students(95) (99) with the lowest lexile
scores (147, 169) also had the lowest Total scores of 55% and 60% in the class.
This reiterates the notion that lexile scores correlate with language performance.
36
MTF 2-2B: Writing

scores
Total score
Final exam
Writing 10
Avg. 9+10
Writing 1
Writing 2
Writing 9
Avg. 1+2
89. 40 27 34 46 46 46 12 79% 82.00%
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84% 53%
90. 47 26 37 38 41 40 3 60% 41%
91. 30 26 28 48 51 50 22 83% 91%
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
92. 27 19 23 34 29 32 9 64% 71%
93. 32 36 34 41 52 47 13 73% 46%
94. 40 27 34 67 64 66 32 88% 82%
95. 37 15 26 34 51 43 17 90% 55%
96. 26 39 33 57 50 54 21 93% 65%
97. 42 38 40 59 53 56 16 74% 73%
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%
98. 17 28 23 37 38 38 15 67% 59%
99. 38 59 49 62 63 63 14 81% 60%
100. 49 51 50 68 72 70 20 98% 92%
101. 27 41 34 70 77 74 30 99% 100%
102. 48 53 51 57 94 76 25 90% 78%
103. 8 27 18 56 37 47 29 62% 78%
104. 65 43 54 88 88 88 34 96% 92%
Average writing scores 35.8 34.7 35.5 53.9 56.6 55.6 19.5 86% 72%
Table 18
Overall the average writing improvement of MTF 3-3B was 19.5 words to 56 words
per 3 minutes. The second(101) and third(100) highest performers according to
the average for 9+10 were 74 and 70 words per 3 minutes and they were the same
students who were the highest performers for the Grade levels and the Lexile
37
levels. Similarly the low performers (32, 38) also struggled in the Total score
category and also had low Lexile and Grade level scores.
The student that wrote 88 words, the highest in the class, was regarded as
unreliable as he had only completed three writing tests.
4.5.4 Conclusion
MTF 2-2B has a similar trend as its predecessors. The reading Grade Level
improved by 1.03 to 2.43 and the Lexile Level by 274 to an average of 362. The
Writing score improved by 19.5 words to an average of 55.6 words per three
minutes.
38
4.6. Average Totals of all the classes for Grade Level, Lexile and Writing
scores.
Average Totals of all the classes

Grade level scores
Total tests
End score
Posttest
Highest
Pretest
Pretest
Lowest
Result
PT 4A+B 3.3 1.7 4.7 3.1 29.1 3.2 2.8 -0.44
MTF 3-1B 2.9 1.5 4.7 3.7 35.6 2.8 2.9 0.11
MTF 2-2B 2.9 1.4 3.9 3.2 27.1 2.9 2.4 -0.45
MTF 2-2A 4 2.5 6.3 6.5 34.6 3.9 4 0.15
MTF 1 B 3.4 1.4 4.9 3.4 45 3.4 2.6 -0.75
MTF 1 A 4 2 5.6 3.6 40.5 3.8 3.3 -0.3
Average of grade level scores 3.42 1.75 5.02 3.92 35.32 3.42 3.00 -0.28
Table 19
It seems that when observing the above table (Table 19) that the whole exercise
was in vain because of the negative average Grade level score of -0.28. However, it
must be borne in mind that there were extenuating circumstances (Google
Translator) for the high scores for the Pretest which had a significant influence on
this reading.
A more reliable alternative was sought and it was decided to deduct the Lowest
score from the Posttest score. Although the score then is not completely accurate it
is more reliable.
39
Average Grade level difference between Lowest and Posttest scores for all
classes
Classes Lowest Posttest Total
PT 4 A+B 1.7 2.8 1.1
MTF 3-1B 1.5 2.9 1.4
MTF 2-2B 1.4 2.4 1.0
MTF 2-2A 2.5 4.0 1.5
MTF 1B 1.4 2.6 1.2
MTF 1A 2 3.3 1.3
Average of 1.75 3.00 1.25
difference
Table 20
This table indicates that there has been an average improvement in Grade level by
1.25. This is quite a remarkable improvement when taking into consideration that it
was done over a period of between five and six weeks. However, one must bear in
mind that the Lowest mark, which is not necessarily the most accurate score for the
student, has been used in the calculation.
4.6.2. Total Lexile Level scores for all classes
Lexile level scores Total tests

