• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

The relationship between reading fluency and comprehension in Spanish language measures

Dissertation
Author: Lori Kruger
Abstract:
  National mandates and student population changes increase the need for appropriate reading assessment of Spanish speaking students (IDEA, 2004; USDE, 2003; 2004). We felt with these national mandates, such as No Child Left Behind, more research on SD students reading fluency and comprehension on English and Spanish passages should be examined (USDE, 2003; 2004). English Dominant and Spanish Dominant speaking students' oral reading fluency and comprehension performance were assessed in both English and Spanish to see if oral reading fluency and comprehension were related for these participants, and measures. Results indicate statistically significant correlations between oral reading fluency and comprehension in Spanish and English for dominant English and Spanish speaking students.

Table of Contents

Section Page # Introduction and Literature Review ……………………………………………..1-10 Measures………………………………………………………………………..11-15 Results…………………………………………………………………………. 15-19 Discussion………………………………………………………………………19-24 References………………………………………………………………………25-31

1 The Relationship between Reading Fluency and Comprehension In Spanish Language Measures

Reading is an essential skill taught in the United States school system. To ensure these skills are learned, students’ reading ability must be assessed. Reading fluency measures have been increasingly utilized in the school system. The reason for the increased use is because they are easy to administer, reliable, and valid measures of student performance, easily applied to academic instruction and sensitive to change in reading fluency (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; IDEA, 2004; National Reading Panel, 2003; Shapiro, 2004; Shinn, 2004). In addition, reading fluency has been identified as an indicator of reading comprehension skills (IDEA, 2004; National Reading Panel, 2003). Most research on ORF measures and the relationship to comprehension have focused on ED speaking (Non-ELL) students on English measures (National Reading Panel, 2003). The United States is known for its eclectic culture and diversity; with Hispanics representing the most prevalent minority group (United States Department of Education [USDE], 2003). English language learners (ELL) have increased 104.97% from 1989-1990 to 1999-2000 (USDE, 2000). This increase in the Spanish speaking population has resulted in two million school-aged (5-17 years) ELLs in the U.S. school system (USDE, 2003). According to Kindler (2002), among 51 states and the District of Columbia public schools Spanish is the most common dominant language spoken by ELLs. This fact has several implications for the public school systems in the United States including instruction, assessment, and federal mandates. ELL and English-speaking students’ reading needs must be considered when instructing and assessing the progress of these students. In addition,

2 National and State mandates are requiring more rigorous documentation of appropriate assessment and instruction for ELL students (USDE, 2002). No Child Left Behind (NCLB) states all schools must improve reading achievement in all students (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Before schools can determine a students’ progress or ability, the student should be assessed in their dominant language (IDEA, 2004; USDE, 2004). Legal mandates stem from the disproportionate risk for literacy problems SD students experience (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 1999a; Rhodes, Hector Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005; Thomas & Collier, 1997/1998; 2002). Alarmingly, over half of SD students were not meeting basic reading requirements in fourth grade, and only 18% of SD at the 50 th percentile for reading whereas 42% of ED students scored in the 50 th percentile (NCES, 2001, 1999a; Thomas & Collier, 1997.1998; 2002). This is significant because the NCES (1999a) states 4 th graders’ reading proficiency should be obtained. Without appropriate curriculum, instruction, and assessment, students will most likely struggle further. With this alarming number of students failing to meet district goals, more evaluations researching the reasons behind the lack of reading performance demonstrated are necessary. Reading fluency is one way to assess the current level of reading fluency in students (National Reading Panel, 2003). The current study will contribute to the understanding of ED (ED) and SD (SD) students’ in a Dual Language program oral reading fluency and the relationship to comprehension on English and Spanish measures. Although there are differences between languages, similarities between the Spanish and English language include similar vowels and consonants are represented in both languages and there are a number of cognates or words that sound similar and spelled

