national accessible reading assessment projects report on the focus groups held in support of naraps...

National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects

Report on the Focus Groups

held in support of NARAP’s Goal 1

Frederick ClineChristopher Johnstone


Goal 1 Process and sub-goals

• Document reading definition and support it by research and theory.

• Analyze the definition in relation to current standards and the population.

• Obtain input from relevant outside groups.

• Refine the definition based on input from external sources and research.


Focus Group Goals

• Main purpose - get feedback on the definitions from members of the reading, disability and educational measurement communities.


Focus Group Process

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

– Broader constituency of educators.

– Cost effective, convenient, open to all.

• 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, 18 people

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


Protocol• One hour sessions• All sessions taped along with notes taken• Consent form included additional info

• 5 minutes on background and rules• 10 minutes on each definition• 15 minutes on all three• 5 minutes on questionnaire (phone-based

participants emailed questionnaire after the focus groups were completed)


Definition A

• Reading is decoding and understanding written text. Decoding requires translating the symbols of writing systems (including Braille) into the spoken words they represent. Understanding is determined by the purposes for reading, the context, the nature of the text, and the readers' strategies and knowledge.


Definition B

• Reading is decoding and understanding text for particular reader purposes. Readers decode written text by translating text to speech, and translating directly to meaning. To understand written text, readers engage in constructive processes to make text meaningful, which is the end goal or product.


Definition C

• Reading is the process of deriving meaning from text. For the majority of readers, this process involves decoding written text. Some individuals require adaptations such as Braille or auditorization to support the decoding process. Understanding text is determined by the purposes for reading, the context, the nature of the text, and the readers' strategies and knowledge.


Overarching statement

• Most people preferred having the main emphasis in the definitions be placed on understanding

• Participants did not feel that it was appropriate to have decoding appear equal to understanding in importance


Definition of decoding

• 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.


Definition of understanding

• There was often discussion on the relative nature of the terms “understanding” and “meaning” (which were used in the definitions) and “comprehension” (which was not used).

• Two different descriptions of how understanding is impacted for students were included in the definitions.


The terms “speech/spoken words”

• Almost all groups objected to the references 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).


Braille

• 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.

• 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.


Auditorization

• 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 readoing disabilities) argued that auditorization could be appropriate as a means to measure understanding.


Understanding and decoding for disabled students

• 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.


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: Phone and Web-Based Focus Groups

• Results were similar to face-to-face focus groups.

• “Understanding” was the preferred definitional focus of participants. Heavy focus on decoding was questioned.

• Participants were widely supportive of the Definition C’s first sentence (“reading is the process of deriving meaning from text”).


Results: Phone and Web-Based Focus Groups

• “Translating text to speech” was a phrase that advocates for students who do not use spoken language found particularly problematic.

• The insertion of Braille was lauded by many groups.

• Braille and auditorization were not deemed equavalent. Participants questioned the validity of “auditorization” as a reading process


Disability-Specific Information

• Aside from opinions about the definitions, participants provided specific information about how students with disabilities read.

• Number of participants was small, but information was rich.


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.


Mental Retardation

• Readers with 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.


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.


Learning Disabilities

• Participants stressed “accessing text” rather than decoding or reading text. A focus on accessing information, rather than individual skills, is most appropriate for this population.

• Some readers with learning disabilities use alternative approaches to reading, such as screen readers or books on tape, but still consider the process “reading.” (Both respondents used text readers and books on tape)


Learning Disabilities

• The availability of text-based accommodations in higher education are commonplace (such as “auditorization”) but noted that such accommodations were rarely found or simply unavailable in K-12 education.

• Questioned large-scale assessment focus and preferred that reading approaches for students with LD be more practically oriented (e.g., learning to read graphics, job applications, etc.)


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 deemed by many not to be a pure measure of reading.

national accessible reading assessment projects report on the focus groups held in support of naraps...

Documents

reading test

oral reading

basic construct of reading

version of text accessible

written text

translating text

importance slide

decoding process