Academic Journal Articles on the Fourth Grade Reading Slump From 2010-2017
Policy makers, school districts, and other stakeholders throughout the United States have debated formal year-round instruction for elementary school students (Heller & Bailey, 1976; Pedersen, 2015; Shields & Oberg, 2000). Some scholars have noted that continual year-circular learning during elementary school would close the achievement gap and minimize summer reading losses, while enriching and extending students' learning opportunities (Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2001); Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay, & Greathouse, 1996; Dechenes, Malone, & Harvard Family unit Enquiry Project, 2011). Nevertheless, other scholars and policy makers question the necessity of schoolhouse-based year-circular learning for elementary schoolhouse students and disbelieve the influence of summer school on students' possible reading losses during the summer (Downey, von Hippel, & Broh, 2004; Heyns, 1987; McMullen & Rouse, 2012).Cooper et al. (1996) conducted a meta-assay of 13 investigations examining summer learning losses between 1975 and 1995 and found that summer learning losses (reading and math) amounted to near ane-10th of a test score standard divergence, equivalent to almost one month of schooling. In addition, Cooper et al. identified that students' reading losses during the summer were strongly influences past their socioeconomic status (SES), where low SES students' reading losses were larger than high-SES students and by grade level. In add-on, the higher the students' grade level the greater their reading loss.
"Examination of summer reading losses in the United States is of import every bit uncomplicated students lag backside in reading operation compared to their international counterparts." The National Center of Education Statistics Reading Study Card for 2013 (Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 2014) measured reading comprehension amidst quaternary grade students (North = 190,400) and identified no changes in the participants' reading performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scales from 2007 to 2011, meaning students reading has not improved at the national level, leaving fourth grade students in America behind their international peers. "If America'southward students are to remain competitive in a knowledge-based economy, our public schools must greatly accelerate the charge per unit of progress of the last four years and practice more to narrow America's big accomplishment gaps" (US Department of Education [USDOE], 2013). Therefore, additional research is warranted that examines elementary school students' reading changes during the summer. As a result, the purpose of the electric current report was to examine by quartile fourth grade students' summer reading alter scores utilizing a curriculum-based measure. Modify scores were determined past changes in reading with a sample of fourth grade (stop of the school year – May) to fifth grade (beginning of the school year – August) reading scores.
Students' Reading
Reading accomplishment is oftentimes researched to determine changes in students' learning during the summertime (Cooper et al., 1996; Gershenson, 2013; Helf, Konrad, & Algozzine, 2008; Sandberg-Patton & Reschly, 2013). Prior research related to this written report regarding students' summertime reading status may be classified into the following categories: (a) investigations examining correlations betwixt external variables (e.thousand., SES) and changes in students' learning, (b) investigations examining students' personal characteristics (e.g., gender, grade level, and race) and changes in students' learning, and (c) studies exploring a combination of students' personal and systemic variables.
Changes in Students' Learning During the Summer
Changes in students' learning during the summertime is divers as variability (gains or losses) in students' academic noesis and skills when students are non required to attend schoolhouse. Summer learning losses are referred to every bit (a) summer reading regression (Cornelius & Semmel, 1982), (b) summer gap (Quinn, 2015), (c) summer slide (Slates, Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2012), (d) summertime learning effect (Jesson, McNaughton, & Kolose, 2014), (e) summer setback (Allington et al., 2010; Entwisle & Alexander, 1992; Helf et al., 2008), (f) summer learning gap (Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2007), and (k) summer learning loss (Menard & Wilson, 2014; Sandberg-Patton & Reschly, 2013). For the purpose of this manuscript, summer learning loss and summer reading loss are used interchangeably and refer to the decline or unrealized potential gain of reading skills experienced by students after summer vacation from schoolhouse. Farther the terms, summer learning issue, summer reading changes or summer reading upshot refers to the fluctuations (gains or loss) of students' reading scores after their summer vacation from schoolhouse.
