Summer Reading Moves to Cyberspace: A Revealing Collaboration

1
Summer Reading Moves to CyberspaceA Revealing
Collaboration

• Multiple Faces of Collaboration
• CISSL-ILILE Research Symposium
• Kent State University
• Dr. Ya-Ling Lu and Carol Gordon
• yalinglu_at_scils.rutgers.edu 
• cgordon_at_scils.rutgers.edu
• 18 May 2007

2
Does Summer Reading Matter? The Faucet Theory

• During school year learners gains remarkably
  similar for students from diverse socio-economic
  backgrounds (Entwistle, Alexander Olson, 1997,
  2000)
• Family income was best predictor of reading
  comprehension and word recognition loss (Cooper
  et al, 1996)
• Middle, upper class showed one month loss
  Disadvantaged children showed three months of
  grade-level equivalency (ibid.)
• Achievement gap increases throughout elementary
  years. Difference between high- and low-income in
  CAT reading scores (as of sd)1st grade 68
  3rd grade 98 8th grade 114 (Alexander
  Entwistle, 1996)
• SPED/ELL children experience greater effects
  (Cooper et al., 1996 Sargent Fidler, 1987)

3
Free Voluntary Reading

• Has strong positive
• effect on ELL students
• (Elley, 1998)
• Results in more reading
• and better writing
• (Kim, 2004)
• Those who read more
• do better on language acquisition tests (Stokes,
  Krashen Kartchner, 1998)

Students who read more, know more (Filback
Krashen, 2002)
4
FVR Effects (Krashen, 2004)
5
The Collaboration Three Sides to the Story

• Traditional English Teachers
• Progressive English Teachers
• One Warrior Librarian

6
There is nothing so practical as a good theory
(Kurt Lewin)

• The Purpose of Summer Reading
• People who say they read more read better
  (Krashen, 2004), therefore the primary purpose of
  the program is to encourage students to read
  more.
• In order to encourage students to read more the
  primary purpose of summer reading is reading for
  fun rather than for academic purposes.
• The program offers students choice because choice
  is an important element in reading engagement
  (Schraw, et al., 1998). This includes the choice
  to pursue personal reading interests. To this end
  the school librarian administers a survey to
  students to collect their recommendations for
  book titles. Staff recommendations are collected
  through email.

7
Research-based Decisions

• Summer Reading Projects
• Student projects accommodate multiple
  intelligences (Gardner, 1993) and thinking styles
  (Sternberg, 1997) as well as options for written
  work.
• Since results suggest that schools can
  encourage children to read more by also requiring
  them to complete a short writing activity based
  on their summer reading activities. and that
  students who fulfilled teacher requirements by
  writing about their summer book are predicted to
  read more books than their classmates who did not
  complete these activities (Kim, 2004b, p. 185).
  Reading responses include writing activities.
• Reading response projects reflect activities
  students enjoy in their leisure time are grounded
  in reading response described as the aesthetic
  stance in transactional theory (Rosenblatt, 1978).

8
Going Digital

• A Reading Program, not a Reading List
• The summer reading program is web-based because,
  Virtually all Net Gen students were using
  computers by the time they were 16 to 18 years of
  age Among children ages 8 to 18, 96 percent have
  gone online. Seventy-four percent have access at
  home, and 61 percent use the Internet on a
  typical day. (Jones, 2002)
• In a study that altered text instructions in an
  assignment to a graphic layout, there were fewer
  refusals to do the assignment and post-test score
  increased. (Prensky, 2001) Since the net
  generation is not only attracted to image-rich
  environments, but is more comfortable with them,
  the website is visually attractive with lots of
  colorful graphics.

9
The Website
Reading Takes You Places
http//www.barnstable.k12.ma. us/bhs/Library/ Summ
erReadingProgram.htm
10
Research Questions

• What can we learn about collaboration among
  English teachers and between teachers and the
  school librarian?
• What were the responses from students and
  teachers about this collaborative product?
• Did students learn better?

