1a+Article+Comparison+Chart

By Leah G. Doughman || **  Statement of Research Problem  **  ||  **  Research Methods  **  ||  **  Types of Data and Data Sources  **  ||  **  Data Collection Strategy and/or Instrument  **  ||  **  Data Analysis Approach  **  || comprehend: Studying the relationship between fluency and comprehension. // The Reading Teacher, 62, //512-521. || Relationship between fluency and comprehension/ Mary DeKonty Applegate, Anthony J. Applegate, Virginia B. Modla/ Mary Applegate teaches at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. Anthony Applegate teaches at Holy Family University in Philadelphia. Virginia Modla teaches at LaSalle University in Philadelphia. || Are strong readers comprehensive readers? || Experimental  ||  Mixed  ||  Pre and Posttest scores, parent rubrics, teacher scored rubrics, open-ended comprehension questions  ||  Mixed data analysis  || || Mixed messages coming from fluency instruction and assessments/ Theresa A. Deeney/ Deeney teaches at the University of Rhode Island in Kingston. || Are fluency passages assessing all components considered to be aspects of fluency (accuracy, rate, prosody, comprehension)? || Qualitative  ||  Qualitative  ||  Secondary Data  ||  Visual data, Visual content analysis  || || Fluency instruction: more than accuracy, automaticity and prosody—comprehension has to be included in with this/ Timothy Rasinski/ Rasinski teaches at Kent State University in Ohio. || Is there more to reading instruction than accuracy, automaticity, and prosody? || Case Study  ||  Qualitative  ||  Secondary Data, Observations, numerical scoring  ||  One-way analysis-of-variance statistical testing  || // The Reading Teacher, 62, //650-661. || Blogging as a technology to improve higher order thinking skills/ Lisa Zawilinski/ Zawilinski is a doctoral student at the University of Connecticut  ||  Does blogging promote higher order thinking? || Experimental- field experiment  ||  Quantitative  ||  Teacher observations, Open-Ended Surveys and Questionnaires  ||  Visual data analysis of observations and student progression  || || Promoting reading through the use of eBooks/ Christine L. Weber, Terence W. Cavanaugh/ Weber and Cavanaugh are both professors at the University of North Florida who are interested in gifted education and instruction. || Do eBooks promote reading among gifted or advanced readers? || Experimental- field experience  ||  Qualitative  ||  Observations, Teacher findings, Secondary Data (existing research)  ||  Visual content analysis, numerical data comes from secondary data  || // Reading Association, 61, //85-88. || Using comic strips to help aid reading comprehension/ Claudia J. McVicker/ McVicker has presented at the International Visual Literacy meeting and the Annual meeting of the College Reading Association  ||  Do comics help promote learning to read? || Case Study  ||  Qualitative  ||  Observations, comparisons, secondary or existing data  ||  Visual content analysis  || || Using descriptive video to enhance student’s writing/ Helen Hoffner, Eileen Baker, Kathleen Benson Quinn/ Hoffner teaches at Holy Family University in Philadelphia, Baker teaches at Cinnaminson Middle School in New Jersey. Quinn teaches at the Holy Family University as well. || Can descriptive videos help to improve writing? (I chose this because writing is evidence of comprehension which is the focus of my research.) ||  Experimental  ||  Qualitative  ||  Observations, interviews, and focus groups. A focus group’s writing was examined before descriptive video was used. Then, using descriptive video, writing was compared with first sample. || Visual Data  || || Using electronic books to aid reading comprehension/ Shirley Grimshaw, Naomi Dungworth, Cliff McKnight, Anne Morris/ Grimshaw is a portal researcher in Research Innovation Services at the University of Nottingham. Dungworth is a research associate. McKnight is a professor of Information Studies. Morris is a reader in the Department of Information Science at Loughborough University. || Does the medium/tool help to improve reading comprehension? || Experimental  ||  Mixed (both qualitative and quantitative)  ||  Tests, interviews, pre and post tests, questionnaires, comprehension scores from electronic test and paper/pencil test. || Mixed Data Analysis  || || Using computer-assisted instruction to aid struggling readers in middle school settings/ Paul Macaruso, Alyson Rodman/ Macaruso works in the Psychology Department at the Community College of Rhode Island. Rodman works for Lexia Learning Systems Inc. in Concord, Massachusetts. || Do CAI’s benefit