End score
Posttest
Highest
Pretest
Pretest
Lowest
Result
PT 4A+B 472 144 772 452 29 472 403 -69
MTF 3-1B 400 166 835 574 35.6 400 435 34.9
MTF 2-2B 423 88 723 484 27.1 423 362 -60.3
MTF 2-2A 539 249 927 664 34.6 539 580 39.6
MTF 1 B 462 85 768 535 45 462 391 -71.7
MTF 1 A 504 139 840 531 41 504 458 -45.7
Average of lexile level scores 467 145 811 540 35 467 438 -28.7
Table 21
Similarly to the Grade level scores, it seems as if the ReadTheory exercise were
unsuccessful when the final Result mark (-28.7) is observed. Once again the
question has to be asked how reliable the Pretest score is? Some inconsistencies in
40
the mark have already been mentioned and, therefore, more reliable scores have
been utilized. When the average of the Lowest score (145) is deducted from the
average of the Posttest score (438) a more reliable score of 293 is recorded. That is
an improvement of 45%.
4.6.3. Total averages for Writing for all the classes
Average Totals of all the

classes
Average writing scores

Writing 10
Avg. 9+10
Writing 1
Writing 2
Writing 9
Avg. 1+2
PT 4A+B 27 41 34 55 55 55 21
MTF 3-1B 26 35 30 49 56 53 22
MTF 2-2B 36 35 36 54 57 56 20
MTF 2-2A 31 38 35 61 67 64 29
MTF 1 B 35 43 39 49 56 53 13
MTF 1 A 34 40 38 50 61 60 22
Average of writing scores 32 39 35 53 59 57 21
Table 22
The average writing speed for all the classes improved by 21 words to an average
of 57 words in three minutes. This is most encouraging when referring to the past
and noting that at the beginning there were classes writing 26 and 27 words on
average in three minutes. All the classes improved, with 13 the lowest average
improvement and 29 the highest average improvement.
41
4.6.4. Conclusion
Did the ReadTheory and writing project improve the reading comprehension and
writing of the students?
When the Pretest is not regarded as the benchmark in making comparisons then
the ReadTheory exercise did improve the reading comprehension of the students. A
more reliable average improvement of 1.25 (Table 20 ) in Grade level was
recorded.
The Lexile level improved by an average of 293 (45%) (Table 21).
Similarly there was an improvement in the average writing speed of the students by
21 words in three minutes (Table 22).
So far it has been determined that ReadTheory and the writing exercise improved
the students’ reading comprehension and writing abilities after a period of five to
six weeks.
The next question to be determined is whether there was a correlation between the
reading (Grade Level) mark and the final Accumulative Grade Point Average
(GPA),the total mark for all the subjects of the student for the trimester. This will
be discussed in the following chapter.
42
5. DETERMINING THE CORRELATION BETWEEN READING ABILITY
AND THE FINAL MARK FOR THE TRIMESTER.
It was decided that the most reliable method to determine whether there is a
correlation between the reading ability of the student and his final score would be
to compare the Posttest reading Grade Level with the corresponding Accumulative
Grade Point Average (GPA) and the Accumulative Evaluation remark (See
Appendix). The Posttest reading Grade Level would be the final average reading
mark the student achieved after he had completed all the ReadTheory tests for the
trimester.
5.1. A comparison between the Accumulative mark and Reading Grade

