東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

An Evaluation of the Use of Oral Rea...

Newell, Kirsten M. W.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

An Evaluation of the Use of Oral Reading Fluency as a Screening Tool With Emerging Biliterates.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	An Evaluation of the Use of Oral Reading Fluency as a Screening Tool With Emerging Biliterates./
作者:	Newell, Kirsten M. W.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2018,
面頁冊數:	138 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 81-04, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International81-04A.
標題:	Educational psychology. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10822203
ISBN:	9781085754699

An Evaluation of the Use of Oral Reading Fluency as a Screening Tool With Emerging Biliterates.
Newell, Kirsten M. W.

An Evaluation of the Use of Oral Reading Fluency as a Screening Tool With Emerging Biliterates. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2018 - 138 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 81-04, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Minnesota, 2018.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

Students learning to read in more than one language, or emerging biliterates, are becoming increasingly common in schools. Early screening and identification of reading difficulties may lead to better outcomes for emerging biliterates as well as monolingual English students. Oral reading fluency (ORF) is one tool shown to be both a reliable measure of reading and an accurate method of identification of students at risk for poor reading outcomes. This project sought to build validity evidence for the use of ORF as a screening tool with emerging biliterates. Study one, a systematic review of literature, sought to synthesize available validity evidence for ORF with emerging biliterates. Studies were included that were empirical investigations about the use of ORF with emerging biliterate students in grades K through 8. All included studies (n = 25) were conducted with English language learners. Results suggested that although ORF is correlated with reading outcomes, the accuracy of ORF to identify emerging biliterates at risk of poor reading outcomes did not meet criteria. The strength of validity evidence differed by language proficiency of participants. Finally, there were substantial flaws in the quality of the reviewed studies. Study two, an empirical study at a German immersion school, sought to evaluate the use of ORF as a reading screening tool across German and English for students in third (n = 60), fourth (n = 60), and fifth grade (n = 42). Students were given ORF in English and German in winter, and a German proficiency and English reading exam in the spring. ORF in English, the first language of participants, was a good measure of reading and an accurate screening tool when predicting English and German outcome measures. English ORF outperformed German ORF as a predictor in all instances. Overall, results of the present studies suggest that though ORF has promise as a screening tool, more evidence is needed before it can be considered a valid, accurate screening tool for emerging biliterates.

ISBN: 9781085754699Subjects--Topical Terms:

517650
Educational psychology.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Emerging biliterates

An Evaluation of the Use of Oral Reading Fluency as a Screening Tool With Emerging Biliterates.
LDR:03463nmm a2200457 4500 001 2266379
005 20200612094434.5
008 220629s2018 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781085754699
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10822203
035 $a AAI10822203
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Newell, Kirsten M. W. $3 3543572
245 1 3 $a An Evaluation of the Use of Oral Reading Fluency as a Screening Tool With Emerging Biliterates.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2018
300 $a 138 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 81-04, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Codding, Robin;Sullivan, Amanda.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Minnesota, 2018.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
506 $a This item must not be added to any third party search indexes.
520 $a Students learning to read in more than one language, or emerging biliterates, are becoming increasingly common in schools. Early screening and identification of reading difficulties may lead to better outcomes for emerging biliterates as well as monolingual English students. Oral reading fluency (ORF) is one tool shown to be both a reliable measure of reading and an accurate method of identification of students at risk for poor reading outcomes. This project sought to build validity evidence for the use of ORF as a screening tool with emerging biliterates. Study one, a systematic review of literature, sought to synthesize available validity evidence for ORF with emerging biliterates. Studies were included that were empirical investigations about the use of ORF with emerging biliterate students in grades K through 8. All included studies (n = 25) were conducted with English language learners. Results suggested that although ORF is correlated with reading outcomes, the accuracy of ORF to identify emerging biliterates at risk of poor reading outcomes did not meet criteria. The strength of validity evidence differed by language proficiency of participants. Finally, there were substantial flaws in the quality of the reviewed studies. Study two, an empirical study at a German immersion school, sought to evaluate the use of ORF as a reading screening tool across German and English for students in third (n = 60), fourth (n = 60), and fifth grade (n = 42). Students were given ORF in English and German in winter, and a German proficiency and English reading exam in the spring. ORF in English, the first language of participants, was a good measure of reading and an accurate screening tool when predicting English and German outcome measures. English ORF outperformed German ORF as a predictor in all instances. Overall, results of the present studies suggest that though ORF has promise as a screening tool, more evidence is needed before it can be considered a valid, accurate screening tool for emerging biliterates.
590 $a School code: 0130.
650 4 $a Educational psychology. $3 517650
650 4 $a Foreign language learning. $3 3436780
650 4 $a English as a second language--ESL. $3 3423990
650 4 $a Foreign language instruction. $3 3541319
650 4 $a Pedagogy. $3 2122828
650 4 $a Curriculum development. $3 684418
650 4 $a Educational evaluation. $3 526425
650 4 $a Instructional design. $3 3172279
650 4 $a Bilingual education. $3 2122778
650 4 $a Multicultural education. $3 526718
653 $a Emerging biliterates
653 $a Oral reading fluency
653 $a English language learners
653 $a Validity evidence
653 $a Language proficiency
690 $a 0525
690 $a 0444
690 $a 0441
690 $a 0282
690 $a 0455
690 $a 0456
690 $a 0443
690 $a 0447
690 $a 0727
710 2 $a University of Minnesota. $b Educational Psychology. $3 1023204
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 81-04A.
790 $a 0130
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2018
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10822203