3 similar (Culatta, Reese & Setger, 2006; Valle-Arroyo, 2005). The Spanish language is largely based on phonetics (Shinn, 1998). Spanish is known as a transparent language, which means there is a high or obvious relationship between the phonemes (sound) and graphemes (letter), making the words easier to sound out (Arteagoitia, Howard, Loguit, Malabonga & Kenyon, 2005; Pere`z & Ca`nado, 2005). The transparent language of Spanish means they may decode words faster compared to an opaque language like English (Arteagoitia et. al, 2005; Pere`z & Ca`nado, 2005) suggesting they may decode without actually comprehending the text. English on the other hand is opaque, meaning more complex because there are multiple or similar phoneme-grapheme representations; and each letter may have a different sound or same sound (Arteagoitia, et al, 2005; Helman, 2004; Pere`z, &Ca`nado, 2005). Reading Fluency and Comprehension The five key components to reading are: phonemic awareness, alphabetic principal, reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, with fluency and comprehension as the most salient skill (IDEA, 2004; National Reading Panel, 2003). Phonemic awareness is the ability to produce and understand the letters make sounds in a word (National Reading Panel, 2003). Phonemic awareness as described earlier is the basis of understanding the language and the sounds it makes (IDEA, 2000-2004, see http://reading.uoregon.edu/pa/). Alphabetic principles include the knowledge of letters and the sounds they make (IDEA, 2000-2004 see: http://reading.uoregon.edu/au/). Alphabetic principles demonstrate the sounds that letters make can blend and make words (IDEA, 2004). Oral reading fluency is the skill that allows the reader to decode quickly, accurately, and easily out-loud (IDEA, 2004, Moss, 2004). Comprehension is the process in which a reader takes meaning from

4 the text they read and becomes interactive with the text (IDEA, 2004; Moss, 2004). The reader must derive meaning from the text based on word recognition, decoding, vocabulary, and reading skills (IDEA, 2004; National Reading Panel, 2003). According to the National Reading Panel (2003), comprehension skills help words on the page to make sense to the reader; techniques used include visualization of the text read, or applying the material read to personal experience represents comprehension. Reading fluency and comprehension are related based on the cognitive processes occurring during the reading experience (National Reading Panel, 2003). Fluent readers are able to decode text quickly and efficiently allowing the reader to understand or comprehend text (National Reading Panel, 2003; Reidel, 2007). When phonemes, alphabetic principles, and vocabulary have been developed, one will learn to read fluently. Once reading fluency is acquired, the student will comprehend the words they are decoding. Reading fluency is assessed by oral reading fluency measures, or curriculum- based measurements (R-CBM). This is a well-researched way to identify the how quickly and accurately a student can read orally (Shapiro, 2004). Therefore, greater oral reading fluency rates suggest higher reading skills; accordingly, higher oral reading fluency rates should result in higher comprehension of the text (Good & Jefferson, 1998; Good, Simmons, & Kame`ennui, 2001; Shinn, 1992; McIntosh, Graves, & Gersten, 2007; Nathan & Stanovich, 1991, 1986). R-CBMs or oral reading fluency assessments are also beneficial as they can be given repeatedly to evaluate student progress/performance (Deno, 1992; Shinn, 2004; Shapiro, 2004). The relationship between Spanish speaking students oral reading fluency and comprehension is often questioned based on the highly transparent Spanish language, meaning a student may be able to decode, however,

