Explaining Variance in Comprehension for Students in a High-Poverty Setting
Transcript of Explaining Variance in Comprehension for Students in a High-Poverty Setting
1/12/15
1
Explaining Variance in Comprehension for
Students in a High-Poverty Setting
Kristin Conradi
NC State University
Steve Amendum University of Delaware
Meghan Liebfreund Towson University
p<.0001
1/12/15
2
Theoretical Perspectives
Guiding Theories
Simple View of Reading
(Gough & Tunmer, 1986)
Constrained Skills Theory (Paris, 2005)
1/12/15
3
What Affects Comprehension?
Decoding
Automa8city Expressive Language Recep8ve
Language
What about non-cognitive factors?
(Anmarkrud & Bråten, 2009; Conlon, Zimmer-Gembeck, Creed, & Tucker, 2006; Katzir, Leseaux, & Kim, 2009; Retelsdorf, Köller, & Möller, 2010)
Motivational Variables
Comprehension
1/12/15
4
Other Issues
Decoding
Measures matter! Cutting & Scarborough, 2006 Keenan, Betjemann, & Olson, 2008
Research Questions
① For students in a high-poverty elementary school, to what extent do selected factors (fluency, semantic knowledge, reading self-concept, and spelling) relate to reading comprehension?
② How do the influences of these factors on reading comprehension vary depending on the comprehension measure used?
1/12/15
5
Participants
• N = 59 • All 2nd-5th grade in one charter school
(100% FRPL) in an urban area in a Southeastern state
• In 2012-2013, 11.4% of students in 3rd-5th passed the state reading test.
Measures Norm-Referenced
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 2012)
Test of Language Development (TOLD I:4; Hammill & Newcomer, 2008) Semantics
Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT-5; Wiederholt & Bryant, 2012)
Gray Silent Reading Test (Wiederholt & Blalock, 2000)
Classroom Elementary Spelling Inventory (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2011)
Reading Self-Concept Scale (Chapman & Tunmer, 1995)
1/12/15
6
TOWRE-2
Sight Word Efficiency
Phonemic Decoding Efficiency
TOLD I:4 [Semantics]
• Nine pages, each with six pictures • “Point to the playful primate”
Picture Vocabulary
• Students are given three related terms and asked to provide category
• “perch, bass, trout”
Relational Vocabulary
• The administrator reads 15 words—each with multiple meanings. Student must provide as many possible meanings as they can.
• “sent/scent”
Multiple Meanings
1/12/15
7
Comprehension Measures
Gray Silent Reading Test
Series of passages; read silently
5 comprehension questions (multiple choice)
Standard score was calculated for each student: Silent Reading
Comprehension
Gray Oral Reading Test
Series of passages; read orally
5 comprehension questions (open-ended)
Two variables computed: Oral Reading Comprehension and
Fluency
Elementary Spelling Inventory (ESI)
We looked at the child’s total score. This involved adding words spelled correctly (up to 25) and number of feature points (up to 62). marched
marcht
1/12/15
8
Reading Self-Concept Scale
Attitude
Competence
Difficulty
Procedure
• RSCS • GSRT • ESI
Group Administered
Measures
• TOLD • GORT • TOWRE
Individual Measures
1/12/15
9
Analysis
• TOWRE*, TOLD, ESI, RSCS • Two regressions: how did the factors
relate to GSRT and GORT, respectively?
• TOWRE and GORT fluency correlation was .91
Results
1/12/15
10
Results
Discussion • Differences in what mattered based on which
test was given (and these measures were weakly related)
• Reading Self-Concept Scale did not matter; runs counter to previous work where it correlated with comprehension at between r= .47 and .60 (Chapman & Tunmer, 1995)
• Less variance explained than previous research (e.g., Kershaw & Schatschneider, 2010; Oulette & Beers, 2010)
1/12/15
11
Limitations
• We collapsed students into one group despite developmental differences
• Our small sample size also limited the number of variables we could enter into the regression
• Limited resources (no context of instruction, school)
Future Research
• Considering context; descriptive research
• Consider other measures: add a more sensitive vocabulary measure or enter each TOLD subtest separately;
• Consider processes; verbal protocols