level.
PT 4 A+B
Read Accumulative mark
Lexile Grade Accum. Accum.
level GPA Evaluation
1. 229 1.59 2.21 Satisfactory
2. 426 2.68 3.00 Good
3. 441 2.79 3.45 Good
4. 511 3.14 4.02 Very good
5. 506 3.12 3.49 Good
6. 610 4.25 3.95 Very good
9. 773 5.75 4.19 Very good
11. 569 3.9 3.83 Very good
13. 997 8.21 4.38 Very good
14. 296 1.9 1.84 F
- 0 0 1.66 F
15. 589 3.91 3.09 Good
- 0 0 1.69 F
20. 335 2.18 2.87 Good
43
Table 23
When the results of the Accumulated Evaluation and its coinciding Accumulated GPA
are compared to the Reading Grade level (Table 23) there are certain patterns to
be observed.
Each of the categories were analysed to discern if these patterns manifested in each
Accumulative Evaluation category. The reading Grade Level was compared to the
corresponding Accumulative GPA. The students’ scores that fell under the “Very
Good” category are recorded in Table 24.
5.2. Accumulative Evaluation Categories:
Very Good
Grade Level Accum. GPA
3.14 4.02
4.25 3.95
5.75 4.19
3.9 3.83
8.21 4.38
5.05 (Av.) 4.07 (Av.)
Table 24
All the students had reading grade levels of 3.14 and higher. Their high GPA score
corresponded with the higher reading score.
Good
2.68 3.00
2.79 3.45
3.12 3.49
3.91 3.09
2.18 2.87
2.94(Av.) 3.18 (Av.)
Table 25
44
In Table 25 the averages are lower and there is a resemblance to the former
pattern as in Table 24.
Satisfactory
1.59 2.21
1.76 2.31
1.36 2.29
1.47 2.20
2.39 2.07
1.35 2.01
2.15 2.20
1.74 2.35
1.94 2.03
1.17 2.24
1.69 1.96
Table 26
The majority of the students are in the Satisfactory category. The average
difference between this category (Satisfactory) and the previous (Good) is
significant. The difference between the Accumulative GPAs of the two categories is
1.22 and the reading Grade level follows the same pattern and has a difference of
1.25. This further supports the argument that the reading ability determines the
performance of the student overall.
F (Failed)
1.9 1.84
1.9 1.84
Table 27
There was only one student in this category and strictly speaking he should have
the lowest reading Grade level. However, there are students with lower grade levels
that passed. The question can be asked if this student was conscientious or was he
lazy. His marks do not reflect his reading ability.
The pattern that seems to develop, when comparing the Accumulative GPA to the
Reading Grade level, in each of the different categories is that there is a significant
correlation between the reading ability and the performance of the student. For
45
example, the “Very Good” category (Table 24) 5.05 (reading) versus
4.07(performance), “Good” (Table 25) 2.94 versus 3.18, “Satisfactory” (Table 26)
1.69 versus 1.96 and “Failed” 1.90 versus 1.84. The higher the reading skill the
higher the corresponding performance level. Does this then imply that your reading
skill will determine your final performance in the final examination?
The other classes were also investigated and a similar pattern manifested among
them.
MTF 3-1B
24. 611 4.18 3.04 Good
25. 508 3.23 3.62 Very good
27. 694 5.24 3.69 Very good
28. 249 1.63 1.97 F
30. 458 2.83 3.37 Good
31. 681 4.61 2.84 Good
33. 681 4.58 3.06 Good
Table 28
46
The Reading abilities of the MTF 3-1B are compared to the Accumulative GPA in
Table 28 to determine whether there is a similar pattern as discerned for the PT 4
A+B.
5.3. GPA categories:
Very Good
3.23 3.62
5.24 3.69
4.24(Av.) 3.66(Av.)
Table 29
A similar pattern is discernable here as for the PT 4A+B class. A high Accumulative
GPA is associated with the higher reading skill of the students.
Good
4.18 3.04
2.83 3.37
4.61 2.84
4.58 3.06
4.05(Av.) 3.08(Av.)
Table 30
The pattern of the reading skill ability is reflected in the Accumulative GPA.
Satisfactory
3.3 2.48
2.0 2.36
2.24 2.53
1.86 2.02
1.36 2.24
1.14 2.19
2.13 2.58
2.00 2.34
47
Table 31
F (Failed)
1.63 1.97
1.63 (Av.) 1.97 (Av.)
Table 32
Tables 29-32 (MTF 3-1B) depict a similar pattern as discerned in tables 24-27 (PT
4A+B). The higher the reading ability of the student the higher the GPA mark. The
converse, the lower the reading ability the lower the GPA mark, is also true.
The results of the accumulative marks for MTF 1 A+B and MTF 2 A+B are also
analysed to determine if the trend noticed in PT 4A+B and MTF 3-1B is repeated in
them as well.
MTF 1 A+B
Lexile Grade level Accum. Accum.
GPA Evaluation
- 0 0 3.78 Very good
36. 247 1.8 1.94 F
38. 579 3.7 3.28 Good
39. 263 1.8 3.16 Good
40. 771 6.3 3.89 Very good
41. 350 2.2 3.25 Good
42. 328 2.2 3.30 Good
43.
231 1.6 3.38 Good
44.
580 4.2 3.73 Very good
45.
117 1.1 2.34 Satisfactory
46.
332 2.1 3.52 Very good
47.
478 3.3 3.30 Good
48. 626 4.7 3.59 Very good
49. 460 3 3.89 Very good
50. 522 3.4 4.00 Very good
51. 394 2.5 3.95 Very good
48
52. 379 2.4 3.08 Good
53. 523 3.3 3.06 Good
54. 341 2.2 2.97 Good
55. 204 1.5 3.52 Very good
56. 253 1.7 3.30 Good
57. 204 1.5 3.56 Very good
58. 618 4.2 3.56 Very good
59. 319 2.1 3.25 Good
315 2.1 2.81 Good

