Major Findings & Analysis
- At the beginning of the research period, most students were capable of finding and describing the topic of nonfiction pieces. However, very few used these topics as the starting place to write a summary about the main idea. Even at the end of the research period and after explicit teaching, some students were still writing one word topics rather than main idea summaries.
- Additionally, while students were generally aware that they could use titles, headings, and topic sentences to locate important points, they were less aware of how nonfiction articles are more holistically organized (Cause/Effect, Thematic, Chronological, Problem/Solution, etc.). After a second round of modeling and thinking aloud, select students began to use terms like "thematic" and "chronological" in their responses. By the end of the research process, almost all students were using these organizational labels, but were not always successful at correctly identifying the type being used.
- Throughout the research process, it was clear that the easiest component for students was locating essential details. Because there are more options to choose from, students correctly identified important details more often than the organization or main idea. However, students still struggled to notice how the details connected to form a main idea.
- Students generally scored higher on assessments matched with shorter expository excerpts. When overwhelmed by large amounts of text, I noticed that certain students would become apathetic and provide an incomplete or vague response.
Instructional Decisions
Based on the notes I was taking during the preliminary weeks of research, it became clear that students were struggling with a few particular skills:
After analyzing these findings, I made sure to adapt my teaching and think aloud sessions to focus on these areas of concern. I explicitly taught and modeled how to write a sentence summary of the main idea, how to identify and name organizational structures, and how to use topic sentences to find major, essential details. Also, through my process of rereading and thinking aloud, I taught students how to break long articles down into manageable chunks of reading.
Based on the notes I was taking during the preliminary weeks of research, it became clear that students were struggling with a few particular skills:
- Moving from just identifying a topic to describing why that topic is important or what the author was trying to say about the topic
- Using language to describe the overall organization of expository texts
- Separating essential details from nonessential ones
- Maintaining focus on longer, denser articles
After analyzing these findings, I made sure to adapt my teaching and think aloud sessions to focus on these areas of concern. I explicitly taught and modeled how to write a sentence summary of the main idea, how to identify and name organizational structures, and how to use topic sentences to find major, essential details. Also, through my process of rereading and thinking aloud, I taught students how to break long articles down into manageable chunks of reading.
Connections
My qualitative findings generally align with my other data sources. For instance, on the early exit tickets used throughout the research and for the pre-test, students had lower scores on the question pertaining to organizational structures. However, by the post-test, more students were earning points on this question by using the academic language taught in class. The same idea is generally true of the second question regarding the main idea of the text. Students were more likely to miss the point early on and only locate the topic of the article. However, by the end of the research period, more students were attempting whole-sentence responses.
The motivation piece connects to my students' MAP data. As the students advanced through the adaptive MAP test, the test questions become more difficult. For those who were not motivated or focused, it was easy to simply give up and guess. Depending on a student's reading stamina, their scores on these indicators could be affected.
My qualitative findings generally align with my other data sources. For instance, on the early exit tickets used throughout the research and for the pre-test, students had lower scores on the question pertaining to organizational structures. However, by the post-test, more students were earning points on this question by using the academic language taught in class. The same idea is generally true of the second question regarding the main idea of the text. Students were more likely to miss the point early on and only locate the topic of the article. However, by the end of the research period, more students were attempting whole-sentence responses.
The motivation piece connects to my students' MAP data. As the students advanced through the adaptive MAP test, the test questions become more difficult. For those who were not motivated or focused, it was easy to simply give up and guess. Depending on a student's reading stamina, their scores on these indicators could be affected.