Action Research Project Design

The purpose of this action research project design is to compare the efficacy of two current research-based approaches related to the assessment of reading comprehension. Sarroub and Pearson (1998) have commented that the assessment of reading comprehension has witnessed numerous developments over the course of time as advances in reading theory were made. Generally, many reading programs are assessed via criterion-referenced assessments developed for basal programs and as Holyer (1998) has pointed out, many of these tests were viewed as biased against specific student populations for whom the contents of basal readers or curriculum may have been appropriate. An alternative method of assessing reading comprehension is "retelling," described by Sarroub and Pearson (1998) as a system for evaluating the depth and breadth of students' text understandings based on their attempts to retell or recall what they had read. These two methods will be compared in a sixth-eighth grade middle school setting.

A comparison of a formal method of reading comprehension assessment (i.e., criterion-referenced assessments) to an informal method ("retelling") has the capacity to provide insight for middle school teachers as to how more effective assessment strategies can be developed. This is particularly significant in light of the fact that many classrooms contain heterogeneous and multicultural student popu

. . .
further anticipated that students from minority groups will score higher on retelling assessments than on criterion-referenced assessments, indicating that the former assessment methodology may be appropriate for students who are economically or otherwise disadvantaged or from nonmainstream ethnic groups. Evaluation Evaluation of the efficacy of both assessment procedures will consist of a comparison of students' personal responses to the assessment procedure. It will also consist of teachers' analysis of their perceptions of methodology efficacy. A post-study retest to determine long-term recall will also be employed as an additional way to assess student achievement and retention of materials covered in the experiment. At issue is not the viability of basal reading programs, but the degree to which two different assessment methodologies capture achievement. References Harding, A. and Hall, K. (1999). Bogus grades - or on the level. Times Educational Supplement, March 5, A26-A27. Holyer, R. (1998). The road not taken. Change, 30(5), 40-44. Sarroub, L. and Pearson, P.D. (1998). Two steps forward, three steps back: The stormy history of reading comprehension assessment. The Cl
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Education DARE, Harding Hall, Sarroub Pearson, Finally Watkins, Expected Outcomes, Models Parent, Evaluation Evaluation, Scale PHSES, Statement Purpose, Pearson PD, reading comprehension, parent involvement, parental involvement, watkins 1997, practice skill, practice skill sheets, involvement model, criterion-referenced assessments, sarroub pearson, classroom activities, skill sheets, sarroub pearson 1998, basal reading program, assessed via criterion-referenced, harding hall 1999,
Approximate Word count = 1512
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Action Research Project Design