READING FLUENCY READING FLUENCY Using Oral Fluency Norms for Key - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

READING FLUENCY READING FLUENCY Using Oral Fluency Norms for Key Instructional Decisions Jan Hasbrouck, Ph.D. Jan Hasbrouck, Ph.D. Seattle, WA www.jhasbrouck.com

What is Reading Fluency? What is Reading Fluency? The ability to read  accurately  quickly  with expression

WHY IS FLUENCY SO IMPORTANT? WHY  Comprehension limited by labored, inefficient reading (working memory)  Lack of fluency = lack of motivation = fewer words read = smaller vocabulary = limited comprehension (self-perpetuating)  “There is no comprehension strategy that compensates for difficulty reading words accurately & fluently.” (Torgeson, 2003) See Pikulski & Chard (2005 )

Bridge to Comprehension Bridge to Comprehension Fluency forms the bridge between word recognition & comprehension FLUENCY Constructing Identifying Meaning Words

Measuring Reading Fluency Measuring Reading Fluency the number of words in text read correctly per minute minute (wcpm) correctly or… letters, sounds, words

Oral reading fluency errors Oral reading fluency errors  Mispronunciation/Substitution s  Hesitations/No Attempt (3-5 seconds)  Omissions  Word reversals NOTE but don’t count as errors:  Self-corrections  Repetitions  Dialect, speech impairments  Punctuation errors  Insertions

Curriculum-Based Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) Measurement (CBM) Long research history… … Long research history Stan Deno University of Minnesota Lynn Fuchs, Doug Fuchs, Jerry Tindal, Mark Shinn, Joe Jenkins, John Hintze, Michelle Hosp, others…

CURRICULUM-BASED MEASURES CURRICULUM-BASED MEASURES Reliable ♣ Valid “indicators” ♣ Production-based (not selection items) ♣  Mirrors real performance Quick to administer (1-5 min) ♣ Repeatable ♣ Sensitive ♣ Spelling Spelling : correct letter sequences Writing Writing: correct word sequences Math Math: correct digits Reading Reading: # words correct per minute

Curriculum-Based Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)-Reading Reading Measurement (CBM)-  Production-based: Oral reading  1:1 for 60 seconds  Standardized procedures for scoring errors  Count errors only; not miscue analysis  Unpracticed reading  Multiple measures OR standardized passage  Grade level OR instructional level

Oral Reading Fluency Norms Oral Reading Fluency Norms for Grades 1-8 for Grades 1-8 Hasbrouck & Tindal January, 2005 http://brt.uoregon.edu/ TECHNICAL REPORTS

Oral Reading Fluency Norms 2005 Oral Reading Fluency Norms 2005 50 th percentiles Grade Fall Winter Spring wcpm wcpm wcpm 1 23 53 2 51 72 89 3 71 92 107 4 94 112 123 5 110 127 139 6 127 140 150 7 128 136 150 8 133 146 151

ROLES ROLES FOR ORF NORMS FOR ORF NORMS FINDING students who may may #1 FINDING #1 need intervention assistance in reading DIAGNOSING fluency problems #2 DIAGNOSING #2 MONITORING PROGRESS #3 MONITORING PROGRESS #3 to determine if reading skills are improving

Benchmark Screening Benchmark Screening 3x Year: Fall, Winter, Spring SCREENER MAY NEED LIKELY ON TRACK EXTRA ASSISTANCE Further Diagnostic Begin/Continue Assessments Instruction Approaching On Level Level Intervention

Benchmark Screening Benchmark Screening procedures procedures (1) Assess using fluency-based (1) grade level materials (letters, sounds, words, text…) (2) Use benchmark norms to interpret (2) fluency score

Concerns about Screening Concerns about Screening How can a very short measure of a single, isolated reading skill determine proficiency in the highly complex task of reading? Hamilton & Shinn, 2003 fluency used as a thermometer… … fluency used as a thermometer

QUICKLY provides information QUICKLY  Valid (relevant, useful, & important)  Accurate (reliable)  Compared to benchmark BUT … body temperature only one single indicator BUT of general health or illness: Normal? 103 degrees? Fluency-based screening measures provide one reasonably dependable indicator of a one reasonably dependable indicator student’s academic “health” or “illness”

Oral Reading Fluency Correlates Oral Reading Fluency Correlates Highly with Reading Comprehension Highly with Reading Comprehension Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, SSR, 2001 Measure Validity Coefficients Oral Recall / Retell Cloze Question Answering Oral Reading Fluency

