national accessible reading assessment projects formulating public opinion on definitions of reading...

National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects

Formulating Public Opinion on Definitionsof Reading Proficiency

Christopher JohnstoneCouncil for Exceptional Children

April 7, 2006


Methods

• Focus groups tapping conducted with members of professional organizations

• Face-to-face and Phone-based focus groups


Focus Group Process

• Face-to-face (DARA): – “Piggyback” on large conferences.

– Broader constituency of educators.

– Cost effective, convenient, open to all.

• Phone/Web-based (PARA)– Not tied to specific conferences.

– Focus on specific disability groups.

– Targeted by GAC members and disability foci of projects.


Face-to-Face Sessions• Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)

– 6 sessions, 35 people• American Educational Research Association (AERA) /

National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) – 3 sessions, 17 people

• International Reading Association (IRA) – 5 sessions, 24 people

• Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) – 4 sessions, 20 people

• Society for the Scientific Study of Reading (SSSR)– 5 sessions, 19 people


Teleconference Sessions • National Down Syndrome Society (NDSS)

– 4 people• Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)

– 1 person• Parent Advocacy Center for Educational Rights (PACER)

– 3 people• The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)

– 2 people• Gallaudet Research Institute

– 4 people• The Association of State Consultants of Blind/Visually Impaired

– 6 people• TASH/The ARC

– 7 people


Results

• Focus group tapes were transcribed and coded into themes.

• Results emerged in two categories:– Disability-specific information– Overall (cross-disability) results


Down Syndrome

• Some readers with Down Syndrome are non-verbal, therefore the process of translating “text to speech” is not relevant.

• Other readers with Down Syndrome learn to read by decoding.

• Reading is a visual endeavor for most students with Down Syndrome, therefore “auditorization” should be considered an adaptation, not part of the reading process itself.


Emotional/Behavior Disorders

• Comprehension is the biggest issue with this population. Many students decode text just fine, but do not understand the meaning of text.

• Other factors, such as memory, fluency, and vocabulary may affect the comprehension levels of this population, and should be included in any definition.


Mental Retardation

• Have difficulty decoding, but can understand text through other strategies.

• Need to be engaged in order to succeed. Struggling readers may quickly give up if text is not interesting or relevant to their lives.

• May be non-verbal, therefore, an expectation of translating text to speech is unreasonable.

• Comprehending text (by a variety of means) is the most important goal for people who work with students with mental retardation.


Learning Disabilities

• Some readers with learning disabilities use alternative approaches to reading, such as screen readers or books on tape, but still consider the process “reading.”

• A focus on accessing information, rather than individual skills, is most appropriate for this population.

• Accommodations, such as “auditorization” are commonplace in higher education, but rarely found in K-12 education.


Speech/ Language Impairments

• Readers with speech/language impairments may not translate text to speech as part of the reading process.

• Fluency (for either silent reading or reading aloud) must include a focus on fluency and morphological processing in order to truly measure the reading abilities of students with speech language impairments.


Blind

• Braille is an equivalent system of writing to print.• Many blind people have some other form of

disability. Some may not have speech, so translating text to speech may be impossible.

• Text in auditory formats is used by blind populations, but should be used with caution, as it may lead to a decrease in the teaching of braille.

• All definitions should include decoding but should be strongly centered in the derivation of meaning from text.


Deaf

• Deaf students typically do not “decode” because they may not have phonological skills. This population also does not translate text to speech.

• Definitions for deaf students should be more comprehension-, not skills-based.


Overall Results

• Most people preferred having the main emphasis in the definitions be placed on “understanding” of messages found in text.

• Participants did not feel that it was appropriate to have “decoding” appear equal to “understanding” in importance (decoding was seen by many as a “means to an end).


Conclusion

• Findings were relatively consistent across both face-to-face and phone/web-based focus groups.

• According to participants, “understanding” is the most important element of reading.

• “Translating text to speech” is problematic for a variety of readers.

• Decoding is important, but not the most important facet of reading.

• Auditorization is problematic as a construct of reading.


“Decoding” discussion

• Much of the dislike for the inclusion of decoding as equal in importance to understanding seemed to stem from differences in the scope of what decoding represented:– Reading experts often viewed decoding as a more

comprehensive term.– Teachers often viewed decoding as too simple a term,

such as “sounding out” words.


“Understanding” discussion

• There was often discussion on the relative nature of the terms “understanding,” “meaning,” and “comprehension.”

• Participants felt terms such as “understanding” and “meaning” allowed for greater flexibility than “comprehension.”


“Speech/spoken words” discussion

• Almost all groups objected to the references to “translating text to speech” and “spoken words” as being problematic to students who had no spoken language.

– Teachers often interpreted “translating text to speech” as being specific to oral reading (reading out loud).

– Some interpreted “translating text to speech” as an internal process.


Braille discussion

• The inclusion of braille was supported as simply being the version of text accessible to those students who read braille.

• Classifying it as an adaptation or accommodation was questioned by some (i.e., braille = print).

• The use of a read aloud accommodation instead of braille was mentioned a few times for students who either had not, could not, or would not learn braille (state accommodations policies are inconsistent in these areas)


“Auditorization” discussion

• Many felt that “auditorization” undermined a basic construct of reading which includes the interpretation of text.

• No longer a reading test, but a listening test.

• Some (mostly teachers of students with disabilities) argued that auditorization could be appropriate as a means to measure understanding.


Understanding and decoding for students with disabilities

• Participants noted a clear relationship between decoding and understanding for non-disabled students.

• Less clear for students with disabilities:– Could show skill in decoding but had no

understanding of what they read.– Capable of understanding but could not decode well.


Other issues

• The nature and scope of the term text.

• When reading ends and literacy begins.

• ELL students not addressed.


Conclusion

• Findings were relatively consistent across both face-to-face and phone/web-based focus groups.

• According to participants, definitions of reading proficiency should include:– References to “understanding” as the predominant focus

– Decoding is important, but not to the extent of understanding

• “Translating text to speech” and “auditorization” should not be included in definitions of reading proficiency.

national accessible reading assessment projects formulating public opinion on definitions of reading...

Documents

reading process

silent reading

reading abilities of

blind people

people society

meaning of text

disability foci of projects

process of translating