Analysis

         The main measure of increased comprehension was graphic organizers the students in each class completed at the end of each unit.  The number of "bubbles" students completed were counted and that information is illustrated on the bar graph.( Click here Graphics  to view that graph.) While the results of the assessment demonstrated a slight increase in the comprehension level, it did not show a  significant margin of difference between the two groups in the study.

      However the responses on the student questionnaires indicated that the students in the literature enhanced class felt the stories and activities helped them remember more information.  One student commented  that during the partner reading about a Lowell mill girl, the activity helped because "you went inside to what the girls were thinking".

    During this study, I conducted classroom observations of both the literature-enhanced class and the control group class noted that the students in the literature-enhanced class were more actively involved during lesson presentations.  A number of students in the control group appeared disengaged when the teacher was presenting lessons and were not focused on lesson being presented.

          I believe that there are several reasons the results did not demonstrate a stronger difference between the classes:                                    

• Rapport / Scheduling: At the start of the study, the students were not familiar with me. I came into the classroom and presented lessons on the same topic under study by their regular classroom teacher.  It took several visits for the students to become comfortable with me.  Because of our different professional responsibilities, I had to depend on the regular classroom teacher to complete the graphic organizers and complete  the testing in a timely manner. I was only able to get the results of one of the unit exams, because of the timing of the exam schedule and report cards.

•      Population:  The class size and population were slightly different. The literature-enhanced class had 26 students, 5 % which were on Individual Education Plans (IEP) receiving special education services.  The control group consisted on 22 students,  1% which were on IEPs.  The literature-enhanced group met period 5 for 55 minutes following their lunch period.  The control group met period 2 for 45 minutes.  

•        Motivation: While students were actively involved during the four teaching sessions, the regular classroom teacher presented the graphic organizer used to measure student comprehension.  The teacher indicated that she felt the results may have been different if  I presented the graphic organizer, as well as the lessons.  By the end of the second unit, students were used to my being there and she felt they may have put in more effort if I presented the assignment. Even though students were given credit for their work by the classroom teacher several  students, in both classes, passed in blank papers. 

•   Length of study: Because of the time constraints in scheduling classes and designing the lessons, four interventions were completed over two units of study.  If this study had been completed over a longer period of time, I believe a more significant difference between the two classes would have become evident.  

   The third piece of information reviewed as part of the analysis was the exam given by the teacher at the end of the unit.  The exam grades were only available for the first unit on the Constitutional Convention.  Those results showed the average grade for the control group was 84%, while the literature-enhanced class had an average score of 72%. Because the exam information was limited to one exam, it may not be as significant as the analysis of the graphic organizers, however it may speak to the academic differences between the two classes.  

   Student Samples    Researcher's Reflection

Resources

Statement of Problem

Literature Review

Favorite Links

Graphics