Research Procedures

This action research proposal aims to investigate the most effective reading strategies for

improving comprehension in upper elementary students. The purpose of this study is to examine

how targeted reading intervention strategies can improve reading comprehension for struggling

readers in grades 3–5 at "Pinecrest Elementary School" (a pseudonym). The study will use a

mixed-methods design, integrating both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Employing a

mixed methods approach within an action research framework allows for a comprehensive

understanding of both the quantitative outcomes and qualitative experiences associated with

various reading strategies. This dual approach facilitates a more nuanced analysis, capturing not

only measurable improvements in reading comprehension, but also the contextual factors

influencing these outcomes. Recent studies highlight that integrating quantitative assessments

and qualitative insights is particularly effective in educational research, offering a complete

picture of research problems (Harper, 2022; Brown, 2022).

Mixed methods research is especially well suited for addressing complex educational

problems where a single data source may be insufficient. According to Harper (2022),

integrating quantitative and qualitative data enhances the validity and applicability of findings by

triangulating evidence from multiple perspectives. Additionally, action research empowers

educators to systematically investigate and improve their practices, fostering a culture of

continuous professional growth (American College of Education, 2021).

Research Question

Reading comprehension is a critical skill for academic success, particularly in upper

elementary grades where students transition from learning to read to reading to learn. Despite its

importance, many students struggle with comprehension, necessitating effective instructional

comprehension among upper elementary students. The following research question will guide the

action research study:

What types of reading strategies are most effective for improving comprehension in upper

elementary students?

Methodology

A mixed methods approach will be employed to address the research question, combining

quantitative measures of reading comprehension (e.g., standardized assessments) with qualitative

insights into student experiences and perceptions (e.g., reading journals and teacher interviews).

This methodology allows for a comprehensive analysis, capturing both the efficacy of reading

strategies and the contextual factors influencing their success. Tashakkori, Johnson, and Teddlie

(2021) emphasize that mixed methods research is particularly effective in educational settings

where understanding both outcomes and processes is essential. Recent research by Brown (2022)

and Perez and Smith (2023) supports the use of student reading journals to provide insights into

metacognitive processes and the application of reading strategies. Additionally, Davis and

Roberts (2024) underscore the value of semi-structured teacher interviews to capture educators’

perceptions of strategy implementation. The action research design aligns with the study's goal of

improving educational practices within a specific context, as it engages educators in a cyclical

process of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting, which facilitates immediate and practical

improvements (American College of Education, 2021).

Population and Sample

The study will focus on upper elementary students (grades 4–5) at "Pinecrest Elementary

School," a public school serving a diverse student body. The target population includes students
demonstrating below-grade-level reading comprehension skills. A purposive sampling method

will be used to select a sample of 30 students who meet the inclusion criteria:

• Enrollment in grades 4 or 5

• Reading comprehension scores below the 50th percentile on standardized assessments

(Ostrowski, 2021)

• Parental consent to participate in the study

Students with identified cognitive impairments that significantly affect reading comprehension

will be excluded to maintain a focus on instructional strategies applicable to the general student

population.

Data Collection Plan

To comprehensively address the research question, “What types of reading strategies are

most effective for improving comprehension in upper elementary students?”, a mixed-methods

data collection plan will be implemented. This plan integrates both quantitative and qualitative

data sources to provide a holistic understanding of the intervention’s impact. The use of

standardized reading assessments, such as the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI), will

quantitatively measure changes in students’ reading comprehension levels before and after the

intervention, offering reliable Lexile scores as a standardized metric of reading proficiency

(Scholastic Inc., 2020; Ostrowski, 2021). Complementing the quantitative data, qualitative

insights will be gathered through student reading journals and teacher interviews. Student

reading journals, completed twice weekly, will document students’ reflections on their use of

reading strategies and their comprehension experiences, providing rich qualitative data on

metacognitive processes (Brown, 2022; Perez & Smith, 2023). Semi-structured teacher

interviews will be conducted at the end of the intervention period to capture teachers’
perceptions of strategy implementation, student engagement, and the overall effectiveness of the

intervention (Anderson, 2021; Davis & Roberts, 2024). This triangulation of data enhances the

validity and reliability of the findings, allowing for a nuanced analysis of both measurable

outcomes and participant experiences (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2023).

Standardized Reading Assessments

To evaluate students’ reading comprehension levels before and after the intervention, the

Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) will be utilized. The SRI uses a computer-adaptive format to

produce Lexile scores, offering a consistent and dependable way to gauge reading proficiency

(Scholastic Inc., 2020). The assessment will be administered in a computer lab setting under

standardized conditions to ensure consistency. The pre-test will take place one week before the

reading strategies are implemented, and the post-test will be administered one week after the

intervention concludes. Data will be organized by recording students’ Lexile scores from both

pre- and post-tests. Analytical techniques, including the use of paired t-tests, will be performed

to determine the significance of any observed differences, providing empirical evidence of the

intervention’s effectiveness (Mertler, 2019). This approach is supported by contemporary

research on standardized reading assessments, including recent studies that emphasize the role of

Lexile measures in tracking reading growth (Ostrowski, 2021).

Student Reading Journals

To capture students’ metacognitive processes and personal reflections on their reading

development, student reading journals will be implemented throughout the intervention period.

Each student will document their use of specific reading strategies and reflect on their

comprehension experiences, aligning with Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of cognitive development.

Teachers will provide prompts that correspond to the reading strategies being taught, and
students will complete journal entries twice a week during designated reading periods. These

entries will encourage students to express their thought processes, challenges, and successes in

applying various strategies. At the end of the intervention, journal entries will be collected and

analyzed thematically to identify patterns in strategy use and perceptions of effectiveness.

Coding procedures recommended by Saldaña (2016) will be employed to categorize responses

and facilitate the identification of common themes across the student population. Recent

literature highlights the value of metacognitive journaling in supporting reading comprehension

(Brown, 2022; Perez & Smith, 2023).

Teacher Interviews

To gather qualitative insights into the implementation and effectiveness of reading

strategies, a semi-structured interview format will be utilized with participating teachers. This

method allows for an in-depth exploration of teachers’ perspectives while maintaining

consistency across interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews will be scheduled at the end

of the intervention period and are expected to last approximately 30 minutes. They will be

documented through audio recordings, which will be transcribed for analysis. Interview

questions will focus on teachers’ observations of student engagement, their perceptions of the

effectiveness of the strategies, and any adaptations they made during the intervention.

Transcripts will be coded and analyzed to identify themes related to implementation processes,

observed student outcomes, and overall teacher perceptions of strategy effectiveness. This

analysis will contribute context that enriches the quantitative results and helps interpret the

practical application of reading strategies in the classroom (Patton, 2015). Recent studies

emphasize the importance of teacher perspectives in shaping effective reading interventions and
highlight the role of interviews in capturing these insights (Anderson, 2021; Davis & Roberts,

2024).

References

Anderson, J. (2021). Teacher perspectives on literacy interventions: Implications for practice.

Journal of Literacy Research, 53(2), 105-122.

Brown, T. (2022). Metacognitive journaling and reading comprehension: A mixed methods

study. Reading Psychology, 43(4), 305-322.

Davis, M., & Roberts, S. (2024). Integrating qualitative interviews in literacy research: Best

practices and applications. Literacy Research and Instruction, 63(1), 22-38.

Ostrowski, P. (2021). The role of Lexile measures in monitoring reading growth in diverse

student populations. Journal of Educational Measurement, 58(3), 289-305.

Perez, L., & Smith, R. (2023). Reflective reading journals as tools for comprehension strategy

instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 67(2), 120-134.