The Effects of Ability Grouping on Reading Achievement

1. The Effects of Ability Grouping on Reading Achievement Oksana Vulchyn Instructor: Dr. Sharon A. O’Connor-Petruso Ed. 702.22 Spring 2009

2. Table of Contents Research Design Threats to Internal Validity Threats to External Validity Proposed Data Proposed Data Analysis Proposed Data Proposed Data Analysis References

3. Research Design Quasi Experimental: Nonequivalent Control Group Design Two groups: Designated treatment group (X1) and control group (X2) are pretested, exposed to a treatment (X), and posttested (O). Symbolic Design: O X1 O O X2 O Groups are randomly assigned.

4. Threats to Internal Validity History– unexpected events, such as weather changes, fire drill, and students’ misbehavior.  Maturation– the repetition of English Language Arts and Mathematics throughout the school day. Testing– Pretest Sensitization– the exposure to the pretest and posttest. Instrumentation– researcher created and presented teacher’s and students’ questionnaires, and self-made reading tests. Mortality – the possibility of the drop out or moving to another school. Statistical Regression–the small sample; therefore, it is not a treat to the study. Differential Selection of Subjects– two different groups of students, homogeneous and heterogeneous. Selection-Maturation Interaction– the students in two of the classes are of different age and gender.

5. Threats to External Validity Ecological Validity – personal issues. Generalizable Conditions – the teachers’ different teaching styles. Pretest – Treatment – may increase or decrease the participants’ sensitivity or responsiveness to the experimental variable Selection-Treatment Interaction – all the participants were voluntarily assigned to me but not randomly selected. Specificity of Variables – all variables will be related to the study. Multiple Treatments – does not apply to my study for the multiple treatments will not be given to the same subjects. Treatment Diffusion – the interaction between the students from two different classrooms. Experimenter Effects – the actions of the researcher. Reactive Arrangements/Participants Effects – the students may act differently when they know that they are involved in a study.

6. Pretest & Posttest 1. Fluency: assesses the % of grade-level words read per minute. 2. Vocabulary: assesses children’s familiarity with grade-level vocabulary words. All vocabulary words are tested in sentence context. (10 Questions) 3.Comprehension:assesses children’s comprehension of reading selections. Children respond to comprehension questions based on fundamental grade-level skills. (10 Questions)

7. Proposed Data Fluency Test

8. Proposed Data Vocabulary Test

9. Proposed Data Comprehension Test

10. Proposed Data Correlation between reading self-concept and reading assessment. Question19: In a group were students all read about the same I learn more.

11. Proposed Data Analysis The three charts above show us positive correlations – high x-scores are paired with high y-scores. According to the lines of the best fit, the strength of the correlation is excellent on the first as well as the second chart: rxy = .915 and rxy = .879, and fair on the third chart: rxy = .791 Therefore, as reading self-concept increases, the fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension assessments scores increase. In other words, the students who strongly agreed to learn more in a group were all students read about the same, achieved higher scores on all of the three reading tests.

12. References O’Oconnor – Petruso, S.,(2008) Stat.scales.analyses.threats.design.ppt.