Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

21
Harnessing the Power of Technology to Improve Reading Fluency and Comprehension Dr. Madeline Pan [email protected] Texthelp Systems, Inc. www.texthelp.com 1

Transcript of Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Page 1: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Harnessing the Power of Technology to Improve Reading Fluency and

Comprehension

Dr. Madeline Pan [email protected]

Texthelp Systems, Inc.

www.texthelp.com

1

Page 2: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Agenda

How can students monitor their own progress and take ownership of their own development?

What are the challenges of teaching students to be fluent readers?

What are the guidelines and strategies for teaching students to be more fluent readers?

Why build oral reading fluency?

What are the components of oral reading fluency?

2

Page 3: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Struggling Readers

On the average, what % of ALL students in the U.S. are struggling readers?

A. 5 - 15%

B. 20- 25%

C. 30- 45%

D. 60- 70%

3

Page 4: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Struggling Readers

On the average, what % of Hispanic, ELL & African American students in the U.S. struggle with reading?

A. 5 - 15%

B. 20- 25%

C. 30- 45%

D. 60- 70%

4

Page 5: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Our schools are filled with students who struggle with reading.

Some estimate the percentage may be as high as 20-25% of all students, and even higher—from 60-70% — for African American, Hispanic, limited English speakers, and poor children.

Baer, Kutner, & Sabatini, 2009

5

Page 6: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

What’s possible?

What % of ALL students are capable of achieving reading skills at or approaching grade level? A. 70- 80%

B. 80-90%

C. 90-95%

6

Page 7: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Yet compelling evidence of current reading research indicates that somewhere between 90-95 percent of all students can achieve literacy skills at or approaching grade level.

Al Otailba, Connor, Foorman, Schatschneider, Greulich, & Sidler, 2009; Moats, 2011, Rashotte, MacPhee, & Torgeson, 2001

7

Page 8: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

What is oral reading fluency?

Accuracy, or accurate decoding of words in text: 90% or above

Automaticity (Rate), or decoding words with minimal use of attentional resources; WCPM /ORF – Hasbrouck & Tindall Norms

Prosody, or the appropriate use of phrasing, expression, smoothness and pacing to convey meaning: Multi-Dimensional Fluency Rubric

Comprehension – access to meaning of text

8

Page 9: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

What is oral reading fluency?

Oral Reading Fluency

9

Page 10: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Common Core: State Standards Initiative English Language Arts Standards - Reading: Foundational Skills

Fluency

Read with sufficient accuracy and

fluency to support comprehension.

Read grade-level text with purpose and

understanding.

Read grade-level prose and poetry orally with accuracy,

appropriate rate, and expression.

Use context to confirm or self-correct word recognition and understanding, rereading as

necessary. 10

Page 11: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Why build oral reading fluency?

Oral reading is a window into children’s minds. By listening to children read out loud, teachers can determine the strategies that they are using that work and those that need further development

Oral reading helps students hear how they’re processing language.

11

Page 12: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Why build oral reading fluency?

Practicing oral reading helps students build confidence Lack of confidence is a key reason why many students do not do well on standardized tests.

Practicing oral reading helps students develop comprehension skills. Authors not only use language to convey ideas, but they also use typographical cues, such as punctuation, spacing, different size print to signal intended meaning..

12

Page 13: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Oral reading fluency assessment? Typical Running records – (DRA, Dibels,

AIMS web, etc.) *Challenges*

What is needed!

Time and Reliability

--distractions causes inaccuracies-

Recording, Listening & Mark-ups --

anytime, anywhere

Complexity!

-stopwatch, calculator, quiet setting,

one-on-one administration

Automatically calculates WCPM, % of words

correct, prosody/fluency, comprehension –

assess multiple students in a single session

Student Motivation & Learning?

Stressful, little actionable feedback for

students

Students review & reflect on graphical data

and descriptive feedback –

Assessment for Learning

Data- Driven Instruction?

-only two measures

Teachers use multiple data points to

provide descriptive feedback for

individualized student learning

13

Page 14: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Common Oral Reading Instructional Practices

Teacher read-aloud

Small group

reading Paired readers

Round- robin

reading

14

Page 15: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Oral reading fluency instruction? Paired/Grouped or Round Robin Reading * Challenges for students*

What is needed?

Shy, embarrassed or fearful Individualized & Personalized

Not getting enough practice to make a

difference

Practice-- anytime, anywhere

Not monitored or provided feedback on their

progress

Instant feedback

Stumbling over difficult vocabulary words Dictionary & Translator

Not hearing what they sound like Record/Playback

Not making much effort toward reading

expressively

Modeled Fluent Reader

Not comprehending what they read. Comprehension Quiz

15

Page 16: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Guidelines for Developing Oral Fluency

National Reading Panel - 2000

Obtain baseline

performance

Select appropriate

text

Model fluent reading

Provide supported, repeated, practice

opportunities

Measure and monitor –

feedback and data

16

Page 17: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

More research reveals that…

Text should be neither too hard nor too easy to support skill development.

Instructional scaffolding is essential to facilitate skill development.

Students must be provided feedback and support during reading practice.

Students must be able to track their progress by developing goals based on graphical data.

Students must be actively engaged in their own improvement!

Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz, & Germann, 1993; Meyer, 2002

17

Page 18: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Fluency Tutor

A research-based, online, instructional and formative

assessment tool that:

builds oral reading fluency and reading comprehension through

modeled fluent reading & supported, practice

opportunities

tracks students’ reading through

progress monitoring

provides data for differentiating instruction

and Response to Intervention

18

Page 19: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Progress Monitoring: What does a teacher need?

Teachers know that explicit instruction, followed by lots of guided practice, engaging activities and repeated, supported reading, can improve reading fluency.

The challenge is how to best monitor students’ progress to know when adjustments in reading text and in instruction are needed.

Answer: Use a data-driven, systematic process.

19

Page 20: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Summary: Addressing the challenges

Provide students with a variety of reading topics to motivate their interest.

Provide modeled, fluent readers to emulate.

Provide an easy way to look up unknown words.

Provide unlimited opportunities to record and play back their voices.

Provide immediate feedback on aspects of oral reading, such as speed, accuracy, prosody and comprehension.

Make oral reading practice available anytime, anywhere.

20

Page 21: Technology to improve reading (RED 730)

Instruction that is guided by frequent, quick, reliable, valid, and curriculum-based assessment has the potential to lead to improved teacher decision-making and student performance in reading. Thus, reading fluency instruction combined with regular assessment is the key to student success in reading fluency and comprehension

Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Marston & Magnusson, 1985).

21