The purpose of this study is to investigate and evaluate the implementation of the action research in using story maps for improving the four levels of PIRLS reading comprehension processes of two students in digital partner program as the synchronous (one-on-one) online tutoring. The research questions were (a) how was the story maps for reading comprehension in a digital partner program implemented?; (b) how did story maps help students improve their PIRLS reading comprehension processes?; (c) how did the reading lesson design help the tutor-researcher grow the professional development?
This action research was designed and conducted in three cycles for two Junior High school students in the seventh grade and the ninth grade, starting from March 26, 2019, to May 30, 2019, for a ten-week period of time. The class was held every Tuesday (for student H) and Thursday (for student S) and consisted of 90 minutes of studying time for each class. There were two sessions in each class, 40 minutes for each session and a 10-minute break in between each session. The research setting consisted of the digital partner program with the video conferencing software (Joinnet) hosted by the Ministry of Education of Taiwan in National Dong Hwa University and Fu Yuan Junior High School. Triangulation of three data sources was used to support the analysis of the findings for the three research questions. The three data sources in the triangulation came from the quantitative evidences from the students’ performances in answering the comprehension questions as shown in the assessment scores, the observation of the story maps used by the two students during the three cycles as the qualitative data, and the interviews with the two students conducted to strengthen the quantitative and qualitative data. The teaching materials were from the PIRLS 2016 passages, questions, and scoring guides. The reading materials consisted of two reading purposes which are reading for literary experience and reading to acquire and use information. The research instruments consisted of three items namely as the assessments (comprehension questions), three levels (entries) of the
story maps, and the eleven questions of the interview in Chinese which was conducted on Wednesday, June 12, 2019, after all the classes were finished.
The implementation of the action study in three cycles including the plan, action, observation, and reflection has been done and applied smoothly to both students in the synchronous (one-on-one) online tutoring in the digital partner program. All these four steps in each cycle were explained in detail in producing the well-modified plans and thorough reflections towards the modification of the related plans. The progress of both students was observed in quantitatively and qualitatively. The assessment scores as the quantitative evidence showed improvement for both students, especially the highest improvement in the third cycle. The story maps filled by both students in order to cover the four levels of the comprehension processes also showed qualitative improvements. The story maps as supposed to be the expected tools as mentioned before has been proven in improving the two students’ ability of the four levels of the comprehension processes in this study. Many positive statements, as well as constructive comments, could be analyzed from both students’ interview. Regarding the third research question about the tutor’s professional development growth, firstly the tutor himself received affirmative comments and impressions from both students based on their interview data. The tutor-researcher himself noted professional improvements during and after this action study of conducting the synchronous online tutoring in the digital partner program.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ iii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1
Reading Comprehension ..................................................................................... 2
Story-Mapping Strategy ...................................................................................... 3
Introduction to the Digital Partner Program ........................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................... 5
Definitions of Terms ........................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................ 9
Reading Comprehension ..................................................................................... 9
Story-Mapping Strategy .................................................................................... 12
Synchronous (One-on-One) Online Tutoring .................................................... 17
The framework of the Assessments ................................................................... 19
Summary ............................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................. 29
Research Design ........................................................................... 29
Research Setting and Participants ..................................................................... 31
Role of the Researcher ................................................................................ 33
Teaching Materials ................................................................................... 34
Research Instruments .................................................................................. 35
Research and Teaching Procedure .................................................................... 37
Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................. 43
Implementation of the story maps in the digital partner program ..................... 43
Student H ......................................................................................... 44
Student S ........................................................................................... 63
Both Students’ Progress ............................................................................... 88
Students’ progress on the assessment score (Quantitative) ........................... 90
Students’ progress on the story maps (Qualitative) ....................................... 93
Tutor’s Professional Development Growth ..................................................... 100
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS..................................... 107
References ............................................................................. 113
Appendices ..................................................................................... 119

Allington, R. (2006). What really matters with struggling readers: Designing research based programs. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Barley, Z., & Brigham, N. (2005). Preparing Teachers to Teach in Rural Schools. United States: The Ball State University.
Boulineau, T., Fore Iii, C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2004). Use of story-mapping to increase the story-grammar text comprehension of elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(2), 105-121.
Britt, M., Goldman, S., & Rouet, J. (2012). Reading: From words to multiple texts. New York: Routledge.
Campbell, J., Kelly, D., Mullis, I., Martin, M., & Sainsbury, M. (2001). Framework and specifications for PIRLS assessment 2001, second edition. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chenoweth, K. (2009). It can be done, it’s being done, and here’s how: all schools could learn from the qualities shared by schools that have been successful in educating poor and minority students to high levels. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(1), 38-44.
Christianson, K., & Luke, S. (2011). Context strengthens initial misinterpretations of text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(2), 136–166.
Ciampa, M., & Revels, M. (2012). Student access to online interaction technologies: The impact on Grade Delta Variance and student satisfaction. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance learning, 9(6).
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Desrochers, A., & Major, S. (2008). Literacy development in Canada. Canadian Psychology, 49(2), 79-81.
Dudley, A., & Mather, N. (2005). Getting up to speed on reading fluency. New England Reading Association Journal, 22-27.