5 comprehension is not related to fluency (Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005). Comprehending text means the understanding and gaining meaning from the words read (IDEA, 2000-2004; Roseberry-McKibben, 2002). To accurately assess reading comprehension is difficult. This is mainly because reading comprehension is something that occurs within the individual (IDEA, 2004). Cloze procedures are often used to determine comprehension by requiring a student to fill in the missing blank in a sentence. Cloze measures have not been identified as a useful indicator of comprehension skills in ELL students (Fitzgerald, 1995; Trager & Wong, 1984). One way to assess comprehension for ELL and non-ELL students is by requesting the student to read a story, and retell it to the evaluator (Moss, 2004; Roseberry-McKibben, 2002; Shapiro, 2004). Story retelling of the main topics or parts of a story let the teacher or assessor know how much a student took away from the text, the more experience with this assessment, the better the student will perform (Moss, 2004). This comprehension assessment is supported because the student must organize, understand, and relate to the reading material representing text form, function, structure, and processes to accurately retell the story (Moss, 2004). Studies on ORF and comprehension are not new to the research field (Good & Jefferson, 1998; Good, Simmons, & Kame`ennui, 2001; Nathan & Stanovich, 1991, 1986; McIntosh, Graves, & Gersten, 2007; Shinn, 1992; Shinn, Good, Knutson, Tilly & Collins, 1992; Thomas & Collier, 1997, 2004). These studies indicate the faster a student can read, or the more fluent they are the more they will comprehend. The reason for the relationship between fluency and comprehension is the less time spent on decoding each word, the more time the person can focus on understanding the text they are reading (Good &

6 Jefferson, 1998; National Reading Panel, 2003; Nathan & Stanovich, 1991; Shinn, et. al., 1992). The comprehension piece includes recalling main events, making predictions, applying the text to personal experiences and or past readings. If a student is using all of their effort to decipher the words on the page, they will not be able to explore the text more than the simple words (Good & Jefferson, 1998; Nathan & Stanovich, 1991; Shinn, et. al., 1992). Another study by Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin, & Deno (2000) found that reading fluency is related to comprehension and overall is a good test for reading ability (bivariate r= 0.6-0.9). Oral reading fluency scores were compared to high stakes standardized assessments (Jenkins et. al., 2000). This study noted further that students who read fluently can hold more than four times the amount of information compared to those who read slower and have disabilities (Jenkins et. al., 2000). Other studies have also examined fluency as an indicator of reading competence (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp & Jenkins, 2001; Jenkins et. al, 2000). These studies included oral reading fluency assessments and high stakes or lengthy reading assessments to determine reading competence, such as comprehension (Good, Simmons, & Kame`ennui, 2001; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp & Jenkins, 2001). A study completed by Good et. al. (2001) found oral reading fluency is an indicator of comprehension. This study assessed students in first grade and third grade and examined the relationship between oral reading fluency scores and comprehension outcomes on high stakes assessment (r= .67). The Fuchs et al (2001) examined older students (middle school aged) standard achievement test scores compared to other assessments such as story retell, cloze and oral reading fluency assessments. Fuchs et al., (2001), found that the greatest correlation was found between oral reading fluency and comprehension on the Stanford Achievement subtest. Although research has demonstrated powerful indications

7 of the relationship between fluency and comprehension, most of this research has involved non-ELL students (Fuchs et. al., 2001; Jenkins et. al, 2000). Additionally, these studies used the relationship to standardized and lengthy assessments (Fuchs et. al., 2001; Jenkins et. al, 2000). Studies that have included ELL students have found similar results: ORF measures do correlate with comprehension measures (Baker & Good, 1995; Baker, Plasencia- Peinado & Lezcano-Lytle, 1998; Muniz- Swicegood, 1994; Stevens McIntosh, Graves, & Gersten, 2007). Muniz-Swicegood (1994) examined SD students’ performance on comprehension in relationship to instruction. The students were instructed on comprehension strategies such as question generation on Spanish. Results indicated an effect size of .22 on Spanish measures and effect size of .39 on English measures indicating a transference or generalization of Spanish skills to the English language (Muniz-Swicegood, 1994). Although the Muniz-Swicegood (1994) study did not examine the correlation between oral reading fluency and comprehension, findings are significant when determining how to assess and instruct SD students. An interesting study by Stevens McIntosh et. al. (2007) examined response to interventions in various settings for students learning the English languages. Findings indicated that at the end of 1 st and 3 rd grade, oral reading fluency was related to passage comprehension on a standardized assessment (Woodcock Johnson Reading Master Test-Revised), for English language learners’ (r = .73). Assessments in this study were in the English language only, therefore comparison to English language learners’ native or dominant language was not taken in account (Stevens McIntosh et. al, 2007). The current study will be different form the above mentioned studies as it will examine the relationship between ED and SD students’ oral reading

