Lofaro Comprehension

Report as inappropriate Your report has been received

Shared by: HC12082919456

Tags

Stats

views:: 5
posted:: 8/29/2012
language:: Unknown
pages:: 24

Public Domain

Document Sample

HOW WELL DO PROGRESS- MONITORING
ASSESSMENTS PREDICT READING
COMPREHENSION?

NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL
PSYCHOLOGISTS (NYASP)
OCTOBER 28,2011

SUNY Oswego: Erin Kawryga, Stephen LoFaro, Siani Medina, Kris Munger, Ph.D., Elizabeth Sovocool
Universal Literacy Screening
 All students are included
 Teachers administer
 Quick to administer and score
 DIBELS widely used in NYS
 DIBELS Next is the newest
edition
Previous DIBELS editions have been
controversial

 No Child Left Behind and Reading First
 Measurement of “meaning-based” aspects of
reading?

Pressley, 2005; Pressley,
2006; Samuels, 2007;
Berninger & Wagner, 2008
READING COMPREHENSION
The “simple view” of reading

Sociocultural
Word context
Language
recognition/ comprehension
decoding

Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough,
1990; Catts, Hogan, & Adlof, 2005; Kendeou,
van den Broek, White, & Lynch, 2009
Previous studies Considerations
 Research synthesis by
 Previous versions didn’t directly
Goffreda & DiPerna
measure comprehension (weak
(2010)
validity evidence)
 DIBELS ORF is  DIBELS Next is new (we don’t
strongly correlated have a lot of validity information yet
with and predicts to determine if it is actually
reading improved)
comprehension  DIBELS “Daze”—a new measure
 Non-Oral Reading of comprehension?
Fluency (ORF) subtests
contribute little if no
additional information
to the prediction of
reading comprehension
beyond DIBELS ORF
Word Callers
“Word callers are children who efficiently decode
words but do so without comparable comprehension
taking place, so that words are called out without
an understanding of the meaning of the text”

Stanovich, 1986
Word Callers
 Word callers: students with  Word callers occur more
adequate reading fluency frequently in the later
abilities, but demonstrate elementary grades (5th
difficulties with reading grade)
comprehension  10% of the students in the
5th grade sample fit the word
 Teachers tend to over- caller profile
nominate the number of
word callers in their
classrooms
 This profile is rare in early
elementary grades (1-2%)

Meisinger, Bradley, Schwanenflugel,
Kuhn, & Morris, 2009
Reading Assessment Methods
 Investigated various progress  RCR and MARR showed the
monitoring measures and strongest correlations with the
their abilities to correlate with WJ-III and both predicted
and predict reading reading comprehension (time
comprehension components)
 WCPM  MARR offers an advantage
 Maze over RCR
 Comprehension Level
 MARR is similar in nature to
 RCR
the DAZE
 MARR
 Will DAZE produce similar
 WJ-III Broad Reading results in our research as MARR
Cluster Score did in this study?

Hale, Henning, Hawkins, Sheeley,
Shoemaker, Reynolds, & Moch, 2011
Research Questions
1. To what extent do DIBELS Next subtests
correlate with one another as well as with
vocabulary and comprehension measures?

2. To what extent does PPVT-IV account for
variance in comprehension measures beyond what
is already accounted for by DIBELS Next ORF?

3. To what extent does the DIBELS Next Daze
subtest account for variance in reading
comprehension beyond what is already accounted
for by DIBELS Next ORF?
Third and Fifth Grade Subtests

DIBELS NEXT (Fall, Winter, Spring)
Oral Reading Fluency; ORF
Retell Fluency; RTF
DAZE

Comprehension Measures
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation;
GRADE Reading Comprehension
New York State English Language Arts Test; NYSELA

Vocabulary Measure
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Fourth Edition; PPVT-IV
DIBELS NEXT SUBTESTS

RTF Prompt
(5th Grade)

ORF Probe
(5th Grade)

DAZE Worksheet
RTF Scoring (5th Grade)
(3rd Grade)
GRADE
Sentence Comprehension Reading Comprehension
(3rd Grade) (3rd Grade)
“I am going to show you some pictures.”
TRAINING ITEMS Form B age
“Point to ________.”
TRAINING ITEMS Form B ages 4+
METHOD
Testers Participants