60.
754 5.9 4.00 Very good
61.
479 2.9 3.73 Very good
62.
546 3.7 3.78 Very good
63.
428 1.3 2.56 Satisfactory
64.
65. 153 2.7 3.28 Good
66. 317 2.0 3.38 Good
- 0 0 3.52 Very good
67. 760 5.8 3.28 Good
68. 647 4.4 3.50 Good
69. 1095 9.5 4.00 Very good
71. 369 2.4 3.13 Good
Table 33
MTF 1 A+B
GPA categories:
Very Good
6.3 3.89
4.2 3.73
2.1 3.52
4.7 3.59
3.0 3.89
3.4 4.00
2.5 3.95
1.5 3.52
1.5 3.56
4.2 3.56
49
5.9 4.00
2.9 3.73
3.7 3.78
9.5 4.00
3.96(Av.) 3.77(Av.)
Table 34
This class is characterized by the majority of the students being in the Very Good
and Good categories. However, the trend noticed in the previous classes is repeated
here as well.
Good
3.7 3.28
1.8 3.16
2.2 3.25
2.2 3.30
1.6 3.38
3.3 3.30
2.4 3.08
3.3 3.06
2.2 2.97
1.7 3.30
2.1 3.25
2.1 2.81
2.7 3.28
2.0 3.38
5.8 3.28
4.4 3.50
2.4 3.13
2.70(Av.) 3.22(Av.)
Table 35
Satisfactory
2.3 2.38
1.1 2.34
1.3 2.56
1.7 2.75
1.6(Av.) 2.51(Av.)
50
Table 36
F (Failed)
1.8 1.94
1.8(Av.) 1.94(Av.)
Table 37
It is strange that the student with the lowest Grade Level for reading is not the
lowest achiever. It may be due to him not working at all and not being motivated.
When his reading level is compared to the Satisfactory level then there are a
number of students that have lower reading Grade levels but perform better than
him.
MTF 1-2A+B
MTF 1-2A+B
72. 551 3.75 4.25 Very good
73. 380 2.23 3.70 Very good
75. 315 1.92 1.80 F
77. 235 1.56 4.17 Very good
78. 620 4.16 3.53 Very good
80. 245 1.63 1.69 F
81. 383 2.52 3.77 Very good
83. 290 1.88 3.11 Good
- 0 0 1.91 F
85. 234 1.59 1.88 F
86. 726 5.47 4.41 Very good
88. 704 5.18 4.55 Excellent
89. 343 2.14 3.59 Very good
90. 759 5.65 4.56 Excellent
51
91. 713 5.00 3.34 Good
92. 539 3.72 4.19 Very good
93. 351 2.19 3.73 Very good
94. 455 2.64 4.40 Very good
95. 747 5.41 3.17 Good
96. 708 5.45 4.49 Very good
97. 613 3.96 4.46 Very good
98. 566 3.73 4.49 Very good
99. 326 2.03 4.01 Very good
100. 721 5.38 4.45 Very good
101. 516 3.22 4.21 Very good
102. 277 1.77 2.86 Good
103. 848 6.33 3.92 Very good
Table 38
GPA categories:
MTF 2-2 A+B
Excellent
5.18 4.55
5.65 4.56
5.42(Av.) 4.56(Av.)
Table 39
This is the first class with students in the Excellent category and their reading
Grade levels validate the assumption that a high reading ability is associated with a
high performance mark. Their average for the Grade level is 5.42 which is the
highest average recorded of the four classes and consequently fall in the Excellent
category.
The following tables of MTF 2-2A+B are included to prove the correlation between
the Grade level and the Accumulative GPA.
52
Very good
3.75 4.25
2.23 3.70
1.56 4.17
4.16 3.53
2.52 3.77
5.47 4.41
2.14 3.59
3.72 4.19
2.19 3.73
2.64 4.40
5.45 4.49
3.96 4.46
3.73 4.49
2.03 4.01
5.38 4.45
3.22 4.21
6.33 3.92
3.56(Av.) 4.10(Av.)
Table 40
Good
1.88 3.11
5.00 3.34
5.41 3.17
1.77 2.86
3.52(Av.) 3.12(Av.)
Table 41
Satisfactory
3.75 2.44
2.72 2.47
2.33 2.22
1.20 2.47
1.43 2.23
53
1.20 2.16
2.11(Av.) 2.33(Av.)
Table 42
F (Failed)
1.92 1.80
1.63 1.69
1.59 1.88
1.71(Av.) 1.79(Av.)
Table 43
In all the tables there is a similar pattern. The reading ability, as represented by the
Grade Level, determines the academic performance (Accumulative GPA) of the
student. When the averages of all the above tables, with averages of Grade Level
(GL) and the Grade Point Average (GPA), are accumulated the following table is of
note.
Classes Categories with averages of Grade Level (GL) and GPA