8 fluency and comprehension using informal assessments on English and Spanish measures. Research has found SD students’ Spanish reading acquisition includes phonemic awareness, alphabetic principles, vocabulary, reading fluency and, finally comprehension, as with the English Language (National Reading Panel, 2003; Shinn, 2004; Slavin & Madden, 1999; Valle-Arroyo, 1996). Although the reading process has been demonstrated as the same between ED and SD students, the language structure such as transparent and opaque may influence the rate of fluency and the amount of instruction needed, and oral reading fluency measures is an effective tool to identify these potential differences (Baker et al, 1998, Valle-Arroyo, 1996). We felt reading fluency and its relationship to comprehension was felt to be an instrumental piece of the educational community for its’ ELL population. Appropriate education of ELL students will not only result in proficient readers for our society, but it will increase the number of ELL students who graduate from high school, and meet the National requirements (IDEA, 2004; Thomas & Collier, 2002). We felt the educational community would benefit from more research on ELLs’ reading skills, specifically the relationship between ORF and comprehension. Schools are required to assess and appropriately teach all students including those learning the English language (NCLB, 2003). If ORF measures correlate with comprehension measures, teachers may confidently use ORF as an indicator of overall reading performance. As mentioned previously, ORF measures are used more often based on the simple, easy, and quick administration (Shapiro, 2004, Shinn, 2004). In addition the scores relate to the curriculum the student is partaking in, and can be used as a progress-monitoring tool (Shapiro, 2004, Shinn, 2004). Comprehension is a large and complex skill and often difficult to assess. With the use of ORF measures as one indicator of ELL students reading

9 skills, teachers will meet national mandates placed on them, and obtain accurate measures of student progress. Research should further investigate if reading fluency is an indicator of reading comprehension for SD students to ensure effective instruction and assessment for this growing student population (Baker et al., 1998; Shinn, 2004). Therefore, the goal of the current study was to investigate SD and ED reading development (fluency, and comprehension) on both English and Spanish reading measures. Specifically the study will examine if the relationship is similar across grade levels (1 st -4 th

grade), and in students’ dominant and non-dominant language. Information gathered from the data will help practitioners and researchers learn how dominant English speaking students and dominant Spanish students perform on ORF and comprehension assessments in their dominant and learning language. This will also provide implications of how or if SD students do learn differently than their native English-speaking peers, and how ED students learn when taught in two languages, which we do not believe has been examined extensively to date. Hypothesized outcomes of the current study were the greater ORF would predict greater comprehension scores based on existing research (Good, & Jefferson, 1998; Good et. al, 2001; Nathan & Stanovich, 1991; Stevens McIntosh et al., 2007; Shinn, 1992; Shinn, et. al, 1992; Thomas & Collier, 1997; 2004). Research, specifically Thomas and Collier’s studies (1997; 2004) found the longer a student is enrolled in the dual language program, the greater academic gains will be gained. This finding has been demonstrated repeatedly (Denton, Hasbrouck, Weaver & Ricco, 2000; Shinn, 1998, Snow, Burn, & Griffin, 1998). Therefore, students (ED and SD) in grades 1-3 would demonstrate greater ORF scores than comprehension scores. Students (ED and SD) in grades 1-3 would demonstrate greater

10 ORF and comprehension scores in their respective dominant language compared to their learning language. Students (ED and SD) in fourth grade would result in ORF and comprehension scores in their dominant and learning languages based on the research stating the longer a student is enrolled in a dual language program, the greater gains made in both languages (Thomas & Collier, 1997; 2003; Denton et al., 2000; Shinn, 1998, Snow, Burn, & Griffin, 1998). This study will also explore the fluency skills and related comprehension performance for English and Spanish speaking students in a dual language program hypothesizing that correlations will be find regardless of dominant language, without a loss in dominant language. Method Participants and Setting Participants included all first through fourth grade students whom were enrolled in a Dual Language program at a Midwestern, metropolitan school; therefore random assignment was not utilized in this study. Students’ dominant language was either English or Spanish. Students’ English Development Assessment (ELDA) scores (range 1 (pre- functional) to 5 (English proficient) given by the school determined dominant language ( www.ccsso.org/projects/ELDA ), Participant’s gender was nearly equivalent when grades were combined, 65 males, and 66 females (See Table 1). An overwhelming number of students in the Dual Language program were considered low socio-economic status (SES). Eighty-seven percent of the participating students received free and reduced lunch. Sixteen percent were Caucasian, and 84% were Hispanic.

