Analysis of lst Semester of Classtalk
use at McIntosh Elementary School
by Fred Hartline, bE Inc.
Overview:
- Classtalk was used in a multi-strategy effort
to boost reading performance of 5th graders prior to the administration
of a state-mandated" Literacy-passport" test of reading
comprehension.
- The strategy succeeded far beyond expectations.
The school was expecting 56% of the students to "pass"
(i.e. test "at or above grade level'). They got 90%.
- The school has been a bit besieged with visitors
trying to figure out how they did it.
Quick profile of McIntosh
- Located about 5 miles from bE's offices;
- Part of the Newport News public school system;.
K-5th grades;
- Greater than 70% minority;
- 79% of the students are "At risk"...which
means -single-parent family, under poverty line, free meals;
"At-risk" kids are street-smart, but
tend to have great difficulty in school;
- Class size: 25-28 students (5th grade), 20
students (4th grade), 18 students (lst-3rd). McIntosh is a good
model of an urban elementary school.
Special reasons for working with McIntosh,
- Exceptional atmosphere for kids-- my judgment
is that McIntosh tries harder and succeeds better at creating
a special environment for learning than other schools I've visited.
They're Blue Ribbon finalists--we'll see if they make it all
the way this Spring;
- I have a 5-year working relationship with
administration, teachers & students.
- This is an honest, open relationship w/ lots
of trust, rapport, and good communication;
Characteristics of the State "Literacy
Passport" assessment
- Test is administered: mid-March '96, mid-May
'97;
- Nationally normed test.
- State Law requires:
- -students must "pass" at 6th grade
level or better to graduate from high school;
- -all students are tested in 4th and 6th grades;
- Newport News school district requires testing
at 3rd and 5th grad s, Test includes Math, Reading, and Writing
components...Reading test is called the "DRP" --
Degrees of reading Power;
DRP consists of--
- 7 short selections on novel subjects are
to be read & analyzed in N-hours
- Each selection contains 7- fill-in-the-blank
sentences. The student is to chose which
one of 5 words best completes each sentence.
DRP Test Score Norms (for 5th grade Mar '96)
| Precentile |
Year relative to grade level |
| 88% |
3-years above |
| 77% |
2-years above |
| 65% |
1-year above |
| 50% |
At-grade-level |
| 41% |
1-year behind |
| 33% |
2-years behind |
Classtalk at McIntosh-- Spring '96
- Teacher: Mrs. Carol Wiatt (used Classtalk
in her own AND other 5th grade sections)
- Subject: Reading proficiency (also teaches
Language arts / Social Studies / Technology)
- Grade: 5th
Classtalk intervention Details
- The goal is to help students successfully
complete the DRP test w/ score of 50 or above;
- This is "teaching to the test"--the
students NEED test-taking skills AND reading skills;
- The test environment (especially time-on-task)
is difficult for many 5th graders (esp. "at risk");
- The test is a reasonable assessment
of reading comprehension;
- The intervention strategy relies heavily
on Socratic methods of teaching & learning.
In-class Learning Strategies using Classtalk--
- Students complete CLOZE worksheet (a DRP-like
reading assignment);
- On completion, the class reviews answers
and analyzes "why" some choices are better.
- -Students exchange papers for peer-grading;
- -Students send in their own answers using
Classtalk;
- -Class looks at answer histogram;
- -Teacher asks "what's the best choice
and WHY?" Students explain.
- Students keep individual charts of their
performance over the semester;
- Students receive a "reward" (candy)
if they've missed one or fewer answers;
- Teacher assigns more worksheets per session
as the semester progresses to simulate the DRP test environment;
Students learn--
- To determine what reading style works best
for each of them;
- To concentrate on reading of factual material
and to work for extended periods;
- To understand how the sentence they are
analyzing relates to the paragraph;
- To analyze which word best completes the
sentence, relating it to the paragraph.
