Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table of Contents
I. Problem Investigated.4-6
A. Purpose of the Study........4
B. Justification of the Study.4
C. Research Question and Hypothesis..4
D. Definition of Terms..4
E. Brief Overview of the Study.5-6
II. Background and Review of Related Literature6-8
A. Theory..6
B. Studies Directly Related...6-7
C. Studies Tangentially Related7-8
III. Procedures....9-14
A. Description of Research Design...9
B. Description of the Sample.10
C. Description of Instruments.11
D. Description of the Procedures...11-12
E. Discussion of Internal Validity.........12-13
F. Discussion of External Validity.13
G. Description and Justification of the statistical techniques13-14
IV. Findings...14
V. Summary and Conclusions.14-16
A. Brief summary of the research question...14-15
B. Discussion of the implications of the findings .15
C. Limitations ..15-16
D. Suggestions for Further Research..16
References17
Appendices..18-21
I.
Problem Investigated
A. Purpose of the study
The purpose of the study was to determine if Reading Lexiles correlate to End Of
Unit Tests in Honors Chemistry?
B. Justification of the study
I believe that it is possible that students with lower Lexile reading levels may not
be as successful on Tests written on Higher Lexile levels and would benefit from
the same content being presented on tests written at Lexile reading levels that
more closely align to their determined Lexile reading level.
C. Research question and hypotheses
1.
2.
D. Definition of terms
Lexile Level- A unit of measurement used when determining the difficulty of text
and the reading level of readers. A Lexile is equivalent to 1/1000th of the
difference between the comprehensibility of basal primers (the midpoint of first-
II.
Theory
In descriptive learning theory, Benjamin Bloom devised, what is today called
Blooms taxonomy. This taxonomy is a description of three educational objective
domains that progress through higher levels of dependence on pre-acquired
knowledge. It has can be said that as children grow and learn their depth of
knowledge increases. There is a natural progression of flow to increased higher
order thinking that occurs as a child grows. Higher order thinking skills can also
be developed. As students increase their reading ability their comprehension and
evaluation of written content increased. Therefore, it may be appropriate to
assume that students with greater reading levels may be able to understand and
comprehend, to a greater degree than students with a lower reading level, content
being read.
B.
This research has not, however, led to indicators that improve substantially upon
those in the LF in power or practical utility. There remain a number of concerns,
or areas in which further research is needed. However, some potential areas of
application for the LF with regard to student assessments of interest to the Center
can be contemplated.
In an article written by Hiebert (2012, p. 13), she explains that, Quantitative
systems can contribute to our understandings of what makes a text complex. As
with any data analysis, however, human beings need to interpret the results. Data
need to be viewed from lenses such as the purpose of reading, the type of text, and
the nature of readers and their backgrounds. I think that it is important that
teachers are reading, analyzing and interpreting the results of Reading Lexiles in
order to better meet the needs of our students. In another article by Marino (2010,
p. 40) he explains that struggling readers comprehension of scientific concepts
and vocabulary could be increased when the readability levels were altered using
technology-based science curriculum. The readability levels were altered by the
use of enhancements such as pictorial representations, video captions, and
interactive tutorials. His findings indicated that students with severe reading
difficulties actually scored similarly to higher reading ability level students.
III.
Procedures
A.
adopted book publisher, at given Lexile levels correlate to the student Lexile
Scores as determined through standardized MAP testing? Data collection from
the administration of the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) and the
assessment scores from Unit Tests prepared by using the Teacher Resources from
the text publisher for the course in question. I will be collecting the winter data of
the MAP testing RIT to Reading Lexile Scores as a means to compare the
Reading Level to the assessments made by the Unit Tests made with the text
publisher.
This study will be conducted using my own eleventh grade honors students
enrolled in Honors Chemistry. I will be using the administration of The Math
Measures of Academics Progress (MAP) RIT to reading Lexile Scores
administered in the winter of 2014 and the Scores from Assessments using the
Unit Tests prepared using the Publisher provided software program Examview
Pro and the test banks associated with the state adopted textbook. First, I will
record the Winter RIT to Reading Lexile Scores. This will allow me to look at the
reading levels of my students. Then for my analysis, I will compare the Reading
levels to the scores made on the Unit Test for one of the tests using test questions
provided by the publisher.
The student problems that I am concerned with that may be a threat to external
validity of test results are as follows: I am concerned with students who may be
missing instruction, because I already have two test subjects that are in danger of
missing too many days of school.
chemistry in a physical science class while others may have skipped Physical
10
Science since it is not mandatory. Another problem is that some students may
already have either a like or dislike for science. The final issue that I foresee is
that student learning of information is occurring on a daily basis. Students who
are not tested on the same day as others will have more time to be instructed,
digest and understand the material being tested.
B.
2.
3.
Ethnic breakdown: two African American, two Asian, one Hispanic, and
eighteen Caucasian
4.
The type of sample is a convenience sample. The sample is taken using the
students that are already in place in my Honors Chemistry classroom. The
students are the ones that come to this class during their ninety minute block
during third block five days a week for the entire semester, which is half of the
11
school year during the 2014-2015 school year. No outside resources are needed to
obtain this sample data.
C.
Description of instruments
The types of instruments I plan to use to measure my variables are standardized
achievement tests and test provided by the book publisher for the subject area of
Honors Chemistry. I plan to use an existing instrument. These are the existing
instruments I plan to use: MAP- Measures of Academic Progress RIT to Reading
Scores and tests created using the test banks provided by Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston Modern Chemistry, Examview test banks. Both of these instruments are
self-grading. The MAP test is a proven reliable and valid test used in education to
test academic progress for students at every grade level. The Examview test bank
questions are based on the chapter content for each chapter in the Modern
Chemistry textbook which is aligned to the South Carolina Science Standards
which are correlated to the National Science Standards.