Past QUARTILE
Students' bookish level (based on quartiles) may be a meaning correspondent to summer learning differences. Heyns (1987) examined elementary school students' (North = 3000) reading achievement changes during the school twelvemonth and during the summer based on the students' quartiles. Those students who scored in the upper quartile were more probable to make greater academic gains and lose less in accomplishment than those students who scored in the lower quartile. While there were limited research investigating summer reading accomplishment by quartile, some studies examined students' accomplishment level by Lexile scores (Allington et al., 2010). Wilkins et al. (2012) investigated the effects of a reading intervention (providing leveled-reading) on the reading comprehension accomplishment of students between 3rd and fourth form who scored below the 50th percentile (Northward = 1571). The results were not statistically significant for improved reading achievement during the summer months for students in a reading intervention. Farther, there was no difference in the students' reading comprehension scores when considering their Lexile distribution (top, heart, or bottom).
EXTERNAL VARIABLES
Socioeconomic status is a oft investigated variable related to changes in students' learning during the summertime (Alexander et al., 2007; Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2003; Cooper et al., 1996; Kim, Quinn, & Society for Inquiry on Educational Effectiveness [SREE], 2012; Sandberg-Patton & Reschly, 2013). Multiple researchers institute significant differences in summertime reading changes betwixt students from depression SES and higher SES backgrounds. For example, Cooper et al. (1996) identified that "Center-class students showed a not-significant gain in grade-level equivalent reading scores, while lower-class students showed a significant loss" (p. 261). Therefore, students at a lower SES tend to accept greater arrears in reading than peers from a higher SES following summer interruption (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2003; Cooper, Charlton, Valentine, Muhlenbruck, & Borman, 2000; Heyns, 1978).
Additionally, Alexander et al. (2007) examined the long-term implications of students' SES on reading and summertime setback (students' achievement difference if they had attended school during the summertime months) and found a cumulative bear on for students from a low SES groundwork even though all these students had the same charge per unit of growth during the schoolhouse year. In addition, Alexander et al. concluded that the achievement gap between low and high SES students related to summer learning loss was indicative of students' propensity to graduate from high school and attend college.
Nevertheless, not all students from depression SES backgrounds experience summer reading loss. Specifically, Slates et al. (2012) identified family characteristics of students from low SES homes that did not experience summertime reading loss (Due north = 44), including two parent households that provided reading experiences for their children such every bit visiting the library, checking out books, and reading for a longer catamenia equally compared to students who did experience summer loss. Furthermore, these ii parent households checked their students' homework completion and had other demonstrated behavioral qualities of parents of students from higher SES homes who did non experience summer reading loss.
Exam of SES in relation to educatee's learning over the summer is of interest for Title I schools, which are schools where more than 40% of the students qualify for free and reduced dejeuner. Changes in students' learning during the summertime and Title I have an inconsistent relationship. Title I schools are designated every bit such when more than than forty% of the students qualify for complimentary and reduced lunch. Klibanoff, Haggert, RMC Inquiry Corp., and Arrangement Development Corp. (1981) identified gains in Title I students' reading scores as compared to the general population of students after the Title I students completed summertime teaching in reading and math.
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
In addition to external variables, scholars have also examined students' personal characteristics and their mediating bear on on changes in learning during the summertime. Personal characteristics include studies examining students' historic period and grade level, gender, ethnicity, and race. Reading for Kindergarten through 2nd course students is an action where the students are learning to read; even so, past third grade students oftentimes begin to read for learning (Chall & Jacobs, 2003; Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990). The foundational years of learning to read are pivotal to reading achievement. Alexander et al. (2007) noted that the greatest achievement loss for students occurs in their early instruction years and during the summers of elementary school causing long-term implications for academic success. Conversely, Cooper et al. (1996) identified minimal not-significant summer learning gains in the lower grades and in the upper grades (grade 3 and above), representing significant losses. When investigating summertime reading achievement based on form levels or age, the results vary. However, when examining students' reading achievement within the same grade by academic level, percentile, or quartile, limited data exists.
The personal feature of gender was considered in multiple studies related to summer reading accomplishment. Yet, in most cases, gender had no moderating effects on changes in students' learning (Allington et al., 2010; Arnold, Fleming, DeAnda, Castleman, & Wartman, 2009; Bowers & Schwarz, 2018; Cooper et al., 1996). Conversely, other studies nowadays differing results. Slates et al. (2012) indicated that gender was a factor in improved reading achievement over 4 summers amid students that are socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English was their second language. Both genders mean reading achievement scores improved but females reading comprehension was greater. Downey et al. (2004) determined that a male gender gap in reading is evident as early as kindergarten in that females started virtually ane and one-half months ahead of males. Further their investigation identified that females reading grew faster than males merely declined in rate as the students moved through kindergarten, the subsequent summer, and into kickoff form.