Diagnostic Assessments Diagnostic Assessments SCREENER MAY NEED LIKELY ON TRACK EXTRA ASSISTANCE Further Diagnostic Begin/Continue Assessments Instruction Approaching On Level Level Intervention

ASSESSING STRUGGLING ASSESSING STRUGGLING READERS READERS Identifying students as “reading disabled”, “learning disabled”, or “dyslexic” not justified by assessment or instructional research. HOWEVER … HOWEVER … Assessing reading-related SKILLS (strengths & needs) is essential SKILLS National Research & Development Centre UK May, 2004

DIAGNOSING DIAGNOSING FLUENCY FLUENCY PROBLEMS PROBLEMS INSTRUCTIONAL  Unpracticed passage(s) at INSTRUCTIONAL level (may be combined with IRI)  Oral reading for 1 minute  Same errors as screening assessments

EXAMPLES EXAMPLES 103 – 4 = 99 WCPM 99 WCPM 3 rd grader reading 3 rd grade passage Winter 3 rd 4th grader reading 4th 4th grade passage Spring 5th grader reading 4th 4th grade passage Fall

Progress Monitoring in Reading Progress Monitoring in Reading 2 Forms 2 Forms On-Level (Tier I) On-Level (Tier I) Repeat screening assessments 3x year Supplemental (Tier II) Supplemental (Tier II) Intervention (Tier III) Intervention (Tier III) Curriculum-based Measurement (CBM) Weekly or 2x month

CBM Progress Monitoring CBM Progress Monitoring for Reading for Reading words read correctly per minute (wcpm) in text or isolated

CBM Monitoring Reading Progress CBM Monitoring Reading Progress oral reading fluency Obtain/develop a set of ♣ equivalent probes  Usually assess at GOAL GOAL level Administered 1:1 ♣  1 minute oral reading sample Score for words correct per minute ♣ Graph results ♣

EXAMPLE EXAMPLE 4 th gr. student; 2 nd gr. reading level 1. 2-3 passages at GOAL level (Gr. 3?) 2. 83, 78, 85 wcpm (median: 83; mean 82) 3. Determine weekly goal (2 words/wk?) 4. Determine goal period (10 weeks?) 5. # words per week (weekly goal) x # weeks ; add to mean/median score (2 X 10 + 83 ≈ 105) 6. Plot goal score on graph 7. Draw “aim line”… & begin instruction

Goals for Fluency Goals for Fluency Fuchs, et al. Realistic Fuchs, et al. Grade Goals Ambitious Goals 1 2 words/wk 3 words/wk 2 1.5 words/wk 2.0 words/wk 3 1.0 words/wk 1.5 words/wk 4 .85 words/wk 1.1 words/wk 5 .5 words/wk .8 words/wk 6 .3 words/wk .65 words/wk

Interpreting CBM Graphs Interpreting CBM Graphs Plot weekly or bimonthly score on the student’s graph General Rule: General Rule: if 3 scores fall below goal line, make an instructional change

WCPM Brian 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 weeks 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 50

Barriers to Use of CBM Barriers to Use of CBM Hasbrouck, Woldbeck, Ihnot, & Parker (1999) • Time • Logistics • Fear of accountability

Ihnot’s initial reaction to using CBM: “My job is teaching. I don’t feel I have enough time to do my job well as it is. Why should I take so much time away from teaching to assess and do even more paperwork?”

A Changed Opinion… … A Changed Opinion After years of using CBM: “If I hadn’t been forced to use CBM I would never know what I know today, and that is that curriculum-based measurement is very, very valuable….I just can’t teach without it. That’s how much I rely on it, even though it means I have a few minutes less for teaching and a few minutes more of paperwork.”  Easy interpretation of graphs  Lack of progress seen immediately  Quickly determine effects of intervention

REFERENCES  AIMS WebEdformation www.edformation.com/  Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52 , 219-232.  DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) . http://idea.uoregon.edu/~dibels/  Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth? School Psychology Review, 22 (1), 27-48

 Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3 ), 239-256  Hamilton, C., & Shinn, M.R. (2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of reading comprehension and oral reading skills. School Psychology Review, 32 (2), 228-240.  Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (2005) Oral Reading Fluency Norms http://brt.uoregon.edu/ TECHNICAL REPORTS