Examining Oral Reading Fluency Trajectories Among English Language Learners and English Speaking Students Un estudio de las trayectorias de fluidez lectora oral en estudiantes de inglés como segunda lengua y estudiantes de habla inglesa

Abstract

Students’ oral reading fluency growth from first through fourth grade was used to predict their achievement on the Stanford Achievement Test (9th ed.; SAT-9 Reading) using a latent growth model. Two conditional variables related to student status were used to determine the effects on reading performance - English language learners (ELLs) with low socioeconomic status and low socioeconomic (SES) status alone. Results revealed that both types of student status variables reliably predicted low performance on initial first grade oral reading fluency, which later predicted fourth grade performance on the SAT-9. However, the reading fluency trajectories of the ELLs and monolingual English students were not significantly different. In addition, when both student status variables and letter naming fluency were used to predict initial oral reading fluency, letter naming fluency dominated the prediction equation, suggesting that an initial pre-reading skill, letter naming fluency, better explained fourth grade performance on the SAT-9 than either ELL with low SES or low SES alone. The discussion focuses on how to better enable these readers and how oral reading fluency progress monitoring can be used to assist school personnel in determining which students need additional instructional assistance.

References

• Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

• Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In G.A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Baker, S. K., & Good, R. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English reading with bilingual Hispanic students: A validation study with second-grade students. School Psychology Review, 24(4), 561-578.

• Baker, S. K., Plasencia-Peinado, J., & Lezcano-Lytle, V. (1998). The use of curriculum-based measurement with language-minority students. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced Applications of Curriculum-Based Measurement (pp. 175-213). New York: The Guilford Press.

• Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588

• Bentz, J., & Pavri, S. (2001). Curriculum-based measurement in assessing bilingual students: A promising new direction. Diagnostique, 25(3), 229-248.

• Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

• Cauce, A. M., & Domenech-Rodriguez, M. (2002). Latino families: Myths and realities. In J. M. Contreras, K. A. Kerns & A. M. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Latino Children and Families in the United States: Current Research and Future Directions (pp. 3-25). Westport, CT: Praeger.

• De Avila, E. A., & Duncan, S. E. (1984). Language Assessment Scales. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.

• Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219-232.

• Deno, S. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(8), 1-16.

• Duncan, S. C., & Duncan, T. E. (1994). Modeling incomplete longitudinal substance use data using latent variable growth curve methodology. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29, 313-338. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2904_1

• Elliott, J., Lee, S. W., & Tollefson, N. (2001). A reliability and validity study of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills-Modified. School Psychology Review, 30, 33-49.

• Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., & Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 1-37. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.3

• Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1994). Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum?. Exceptional Children, 61, 15-24.

• Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57(6), 488-499.

• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L. & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?. School Psychology Review, 22, 27-48.

• Good, R. H., & Jefferson, G. (1998). Contemporary perspectives on curriculum-based measurement validity. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced application of Curriculum-Based Measurement (pp. 61-88). New York: Guilford Press.

• Greenberg, E., Macias, R. E., Rhodes, D., & Chan, T. (2001). English literacy and language minorities in the United States. Education Statistics Quarterly, 3(4), 73-75.

• Habendank-Stewart, L., & Kaminski, R. (2002). Best practices in curriculum-based evaluation. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV. Bethesda, MD: The National Association of School Psychologists.

• Harcourt Brace & Company (1997a). Stanford Achievement Test Series – Ninth Edition: Spring norms book. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace & Company.

• Harcourt Brace & Company (1997b). Stanford Achievement Test Series – Ninth Edition: Technical data report. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace & Company.

• Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(3), 41-44.

• Hintze, J. M., Callahan, J. E, Matthews, W. J., Williams, S. A., & Tobin, K. G. (2002). Oral reading fluency and prediction of reading comprehension in African American and Caucasian elementary school children. School Psychology Review, 31(4), 540-553.

• Howell, K. W., Kurns, S., & Antil, L. (2002). Best practices in curriculum-based evaluation. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp.753-770). Bethesda, MD: The National Association of School Psychologists.

• Hu, L-Z., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

• Jimerson, S. R. (1997). ORAL-J: The administration and technical manual. Available from S. R. Jimerson, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, 93106-9490.

• Jimerson, S. R. (2000). ORAL-J: The administration and technical manual. Available from S. R. Jimerson, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, 93106-9490.

• Klein, J., & Jimerson, S. R. (in press). Examining ethnic, gender, and language bias of oral reading fluency scores among Caucasian and Hispanic students. School Psychology Review.

• Kranzler, J. H., Miller, M. D., & Jordan, L. (1999). An examination of racial/ethnic and gender bias on Curriculum-Based Measurement of reading. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 327-342. doi:10.1037/h0089012

• Marston, D. B. (1987). The effectiveness of special education: A time series analysis of reading performance in regular and special education settings. Journal of Special Education, 21, 13-26.

• Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1985). Implementing curriculum-based measurement in special and regular education settings. Exceptional Children, 52, 176-266. doi:10.1177/002246698802100405

• McArdle, J., & Epstein, D. (1987). Latent growth curves within developmental structural equation models. Child Develoment, 58, 110-133. doi:10.2307/1130295

• Meredith, W., & Tisak, J. (1990). Latent curve analysis. Psychometrika, 55, 107-122. doi:10.1007/BF02294746

• Powell-Smith, K. A., & Bradley-Klug, K. L. (2001). Another look at the “c” in cbm: Does it really matter if curriculum-based measurement reading probes are curriculum-based?. Psychology in the Schools, 38(4), 299-312. doi:10.1002/pits.1020

• Schafer, J., & Olsen, M. (1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate missing-data problems: A data analyst’s perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 545-571. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3304_5

• Shinn, M. R. (Ed.) (1998). Advanced Applications of Curriculum-Based Measurement. New York: The Guilford Press.

• Shinn, M. R. (Ed.) (1989). Curriculum-Based Measurement: Assessing Special Children. New York: The Guilford Press.

• Sibley, D., Biwer, D., & Hesch, A. (April, 2001). Establishing curriculum-based measurement oral reading performance standards to predict success on local and state tests of reading achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Washington, DC.

• Stage, S. A. (2001). Program evaluation using hierarchical linear modeling with curriculum-based measurement reading probes. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 91-112.

• Stage, S. A., & Jacobsen, D. M. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 30, 407-419. doi:10.1521/scpq.16.1.91.19159

• Stage, S. A., Sheppard, J., Davidson, M., & Browning, M. (2001). Prediction of first grader’s growth in oral reading using their kindergarten letter-naming and letter-sound fluency. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 225-237. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00065-6

• Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407. doi:10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1

• US. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Status and trends in the education of Hispanics (NCES 2003-08). Washington, DC: Author.

• Tindal, G. (1993). A review of curriculum-based procedures on nine assessment components. In J. J. Kramer (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement (pp.25-64). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

• Whitehurst, G. J., & Fischel, J. E. (2000). Reading and language impairments in conditions of poverty. In D. V. M. Bishop & L. B. Leonard (Eds.), Speech and language impairments in children: Causes, characteristics, intervention and outcome (pp. 53-71). Hove, England: Psychology Press.