Another personal characteristic considered in summertime reading achievement is race and ethnicity. Scholars have examined ethnicity in relation to students' summer learning changes, and results vary. Heyns (1978) indicated there was a racial gap in reading abilities betwixt black and white students, attributing some of the discrepancy in reading ability to summer setbacks. In contrast, Cooper et al. (1996) plant limited consistency in the relationship between changes in students' learning during the summer and their gender, race, or cultural ethnicity. Quinn (2015) using the same data set, Early on Childhood Longitudinal Written report (ECLS) –K, as several previous summer gap studies (Benson & Borman, 2010; Downey et al., 2004), investigated the various models, methodologies, and assumptions regarding the summertime achievement gap. Quinn identified that the types of questions asked, and the models and methodologies called may yield varying statistical outcomes and noted that caution should be observed when interpreting results. Quinn's ain assay of the data concluded that Black and White students make statistically equivalent growth in reading during the summer months from kindergarten to commencement grade.
METRICS FOR MEASURING Summertime LEARNING LOSS
The metrics and assessments employed in studies examining changes in students' learning during the summer vary and often measure out simply 1 reading domain (e.thousand., oral fluency, spelling, comprehension, and grammer). Investigating one factor of students' reading changes (eastward.g., spelling or vocabulary) may lead to misinterpretation of the results and limited applied significance of the findings based on the multidimensional nature of reading (National Reading Panel, 2000). For case, Helf et al. (2008) used a curriculum-based measurement, DIBELS (Deno, 1985), to measure students' learning changes during the summer and "found that students did not regress over the summer; in fact, their performance improved in four dissimilar areas of early reading skills" (p. 427). Helf et al. suggested a possible reason for the incongruence betwixt their finding and other research (Cooper et al., 1996) is that most studies examining changes in reading during the summer appraise students' reading comprehension, which is dissimilar from measuring students' levels of word recognition, decoding, or fluency.
In examining alter in students' learning during the summertime in the areas of reading, a variety of assessment measures have been used, including: (a) silent reading (Elder, 1927), (b) spelling lists (Nelson, 1928), (c) achievement scores (Cooper et al., 1996; Entwisle, Alexander, & Olsen 1997; Heyns, 1987), (d) Metropolitan Achievement Examination (Arnold,1968), (e) California Achievement Examination (Parsley & Powell, 1962), (f) Iowa Exam of Basic Skills, (g) Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Sandberg-Patton & Reschly, 2013), (h) Lexile reading scores (Allington et al., 2010), and (i) curriculum-based measures (CBM; Allinder, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 1992; Helf et al., 2008). In addition, national data sets including the Beginning Schoolhouse Written report (Entwisle & Alexander, 1992, 1994) and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-K; Downey et al., 2004; Quinn, 2015) have adamant summer reading loss in research. Consequentially, enquiry investigating students' changes in reading during the summertime employ diverse cess instruments to measure reading constructs and accept limited sampling representation, mitigating inferences that may be made to interpret the results.
Standardized achievement examination scores (e.g., Iowa Exam of Basic Skills) as the metric for measuring changes in students' learning lack the precise information required to ascertain students' individual noesis (Marston, Deno, & Tindal, 1983). Rather, standardized achievement instruments provide relative information of progress based on a normed sample. These summative assessments are unrelated to specific curriculum taught and are not meant to exist taken repeatedly over a short period of fourth dimension (May – August). For these reasons, in the current study, a curriculum-based measure out, Istation'south Indicators of Progress: Advanced Reading (ISIP-AR; Mathes, 2014) was utilized to examine change in 4th course students' reading scores over the summertime break (May–Baronial). ISIP-AR is a estimator adaptive curriculum-based measurement (CA-CBM) used in the classroom by teachers for continuous progress monitoring and differentiating teaching. Other usages of ISIP-AR range from benchmarking students' reading progress for country assessments (Campbell et al., 2018; Patarapichayatham, 2018; Patarapichayatham, Fahle, & Roden, 2014) and as a screening instrument for pupil services (Hoelzle, 2012).