Excellent Very good Good Satisfactory Fail
GL GPA GL GPA GL GPA GL GPA GL GPA
PT 4 A+B 0 0 5.05 4.07 2.94 3.18 1.69 1.96 1.9 1.84
MTF 3-1B 0 0 4.24 3.66 4.05 3.08 2.00 2.34 1.63 1.97
MTF 1 0 0 3.96 3.77 2.70 3.22 1.60 2.51 1.80 1.94
A+B
MTF 2 5.42 4.56 3.56 4.10 3.52 3.12 2.11 2.33 1.71 1.79
A+B
Average 5.42 4.56 4.20 3.90 3.30 3.15 1.85 2.29 1.76 1.89
Table 44
Table 44 clearly indicates the correlation between the reading ability (GL) and the
grade point average (GPA). The scores decrease gradually from an Excellent
category (5.42 GL and 4.56 GPA) to a Fail category (1.76 GL and 1.89 GPA). The
conclusion that one can make is that the higher the reading ability the better the
chances are of achieving a high GPA. There is such a close correlation that the
54
assumption can be made that the student’s reading level can virtually predict his
final mark.
55
6. THE OVERALL READING ABILITY OF THE FOUR CLASSES
COMPARED TO WORLD STANDARDS
At the Technical Trainers College we prepare the students to prosper in a quickly

changing world where creativity is decisive in having the edge on the competitors.
If the students and alumni of the College want to keep abreast of the ever changing
world they can only do it by accumulating and integrating new knowledge. This new
knowledge is only attainable by reading with comprehension. The following table
(Table 45) is not only indicative of the situation in these four classes, but most
probably representative of the whole College.
Total students per category.
Classes Evaluation categories

Excellent Very good Good Satisfactory Fail
PT 4 A+B 0 5 5 10 1
MTF 3-1B 0 2 4 7 1
MTF 1 0 14 17 4 1
A+B
MTF 2 2 17 4 6 3
A+B
Totals 2 38 30 27 6
Table 45
The reading level ranges from 5.42 to 1.76 (Table 44). The category of 5.42 is
regarded as the Excellent category. However, if the reading Grade Level 4 is
regarded as the global literate level, then only 40 students (39%) are literate and
63 (61%) are illiterate.
This result is based on the four classes taught after they had been on a ReadTheory
course of five to six weeks. The question could be asked what their performance
would have been had they not been on a ReadTheory course?
Furthermore, it is internationally regarded that the 4th grade is the watershed year.
If a student is not reading proficiently at this level he has an approximately 78%
chance of never catching up
(http://www.begintoread.com/research/literacystatistics.html). This statement is
supported by the evidence in this report. For example, the PT 4 A+B class has 16
students (76%) in this category in spite of being at the College for a year and a
trimester their reading has not improved (except in the previous trimester when
56
ReadTheory was introduced). They would never catch up unless there is an
intervention programme, like ReadTheory, to improve their reading and thinking
skills.
In this report the Grade levels and Lexile levels were those that ReadTheory
implemented in their programme. In the meantime there has been further research
done and new lexile levels have been developed to meet college and career
preparedness. These studies were done in the development of the Common Core
State Standards for English Language Arts in 2012. These lexile levels are higher to
meet the demands of a higher literacy level required in the modern world (Appendix
B).
Unfortunately the older weak reader sees reading as cumbersome and difficult. He
has difficulty in understanding the language and takes long to read something and
the whole process is frustrating. Eventually he does not read. These weak readerss
continually lag behind, take retakes and eventually terminate their studies. The
main reason being their reading disability. In the PT 4A+B class, when the lexile
levels are included to determine their literacy, the picture becomes darker.
As mentioned, when we look at the Grade levels, 16 students (76%) are below the
threshold level of Grade 4. Five students are at the threshold level of Grade 4 and
above. However, of these five there are only three that are proficient readers
(Appendix C ) at this grade level. A proficient reader should have a lexile level of at
least 600 for Grade 4 reading level. The conclusion that we come to is that in a
Trimester 4 class only 3 (14%) are proficient readers out of 21 in the class.
A similar dismal picture would represent itself if the other classes were also
analyzed. In MTF 3-1B there are 4 (29%) proficient readers of the total of 14. MTF
1A+B have 7(19%) out of 36 students in total. MTF 2-2A have 6(38%) out of 16
students. MTF 2-2B have 2(13%) out of 16 students. The table below illustrates the
reading proficiency level of the students in the classes taught.
Total proficient readers of all classes taught