11 Table 1 Student Demographics

ED SD

Grade Male Female Male Female

1 11 3 10 9

2 8 4 8 11

3 2 9 12 7

4 6 8 7 12

Total N 27 24 37 39

The Dual Language program is a 50-50 model, instructing students 50% of their day in English only and the other 50% in Spanish only. Students received information in both languages in every subject. For example, in a math class, students my learn in Spanish, the next day they will review material from yesterday’s lesson in English, then move onto new material to ensure instructional overlap. There were 15–20 students per classroom, with two classrooms for each grade level, first through fourth grade. The data were taken as a procedure in their regular classroom day, therefore no consent or recruitment was necessary. Data were collected in the classroom or outside the room in a hall depending on teacher preference. Measures Oral Reading Fluency and Story Retell. Oral reading fluency rates were calculated by using three aimsweb ( www.aimsweb.org ) grade leveled (grades 1-4) reading passages in both English and Spanish (Edformation, 2002). Three passages were administered to determine the most accurate fluency performance for each student as some error (high or

12 low score) may occur on any given reading passages. As students read each passage for one minute, their ORF score was determined taking the total words read-errors (Shapiro, 2004; Shinn, 2004). High reliability and validity scores have been found for measuring oral reading fluency. Test-retest reliability ranged from .92-.97 (Shaw & Shaw, 2002). Criterion referenced reliability scores range from .57-.91 when comparing CBM scores to basal readers and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) (Bain & Garlock, 1982, Fuchs & Deno, 1992; Jenkins et. al., 2000). Construct validity resulted in high correlations ranging from .75-.90; and high correlations (60-.90) were found with additional criterion validity resulting with coefficients around .80. (Shinn et al, 1992). The number of words in each grade level passage is higher than any student will read in one minute; therefore variance in words per passage is not a concern of the current study. Additional validity and reliability data can be found at http://dibels.uoregon.edu . Comprehension scores were gathered with one short story in English and Spanish designed for all students to read in a short period of time. Stories were short passages extracted from the schools current Leveled Guided Reading books. Guided reading is a program published by Scholastic Inc. that focuses on the big five of reading (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). This program promotes a small group approach where books are leveled 1- 26 for Spanish, and A-Z for English based on reading ability (Fountas & Pinnel, 1996). To ensure the passages were an appropriate readability level, after passages were extracted from Guided reading books, they were entered into Intervention Central’s readability level processor ( http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/tools/okapi/okapi.php ). This process was completed for the English language only. The Spanish language

13 comprehension probes and rubrics were translated and back translated by a Spanish Professor and a Spanish background employee of the school before the testing took place. Comprehension probes were assessed by Shapiro’s (2004) story retell adapted form process. The rubric used included questions such as: who were the main characters, the setting, main event and prediction to what would happen next. To ensure standardization among examiners, expected answers were provided under each section the student was to retell. Comprehension scores could range from a zero, meaning no comprehension conveyed, to a ten meaning complete and accurate comprehension conveyed. Rubrics were written in English and Spanish. Procedure All individuals administering the probes went through a training session to learn the Oral reading fluency R-CBM and comprehension procedures, and increase inter-rater agreement (completed during training with a difference score no more than +/- 1 point). Administrators were comprised of School Psychology Graduate students, undergraduate psychology students, and bilingual support staff from the Dual Language program. There was continual communication with the school Research Project coordinator. The Project Coordinator acted as the liaison between the teachers and administrators, setting the time and date of administration. The Coordinator also assisted in the development of the comprehension probe ensuring appropriate measures would be collected from the students. The release of student demographic information was also conducted through the Project Coordinator. Oral Reading Fluency administration procedure went as follows for both English and Spanish assessments. Teams of two or three entered the classroom and pulled students