The Current Study
The purpose of the electric current study included: (a) examining a sample of quaternary class students' changes in reading scores from the stop of May (end of grade four) to August (offset of grade 5) during the summer months and (b) investigating the human relationship betwixt fourth class students' alter in reading scores by reading achievement level (quartiles), gender, and Title I condition. The research questions guiding this investigation were the following:
RQ1. What are the observed changes in fourth grade students' reading after the conclusion of summertime break (May–August)?
RQ2. What are the differences of fourth grade students' reading changes after summer pause (May–August) by quartile, gender, and Title I status?
Methods
Participants
Participants in this written report included elementary schoolhouse students from a state in the southeastern United States who had participated in a state appropriation for supplemental reading and had taken an assessment during the end of quaternary grade (Spring of 2016) and the first of fifth grade (Autumn of 2016; N = 31,634). Participants were included in this study if they had both jump (April and May) and autumn (August and September) ISIP-AR cess scores (due north = 5530) to a higher place a threshold score of thousand (typically the lowest score that can be earned on the assessment; n = 5513). Tabular array one presents the demographic data for the overall sample and differentiated by students' quartile level.
Table i Demographics of the overall sample and differentiated past students' quartile level
Measures
Reading measures in this report included the overall reading score (derived from the subscales reading comprehension, vocabulary, and spelling, score on the ISIP-AR figurer adaptive testing system for continuous progress monitoring) and the Reading Ability overall score was computed using Bayes expected A posteriori (EAP) after all subtests were completed and is based on the unabridged response set from 3 subtests. The test-retest reliability for Reading Ability overall score was 0.910 with these information, indicating strong test-retest reliability (Crocker & Algina, 2006).
All assessments within the investigation were ISIP-AR computerized adaptive tests (CAT) with item difficulty adjusting to educatee ability level through the adaptive item algorithm using item response theory (IRT; de Ayala, 2009). Marginal reliability (IRT analog to internal consistency reliability) is approximately 0.ninety (Mathes, 2012). The evolution of the ISIP-AR Cat began with a literature review to make up one's mind the theoretical approach to measuring each subtest in the ISIP-AR. Items for the item pool were constructed from considering theoretical perspectives, reviewing state reading standards, and by a predetermined framework. Evidence of item content validity was standardized under a two-parameter logistic particular response theory (2PL-IRT) model. Items that did not statistically fit were removed to correctly reflect the domain measured (Mathes, 2012). In improver, correlations between the ISIP-AR subscales and norm referenced measures, including the Test of Preschool Early Literacy (Lonigan, Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 2007, [TOPEL]), Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Four (Dunn & Dunn, 1999, [PPVT]), and the Early Literacy Skills Assessment (ELSA; DeBruin-Parecki, 2005) provided evidence of concurrent validity with data demonstrating large to very big benchmark validity..
Data Analyses
Data were analyzed to examine changes in participants' reading achievement scores. To examine differences within and between dissimilar groups, paired sample t-tests and Cohen'south d were calculated for each quartile and risk factor (i.e., gender, Championship I). To detect differences in the development of fourth grade students' reading accomplishment between the quartiles, repeated mensurate analysis of variance (ANOVA) were computed with the assessments (May–August) every bit within-subject variables and quartile as between-field of study factors. Histograms of the frequency distribution of the accomplishment scores for May and August were examined and they indicated normal distribution.
Academic Level by Quartiles
To determine students' bookish level, their May reading test score was classified past quartile to decide mean differences in achievement. Quartiles are often employed in statistics to better explore and explain information. The median represents the 2d quartile, meaning one-half of the data occurs below the median score and the other half occurs above the median. The commencement quartile is a data point that represent one-quarter of the information while the third quartile represents the data point that represent upward to 3-quarters of the information or 75%. In this report, initial quartiles were adamant using SPSS based on the students' May reading score.
Results
RQ1. What are the observed changes in fourth class students' reading afterward the decision of summer break (May–August)?
