Reading Plus: A Multi-Faceted Online Tool for Improving Reading Jake McCollum, M.Ed.

Reading Plus This article seeks to summarize Reading Plus, provide a description of its potential benefits for students and teachers, and discuss potential obstacles to implementing it in a school. Developing middle and high school readers are not receiving the effective reading instruction they need to reach our nations literacy goals (Slater and Horstman, 2002). Educators struggle due to inadequate time or quality resources to accurately collect, disseminate and use data to drive instruction and meet the individual needs of learners. Reading Plus is an online sustained silent reading program designed to develop individual readers and provide instructors with instant, reliable, and usable data. Although there are some potential drawbacks to work through, Reading Plus provides the support, leveled content, and management tools to improve reading skills of virtually any student. Using Data Effectively How often have you been prompted to triangulate your data or use data to drive your instruction? Usually, teachers are given stacks of data at the beginning of the year and are expected to disseminate, categorize, and effectively structure lessons and content around those scores. Colorados standardized test, the Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP), allows cleared users to digitally view an overall proficiency score in a given subject area and break that score down into proficiency scores for individual standards, including reading comprehension, thinking skills, use of literary information, and literature. A data analyzer program also shows sub-content proficiency scores, comprising fiction, non-fiction, vocabulary,

and poetry. This is where its stops. TCAP is based on state standards, but one cant get any more detailed information on a student than knowing they scored unsatisfactory in literature. Technically, I dont even know what that means. Unfortunately, TCAP also falls prey to issues plaguing similar state assessments in that these kinds of high-stakes tests seldom offer recommendations for or guide instructional improvement. Assessments exist to aid educators in diagnosing, analyzing and solving problems, not just as summative evaluation tools (Bedwell, 2004). The timing of the release of standardized testing results alone makes this endeavor extremely difficult, if not impossible. According to Stiggins (1999), we need to "ensure that every teacher is gathering dependable information about student learning day-to-day and week-to-week and knows how to use it to benefit students" (p. 193). TCAP fails to meet this standard. Consequently, my middle school implements Northwest Evaluation Associations (NWEA) MAP testing. With these scores, I get a second data point that consists of a RIT score, which is often another arbitrary proficiency number to most professionals. However, NWEA provides a bit more flexibility and help than TCAP with a data mining tool called DesCartes. Using DesCartes, teachers can translate student scores so they know when to move a student or students beyond the conventional curriculum at a particular grade level and when to develop skills that may have been presented in earlier grades (Northwest Evaluation Association, 2012, p. 4). There are more than 134 pages of teacher help. We just have to sift through a digitally provided roster of students and categorize their scores and read through NWEAs resources and vet the resources specific to each of our students and plan assessments and the necessary lessons required to succeed on those assessments. This is better than TCAPs data analyzer, but still

requires a lot of time and labor on the part of the teacher both of which are already lacking. And still, we only have two data points. At this point, with 10 years of experience as an educator, I feel fairly confident that I now have enough data from TCAP and NWEA to place a student in an appropriate class a normal reading class, a remediation class, or an advanced class. However, I probably could have had a 99 percent success rate using purely anecdotal evidence. So where does that leave me with my data and my instruction? With a desk piled with papers and a frustration level that probably will keep me from ever using the data efficiently or effectively. An intervention is due. Program Overview Reading Plus can make a meaningful difference. Reading Plus is an online reading program that develops and supports fluency and comprehension by incorporating physical and cognitive reading instruction, practice, and assessment. It constantly adjusts to the readers ability to deliver properly leveled reading content, vocabulary, remediation, and assessment. Students also keep track of their progress, reflect, and analyze reading issues with instructors, and receive motivation through meeting goals, analyzing improvement graphs, and receiving awards. The routine and instant feedback teachers receive immediately impacts instruction, enabling instructors to scaffold and individualize independent and group practice, and to give differentiated follow-up assessments. The routine and instant feedback students receive results in personal accountability and meaningful reflection. Reading Plus essentially involves three main parts. A portion is dedicated to training the eyes proper physical mechanics. Students take part in activities that help building peripheral vision and visual memory. For centuries, teachers have implemented, learned, and adapted to