Class Proficient Total %
PT 4 A+B 3 21 14
MTF 3-1B 4 14 29
MTF 1 A+B 7 36 19
MTF 2-2 A 6 16 38
MTF 2-2 B 2 16 13
Totals 22 103 21
Table 46
57
The conclusion that can be drawn from these statistics is that 79% of the students
in the classes taught are not proficient readers. They are not above the threshold
level and would normally not be able to catch up on their reading in English. This
implies that they will struggle academically, especially if they are taught in English.
If students have difficulty in accessing information, their productivity will decrease
and they will not be able to achieve their full potential.
58
7. IS AN EXPONENTIAL IMPROVEMENT IN READING ABILITY
ASSOCIATED WITH AN INCREASED FREQUENCY OF READING?
This question has been referred to in the discussion so far but has not been
addressed fully. It would seem obvious that reading ability would improve if the
reader read more books that suited him. However, at the Technical Trainers College
we have a different situation. The students here are older (21-37) and have already
been to school or have already attended a college. Their reading habits are already
embedded and with more reading these poor habits are repeated which retards the
reader. The weak reader finds reading difficult and cumbersome and becomes
discouraged and eventually dislikes reading. These students will continue
performing these bad reading habits and will continue to struggle with their
reading. Hence the poor results as observed.
When observing the results and the quantity of reading it is difficult to diagnose and
come up with a clear answer. It would have been more reliable if the period over
which the project ran were longer but some assumptions might be made.
The results of some classes were diagnosed. The Total column was added to
indicate whether the students who did more tests would show an exponential
improvement in their Grade level. In MTF 3-1B the results do not seem to validate
the argument. The student who completed the most tests (57) improved by a slight
margin when observing the Grade Level scores (1.00 – 1.14=+ 0.14). Compared to
the student who improved the most, from 3.00 to 5.24 (+2.24) who had only
completed 24 quizzes. It must be said that the higher the grade level the more
complicated and longer the quizzes become, therefore, it is understandable why a
higher grade level student would complete fewer tests. However, why the stronger
reader improved more than the weaker needs attention and will be discussed later
in the paper.
MTF 2-2A. The student(80) that completed the most tests (90) did not improve
exponentially but had a negative result between the difference of the Grade Level
Pretest score (7) and the Posttest score (5.41) of -1.59. This can be the result of
using Google Translator. The second highest reader(76) completed 60 tests and
he improved considerably. He improved by 2.16. The following reader(87)
completed 46 tests and decreased minimally by -0.23. After them there are four
(41, 40, 37, 36) that improved which seems to prove that the more quizzes
completed does improve the reading grade level.
59
MTF 2-2B
The student(95) that completed the most tests (65) improved from 1.0 to 1.2. The
next(94) highest tests completed was 45 and he improved from 2.0 to 2.52. This
student was followed closely by another student(100) with 44 tests and he
improved from 5.0 to 5.18. These results seem to confirm the notion that when
more reading is done the scores improve.
In the following case study only the students that had completed the higher number
of tests in the class were analysed. The Total, Pretest and Posttest scores of the
Grade Levels(GL) were compared.
Quantity versus improvement

Class Total tests Pretest(GL) Posttest(GL) Result
PT 4 A+B 31 1 1.59 0.59
PT 4 A+B 50 5 4.25 -0.75
PT 4 A+B 66 3 1.76 -1.24
PT 4 A+B 41 1 1.36 0.36
PT 4 A+B 47 1 1.35 0.35
MTF 3-1B 57 1 1.14 0.14
MTF 3-1B 54 4 4.18 0.18
MTF 3-1B 47 3 2.83 -0.17
MTF 3-1B 42 3 2.00 -1.00
MTF 3-1B 41 1 2.24 1.24
MTF 1A+B 120 5 2.50 -2.52
MTF 1A+B 92 1 2.70 1.73
MTF 1A+B 57 2 1.70 -0.31
MTF 1A+B 55 2 1.60 -0.43
MTF 1A+B 64 3 2.10 -0.95
MTF 1A+B 57 2 1.80 -0.21
MTF 2-2A 90 7 5.41 -1.59
MTF 2-2A 46 2 1.77 -0.23
MTF 2-2A 60 2 4.16 2.16
MTF 2-2A 36 2 3.75 1.75
MTF 2-2B 65 1 1.20 0.20
MTF 2-2B 45 2 2.52 0.52
MTF 2-2B 44 5 5.18 0.18
MTF 2-2B 30 2 2.23 0.23
Total 56 2.54 2.56 0.02
Table 47
60
Interestingly this sample revealed that the higher frequency of reading, on average,
hardly had any influence (0.02) on the improvement of the reading skills of the
students. However, on closer inspection it seems that the students with the higher
Grade Levels struggled the most to maintain their Grade Levels (Table 47).
The reason for this might be an inflated Pretest score, a lack of motivation when
realizing that their scores are not increasing rapidly enough, or it could be that they
feel forced to complete the test in a shorter period of time than normally. They
would then rush and consequently be less accurate. This would especially be true
for the readers of higher grade levels.
High frequency readers versus improvement