Achievement Development
On boilerplate, participants did not experience a summer learning loss as evidenced by positive May to August change scores from grade four to grade 5. In fact, students' reading achievement scores significantly increased from 1925.85 (SD = 189.34) in May (grade 4) to 1942.88 (SD = 172.91) in August (grade v), indicating an boilerplate increase of 17 points (t [5512] = −12.01, p < 0.001) over the summer.
Movement
Table 2 presents the stability/movement of students' achievement quartile from course iv to grade 5. As noted, summertime gap for this investigation was divers and measured equally those months in which the students did non complete an ISIP-AR (i.due east., the months afterwards their terminal jump assessment and before their start fall assessment). There was motility of students between quartiles from Baronial to May, suggesting that (a) some students increased their rank standing (i.e., percentile) from grade 4 to 5, (b) some students remained about the aforementioned, and (c) some students decreased in rank standing.
Tabular array ii May to August quartile movement (frequency and percent)
RQ2. What are the differences of fourth class students reading past quartile, past gender, and past Title I condition?
Achievement by Quartiles
Tabular array iii presents the results of the paired sample t-test between the assessments (May–August), differentiated by quartiles. Whereas students below the second quartile (or the 50th percentile) made gains in terms of points from the May to the August assessment, students above the 50th percentile evidenced a decrease in their cess scores. Students below the 25% quartile made the greatest amount of growth during the transition from fourth to 5th form with an increment of 78 points (d = 0.58) from May (grade four) to August (grade 5), followed by students between the 25% and 50% quartile (+ 17 points, d = 0.25). Over the summer, students in the top quartile lost, on boilerplate, 24 points from May to August (d = 0.25).
TABLE 3 Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) in the assessments May (grade 4) to August (grade 5), and dependent statistical values of t-test for paired samples (t, df, p) and Cohen's d (d)
A review of the evolution of students' reading achievement throughout the schoolhouse twelvemonth provides a more detailed film. Figure 1 presents the mean scores of the monthly assessments from the beginning of the participants' fourth grade school year until the end of their fifth grade. It becomes evident that students in the top quartile (as measured past their May accomplishment) made the greatest gains throughout the school year, followed past a refuse over summer (May–August). In contrast, the lesser quartile of students made comparatively slower gains in reading achievement during the academic year (class 4), followed past significant gains over summer.
An Investigation of the Summer Learning Upshot on Fourth Course Students' Reading Scores
Published online:
19 June 2019
Effigy 1 Reading scores over the form of grade 4 and 5 by Quartile (every bit adamant past students' May score).
![]({"type":"image","src":"/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/urpy20/2019/urpy20.v040.i05/02702711.2019.1629516/20190827/images/medium/urpy_a_1629516_f0001_c.jpg"})
Achievement by Gender
Table 4 presents the results of the paired sample t-exam between the May and August assessments, differentiated past gender. Male person students score lower than female students on both assessments. During the transition from fourth to fifth grade – every bit measured by students' end of fourth grade scores in May and their kickoff of fifth grade scores in August – boys fabricated greater gains than females with average gains of 20 points (d = 0.11).
Tabular array 4 Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) in the assessments May (grade 4) and August (grade 5) and dependent statistical values of t-test for paired samples (t, df, p) and Cohen'due south d (d) by gender and Title I Condition
Achievement Development past Title I Status
Students from not-Championship I schools score significantly higher on both assessments than students from Title I schools (see Tabular array 3). Nonetheless, during the transition from fourth to 5th grade – as measured by students' end of fourth grade scores in May and their beginning of fifth grade scores in August – Title I students fabricated considerably greater gains with an average increase of 19 points (d = 0.11), every bit compared to 7 points (d = 0.04) for students from not-Title I students. Despite students from Championship I schools evidencing the greatest growth over summer, they are not able to catch upwards with students from not-Title I schools. In fact, participants at Title I schools ISIP-AR reading score at the showtime of fifth grade were lower than the ISIP-AR scores for students at non-Title I schools at the finish of quaternary grade.
Quartile, Gender, and Championship I Status
Given that male students and students from Championship I schools score lower than their counterparts, it stands to reason that male person pupil and students from Title I schools are overrepresented in the bottom quartile (see Table 1). The bottom quartile is composed of almost 90% of Title I students (as compared to 66% in the upper quartile) and almost 60% male students (as compared to 47% in the upper quartile).
