The Impact of Conversations on Fourth Grade Reading Performance - What NAEP Data Explorer Tells?

Abstract

This study presented a secondary analysis of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) dataset. The paper explored the differences between fourth grade reading scores by examining (1) how often the fourth graders discuss their school work at home with family and (2) how often the fourth graders discuss what they were reading with friends. The results by NAEP Data Explorer indicate that the average scale score (M=214, SD=36) of students who report “never or hardly ever” talking about studies at home was significantly (p <0.001) lower than all other groups. The results of how often they talked to their friends about what they were reading were mixed: Students reporting talk with friends once or twice a month (M=228, SD=35) had significantly (p<0.001) higher average scale scores than those in the never or hardly ever and almost every day groups and slightly lower than those talking once or twice a week

Keywords

• Reading performance, National Assessment of Educational Progress,NAEP

References

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1994). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Bacon, S. (2005). Reading coaches: Adapting an intervention model for upper elementary and middle school readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(5), 416-427.
3. Baguley, T. (2009). Standardized or simple effect size: what should be reported? British journal of psychology, 100(Pt 3), 603–17.
4. Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). The interaction of child–parent shared reading with an augmented reality (AR) picture book and parents' conceptions of AR learning. British Journal of Educational Technology.
5. Chohan, S. K. (2011). Any letter for me? Relationships between an elementary school letter writing program and student attitudes, literacy achievement, and friendship culture. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39(1), 39-50.
6. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciencies. Routledge.
7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Feiker Hollenbeck, A. R. (2013). Beyond talking about books: Implications of the reading comprehension instruction and pedagogical beliefs of a special educator perceived as effective. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(2), 112-125.

9. International Society for Technology in Education. (2014). ISTE standards: Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards- T_PDF.pdf
10. Ivey, G. (2014). The social side of engaged reading for young adolescents. The Reading Teacher, 68(3), 165-171.
11. Jackson, V. (2016). Applying the Think-Aloud Strategy to Improve Reading Comprehension of Science Content. Current Issues in Education, 19(2).
12. Kieffer, M. J., Vukovic, R. K., & Berry, D. (2013). Roles of attention shifting and inhibitory control in fourth‐grade reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(4), 333-348.
13. Klauda, S. L. (2009). The role of parents in adolescents’ reading motivation and activity. Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), 325-363.
14. Klecker, B. M. (2014). NAEP Fourth-, Eighth-, and Twelfth-Grade Reading Scores by Gender: 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013. Online Submission.
15. Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23(2), 285-302.
16. Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about scientific inquiry—The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65-83.
17. Lee, Y. (2014). Promise for Enhancing Children's Reading Attitudes Through Peer Reading: A Mixed Method Approach. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(6), 482-492.
18. Lennon, C., & Burdick, H. (2004). The lexile framework as an approach for reading measurement and success. electronic publication on www.lexile.com.
19. Magnusson, K. (2014). Interpreting Cohen’s d effect size: An interactive visualization. Hämtat, 25(10), 2014.
20. NAEP (2015). Mathematics and Reading: About the 2015 Reading Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading/about?grade=4
21. NAEP (2016). Technical Socumentation. Plausible Values Versus Individual Scores. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/analysis/est_pv_individual.asp
22. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23. NCES (2016). NAEP assessment sample design 4th grade. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/sample_design/
24. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
25. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2002). Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002) Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
26. OECD (2016). Low-Performing Students: Why They Fall Behind and How To Help Them Succeed, OECD Publishing, Paris.
27. Piatetsky-Shapiro, G. (1996). Advances in knowledge discovery and data mining (Vol. 21). U. M. Fayyad, P. Smyth, & R. Uthurusamy (Eds.). Menlo Park: AAAI Press.
28. Reglin, G., Cameron, H., & Losike-Sedimo, N. (2012). Effects of a parent support reading intervention on seventh-grade at-risk students' reading comprehension scores. Reading Improvement, 49(1), 17-27.
29. Sanden, S. (2012). Independent reading: Perspectives and practices of highly effective teachers. The Reading Teacher, 66(3), 222-231.
30. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.
31. Snow, C.E. Barnes, W.S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I.F., & Hemphill, L. (1991). Unfulfilled expectations:Home and school influences on literacy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
32. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2015 Reading Assessments. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading/about?grade=4
33. Van der Westhuizen, G. J. (2013). Reading, social media and learning conversations. Mousaion, 31(1), 94-109.
34. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental function. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
36. Walker, I. (2007). Statistics for psychology: Making sense of our world through analysis. Retrieved from http://staff.bath.ac.uk/pssiw/stats2/page2/page14/page14.html
37. Yao, Y., Zhong, N., & Zhao, Y. (2008). A conceptual framework of data mining. In Data Mining: Foundations and Practice (pp. 501-515). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.