Abstract of Action Research

Name

Institution

Abstract 1

Purpose

The purpose of the study conducted by Bright (2017) was to determine whether research-based strategies are effective in improving reading in reluctant elementary students. The aim was to measure the effectiveness of reading strategies that have been found to improve self-efficacy and self-confidence.

Methodology

The researcher conducted the study on one first-grade male student who was reluctant to read despite significant support from both the teachers and the parents. A mixed-methods approach was used during the research, involving both the qualitative and quantitative methods. The research started with preassessment of the attitude of the student toward reading, as well as an assessment of his mother’s knowledge of his reading problems. In the second step, the student was introduced to the picture book, Readers Theater and Imagine, Elaborate, Predict, and Confirm reading strategies (Bright, 2017). The policies were introduced one at a time. The last step involved the post-assessment of both the student and the moth. The Likert-type scale was used to rate the feelings of the student and the mother toward his ability to read, in the pre- and post-assessments.

Findings

The results derived from the study showed a slight improvement in the student’s self-efficacy and perception of ability to read after introduction to the interactive, choice-based reading methods (Bright, 2017). In the perception of the mother toward the student’s reading ability improved.

Implications

The results derived from the study demonstrates that self-efficacious strategies can help improve the motivation of the reluctant and struggling readers to improve their reading abilities. The results of the study support the use of such strategies in supporting a significant proportion of elementary school children in the US and other nations that experience struggles in reading.

Abstract 2

Purpose

The study conducted by Meier (2015) was meant to determine how the reading identities of elementary school students can change over time when they are allowed to be making choices for the books they read. One of the study outcomes was to determine whether students like making choices for the books they read or reading the books selected by the teacher. Another key finding is how the students perceive themselves concerning reading.

Method

The researcher conducted a study on 5^th-grade students in a school located in central Illinois. The sample used comprised of 19 students with different ethnic backgrounds, including the Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics. The researcher adopted qualitative methods in the study. The students were asked to read books of their choices for 15 to 20 minutes within the time allocated for each class (Meier, 2015). They were asked to keep track of the books every day. The reading exercise took place over a period of six weeks. The researcher gathered information from the students every Thursday during the study period using survey questionnaires about their reading motivations, attitudes, opinions, and choice of texts.

Findings

The ultimate results showed that the students’ reading identities change over the study period. Most students who had initially indicated that they did not like reading eventually expressed increased interest (Meier, 2015). The students that changed the reading identity stated that they preferred reading the books of their choices rather than those selected by the teachers.

Implications

The study results indicate that allowing students to make choices for the books to read, beyond those meant for the curriculum can increase their interest in reading (Meier, 2015). As such, the results suggest the need for the teachers to surrounding the students with additional texts of their choices to read frequently.

Article Reference

Bright, A. C. (2017). Improving Reading with Targeted Strategies for a Reluctant Elementary

Reader. The Journal of Teacher Action Research, 3(3), pp. 40-58.

Meier, L. (2015). Choice and the Reader’s Identity. Journal of Teacher Action Research, 2(1),

pp. 21-29