 Classroom teachers
 Approximately 80 third and
 DIBELS Next
fifth grade students at two
 NYSELA small elementary schools
 Four second year
graduate students from
SUNY Oswego school
psychology program
 Experienced in
educational evaluation
 Trained in assessment
procedures
SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS
School #1 School #2
• Majority white  Majority white
students (99%) students (97%)
• 39% eligible for  17% eligible for
free/reduced lunch free/reduced lunch
• Average class size: 18
 Average class size: 21
• In 2011, 59% of third
graders and 48% of  In 2011, 63% of third
fifth graders met, or graders and 66% of
exceeded NYSELA fifth graders met, or
standards exceed NYSELA
standards
Obtaining Permission

 Parental permission forms were sent home with all
members of third and fifth grade at each school
 Those students whose parents gave permission were
included in the study
 For those students in fifth grade or above, the IRB
suggested that an additional assent form be signed
by the student him/herself
 No student whose parent had given permission refused to
participate in the study
Student Assent Form
I understand that the study is about seeing how well reading tests can tell
teachers about how students read. I understand that my classroom
teacher will give me some tests, and two other tests will be given by new
adults from a college called SUNY Oswego. They’ll ask me to read and
listen to stories, and I’ll answer questions about the stories. I’ll also take
a test where I look at pictures and listen to words.

I understand what will happen in the study. I have had my questions
answered. I know if I have other questions, I can ask them later.

________________________________________________ I agree to be part of the study.

______________________________________________ I do not agree to be part of the study.
PLANNED
ANALYSES
PLANNED ANALYSES Third and fifth
grade students
ORF

FALL DIBELS NEXT FALL VOCAB & COMP.

ORF RTF PPVT-IV GRADE RC

LNF ORF DAZE
WINTER /SPRING COMP.
NWF
RTF DAZE
GRADE RC NYSELA

To what extent do DIBELS Next subtests correlate
with one another as well as with fall, winter, and
spring vocabulary and comprehension measures?
PLANNED ANALYSES Third and fifth
grade students
ORF

Shared
variance
Oral Peabody
Reading Picture Comprehension
Peabody
Vocabulary
Fluency Picture
Test?
Vocabulary
Test?

To what extent does PPVT-IV account for variance
in comprehension measures beyond what is already
accounted for by DIBELS Next ORF?
PLANNED ANALYSES Third and fifth
grade students
ORF

Shared
variance
Oral
Reading Retell Comprehension
DAZE?
Fluency Fluency?

To what extent do non-ORF DIBELS Next subtests
account for variance in reading comprehension
beyond what is already accounted for by DIBELS
Next ORF?
READING COMPREHENSION

The “simple view” of reading

Sociocultural
Word
DIBELS NEXT context RTF?
Language
recognition/
ORF
decoding
?
comprehension
DAZE?

Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough,
1990; Catts, Hogan, & Adlof, 2005; Kendeou,
van den Broek, White, & Lynch, 2009
IMPROVEMENTS AND FUTURE
RESEARCH
•Larger, more
representative sample
•DIBELS Next subtest
and NYSELA
administration –
unknown reliability
•Individually
administered measure
of reading
comprehension
REFERENCES
Catts, H., Hogan, T., & Adolf, S. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In H. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.), pp. 25–40.
Connections between language and reading disabilities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Goffreda, Catherine T., & DiPerna, J C. (2010). An empirical review of psychometric evidence for the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy
skills. School Psychology Review, 39, 463-483.

Gough, P.B. and Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
doi: 10.1177/074193258600700104

Hale, A. D., Henning, J. B., Hawkins, R. O., Sheeley, W., Shoemaker, L., Reynolds, J. R. and Moch, C. (2011), Reading assessment methods for
middle-school students: An investigation of reading comprehension rate and Maze accurate response rate. Psychology in the
Schools, 48: 28–36. doi: 10.1002/pits.20544

Hoover, W.A. and Gough, P.B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127-160.
doi:10.1007/BF00401799

Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M. J., Lynch, J. S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent
contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 765-778. doi: 10.1037/a0015956

Meisinger, E. B., Bradley, B. A., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Kuhn, M., & Morris, R. (2009). Myth and reality of the word caller: The relationship
between teacher nominations and prevalence among elementary school children. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 147-159.

Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Pressley, M., Hildren, K., & Shankland, R. (2005). An evaluation of end-grade-3 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS):
Speed reading without comprehension, predicting little. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, College of Education,
Literacy Achievement Research Center.

Samuels, S.J. (2007). The DIBELS Test: Is speed of barking at print what we mean by reading fluency? Reading Research Quarterly, 42(4),
563–566. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.4.5

Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research
Quarterly, 21(4), 360-407.