To explain the data further and examine whether there is an interaction between the students' reading evolution from the May to the August score and students based on their quartiles, mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed with the assessments (May–August) equally within-subject area variables and quartile as between-subject factors. There was a pregnant interaction issue between the assessments and the groups (F [4, 5509] = 280.365, p = 0.000, partial η 2 = 0.132), suggesting that the predictors explicate nigh 13.2% of the variance in overall reading summer change from May to August.
Word
Mitigating summer learning loss through summer reading remediation may assistance those students in the most need, students in the everyman quartiles, and those from low SES backgrounds (Mraz & Rasinski, 2007). Consequently, increasing attention has been devoted to the effects of summer vacation on the evolution of students' reading accomplishment (Schaffner & Schiefele, 2016). In extending previous research on the effects of summer holiday on reading achievement, the present investigation non simply included the overall trajectory of reading development over summertime but besides accounted for students' academic achievement level, their Title I status, and gender.
Changes in Reading Achievement Over Summer
The results of the present study demonstrated that when considering the achievement scores of the sample, accomplishment gains over summer were made equally measured past the ISIP-AR scores. These results contrast with some of the previous studies on the furnishings of summer vacation on students' reading achievement (Cooper et al., 1996; Mraz & Rasinski, 2007), but concur with others (Helf et al., 2008). Potential reasons for participants' increase in reading achievement may relate to access and opportunity. Students tend to practice reading over summer, given that reading activities take place in students' leisure time and thus during summer vacation (Schaffner & Schiefele, 2016). Likewise, the increased access to technology-based reading applications and books may contribute to improved reading (Cheung & Slavin, 2011; Taylor & Parsons, 2011).
Students in the lowest quartile made less gains throughout the bookish school year; nonetheless, they made greater gains over the summertime months, contrasting previous findings that have demonstrated that loftier achieving students learned more during the summer than their boilerplate achieving counterparts (Rambo-Hernandez & Mccoach, 2015). Ane potential explanation for the greater reading growth of those who initially scored in the lowest quartile is that summer school may be mandated (Matsudaira, 2008). Higher achieving students are less probable to attend mandatory summer school programs than depression-achieving students during summer vacation, and focused substantial accent on reading can support student progress (Bitter, O'Solar day, Gubbins, & Socias, 2009). In improver, Helf et al. (2008) agreed that summer reading gains were greater among students who scored lower than the students who scored higher at the end of the school year. Nevertheless, looking at the long-term development of students' reading achievement over both school years, it seems that students' in the lowest quartile benefited the most during the summertime which is in line with prior research indicating that at-take a chance students evidence higher gains than those not at-risk (Munro, 2017). In summary, it appears that all students – even those that evidenced loftier reading achievement scores at the cease of the school twelvemonth – continue to participate in reading activities during the summertime to sustain their reading skills.
Students from Title I schools non only evidenced reading achievement gains over summertime, just the gains were greater than the accomplishment evidenced by students from non-Title I schools. As indicated in contrast to previous research, many of the studies have pointed to pregnant reading losses during the summertime, for students from low SES (Downey et al., 2004; McCoach, O'Connell, Reis, & Levitt, 2006). Summer School programs are frequently funded through Title I program. Federal Title I funds provide additional instructional back up (like summer reading programs) for students who are at nearly risk of failing academic standards (e.g., low-income and low-achieving students) thereby, providing students' greater access to learning opportunities than their average to high achieving counterparts (https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/). Boosted access and support for students' reading development tin lead to improvements in their reading skills (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2003). Therefore, ane potential explanation for the results is that these students continue to read and participate in reading activities over the summer months and/or participate in summer reading programs (for case provided through Championship I funds). Kim and Quinn's (2013) meta-analysis results identified that summer reading interventions seem to be "particularly constructive for low-income children" (p. 418). Similarly, two study from McDaniel, McLeod, Carter, and Robinson (2017) and Bowers and Schwarz (2018) demonstrated that a summer plan could preclude summer reading loss among students from low income backgrounds.
