Education of the respublic of uzbekistan ferghana state university

INPUT
Teaching Literary Work

C. Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework underlying in this research will give below:

PROCESS
Use Literary Work (Film) in Learning Reading Process



OUTPUT
Improving Students Literal Reading Comprehension

Figure 1.1 Conceptual Framework

In the diagram above input, process and output classified briefly in the following. Input is explanation about teaching literary work, in this case teaching narrative text and film while process refers to the students’ activity in teaching and learning process by literary work. Output it refers to the students reading comprehension as their result in learning English Reading by literary work.
Hypothesis
The hypothesis of this research is formulated as follows:
1. (H0): There is no significant students’ reading comprehension through literary work.
2. (H1): There is significant students’ reading comprehension through literary work.
It should be clear from the preceding discussion that, although we have several validated approaches to teaching children to comprehend, important theoretical underpinnings are missing, or are assumed but not validated. First is the issue of what processes arc affected by comprehension strategy and responsive engagement-oriented instruction. Although strategy instruction purports to teach both specific strategies and work with children in orchestrating these strategies, it is not clear that children actually use the strategies as a result of the instruction. Rosenshine and Meister (1994)⁸ Rosenshinc, Meister, & Chapman, 1996)⁹, Rinehart et al. (1986), and Taylor and Frye ( 1992)¹⁰ all found that strategy instruction did not necessarily produce children who used the strategies that were taught but instead encouraged children to process text more deeply. If so, then a program that encourages children to become highly engaged with text, such as through higher-level questions, might have the same effect as one emphasizing the use of strategies. As noted earlier, responsive engagement-oriented instruction has been found to improve students' comprehension. It is therefore important to contrast strategy instruction with instruction that stresses responsive engagement with the text in order to compare the relative advantage of each type of instruction. Both types of instruction should be contrasted with a control using conventional comprehension instruction. It is also important to investigate both the end products of comprehension and the processes used during comprehension to examine whether children are actually using the strategies taught as a result of instruction. Finally, because we suspect that these two approaches will have differential effects on different aspects of comprehension, in the final analysis it is important to also synthesize the two approaches and assess how a combined approach works in contrast to a control condition.
We are examining the following questions:
• Can we develop approaches to comprehension instruction that are sustainable over a full year, or over 2 years, and that can be implemented easily by teachers? Previous research was largely short term or implemented by researchers. Given the difficulty of implementing both strategy instruction and responsive engagement instruction, it is important to develop routines that can be easily carried out by teachers and widely used.
• What are the relative effects of strategy-oriented and responsive engagement-oriented comprehension instruction on a variety of measures, including both measures of text-specific comprehension and transfer to more general comprehension abilities?
• Do strategy-oriented and responsive engagement-oriented instruction transfer from comprehension in English to comprehension of other languages or vice versa?
• What are the effects of different types of instruction on children at different developmental stages (second and fourth graders)? Do children need to be fully fluent to take advantage of comprehension instruction?
The first question is designed to examine whether we can develop a practical approach to comprehension instruction, one that teachers can widely implement and use all year without extensive support. As noted earlier, even exemplary teachers do little strategy instruction but do engage their children in higher-level text comprehension. We want to develop routines for both strategy- and responsive engagement-oriented instruction that can be readily used. The remaining questions are intended to help us understand why and how two different types of comprehension instruction work, in two different grade levels. The second question examines how strategy- and responsive engagement-oriented instruction affects students' performance on a variety of measures, both product and process measures. The third question, focusing on bilingual students, gives us another window from which to examine how students internalize comprehension strategies and whether strategy- or responsive engagement-oriented instruction carries over into a different language. The final question is an aptitude by treatment interaction question-examining whether different types of instruction are more appropriate for children at different developmental levels, where development is defined either by age/ grade or by proficiency in decoding and fluency.
Participants