Elley, W. (1992). How in the world do students read? The Hague, Netherlands: Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Elley, W. (1994). The IEA study of reading literacy: Achievement and instruction in thirty-two school systems. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
114
Farris, P. J., & Downey, P. (2005). Concept muraling: Dropping visual crumbs along the instruction trail. Reading Teacher, 58(4), 376-380.
Flavell, J., & Wellman, H. (1977). Metamemory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Galda, L., & Beach, R. (2001). Response to literature as a cultural activity. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 64–73.
Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated Instructional Strategies. California: Corwin Press, Sage Publications.
Guthrie, J. (1996). Educational contexts for engagement in literacy. The Reading Teacher, 49(6), 432–445.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. Markham: Pembroke.
Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: Comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 196-205.
Iser, W. (1972). On interpretation. New Literacy History, 3(2), 279-299.
Jitendra, A., & Gajria, M. (2011). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43, 1-16.
Karal, H. Ç., & Turgut, V. E. (2011). Perceptions of students who take synchronous courses through video conferencing about distance education. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology.
Kelner, L. B., & Flynn, R. M. (2006). A dramatic approach to reading comprehension: Strategies and activities for classroom teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Khan, I. A. (2011). Challenges of Teaching/ Learning English and Management. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 70-80.
Kim, W., Linan-Thompson, S., & Misquitta, R. (2012). Critical factors in reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 66-78.
Langer, J. (2011). Envisioning literature, second edition. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Li, D. (2007). Story mapping and its effects on the writing fluency and word diversity of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5(1), 77-93.
115
Mantione, R. D., & Smead, S. (2003). Weaving through words: Using the arts to teach reading comprehension strategies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 197-213.
Moody, R. A., & Wieland, R. L. (2010). Using video conferencing to establish and maintain a social presence in online learning environments. Educational Considerations, 37 (2).
Murphy, P., Wilkinson, I., Soter, A., Hennessey, M., & Alexander, J. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740–764.
Ng, K. C. (2007). Replacing face-to-face tutorials by synchronous online technologies: Challenges and pedagogical implications. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(1).
O‘Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Education Psychology Review, 14, 71-86.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., Turner, J. C., Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Handbook of reading research. In The development of strategic readers. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Parker, M., & Hurry, J. (2007). Teachers’ use of questioning and modeling comprehension skills in primary classrooms. Educational Review, 299-314.
Parker, M., & Hurry, J. (2007). Teachers’ use of questioning and modeling comprehension skills in primary classrooms. Educational Review, 59(3), 299-314.
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 137–145.
Pressley, M., & Gaskins, I. (2006). Metacognitively competent reading comprehension is constructively responsive reading: How can such reading be developed in students? Metacognition Learning, 1(1), 99–113.
Pressley, M., Woloshyn, V., & associates. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children's academic performance. Cambridge: Brookline Books.
116
Rapp, D., & van den Broek, P. (2005). Dynamic text comprehension: An integrative view of reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 276–279.
Rasinski, T. (2012). Why reading fluency should be hot! International Reading Association, 516-522.
Reed, D. K., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Retell as an indicator of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 187-217.
Rose, D. S., Parks, M., Andrews, K., & McMahon, S. D. (2000). Imagery-based learning: Improving elementary students‟ reading comprehension with drama techniques. Journal of Education Research, 95, 55-63.
Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.
Scharlach, T. D. (2008). START comprehending: Students and teachers actively reading text: The START framework can improve students‟ reading comprehension achievement and instruction through the modeling and scaffolding of eight comprehension strategies during teacher read-aloud. Reading Teacher, 62(1), 20-32.
Schubert, M. (2009). Comprehension activities for the middle years of schooling: Teaching and learning to comprehend texts across the curriculum. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 17(1), i-vii.
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Shuart-Faris, N., & Bloome, D. (2004). Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Smyth, R. (2011). Enhancing learner-learner interaction using video communication in higher education: Implications from theorizing about a new model. British Journal of Education Technology, 42 (1).
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Sorrell, A. L. (1990). Three reading comprehension strategies: TELLS, story mapping, and QARs. Academic Therapy, 359-368.
Stewart, A. R., Harlow, D. B., & DeBacco, K. (2011). Students’ experience of synchronous learning in distributed environments. Distance Education, 357-381.
117
Taboada, A., Tonks, S., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22(1), 85–106.
Trabasso, T., & Bouchard, E. (2002). Teaching readers how to comprehend text strategically. Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices, 176-200.
VanDerHeyden, A., Snyder, P., Broussard, C., & Ramsdell, K. (2007). Measuring response to early literacy intervention with preschoolers at-risk. Topics in Early Childhood Education, 27(4), 232-249.
Vasquez, E., & Slocum, T. A. (2012). Evaluation of synchronous online tutoring for students at risk of reading failure. Exceptional Children, 78(2).
Watson, S. M., Gable, R. A., Gear, S. B., & Hughes, K. C. (2012). Evidence-based strategies for improving the reading comprehension of secondary students: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 79-89.
Weaver, C. (2002). Reading process and practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1978). Automatic contextual facilitation in readers of three ages. Child development, 717-727.
Wolf, R. (1995). The IEA reading literacy study: Technical report. The Hague, Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Wolfe, M., & Goldman, S. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467–502.
Zimmerman, S., & Keene, E. O. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Zwaan, R. A., & Singer, M. (2003). Text comprehension. Handbook of discourse processes, 3, 83-121.