Examining the Learning Hierarchy with Accuracy and Rate Scores for Reading Fluency Among Second- and Third-Grade Students

IF 1.2 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Journal of Behavioral Education Pub Date : 2023-11-24 DOI:10.1007/s10864-023-09536-2
Matthew K. Burns
{"title":"Examining the Learning Hierarchy with Accuracy and Rate Scores for Reading Fluency Among Second- and Third-Grade Students","authors":"Matthew K. Burns","doi":"10.1007/s10864-023-09536-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Previous research used the learning hierarchy (LH) as a heuristic to select reading interventions based on the level of accuracy defined as the percentage of words read correctly. The current study examined the validity of the LH by reporting the prevalence of reading profiles proposed by the framework: Acquisition phase—inaccurate and slow, Proficiency phase—accurate and slow, and Generalization phase—accurate and fast to determine the extent to which the data could be used to drive reading interventions. The design also included a hypothetical phase of inaccurate and fast, which was not included in the LH. Reading fluency data from 223 second- and third-grade students were compared to accuracy (93%) and rate (national grade-level norms) criteria. When data were classified into the LH phases described above, 44.4% (<i>n</i> = 99) of the students were in the Acquisition phase, 23.8% (<i>n</i> = 53) were in the Proficiency phase, and 31.4% (<i>n</i> = 70) were in the Generalization phase. Less than 1% (<i>n</i> = 1) was in the hypothetical phase of inaccurate and fast, and the rarity of this occurrence was predicted by the LH. These data support the LH as a conceptual framework to drive diagnostic assessment, and the importance of examining accuracy data when designing reading fluency interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47391,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-023-09536-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous research used the learning hierarchy (LH) as a heuristic to select reading interventions based on the level of accuracy defined as the percentage of words read correctly. The current study examined the validity of the LH by reporting the prevalence of reading profiles proposed by the framework: Acquisition phase—inaccurate and slow, Proficiency phase—accurate and slow, and Generalization phase—accurate and fast to determine the extent to which the data could be used to drive reading interventions. The design also included a hypothetical phase of inaccurate and fast, which was not included in the LH. Reading fluency data from 223 second- and third-grade students were compared to accuracy (93%) and rate (national grade-level norms) criteria. When data were classified into the LH phases described above, 44.4% (n = 99) of the students were in the Acquisition phase, 23.8% (n = 53) were in the Proficiency phase, and 31.4% (n = 70) were in the Generalization phase. Less than 1% (n = 1) was in the hypothetical phase of inaccurate and fast, and the rarity of this occurrence was predicted by the LH. These data support the LH as a conceptual framework to drive diagnostic assessment, and the importance of examining accuracy data when designing reading fluency interventions.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
二、三年级学生阅读流畅性的准确性和率分数研究学习层次
先前的研究使用学习层次(LH)作为启发式方法,根据正确阅读单词的百分比来选择阅读干预措施。目前的研究通过报告阅读概况的流行程度来检验LH的有效性,该框架提出:获取阶段不准确和缓慢,熟练阶段准确和缓慢,概括阶段准确和快速,以确定数据可用于驱动阅读干预的程度。该设计还包括一个不准确和快速的假设阶段,这是不包括在LH。对223名二年级和三年级学生的阅读流畅性数据进行了准确性(93%)和比率(国家年级水平标准)标准的比较。当数据被划分为上述LH阶段时,44.4% (n = 99)的学生处于习得阶段,23.8% (n = 53)的学生处于熟练阶段,31.4% (n = 70)的学生处于概括阶段。小于1% (n = 1)处于不准确和快速的假设阶段,这种情况的罕见度由LH预测。这些数据支持LH作为驱动诊断评估的概念框架,以及在设计阅读流畅性干预措施时检查准确性数据的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Behavioral Education
Journal of Behavioral Education EDUCATION, SPECIAL-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Education is an international forum dedicated to publishing original research papers on the application of behavioral principles and technology to education. Education is defined broadly and the journal places no restriction on the types of participants involved in the reported studies--including by age, ability, or setting. Each quarterly issue presents empirical research investigating best-practices and innovative methods to address a wide range of educational targets and issues pertaining to the needs of diverse learners and to implementation. The Journal of Behavioral Education is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal whose target audience is educational researchers and practitioners including general and special education teachers, school psychologists, and other school personnel.  Rigorous experimental designs, including single-subject with replication and group designs are considered for publication. An emphasis is placed on direct observation measures of the primary dependent variable in studies of educational issues, problems, and practices.  Discussion articles and critical reviews also are published.
期刊最新文献
Using Constant Time Delay to Teach Sight Words to Students Identified as Deafblind Applying “Mastery” Criteria to Sets and Individual Operants: A Replication with Preschoolers with Disabilities The Effect of a Tiered Professional Development Framework on Check-In/Check-Out Treatment Fidelity Efficiency and Child Preference for Specific Prompting Procedures Social and Ecological Validity of the Good Behavior Game: A Systematic Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1