República de Colombia. POPULATION : 46. 044.611 7.6% over 60 years 51.4 % females 48.6 % males.
Method Participants. Approximately 64 second (43.8%) and third (56.3%) grade students. 51.6% female...
-
Upload
bertram-kelley -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
2
Transcript of Method Participants. Approximately 64 second (43.8%) and third (56.3%) grade students. 51.6% female...
![Page 1: Method Participants. Approximately 64 second (43.8%) and third (56.3%) grade students. 51.6% female and 48.6% male Measures Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022083005/56649f185503460f94c2f360/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
MethodParticipants. • Approximately 64 second (43.8%) • and third (56.3%) grade students. • 51.6% female and 48.6% maleMeasures• Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)
• Administered by school personnel 3 times per year (fall, winter, and spring). Spring scores were used for analyses.
• Students read from 3 one minute grade level passages, and the median score was recorded.
• Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System (BAS)• Instructional level determined by spring scores based on fluency,
accuracy, and comprehension.• Curriculum Based Assessment for Instructional Design (CBA-ID)
• Administered by researchers one time in the spring. • Students read from 3 books (1 minute each) based on their BAS
instructional level.• The number of words read correctly divided by the total words
read was recorded and the median score was used for analyses.
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTADepartment of Educational Psychology
Sandra M. Pulles, Kathrin E. Maki, & Matthew K. Burns
Relationship Between Reading Inventory Instructional Level
and Student Reading Performance
School Psychology250 Education Sciences Building 56 E. River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455
Contacts: Sandra M. Pulles: [email protected] Kathrin E. Maki: [email protected] Matthew K. Burns: [email protected]
College of Education + Human Development
Introduction• Instructional match is closely associated with improved student
learning (Burns, 2007; Daly, Martens, Kilmer, & Massie, 1996)
• Instructional level occurs when students have sufficient background knowledge to interact with the material, yet still experience some level of challenge (Betts, 1946).
• Frustrational: <93%• Instructional: 93-97%• Independent: 97-100%
• Two ways to assess instructional level1. Informal Reading Inventories (IRI)
• Fountas & Pinnell (1996)
• 20-30 minutes per student; low psychometric properties• Provide students
2. Curriculum Based Assessment for Instructional Design (CBA-ID;
Gickling & Havertape, 1981).
• Students read from instructional level text for 1 minute and the number of words read correctly is recorded and accuracy is computed.
• 5 minutes per student; high psychometric propertiesResearch Questions1. What level of agreement is there between instructional level
estimates from reading three books from the same reading level? 2. To what extent does the estimate of instructional level from a
reading inventory agree with instructional level estimates from reading the corresponding leveled book?
3. How do reading skills affect agreement between estimate of instructional level from a reading inventory and estimates from reading the corresponding leveled book?
Discussion
• Students did not consistently read with accuracy from books rated at their IRI instructional level
• Students read with 93 to 97% accuracy about 28% of the time• Struggling readers frequently failed to read with 93% accuracy• High readers were not challenged enough by their IRI instructional level• Psychometric issues associated with IRIs make it difficult to obtain an accurate
student instructional level• Reliability-inconsistency across books • Validity-use of IRIs for determining instructional level
• Matching instructional material with student skill level results in improved student outcomes (Burns, 2007)
• Students should therefore be reading at their instructional level to ensure adequate reading growth
Limitations
• Many students were higher readers therefore limiting generalizability to other skill levels
• No direct measure of comprehension was used• There was no control over prior exposure thus it is unknown whether or not students
were familiar with the material
Mean
(SD)
Frustration n
(%)
Reading Level
Instructional n
(%)
Independent n
(%)
Spring Benchmark Oral Reading Fluency
128.08
(48.71)
NA NA NA
Reading 1 Accuracy
96.7%
(3.27%)
8
(12.5%)
23
(35.9%)
33
(51.6%)
Reading 2 Accuracy
96.4%
(4.91%)
10
(15.6%)
15
(23.4%)
39
(60.9%)
Reading 3 Accuracy
96.1%
(5.9%)
11
(17.2%)
17
(26.6%)
36
(56.3%)
Median Accuracy 96.7%
(3.6%)
10
(15.6%)
18
(28.1%)
36
(56.3%)
Reading 1 Accuracy Reading 2 Accuracy Reading 3 Accuracy
Reading 1 Accuracy r = .47* r = .61*
Reading 2 Accuracy r = .67* r = .68*
Reading 3 Accuracy r = .67* r = .59*
Reading 1 Accuracy Reading 2 Accuracy Reading 3 Accuracy
Reading 1 Accuracy 70.3% 68.8%
Reading 2 Accuracy k =.49* 67.2%
Reading 3 Accuracy k = .47* k = .42*
Median Percent AccurateCBA-ID Categorical
Score
IRI Instructional Level r = .65 tau = .65
Group Frustration n
(%)
Instructional n
(%)
Independent n
(%)
Low – 25th Percentile or Less 7
(58%)
5
(41.7%)
0
(0.0%)
Middle – 26th to 75th Percentile
2
(9.5%)
4
(19.0%)
15
(71.4%)
High – 76th Percentile or Higher
1
(3.2%)
9
(29.0%)
21
(67.7%)
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Frequency Data
Table 2 Correlations Among Accuracy Measures from Three Reading Performance Assessments
Table 3 Percent Agreement and Kappa Among Accuracy Measures from Three Reading Performance Assessments
Table 4
Correlation between IRI Instructional Level and CBA-ID Accuracy and Categorical Score
Table 5 Number and Percentage of Median Accuracy Scores from Three Reading Performance Assessments that Fell within the Frustration, Instructional, and Independent Level by Skill Group
ResultsResults
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Asian-American
Low Average High
2nd Grade < 69 69-120 > 120
3rd Grade < 84 84-140 > 140