struggling readers in middle school? || Experimental  ||  Mixed (both qualitative and quantitative)  ||  Test, CAI program results (pre and posttest results), Observations, some secondary data from previous studies that have looked to see if CAIs help to “enhance reading skills”. || Mixed Data Analysis  || || Can technology encourage and improve reading and writing comprehension in the science classroom? || Case study and Observations  ||  Qualitative  ||  Observations, comparisons, Interviews, Focus groups  ||  Visual Content Analysis  || ** A. Similarities ** After reviewing all of my articles and the others that I found interesting, there are many similarities among all of them. All of my articles address reading or reading comprehension in some form or fashion. Each article shows, demonstrates, or provides research on strategies and/or technology that can help to improve reading comprehension among all learners. I feel like I am drawn to these types of articles due to the fact that I always want to help improve my own student’s reading comprehension. There are so many ways to aid with reading comprehension instruction, and new strategies enter the field everyday at rapid pace. I want to be able to incorporate technology into my classroom so I am preparing my students for their futures while improving their reading skills. These are two skills that they need and use for the rest of their lives. Each article will also help to aid with my own research topic of the effects technology have on reading comprehension.
 * Article Comparison Chart and Critique  **
 * ** Article  **  ||  **  Citation (APA 6th edition)  **  ||  **  Topic/Author/ Author’s Background  **
 * 1  ||  Beck, I. L., Blake, R. G. K., & McKeown, M. G. (2009). Reading comprehension instruction: Focus on content or strategies? // Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 35, //28-32.  ||  Reading Comprehension: content or strategies/ Margaret McKeown, Isabel Beck, Ronette Blake/ McKeown was a reading teacher, but now she is a Clinical Professor the University of Pittsburg. Beck is a professor at the University of Pittsburg as well. She has been recognized by many reading journals for her work in the reading instruction field. Blake is a Research Specialist at the Development Center at the University of Pittsburg.  ||  This article discusses the importance of focusing on reading content as well as strategies. The main point is not to focus solely strategies.  ||  Experimental  ||  Mixed (qualitative and quantitative)  ||  Comprehension Test that they created and data from other studies that were conducted  ||  ANOVA in regards to the quantitative data, Observation data in regards to the qualitative date, Mixed data analysis  ||
 * 2  ||  Marcell, B. (2007). Traffic light reading: Fostering the independent usage of comprehension strategies with informational text. // The Reading Teacher, 60, //778-781.  ||  Comprehension strategies with informational text/ Barclay Marcell/ She is an elementary school literacy teacher in a suburb of Chicago, Illinois.  ||  This article focuses on the comprehension aspect and its important to fluency.  ||  Observation  ||  Qualitative  ||  Observations, interviews  ||  Visual content analysis  ||
 * 3  ||  Applegate, M. D., Applegate, A. J., Modla, V. B. (2009). She’s my best reader; she just can’t
 * 4  ||  Deeney, T. A. (2010). One minute fluency measures: Mixed messages in assessment and instruction. // The Reading Teacher, 63, //440-450.
 * 5  ||  Rasinski, T. (2006). Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. // The Reading Teacher, 59, //704-706.
 * 6  ||  Zawilinski, L. (2009). HOT blogging: A framework for blogging to promote higher order thinking.
 * 7  ||  Weber, C. L., & Cavanaugh, T. W. (2006). Promoting reading: Using eBooks with gifted and advanced readers. // Gifted Child Today, 29, //56-63.
 * 8  ||  Balajthy, E. (2007). Technology and current reading/literacy assessment strategies. // The Reading Teacher, 61, //240-247.  ||  Technology and reading assessment strategies/ Ernest Balajthy/ Balajthy teaches at the State University of New York  ||  Can technology help with current reading assessments?  ||  Experimental  ||  Mixed  ||  Pre-existing test, interviews, comparing results from programs to one another  ||  Mixed Data Analysis, computer programs  ||
 * 9  ||  McVicker, C. J. (2007). Comic strips as a text structure for learning to read. // International  //
 * 10  ||  Baker, E., Hoffner, H., Quinn, K. B. (2008). Lights, camera, pencils: Using descriptive video to enhance writing. // International Reading Association, 61, //576-579.
