1 / 25

Examining Differential Boost from Read Aloud on a Test of Reading Comprehension at Grades 4 and 8

Examining Differential Boost from Read Aloud on a Test of Reading Comprehension at Grades 4 and 8. Cara Cahalan-Laitusis, Linda Cook, Fred Cline, and Teresa King Educational Testing Service. The Use of Read Aloud Accommodations on Reading Tests.

elina
Download Presentation

Examining Differential Boost from Read Aloud on a Test of Reading Comprehension at Grades 4 and 8

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Examining Differential Boost from Read Aloud on a Test of Reading Comprehension at Grades 4 and 8 Cara Cahalan-Laitusis, Linda Cook, Fred Cline, and Teresa King Educational Testing Service

  2. The Use of Read Aloud Accommodations on Reading Tests • States are not in agreement on read aloud on reading tests • Many students use read aloud even when “not allowed” by the state • In California nearly 4,000 fourth graders took the STAR English Language Arts assessment in 2004 with the test read aloud • Schools are torn between complying with state policy to not allow read aloud and federal regulations to allow all accommodations used in the classroom

  3. This study examines the impact of a read aloud accommodation by examining: • Any Differential Boost from read aloud • How well various test scores predict teacher ratings of reading comprehension • The ability of teachers to predict which students would benefit from read aloud accommodations

  4. Differential Boost

  5. Prior Research • No Differential Boost • Kosciokek & Ysseldyke (2000). Small sample size (n=31) • Meloy, Deville, and Frisbie (2002) – Between subjects design (n=260, 76% non-disabled, random assigned to audio or standard) • McKevitt & Elliott (2003) Small sample size (n=39) • Differential Boost • Crawford and Tindal (2004) (n=338, 78% non-disabled) • Fletcher, et. al (2006) Between subjects design (random assigned to audio or standard) and sample included 91 Dyslexic (poor decoder) and 91 average decoders

  6. Data Collected • 2 Reading Comprehension Tests • Extra Time • Extra Time with Read Aloud via CD • 2 Fluency Measures • 2 Decoding Measures (4th grade only) • Student Survey • Teacher Survey

  7. Target Design

  8. Sample • 1170 4th Graders • 522 Students with RLD • 648 Students without a disability • 855 8th Graders • 394 Students with RLD • 461 Students without a disability

  9. Scores by RLD and Grade

  10. Scores by Grade/RLD

  11. Differential Boost • Repeated Measures ANOVA • Dependent Variables: • Reading Comprehension “Standard” • Reading Comprehension Audio • Independent Variables: • Disability Status (RLD vs. NLD) • Form/Order (STSA, STAS, TSSA, TSAS) • Covariate: Reading Fluency

  12. RM ANOVA for Grade 4

  13. RM ANOVA for Grade 4 with Fluency Covariate

  14. Differential Boost Findings • Differential Boost at both 4th and 8th grades (i.e., students with LD had significantly greater score gains from read aloud than non-LD students) • When reading fluency ability is controlled for a Differential Boost is still found at both grades

  15. Predictive Validity of Scores • Hierarchical Regression, by Grade/RLD Status • Dependent variable • - teachers ratings of reading comprehension (5-point Likert scale) • Independent variables (entered in the following order) • Standard • Fluency • Audio

  16. Hierarchical Regression-Grade 4 ***p<.001, **p<.01

  17. Hierarchical Regression-Grade 8 ***p<.001, **p<.01

  18. Regression Findings • Audio score does not significantly predict variance in Teachers Ratings of Reading Comprehension (beyond standard and fluency) for Grade 8 RLD • Audio score adds to prediction of reading comprehension (beyond standard and fluency scores) for three groups (NLD grade 4, NLD grade 8, and RLD grade 4), but incremental change is small

  19. Can Teachers Predict Which Students will do better on Audio? • Mean Differences in Boost by Teacher predictions (audio, standard, no difference) • Examine accuracy of teacher ratings by student performance

  20. Mean Boost by Teacher Predictions

  21. Findings from Teacher Predictions • On average teachers were able to predict score gain from audio at grade 4 but not grade 8 • At the individual level teachers accurately predicted if a student would benefit from the audio version about 35% of the time and were completely wrong about 5% of the time

  22. Conclusions • Read aloud (via individual CD player) does offer a differential performance boost at both grade 4 and grade 8 indicating that reading scores of RLD students are placing a larger emphasis on word recognition/fluency than the same scores for NLD students.

  23. Conclusions • For grade 8 RLD students, audio scores do not predict significantly more variance (than standard and fluency score) in teacher ratings of reading comprehension.

  24. Conclusions • For grade 4 students, fluency scores and audio scores predict a significant amount of variation in teacher ratings (beyond those predicted by standard scores) and may improve construct validity at grade 4.

  25. Additional Analyses Planned • Differential Item Functioning between groups • Examine which variables (decoding, fluency, teacher ratings, student ratings) best predict boost from audio • Compare two measures of fluency • RM-ANOVA with decoding tests as covariates • Follow-up with students that performed significantly worse than predicted by their teacher and explore possible reasons why.

More Related