Overall, a potential explanation for both the reading gains for depression-achieving students and Title I students is that over the summer, these students experience increased motivation. Schaffner and Schiefele (2016) found that intrinsic reading motivation earlier summer holiday is positively associated with changes in reading comprehension over summer vacation, highlighting the crucial importance of motivation for the development of reading accomplishment. Students might have become engaged and motivated, initiating frequent reading activities during summer, which in turn, promoted reading achievement. In addition, the modality for reading may contribute to motivation for reading. Digital books accessible through digital devices including smartphones and tablets frequently motivate students to read (Hess, 2014).
Lastly, the exploration of gender revealed interesting results. Male students scored lower on all assessments than female students, however, during the transition from fourth to fifth grade, they made greater gains than females with boilerplate gains of 20 points (d = 0.11). Moreover, male students from Title I schools fabricated the greatest gains from May to August. A potential explanation for these results is that these students started off with the lowest reading achievement scores by far and thus had the most room for improvement (Munro, 2017).
Limitations and Implications for Future Inquiry
The study'south limitations included insufficient data regarding contributing variables such as: (a) students' participation in summer schoolhouse programs, or other customs sponsored reading programs (library); (b) students admission to personal reading materials; or (c) students utilize of online or mobile devices for reading. Another limitation of the study was that only fourth course students were included in the investigation. While the results may be generalizable to other 4th grade students, information technology is unclear if the results would be similar for students in the formative years of learning to read, or those in heart and/or high school. Finally, the potential explanations noted in the discussion section are speculative and require further research.
In contrast to other studies (Klibanoff et al., 1981; Sandberg-Patton & Reschly, 2013; Slates et al., 2012), our findings identified that some students can make reading gains during the summertime. Nevertheless, since information regarding students' participation in formal, informal, and independent school-based or non-school-based reading programs and activities during the summer vacation (east.g., summertime enrichment activities; summertime school; customs and twenty-four hour period army camp programs; and the use of software applications, computers, and mobile devices) was unknown, whatsoever hypothesis would be conjecture. Evaluating students' involvement with reading during the summer may provide answers as to the efficacy of programs, activities, or personalized learning programs that could negate summertime learning loss. The study considers ane summertime's worth of data rather than examining several summers of information which would establish longitudinal patterns. Analyzing longitudinal data using a curriculum-based measure across several years may help to explain the extent learning loss may be recovered in subsequent schoolhouse semesters or years, and the extent to which the pattern of decline continues, or if the learning loss or gain is cumulative (Cooper et al., 1996; Heyns, 1978; Sandberg-Patton & Reschly, 2013).
Implications from this written report includes emphasizing the importance for students at all academic levels engaging in cultivating their reading skills during summer months, including engaging in informal reading activities. Programs such as summer school, school required summer reading, library and community-based reading programs and contests accept been establish to take varying effectiveness relative to negating summer reading loss (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2013; Allington et al., 2010; Kim & Guryan, 2010; Kim et al., 2012; Kim & White, 2008; Slates et al., 2012). Continued research is needed to examine formal (summer school, required reading list, and reading camps) and informal reading activities (estimator programs, pupil choice in reading, and reading competitions) to inform practice and policymakers. Based on our findings and previous research examining effectiveness of summertime reading programs, stakeholders (east.thou., educational policymakers, researchers, school administrators, educators, parents, and students) should consider being purposeful in seeking creative solutions (beyond what is typically done) to mitigate students' reading loss during the summertime (McDaniel et al., 2017). Access to reading resources (eastward.g., book, digital books, and digital applications or programs) need to exist accessible to students during the summer from community organizations, schools, and libraries (Allington et al., 2010; Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2003; Heyns, 1978; Kim, 2004; Phillips & Mentum, 2004). Inquiry regarding the use of these reading support devices, reckoner programs, and mobile applications for reading in the summer is minimal and needs further investigation.
Conclusions
In our knowledge-based economy, understanding simple school students' development in reading accomplishment over summer equally well as potential summertime learning loss provides critical data for educators and others to consider as they seek to close a national and international accomplishment gap. Findings from the electric current study extend what is known well-nigh the summer learning effect related to reading. In addition, the role of students' quartile level related to summertime reading learning loss/gains adds new data to the literature base.
Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02702711.2019.1629516
0 Response to "Academic Journal Articles on the Fourth Grade Reading Slump From 2010-2017"
Post a Comment