D.
E.
12
The MAP RIT to Reading scores, which provide Reading Lexiles, are my
independent variable and the achievement scores on the tests prepared using the
publisher provided test banks will be the depended variable. Both of these
variables are quantitative data. My question for this research paper is: Do 11th
grade students in an Honors Chemistry course scores on tests created using test
banks, provided by the state adopted book publisher, at given Lexile levels
correlate to the student Lexile Scores as determined through standardized MAP
testing? The concerns that I have with this study that could affect the internal
validity have to do with mortality, history, attitude, and maturation. I am
concerned with mortality because I already have two test subjects that are in
danger of missing too many days of school. If the numbers of attendance days
does not exceed the allowed number of days for the class then the effect would be
moderate. Students failing to meet the attendance requirements will be dropped
from the data. The concern that I have with history is that some students may have
had some chemistry in a physical science class while others may have skipped
Physical Science since it is not mandatory. I will control this by verifying that
any student who has not taken Physical Science will be dropped from the data
analysis. The concern for attitude is that some students may already have either a
like or dislike for science. This attitude may have an effect on performance. I will
control by having test subjects complete a survey on their attitudes towards
science to see if there are strong feelings either way. The concern for maturation
is that student learning of information is occurring on a daily basis. Students who
are not tested on the same day as others will have more time to be instructed,
13
digest and understand the material being tested. I will control this by making sure
that each student is tested on the same day and no one has an advantage of taking
the test later than other students.
F.
G.
14
adequate for a correlational study and is made up of all of the current students that
fit the test criteria. The type of sample used in my study places the following
limitations on my use of inferential statistics: The sample may not be
generalizable among all 11th grade honors chemistry students in this state, country
or the world. Also, the mean data for each class may also not be the same and
create a new mean data. Using the two different classes which have their own set
of biases and sample differences could create overall differences which would
limit the inferential statistics.
IV.
Findings
Upward slope of the trendline in Figure 1: Unit 1 Test Scores vs Reading Lexile Levels
suggests that there is a positive correlation between the Reading Lexile scores and the
Unit Test scores. The coefficient of determination, R2 = 0.1391, does not prove that there
is a significant correlation between the Reading Lexiles and Test Scores.
In Figure 2: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances, it can be shown that the t
Stat > t Critical two-tail. According to the hypothesis test, the null hypothesis can be
rejected which would show a correlation and now the alternate hypothesis must be
considered which says there is a difference in the two instruments, Reading Lexiles and
Test Scores (No correlation).
More study will need to be done since a random sample was not used.
V.
15
B.
C.
Limitations
16
Some of the limitations of this study include the small sample size. Universally
generalized statements concerning student reading levels and test success may not
be extrapolated from this data. A much larger data set would need to be analyzed.
Also, one factor that I did not take into account was academic integrity. I did not
consider the fact that some students may have cheated on the test which would
have provided false data. If lower level readers felt helpless or disparate enough
to cheat then their scores may have been higher than what they actually should
have been.
D.
17
References
Allen, D. A. (2014). A Test of the Relationship between Reading Ability & Standardized
Biology Assessment Scores. American Biology Teacher (University Of California
Press), 76(4), 247-251. doi:10.1525/abt.2014.76.4.6
Bach, J. V., Thul, N. G., & Foord, K. A. (2004). Tests that Inform. Principal Leadership,
4(6), 28-31.
Chadwick, R., Walters, H., & Cosumnes River Coll., S. A. (1975). Reading Relationship
Study: Success/Failure Rate of First Semester College Students Identified as Poor
Readers. March 1975, p. 13
Hiebert, E. H. (2012). The Common Core State Standards and Text Complexity. Teacher
Librarian, 39(5), 13.
Marino, M., Coyne, M., & Dunn, M. (2010). The Effect of Technology-based Altered
Readability Levels On Struggling Readers' Science Comprehension. Journal Of
Computers In Mathematics & Science Teaching, 29(1), 31-49.
18
Appendices
y = 0.0209x + 55.268
R = 0.1391
20
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
19
Variable
Variable
Mean
1248.217
81.34783
Variance
30322.81
95.14625
Observations
23
23
df
22
t Stat
32.08641
P(T<=t) one-tail
2.85E-20
t Critical one-tail
1.717144
P(T<=t) two-tail
5.71E-20
t Critical two-tail
2.073873
20
Last Name
First Name
MAP RIT
MAP
to
Math
Reading
RIT
MAP
MAP
Unit 1
RIT to
Math
Test
Reading
RIT
McElheny
John
1645
255
90 High
1645
269
Good
Veronica
1555
269
93 Low
943
238
Garris
Rebecca
1501
254
99 Avg
1138
249
McKnight
Amelia
1393
245
87
Minor
Dominique
1375
243
79
Rowan
Allison
1357
245
81
Tabib
Yuval
1357
240
70
Wylie
Kathryn
1303
253
84
Lewis
Mary
1285
251
90
Wideman
Shelby
1285
263
73
Buchanan
Angus
1267
239
76
R=
Mitchell
Taylor
1249
238
61
Godbold
Emily-Anne
1195
256
96
Sincavitch
Carly
1177
259
96
Slabinski
Magdalene
1177
241
76
Knox
Shantelle
1159
255
76
Hinde
Riley
1123
243
70
Pham
Angel
1087
250
81
0.3730
Sessions
21
Joyce
1087
246
76
Garcia
Jarely
1069
257
87
Thurman
Scarlett
1069
242
70
Dodds
Tatum
1051
253
81
Hood
Ethan
943
238
79
Heredia