Total tests Pretest (GL) Posttest (GL) Result
120 5 2.50 -2.50
90 7 5.41 -1.59
66 3 1.76 -1.24
50 5 4.25 -0.75
42 3 2.00 -1.00
Table 48
The fact that a higher frequency of reading does not necessarily improve reading is
due mainly to weak readers not receiving instruction in phonological and alphabetic
skills. The students are often victims of misguided reading and once they fall behind
they seldom catch up. They tend to continue reading as they were taught and
following this method will affect them for life (Moats 2002). The weaker reader will
consequently take longer to improve his reading than the strong reader. As a result
of this, the gap between the weak and strong reader widens as the stronger reader
rapidly improves and the weak reader struggles to unlearn the wrong reading
habits.
61
8. CONCLUSION
There was an improvement in the reading Grade Levels and Lexile levels after the
introduction of ReadTheory.
The writing speed of the students also improved after applying the exercise for five
to six weeks.
It was also observed that there is a definite correlation between the final score that
the student achieves in the examination for all his subjects and the reading Grade
Level. It is so close that the reading Grade Level could virtually predict the final
category of the student.
The level of literacy in English, Grade Level 4 and above, for this sample,
comprising 103 students from Trimester 1 to 4 in the Mechanical and Production
Technology Department, was 39%.
The level of illiteracy in English, below Grade Level 4, was determined as 61%.
The proficiency level of reading was determined as 21%. These students exhibit
competent performance when reading grade-level appropriate text and can identify
details, draw conclusions, and make comparisons and generalizations. 79% exhibit
minimal competent performance when reading grade-level appropriate text.
Is there a possibility of students catching up on their reading so that they can

perform better overall? No! Unfortunately the weak readers will remain weak and
the gap between the weak and strong reader will widen.
The only way in which the problem can be solved is by intervention. Weak readers
will have to follow a reading course to learn the basics of reading English so that
they are at least at Grade Level 4, Lexile 445L to 810L to complete the course at
college successfully and to be able to be lifelong students. ReadTheory is a tool, as
has been proven in this report, to improve reading and the other skills of English.
However, the weaker reader would need more individual attention.
62
9. REFERENCES
Krashen, s.: The Power of Reading, Libraries Unlimited, 2004.
Miller, D.: The Book Whisperer, Jossey-Bass, 2009.
Moats, L.: When older students can’t read. LD Online (2002)
Patrinos, H.A.: Why we must measure literacy at an early age. The
World Bank, 2016.
EF EPI: www.ef.com/epi (2015)
Graham, S. and S. Perin: Writing Next, Alliance for Excellent
Education, 2007.
Biancarosa, S., & Snow, C.E. Reading Next, Alliance for Excellent
Education, 2006.
Literacy Statistics: www.begintoread.com/research/literacystatistics
www.readtheory.org
https://lexile.com/about-lexile/grade-equivalent/
www.psjaisd.us/.../filedownload.ashx?...Lexile%20Scores%20and%20Re.
63
10. APPENDICES
Appendix A
Recording sheet
NAME:…………………………………………………………………….ID:……………………………CLASS:………
READING AND WRITING LOG
Reading (10 January – 27 February)
Weeks 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Dates 10/1-16/1 17/1-23/1 24/1-30/1 31/1-6/2 7/2-13/2 14/2-20/2 21/2-27/2
Grade
Lexile
Writing (10 January – 27 February)
Weeks 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Dates 10/1-16/1 17/1-23/1 24/1-30/1 31/1-6/2 7/2-13/2 14/2-20/2 21/2-27/2
Amount
of words
+
64
Appendix B
Lexile Levels
Typical Reader Measures, by Grade
Reader Measures, Mid-Year

Grade
25 percentile to 75th percentile (IQR)
th
1 Up to 300L
2 140L to 500L
3 330L to 700L
4 445L to 810L
5 565L to 910L
`6 665L to 1000L
7 735L to 1065L
8 805L to 1100L
9 855L to 1165L
10 905L to 1195L
11 and 12 940L to 1210L
65
Data for the first column of text measures came from a research study designed to examine
collections of textbooks designated for specific grades (MetaMetrics, 2009). The "stretch" text
measures (defined in 2012 through studies related to the development of theCommon Core State
Standards for English Language Arts) in the second column represent the demand of text that
students should be reading to be college and career ready by the end of Grade 12.
Typical Text Measures, by Grade
Text Demand Study 2009

Grade 2012 CCSS Text Measures*
25th percentile to 75th percentile (IQR)
1 230L to 420L 190L to 530L
2 450L to 570L 420L to 650L
3 600L to 730L 520L to 820L
4 640L to780L 740L to 940L
5 730L to 850L 830L to 1010L
6 860L to 920L 925L to 1070L
7 880L to 960L 970L to 1120L
8 900L to 1010L 1010L to 1185L
9 960L to 1110L 1050L to 1260L
10 920L to 1120L 1080L to 1335L
11 and 12 1070L to 1220L 1185L to 1385L
*COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS FOR ENGLISH, LANGUAGE ARTS, APPENDIX A

