Cycle 2 Data
AR Focus Statement
I propose using web 2.0 tools to increase non-fiction reading comprehension skills in 7th grade students.
Identified Problem and Solution
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002) requires students in Grades 4 through 12 to make adequate yearly progress toward meeting state reading standards. In my middle school, this is not occurring. Students are not making adequate yearly progress (AYP) based on our state’s yearly assessment tool. In addition, the Reading First provision of NCLB dictates that students who are not making adequate progress in the middle-school years be offered research-based interventions to accelerate their learning. To contribute to a solution that helps students make AYP in reading, I want to use a variety of web applications and tools that will motivate and engage my 7th grade students to read more non-fiction and understand what they have read.
Target Audience
I had 78 7th graders participate in my action research. They attend a rural middle school in Northeast Missouri. The age range was 12-14 years old. The reading ability breakdown for my participants is as follows: two Special Education students, six students at the below basic level, 11 basic level students, 32 proficient students, and 27 advanced students. Out of the 32 proficient students, 12 were low proficient (5 points away from the basic level), 9 were middle proficient, and 11 were high proficient (5 points away from advanced level). The levels of below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced are the levels the state uses on our state-wide assessment.
Summary of Cycle 2
I implemented this project over an 8-week period, but it was not done on consecutive days, as there were days in between activities. The technology utilized in Cycle 2 was the classroom management website, http://www.Edmodo.com, the brainstorming/organizational website http://www.Popplet.com, and hidden object games from the website Big Fish Games at http://www.bigfishgames.com. The project was broken into three parts: 1) Reading RSS Feeds in Edmodo, 2) Creating brainstorms in Popplet, and 3) playing (their choice of) hidden object games.
The first activity the students performed was to find an RSS feed of their choice. After reading the feed article, I had the students create a Popplet with the main idea and three supporting details. This activity took one 45-minute class period.
Before starting to play the hidden object games, the students watched a video on gaming in education. I took the students to the website Big Fish Games and we did a search for hidden object games and found several. I let them choose the hidden object game(s) they wanted to play. There were many themes to choose from, and almost all of the students found one or two they really liked.
Next, the students played their hidden object game for 25-30 minutes. When the timer chimed, the students had to stop and reread their RSS feed. The students then pulled up their Popplet and edited it if they saw a need.
The students then choose a second RSS Feed. After reading the article, the students had three tasks to complete: 1) Go to Edmodo and post a comment about the article (what they liked or disliked about the article and what they found most interesting). 2) Return to Popplet and create a main idea brainstorm individually, using the Popplet we did in class as an example. Include the main idea of the article along with three supporting details. 3) After the Popplet is complete, post a link on Edmodo to share with your classmates. I then asked the students to view one other Popplet and post a comment in Edmodo under that Poppet’s link. I asked the students if they thought the main idea was correct, if there were three supporting details, and if the supporting details supported the main idea.
After completing these tasks, the students returned to their hidden object game and played for 25-30 minutes. I had them reread their second RSS Feed and review their Popplet, making changes where needed.
The students read a third RSS Feed article and went through the same 3 steps as above – followed by playing the games.
Data Collection
The pre and post tests that the students took during Cycle 2 contained five multiple choice or fill in the blank questions and one constructed response. I was looking for students who scored a 70% or above. I divided my students into five groups – which follows the same break down as our state-wide assessment.
I originally had 78 students in my research group, but two are considered “MAP A,” which means they are lower functioning, special-education students that do not take the state-wide assessment test; therefore, I had 76 working subjects. I had six students in the Below Basic group and three students scored a 70% or higher on the pretest and five scored 70% or higher on the post test. In the Basic group, I had 11 students, with eight scoring 70% or higher on the pre test. On the post test, that number raised to ten, which means all but one student scored at the 70% mark. In my largest group, Proficient, I had 32 students. This is also the group that showed the largest number increasing their scores. Twenty scored a 70% or better on the pre test, and 11 more joined that group on the post test for a total of 31, and again all but one student scored the required 70% or above. I also have a large advanced group of 27 students, and I wasn’t surprised that the majority of them, 25, scored 70% or higher on the pre test. On the post test for this group, all 27 scored 70% or above.
Overall, 73.68% of the 76 students scored a 70% or higher on the pre test. I had a 22.4% increase on the post test, with 96% of the 76 students scoring 70% or higher. Although there was a smaller increase from pre to post test in Cycle 2 than in Cycle 1, the students’ pre test scores were significantly higher in Cycle 2 than in Cycle 1.
Insight
In Cycle 2 I saw a 22.4% jump in students who scored above a 70% between the pre and post tests. My findings coincide with my literature in relation to engagement and motivation. Although the increase between pre and post tests was not as high in Cycle 2 as in Cycle 1, I think that game play had a more positive impact on student engagement and motivation than building the Wikipages did, and that the smaller increase between pre and post test ability to comprehend non-ficiton reading in Cycle 2 was partially due to the already high pre-test scores in this area. Overall, I believe the implementation process was successful. All of my students were excited and engaged throughout most of my Action Research project. My timeline went as planned for Cycle 2. Almost every time the students returned to their Popplet, I saw them making changes to their supporting details and sometimes to their main idea. Through observation and student interviews, I learned that students found the articles easier to focus on and to pull details out of after playing the hidden-object games.
Surprises
I would say that my results were a surprise. I was hoping that Cycle 2 would be successful, but I was not expecting the results to be as good as they were. My research and focus statement is centered around Web 2.0 tools and how they can help students comprehend non-fiction reading. During Cycle 2, I tried a different Web 2.0 tool than I did in Cycle 1 – and received better results. The increased success could have been from a number of factors: a) comfort in the classroom and with the teacher, b) comfort with the technology used, or c) increased engagement because of the Web 2.0 tool chosen. In my observations, I saw that my students were very excited to play games. Each time they played, they appeared to be completely engrossed and had very few side conversations. Once they caught on that I was having them play the hidden object game and then immediately read a non-fiction passage to see if they had more focus, most of the students, in the words of one 7th grade girl, thought this was “really neat” and were “excited to try it out.”
Future Direction
I realize that I am just barely getting my feet wet in the realm of gaming and education, and I want to see what other research is out there. Since it is the end of the school year, I will take the summer to do more research on gaming in education and re-evaluate my plan of action for next school year.
Evaluate and Reflect
I did not make any adjustments or modifications to my plan of action in Cycle 2 – everything went like clockwork this time. At this point, I do not know if I will continue my plan of action or make modifications. Cycle 2 went extremely well, and I don’t want to fix something that is not broke. I am not sure yet what, if any, modifications I will make for next school year. However, I do know I will continue to use gaming in my classroom.
Stacey Kramer 