Highlights of the Data--
- Enormous improvements were seen in reading
performance for students in instructional groups where Classtalk
was used as part of the reading-skills development program;
- 84 of 91(92%) of 5th grade students "Passed"
the DRP--the school had projected 60% would pass);
- Students in groups 1 & 2 (using Classtalk)
advanced their reading skills more than those in Group 1: 52
of 60 (87%) advanced 2 or more years w/ Classtalk, compared to
8 of 15 (53%) w/out Classtalk;

| |
2 day CT |
1 day CT |
no CT |
| Growth |
Group 1 |
Group 2 |
Group 3 |
| -1 yr |
1 |
1 |
|
| none |
1 |
|
|
| 1 yr |
5 |
|
7 |
| 2 yr |
12 |
4 |
5 |
| 3 yr |
11 |
5 |
3 |
| 4 yr |
10 |
3 |
|
| 5 yr |
4 |
3 |
|
Caveats
- this is NOT a true "experiment"--groups
were selected to maximize educational gains for the neediest
students. It would be unethical (and immoral)
to deny a promising treatment for diagnosed reading problems for kids with this high a level of educational "risk";
- Classtalk was one component of the
school's effort to boost the reading scores of their "at
risk" 5th grade students. Other intervention strategies
and the skill of the teacher undoubtedly contributed substantially
to the achieved gains. The Non-Classtalk group was not taught
by Mrs Wiatt.
DRP Outcomes for three groups of
5th graders
- Group I had
Classtalk two or more days per week over the Spring semester;
This group (2 classes) was not separated based on 4th grade performance;
-
- Group 2 had
Classtalk one day per week over the Spring semester
- This group was pulled for special treatment
due to poor prognosis for DRP testing;
-
- Group 3 had
NO Classtalk
- This group was prejudged to have adequate
prognosis for successful DRP testing;
Before Intervention (based on 4th grade DRPS)
| |
Group 1 |
Group 2 |
Group 3 |
| Selection |
No special criteria |
Poor prognosis |
Good prognosis |
| Group size |
44 |
16 |
15 |
|
Below
grade level
|
20
(45%)
|
15
(94%)
|
0
(0%)
|
|
On-or-above
grade level
|
12
(55%)
|
1
(6%)
|
15
(100%)
|
|
2-or-more yrs
above grade
|
7
(16%)
|
1
(6%)
|
7
(47%)
|
After Intervention (based on 5th grade DRPs)
| |
Group 1 |
Group 2 |
Group 3 |
| Selection |
No special criteria |
Poor prognosis |
Good prognosis |
| CT use |
2 or more days/wk |
1 day/wk |
NO Classtalk |
| Group size |
44 |
16 |
15 |
|
Below
grade level
|
4*
(9%)
|
3*
(81%)
|
0
(0%)
|
|
On-or-above
grade level
|
40
(91%)
|
13
(81%)
|
15
(100%)
|
|
2-or-more yrs
above grade
|
27
(61%)
|
7
(44%)
|
11
(73%)
|
|
No growth
or regressed
|
2
(5%)
|
1
(6%)
|
0
(0%)
|
|
"Grew"
1 year
|
5
(11%)
|
0
(0%)
|
7
(47%)
|
|
"Grew"
2-3 years
|
23
(52%)
|
9
(56%)
|
11
(73%)
|
|
"Grew"
4-5 years
|
14
(32%)
|
6
(38%)
|
0
(0%)
|
* just barely did not "Pass" DRP--but
"grew" 2 years in reading ability
The 5th grade included an additional 16 students
who were excluded from the above analysis because the school
did not receive 4th grade DRP scores for them:
| Selection: |
No special criteria |
Poor prognosis |
Good prognosis |
| CT use |
2 or more days/wk |
1 day/wk |
NO Classtalk |
| Subgroup size |
4 |
8 |
4 |
| Finished below grade |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Finished on or above grade |
4 |
8 |
4 |
| 2-or-more yrs above |
2 |
3 |
4 |
Publications List
|