11
Methodology

• Student survey
• 550 questionnaires were distributed
• 288 were returned (returning rate 52)
• 5 were invalid
• 283 were used for analysis
• Male Female 53 47
• CP1 CP2 Honors 15 47 38
• Teacher interview
• Interviews with 11 English teachers

12
Teachers response Did more students read?

• More students turned in projects

13
Student response Did more students read?

• Participation rate 90 (256 out of 283 students)
• Non-participation rate 10 (27 out of 283
  students)
• Male female 14 4
• CP1 CP2 Honors 33 10 0

14
Teacher response Did students read more?

• The completion rate of projects is higher, but

15
Student response Did students read more books?

• Students read an average of 3.26 books (3 were
  required)
• CP1 average of books read was 1.2 books
• Girls continue to read more than boys (3.79 books
  to 2.77 books)

16
Reading Preference

• Realistic and historical fiction (70 percent),
  fantasy and science fiction (16 percent), and
  non-fiction (12 percent)
• Non-fiction
• Nearly 2/3 of the non-fiction titles are
  reported by male students.
• 13 percent of female students and 25 percent of
  male students report reading at least one
  non-fiction book.
• Honors and CP2 students read more non-fiction
  books than CP1 students (33 22 4).

17
Teacher response Multiple reading lists

• The multiple lists were compiled through the
  collaborative recommendations from students and
  teachers and staff.
• Some thought there were too many choices and that
  students, especially CP1 students, were
  overwhelmed.

18
Student response Multiple reading lists

• Most students liked the freedom and choices
• Staff and Student Pix was among the top three
  book lists that students used to browse.
• CP1 students wanted more choices

19
Teacher response The grade unspecified reading
lists

• Some students chose to read below their level
• It might help CP1 more if they were be given
  specific book(s) to read

20
Student response The grade unspecified reading
lists

• The majority of students liked the grade
  unspecified reading lists.
• No CP1 students wanted to go back to the old
  grade specified reading lists, but a few Honors
  students would prefer going back to the old
  system.
• I feel I can read anything now. (from a CP1
  student)

21
Putting it onlinean incentive?

• Not clear
• 25 respondents had no computer access at home.
• Two of them did not participate the SRP.
• 23 respondents did.
• No blogging.
• Few used search feature to get books

22
Where did students get their booksfor summer
reading?

• 40 got their books from local bookstore
• 38 from public libraries
• 36 from home
• 15 from school library
• 13 from a friend or relative
• 7 purchased books online.

23
Teacher response Did students learn better, or
learn anything?

• Some teachers thought they did not see any
  drastic leap or drop. The program was, to them,
  simply different.
• Other teachers believed that the freedom this new
  web-based reading program gave students would, in
  the long run, if not immediately, encourage
  students, especially unmotivated students, to be
  more creative and independent in thinking and
  learning.

24
Student response Did students learn better, or
learn anything?

• Civil war history
• Globalization
• Different cultures
• Different authors
• Vocabulary
• Critically analyze a book
• (CP2 and Honors)

• My family
• Gaining self-esteem
• Deal with friends that drink and use drug
• Not to give up when time is hard
• Be respectful
• Stay close with family no matter what happens
• Time management
• Think stuff through before acting
• (CP1, CP2, and Honors)

25
What we learned

• Reading can be very personal and private.
• Reading has latent effects that tests cannot
  measure.
• CP1 students have particular reading interests,
  and they value life lessons more than
  information in the books.
• Non-fiction can be more appealing to male
  students than to female students (25 to 13).
• Non-fiction reading and academic achievement
• causality uncertain
• CP1 CP2 Honors4 22 33

26
Questions for further study

• What is the purpose of summer reading?
• How can we motivate low achieving students to
  read?
• How can we better address the reading needs of
  boys?
• How can the public library play a significant
  role in supporting the schools goals for summer
  reading?

27
Discussion

• Was this collaboration successful?