 * 11  ||  Dungworth, N., Grimshaw, S., McKnight, C., Morris, A. (2007). Electronic books: Children’s reading and comprehension. // British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, //583-599.
 * 12  ||  Macaruso, P., Rodman, A. (2009). Benefits of computer-assisted instruction for struggling readers in middle school. // European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24, //103-113.
 * 13  ||  Herter, R., J., Montelongo, J., A. (2010). Using technology to support expository reading and writing in science class. // Science Activities, 47, //89-102.  ||  Using technology to support reading and writing/ Jose A. Montelongo and Roberta J. Herter/ Montelongo and Herter are both professors at California Polytechnic State University. Both have written previous papers together before.
 * 14  ||  Bishop, P. A., Pflaum, S. W., Reyes, C. (2006). Read smarter, not harder: Global reading comprehension strategies. // The Reading Teacher, 60, //66-75.  ||  Comprehension strategies that make reading easier/ Penny a. Bishop, Cynthia Reyes, Susanna W. Pflaum/ Bishop and Reyes both teach at the University of Vermont. Pflaum is an independent consultant.  ||  What reading strategies help students to read better?  ||  No research was conducted, just observations of strategies that appeared to help students read better.  ||  Qualitative  ||  Observations  ||  Not available for this article.  ||
 * 15  ||  Barone, D., Wright, T., E. (2008). Literacy instruction with digital and media technologies. // The Reading Teacher, 62, //293-302.  ||  Literacy instruction through the use of digital technologies/ Diane Barone, Todd E. Wright/ Barone is a professor of literacy studies at the University of Nevada. She teaches several early literacy classes. Wright teaches at Fernley Elementary School in Nevada. Both have written several articles together, and some have been published by [|readingrockets.org] ||  Can using technology help prepare students for future expectations?  ||  Experimental  ||  Mixed (though most of their author’s research was qualitative, they did borrow quantitative data from other studies)  ||  Observations, questionnaires, interviews with the teacher, secondary data (especially the quantitative)  ||  Mixed data analysis  ||

Several of my articles differ based on content and specific subject they cover. When I first began my research, I was focusing technology that would affect reading comprehension and fluency. I began to notice that this was too big of a topic and my research would be pretty vague. There is a large difference in comprehension and fluency, so I narrowed my focus down to just reading comprehension and technology. This creates some differences in my articles and their findings. Some of my populations that were studied vary as well; some of the studies focus on middle school students and others on elementary age students. I do feel that many of the strategies, not programs, could be modified to fit elementary students. ** C. Strengths ** After reviewing my articles, I feel like they all cover reading comprehension thoroughly. This allows me to know my core content thoroughly enough to search for programs or technology that would benefit the core components of comprehension. I feel like if I did not have enough background information on comprehension, I would not be able to effectively evaluate a technology or program to see if results were effective or not. I have found the mixed research methods to be most effective; I feel like I am better able to see the results of the CAI. I feel like most of my articles will support my research especially the ones that report the benefits of computer-assisted instruction. ** D. Weak Areas ** Due to the fact that I am not longer focusing on reading comprehension and fluency, I feel like my articles may not have quite as much validity to them due to the fact that some of them do not focus solely on one topic. But because reading comprehension and fluency are so intertwined, maybe it will not be as much of a weakness as I am thinking. A few article were a little difficult to follow or found “no differences”, and I feel like could provide a weak link in my resources or references. **E. Take Aways** When looking back over the process of article gathering and analyzing, I feel like I know how to analysis and read research articles with a questioning eye. I look for good research and throw out data that is not accurate or valid. I am more equipped to make an educated call about research and its findings. I am also taking away the ability to search and do my own research. I am better equipped to research or search for methods that accurately and correctly aid with my own data and findings. By looking and comparing other articles, I am now better prepared to look at, analysis, and make professional judgments after doing this assignment. I feel like I have a better understanding of my topic as well. I know the “ins and outs” of reading comprehension and even fluency. I feel like this process has helped to shape me into a more educated and informed educator.
 * B. Differences**