(ADDITIONAL INFORMATION), NGA AND CCSSO, 2012
66
Appendix C
Read180
www.psjaisd.us/.../filedownload.ashx?...Lexile%20Scores%20and%20Re.
67
Appendix D
Student’s Report from ReadTheory
Progress Reports
On this page, you can view progress reports for your classes and students. Select the class or student
whose progress report you wish to view using the menus below.
*Note that date range defaults to display data since inception unless specified otherwise.
MTF 3-1B
Begin Date: End Date:
HussamA3
(Altasan, Hussam)
ReadTheory Technician
◤ Print this report
24
Quizzes Taken
68
646
Points Earned
3G/490L
Pretest Score
(Grade/Lexile)
5.24G/678L
Posttest Score
(Grade/Lexile)
learn more
Quiz NumberGrade LevelGrade Level ProgressionGrade level for each quiz takenClick and drag graph to
zoom in161116210123456789101112
learn more
Quiz NumberLexile LevelLexile® Level ProgressionLexile level for each passage readClick and drag
graph to zoom in16111621010002505007501250
learn more
Percentage Correct / IncorrectMastery of ELA Common Core StandardsPerformance on Common Core

(CCSS) question types.Our question types mirror those found in Common CoreCraft and Structure(21
questions answered)Key Ideas and Details(64 questions answered)Integration of Knowledge(55 questions
answered)0%25%50%75%100%
Quiz History
Vital statistics for each quiz you've taken since inception
Black background indicates short essay has been scored and may be reviewed.
Date Taken Grade Level Score Points Earned Level Change Review
02/09/2016 Seven 100% 36 Increase Quiz #
02/07/2016 Eight 60% 3 Decrease Quiz #
69
Date Taken Grade Level Score Points Earned Level Change Review
01/23/2016 Seven 100% 87 Increase Quiz #
01/20/2016 Seven 85% 67 None Quiz #
01/19/2016 Six 100% 34 Increase Quiz #
01/19/2016 Five 100% 33 Increase Quiz #
01/19/2016 Four 100% 34 Increase Quiz #
01/16/2016 Five 60% 6 Decrease Quiz #
01/12/2016 Five 80% 20 None Quiz #
01/10/2016 Six 20% 1 Decrease Quiz #
70
71

Report On Readtheory and Writing Project

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Report On Readtheory and Writing Project

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

REPORT ON READTHEORY AND WRITING PROJECT AT

TECHNICAL TRAINERS COLLEGE, RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA

DJ van der Merwe

2. INTRODUCTION OF THE PROJECT TO THE STUDENTS 7

3.5. Typical Reader Measures, by Grade

4. ANALYSES OF RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES TAUGHT 13

4.1.1. Grade level scores

4.1.2. Lexile level scores

4.1.3. Writing scores

4.2. MTF 3-1B 18

4.2.1. Grade level scores

4.2.2. Lexile level scores

4.2.3. Writing scores

4.3.1. Grade level scores

4.3.2. Lexile level scores

4.3.3. Writing scores

4.4. MTF 2-2A 29

4.4.1. Grade level scores

4.4.2. Lexile level scores

4.4.3. Writing scores

4.5. MTF 2-2B 34

4.5.1. Grade level scores

4.5.2. Lexile level scores

4.5.3. Writing scores

4.6.1. Grade level scores

4.6.2. Lexile level scores

4.6.3. Total averages for Writing for all classes

5. DETERMINING THE CORRELATION BETWEEN READING ABILITY AND

6. THE OVERALL READING ABILITY OF THE FOUR CLASSES COMPARED

There is no direct correspondence between a specific Lexile measure and a specific

3.5 Typical Reader Measures, by Grade

Reader Measures, Mid-Year

3.6. Typical Text Measures, by Grade

Text Demand Study 2009

1 230L to 420L 190L to 530L

2 450L to 570L 420L to 650L

3 600L to 730L 520L to 820L

4 640L to780L 740L to 940L

5 730L to 850L 830L to 1010L

6 860L to 920L 925L to 1070L

7 880L to 960L 970L to 1120L

8 900L to 1010L 1010L to 1185L

9 960L to 1110L 1050L to 1260L

10 920L to 1120L 1080L to 1335L

11 and 12 1070L to 1220L 1185L to 1385L

*COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS FOR ENGLISH, LANGUAGE ARTS, APPENDIX A

On ReadTheory, individual passages are never assigned manually. After our

4.1.1. Grade Level scores

PT 4 A+B: Grade level scores (1-12)

PT 4 A+B: Lexile level

4.1.3. Writing scores

PT 4 A+B: Writing scores

Result: Avg, 9+10 - Avg.1+2

All the students improved. From an average of 3 words in 3 minutes to an average

4.1.4. PT 4 A+B Conclusion

Grade level scores: 0.89

Lexile level scores: 180%

Writing speed scores: 62%

4.2.1. Grade Level scores

MTF 3-1B: Grade level scores (1-

4.2.2. Lexile Level scores

MTF 3-1B: Lexile level scores

4.2.3. Writing scores