new pedagogies and methodologies to help develop readers cognitive abilities and tools. Today, the technology exists to measure and train the physical aspect as well. The program then alternates between guided reading and independent reading. In guided reading, a scrolling bar moves across a section of text at a particular rate (dependent on a pretested baseline rate). It coaches the eyes to move in a left to right direction instead of patternless, scattered eye movements, a common deficiency in developing readers. Often, poor left to right tracking and the inability to stay on a line serve as reading road blocks, frustrating and keeping readers from progressing (Orfield, Basa, & Yun, 2001). Reading Plus continuously measures the readers level of comprehension and uses that data to dictate whether scrolling rates speed up or are slowed. As the program tracks the guided rates, it periodically assesses and records independent reading rates too. Once a comfort level is found, the program pushes the reader more and more, increasing their reading rate. This physiological growth aids in improving fluency. Fluency is a critical building block not to be neglected. Gorsuch and Taguchi (2010) argue that Because their decoding of text is done effortlessly and efficiently, fluent readers can read connected text silently or orally with speed and good comprehension (p. 29). Typically, there is a very clear positive correlation between their independent and guided reading achievement. Presented with their reading progress in the form of a graph, students can quickly distinguish between the two rates and evaluate their improvement. The student-centered nature of this technology makes it extremely meaningful to the learner. This in turn, allows a diverse group of students accessibility and the feeling of documentable accomplishment. Comprehension comprises the other half of a students data set. Not only do students know their overall comprehension, they can view their comprehension scores for the last seven

days, by level, or by date. As comprehension slips or grows, the instructor and student can collaborate to alter levels or speed if needed. The questions asked during the guided and independent reading section are strategically designed to evaluate 26 different reading skills, allowing very specific data surrounding those skills. Finally, Reading Plus users complete vocabulary sessions, also leveled to their current ability. Curtis (2008) explains that Because the field of vocabulary research evidenced the strong relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension, the National Reading Panel (2000) recommended the inclusion of direct vocabulary instruction as a necessary component in a comprehensive reading program (p. iv). Reading Plus students use context clues or are pre-assessed a list of level-specific words. If words are missed, the reader is given the definition, reads the words in context, and then assessed again, repeating the cycle until the word is understood. As levels are passed, harder words are given up to a college level. Stygles (2012) and other research suggest students benefit from vocabulary instruction at any level. According to Min (2008), Reading Plus's vocabulary activities resulted in greater success (in terms of acquisition and continued use of new words) and proved to be more efficient than other explicit vocabulary instructional methods. In addition, the accessibility of this program is exciting. Not only can students access the program at school, but at home as well. This means parents can participate and even use the program along with their student. Overview for Teachers Teachers with permission are able to control the speeds, levels and access of each student registered in their class. Most teachers print out the certificates of advancement and hang them

up, publicly showing off students improvements. Additionally, instructors are given access to all of the data the students have access to, plus significantly more detailed reports. So how does this result in making data-driven instruction easier and more effective? The answer lies in the teachers tools. Reading Plus gives an instructor the ability to isolate small groups of students who are struggling with specific reading skills. The program groups students for the teachers. Unlike the generic range NWEA provides or an almost unusable proficiency rating from TCAP, Reading Plus data gives immediate feedback on unambiguous, defined skills students need to work on. It not only automatically divides students in to groups based on skill, but it also includes each students overall level at the time the report is pulled. Differentiated instruction, varying modes of delivery, and differentiated assessments are important, especially in schools with English learners (Bathina and DeVoogd, 2011). Reading Plus delivers data that can now directly guide reading instruction customized to each learner. Teachers have an option at this point. They can turn to resources they are familiar with to provide remediation, instruction, and assessments around the selected skills, or they can use Reading Plus, which provides instructional tutorials and practice, specific to each students identified skill need and level. Therefore, in a small group working on how to determine the main idea of a text, there can be a student reading at a 9th grade level working next to a student reading at a 6th grade level, each having different tutorials and practice, both focusing on main idea. A teacher can have multiple groups working on various reading skills with each student using differentiated materials all at the click of a mouse. Potential Drawbacks

While Reading Plus is easily accessed by students and teachers (any Internet connection), differentiates, and hits on several important facets of reading development, there are some potential drawbacks. Perhaps the greatest one is usually the culprit in any system, time. Reading Plus suggests (through their research) students in elementary grades complete three 30minute sessions a week while secondary students should finish three 45-minute sessions. Anecdotally, 45 minutes is a really long time to for a 12-year-old to read on a computer screen. Yes, most teenagers can stare at a video game screen for longer than that, but while reading a relatively uninteresting nonfiction text, adolescent minds tend to stray. I have found that middle schoolaged students can tolerate 30-minute sessions. With block scheduling and other issues, squeezing that many sessions into one week may be difficult. Some grade-level teams share the responsibility by having students complete sessions in different content classes. However, this requires non-language arts class to sacrifice a class period to help out. Although Reading Plus trainers discourage it, some English teachers provide time for two sessions a week and assign the third or more as homework. Additionally, some of the 26 reading skills seem a little repetitive. For example, there is not a real distinguishable difference between making inferences and drawing conclusions. There are also too few questions in some skill areas to have enough data to use effectively. Some skills like making inferences are questioned more than 80 times by the time 50 sessions have been completed, while identifying the speaker may only be assessed 11 times. Even if enough data is gathered, some of the instructional materials are a bit ambiguous and may not fit the exact need of a student. Each remediation tutorial and practice needs to be carefully vetted by a teacher.