Each year this study involves 4H teachers, 12 at each of four sites-Minnesota, northern California, central Illinois, and Chicago, one of which has a large population of Spanish-speaking. ELLs enrolled in bilingual education. All schools serve predominantly low socioeconomic status children, with between 50% and 90% of the children eligible for free/reduced-price lunch. These sites provide different populations with different needs, increasing the likelihood that the treatments that are developed will be widely applicable.
At each site, we are involving three schools, one for strategy instruction, one for responsive engagement instruction, and one for a treated control that is focusing on effective vocabulary instruction. In the first year, we worked with two second-grade and two fourth-grade teachers in each of the three schools at each site to develop and study the routines that would encompass usable strategy and responsive engagement instruction. For the second year, we are using a more conventional experimental design, randomly assigning treatments to a new set of schools, to examine whether the procedures developed during the first-year transfer to other, similar schools. In the third year, because we anticipate that each type of instruction will produce different desirable outcomes, we want to combine the most effective aspects of strategy and responsive engagement instruction and compare it to a treated control using a quasi-experimental design.
Method
The purposes of the first 2 years are to work with teachers to develop and validate effective instructional routines for both strategic- and responsive engagement-oriented comprehension instruction that can be sustained on a long-term basis. To this end, we have engaged first in formative and then quasi-experimental research with a small cadre of teachers to develop approaches for providing strategy-oriented instruction and responsive engagement-oriented instruction that are feasible to implement. For strategy instruction, we begin with RT as a model, working with teachers to incorporate features of TSI into a strategy instruction routine that is comprehensive and flexible. For the responsive engagement-oriented instruction, we begin with an Instructional Conversations (Saunders & Goldenberg, 1999b)¹¹ model, but we are expanding our instruction to include features of other responsive engagement-oriented instruction, such as literary discussion techniques and small independent groups in which students are encouraged to take a more central role in the flow of conversation.
Professional development activities are following the recommendations of the National Staff Development Council (2001). In year 2, our current effort, professional development (PD) consists of an initial 3 hour session, eight monthly 90- minute sessions, and monthly drop-in visits. We have developed PD guides for two treatment conditions and a control condition to maximize similarities across conditions and sites. The teachers and the professional development leaders use a common set of instructional principles for each condition to keep instruction focused and similar across sites.
In year 2, the quasi-experiment, we began the initial session with a common approach across sites and conditions:
• Discuss the principles for a particular treatment condition;
• View and discuss a video showing a teacher teaching the treatment condition;
• Read and discuss a relevant research-based article;
• Discuss what teachers were currently doing and not doing;
• Guide teachers in the process of selecting texts appropriate to the condition;
• Discuss ways in which teachers could get started with teaching of treatment condition; and
• Cover teaching and other work to be done prior to next PD session.
In the monthly 90-minute sessions teachers write and share brief reflections about what they have tried since last meeting. Then they discuss an article read since the last meeting and how the article fits with the principles. We engage in activities related to instructional goals for the next month: what/how to teach (e.g., teaching three 30-minute lessons with the teacher leading and modeling, releasing to the students over subsequent weeks, planning lessons with a colleague, selecting appropriate texts, teaching in small groups). Several activities are designed to move forward in the PD sessions (e.g., practicing video sharing prior to someone bringing in a video). In the last 5 minutes of each session teachers receive an article to read before the next session, and someone agrees to bring a video clip or student work to share. Teachers are reminded to keep lesson logs. In between sessions, the PD provider visits each classroom and completes a feedback form that is tied to the instructional principles. Either in person or on the phone she discusses what worked and suggests possible changes. Teachers report that they like the time to work together to learn new teaching techniques, to talk about instruction, to view videotapes of one another teaching, to plan and modify lessons, and to look at student work to improve instruction. Teachers like the principles as a guide for their teaching. Teachers report that reading specific research articles and discussing how to implement suggested procedures that fit with the principles have been beneficial. Cognitive strategies and responsive engagement arc hard to teach well. Thus, at this point in the study, we think that teachers may need 2 years of PD, not l, to be effective. We are investigating this hypothesis in one site by comparing teachers who are in their second year of PD, as pertains to a particular treatment condition, with those who are in their first year.

CHAPTER II

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION