This science fair project examines the relationship between 5th graders' Reading Counts habits and their vulnerability to cliché. The hypothesis is that students who only read Reading Counts books will be more vulnerable to cliché. A survey was administered to 12 Woodrow Wilson 5th graders. The results show the average cliché vulnerability score was higher for students who only read Reading Counts compared to those who read both Reading Counts and non-Reading Counts books. While the sample size was small, the data supports the hypothesis that greater Reading Counts usage increases cliché vulnerability. Expanding the sample size in future studies could provide more definitive conclusions.
This science fair project examines the relationship between 5th graders' Reading Counts habits and their vulnerability to cliché. The hypothesis is that students who only read Reading Counts books will be more vulnerable to cliché. A survey was administered to 12 Woodrow Wilson 5th graders. The results show the average cliché vulnerability score was higher for students who only read Reading Counts compared to those who read both Reading Counts and non-Reading Counts books. While the sample size was small, the data supports the hypothesis that greater Reading Counts usage increases cliché vulnerability. Expanding the sample size in future studies could provide more definitive conclusions.
This science fair project examines the relationship between 5th graders' Reading Counts habits and their vulnerability to cliché. The hypothesis is that students who only read Reading Counts books will be more vulnerable to cliché. A survey was administered to 12 Woodrow Wilson 5th graders. The results show the average cliché vulnerability score was higher for students who only read Reading Counts compared to those who read both Reading Counts and non-Reading Counts books. While the sample size was small, the data supports the hypothesis that greater Reading Counts usage increases cliché vulnerability. Expanding the sample size in future studies could provide more definitive conclusions.
This science fair project examines the relationship between 5th graders' Reading Counts habits and their vulnerability to cliché. The hypothesis is that students who only read Reading Counts books will be more vulnerable to cliché. A survey was administered to 12 Woodrow Wilson 5th graders. The results show the average cliché vulnerability score was higher for students who only read Reading Counts compared to those who read both Reading Counts and non-Reading Counts books. While the sample size was small, the data supports the hypothesis that greater Reading Counts usage increases cliché vulnerability. Expanding the sample size in future studies could provide more definitive conclusions.
Reading Count? Question According to the official Reading Counts website:
“Scholastic Reading Counts! is an independent reading program for
Grades K–12 which combines reading practice and software-based reading assessment . . . PROVEN to develop reading skills . . . and motivate students to achieve reading success” (http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/independent_reading/scholast ic_reading_counts/program_overview.htm)
My science fair project asks: What is the correlation, if any,
between 5th gradersʼ Reading Counts habits during the school year and their vulnerability to cliché? Hypothesis I think that 5th graders who are more involved in Reading Counts will be more vulnerable to cliché than the ones who read both Reading Counts and non-Reading Counts books during the school year. Materials
❑ “Survey Monkey” online survey
❑ Woodrow Wilson 5th-grade volunteers Procedures, Part 1 1. Create online multiple-choice survey, using “Survey Monkey.” 2. Distribute survey link to Woodrow Wilson 5th-graders in Monday folders, along with parental consent forms and instructions. 3. Make a table showing the Reading Habits Score (RHS), Reading Preference Score (RPS), and Cliché Vulnerability Score (CVS) for each student who answered all the questions they were asked. 4. Calculate the average CVS score for students who read only Reading Counts books during the school year, vs. the average CVS score for students who read non-Reading Counts books during the school year as well. 5. Compare the two averages to determine the correlation (if any) between RHS and CVS. Procedures, Part 2 Survey Logic & Questions Everyone had to answer the first two questions, and the last 3 questions. There was only allowed one response per question. Those who read only Reading Counts during the school year were redirected by the survey to the final three questions.
1. What is your gender? (Options: male or female)
2. Do you read books that are not Reading Counts during the school year? (Options: yes or no) 3. Do you spend more time during the school year reading Reading Counts books or non-Reading Counts books? (Options: About the same ; Way more RC than non-RC ; Way more non-RC than RC ; A little bit more RC than non-RC; A little bit more non-RC than RC; A moderate amount more of RC than non-RC; or A moderate amount more of non-RC than RC.) 4. Which books do you generally prefer to read? RC or non-RC? (Options: It depends on the book; RC; or non-RC) 5. Questions 5, 6, and 7 each asked the same question, “So, which poster below appeals to you more?” with three examples to choose from: a clichéd motivational poster, a “demotivational” poster criticizing people’s vulnerability to cliché, and a middle option between the two extremes. The examples differed in each question. Results 1. Only 12 students took my survey: 9 females (75%) and 3 males (25%). 2. In answer to the second question, “Do you read books that are not Reading Counts during the school year?”, 8 answered yes (66.67%) and 4 answered no (33.33%). 3. In answer to the third question (which was only asked to those who answered yes to question #2), 50% answered “Way more RC than non-RC.” The remaining 50% was equally divided between “About the same” (25%) and “A little bit more RC than non-RC” (25%). 4. In answer to the fourth question, (which was also asked only to those who answered yes to question #2), an 87.5% majority (7 people) answered “It depends on the book.” Only 12.5% (1 person) answered that they preferred Reading Counts books. 0% (nobody) answered that they preferred non-RC books. 5. Averages & Correlations on Data Data 1: Scores Data 2: Averages {=(|/-=Conclusion=-\|)=} o=}{+0)---------------{[+=(0)=+]}------------------(0+}{=o My hypothesis was supported. The average CVS for the students who only read Reading Counts was greater than the average CVS of fifth grader who read both RC and books that are not RC. The average cliche vulnerability score for only RC reading students was 4 CVS while the average for those who read both kinds of books was 3 CVS. A small difference like this may not matter and there may be no correlation but a small difference like this is worth pointing out. Maybe multiple tests like this might fully prove it but I have all the data that is needed from this experiment. In conclusion, the amount of RC a student reads makes them more vulnerable to cliche. Possibilities for Future Study ❑ -summer reading habits? ❑ More participants!