As with any program, finances are a concern, but Reading Plus works with schools to ensure viability. Furthermore, as with virtually any extended activity, student motivation is a determinant of success. Successful Reading Plus programs regularly publicize the achievements of their students and build in extrinsic motivational tools to keep kids interested all year. However, often, students are motivated by tracking their progress. Also, Reading Plus starts every student out at a level or two behind their actual reading level to help them experience quick success. ASCD, formerly the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, argues that differentiating instruction has the potential to transform classrooms and can provide motivation to students where none has existed before (Hellman, 2007). Students receiving content at their level are less likely to experience the desire to give up. By utilizing Reading Plus data, teachers can alter their methods and tools specific to the individual learning style, achievement level, interests, and cognitive ability of each student, resulting in a much more effective process. Additionally, Reading Plus doesnt not work for emerging readers still in the phonemic awareness stage or suggested for students with learning disabilities. While Reading Plus does not serve these populations, the program is particularly effective for closing the achievement gap for developing readers. The superintendent of a school district in Tucson, Arizona, credits Reading Plus for helping change the pattern of 80 percent of ninth graders entering high school below their grade level in reading (Rivera, 2010, p. 38). This speaks to the ability of Reading Plus to meet the needs of diverse learners in a meaningfully student-centered Web 2.0 format. Although there are a few issues, with some thought and creativity, educators can find ways to ensure success with Reading Plus. Additional independent research needs to be conducted to further interpret and assess the effectiveness of Reading Plus; however, in a time

when , regardless of the subject being tested, all standardized tests rule on fundamental reading comprehension, a researched-based technological intervention with statistical evidence supporting student achievement could open doors for educators seeking innovative methods to help their students. Conclusion The need for efficient silent reading habits for success in the digital-global age is unarguable (Hiebert, Samuels and Rasinski, 2012, p. 122). To achieve a balanced literacy program, researchers suggest that teachers should (a) emphasize reading, writing, and literature by providing long, uninterrupted periods of successful reading every day; [and] (b) create a positive, reinforcing, cooperative environment in the classroom (Frey, Lee, Tollefson, Pass and Massengill, 2005, p. 273). When properly implemented, Reading Plus satisfies these requirements. By focusing on the physical building blocks of reading, comprehension, fluency and vocabulary development in an environment that reinforces reading endurance, Reading Plus successfully provides instantaneous feedback that allows teachers to provide authentically databased and differentiated instruction and assessment.

References Bathina, J., & DeVoogd, G. L. (2011). Samanjasya staff development: Adaptive praxis through building on teacher context and knowledge. International Education, 41(1), 42-58, 99. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/911991607?accountid=31683 Bedwell, L. E. (2004). Data-driven instruction. Phi Delta Kappa Fastbacks, (516), 3-33. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/203657060?accountid=31683 Curtis, C. Y. (2008). Socially mediated vs. contextually driven vocabulary strategies: Which are most effective? Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (AAT 3325657) Frey, B. B., Lee, S. W., Tollefson, N., Pass, L., & Massengill, D. (2005). Balanced literacy in an urban school district. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(5), 272-280, 320. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/204195458?accountid=31683 Gorsuch, G., & Taguchi, E. (2010). Developing reading fluency and comprehension using repeated reading: Evidence from longitudinal student reports. Language Teaching Research, 14(1), 27-59. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168809346494 Hiebert, E. H., Samuels, S. J., & Rasinski, T. (2012). Comprehension-based silent reading rates: What do we know? What do we need to know? Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(2), 110-124. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1283764890? accountid=31683 Hellman, D. W. (2007). Implementing differentiated instruction in urban, title I schools: Effects of facilitated support groups and program fidelity on student achievement. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (AAT 3306865)

Min, Hui-Tzu. (2008). EFL Vocabulary Acquisition and Retention: Reading plus Vocabulary Enhancement Activities and Narrow Reading [Abstract]. Language Learning, 58(1) , 73115. Northwest Evaluation Association. (2012). DesCartes: A continuum of learning. Retrieved from https://reports.nwea.org/help/Essentials.pdf Orfield, A. (2008). EYES for LEARNING. Principal Leadership, 9(1), 42-46. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/234997717?accountid=31683 Rivera, M. (2010, Oct 18). Education reform a major focus at LULAC's 81st national convention. The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 21, 38-39. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/759660197?accountid=31683 Slater, W. H., & Horstman, F. R. (2002). Teaching reading and writing to struggling middle school and high school students: The case for reciprocal teaching. Preventing School Failure, 46(4), 163-166. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/228498307? accountid=31683 Stiggins, R. J. (1999). Assessment, student confidence, and school success. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 191-198. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218508466? accountid=31683 Stygles, J. (2012). The role of vocabulary awareness in comprehension at the intermediate level. New England Reading Association Journal, 47(2), 43-50, 81. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/940889711?accountid=31683