14 one by one to read the three one minute reading fluency probes. Reading fluency took place in the classroom or in the hall of the school; whichever was quieter at the time of data collection. Each child had a packet with all of his or her information in it. Standard instructions were followed when administering ORF assessments (see www.aimsweb.com

for more information). Students were told to read each passage to the best of their ability and help would be provided if necessary. Students read three passages in English for one minute each (Shinn, 2004). As the student read, administrators marked any words read incorrect, or were provided by the administrator. After each minute, the numbers of words read correct were recorded at the top of the student’s passage (Shinn, 2004). After all 3 passages were read; the student got the next student on the list (Shinn, 2004). Comprehension was assessed in a group approach. The team of administrators entered the classroom, or just outside of the classroom so that no student could overhear another student’s retell of the passages. Students were told before they read the passage to read the story to the best of their ability because they would be asked questions after they were done. All students read the given English passage silently. As students finished, they were to find an administrator and give them their packet. If there were a limited number of individuals available to administer the given assessment, students were asked to read the story silently one by one to ensure there was not a prolonged wait time before the student could retell the story. Behind the passage that the student had just read was the story retell rubric. The story retell rubric was organized by the following headings: theme, setting, problem, goal, characters, events, and solution/prediction (Shapiro, 2004). Answers were provided under each main heading to ensure consistency among assessment administrators. The student was then asked to retell as much of the story as possible. Students first

15 recalled information independently. Administrators then prompted students for parts of the story they may have missed, such as “who were the main characters”. One point was administered for each correct retell of the story. Spanish ORF and comprehension probes were conducted in a similar manner except there were only two administrators, both of which were native Spanish speaking employees of the Dual Language program. The Spanish-speaking assessors were trained in ORF and comprehension procedures either by formal education, or by School Psychology graduate students. Integrity checks were completed at random during one week to ensure accurate assessment procedures were used. When integrity checks were completed, feedback was provided. A follow-up integrity check would ensure corrections were made. Students were pulled 1:1 to read the story silently; then retell information identical to the English passage procedures. Data Analysis The ORF mean scores and standard deviations were calculated for each participant in both the English and Spanish language for dominant English and Spanish speaking students. Correlations were run to analyze ORF and comprehension relationships in English for ED or L1 English speakers, and for SD or L1 Spanish speakers, and for each group by grade level. Results Four Aims of this research were to 1) determine the mean fluency rate for ED and SD speakers on English and Spanish passages compared to National norms derived from AIMSweb ( www.aimsweb.com ). 2) Compare comprehension scores for SD speaking students and ED on English and Spanish passages. 3) Examine the relationship between

16 ORF and comprehension for Spanish speaking students on English and Spanish measures; and the relationship between ORF and comprehension for ED students on English and Spanish passages as demonstrated by mean ORF and comprehension performance, and correlations; 4) examine the relationship across grade levels (grades 1-4) in the students’ dominant and non-dominant language. SD students’ mean ORF scores increased each year on English and Spanish fluency measures indicating fluency skill growth (table 2). Compared to national norms ( www.aimsweb.com ), SD students performed below national norms, however, given this sample are a low SES population; usually this population performs lower on reading fluency assessments. SD students’ mean Spanish ORF scores were greater for the first grade cohort. However, the second grade through fourth grade cohort performed greater on English ORF measures compared to Spanish measures. ED students’ mean ORF increased each grade level for English measures with a large jump in words read correct between the third grade cohort and the fourth grade cohort. ED students’ Spanish mean ORF showed a large jump between the first grade and second grade cohort. Interestingly, the third grade cohort decreased in Spanish ORF. The fourth grade English speaking cohort had increased in Spanish ORF compared to the third grade cohort. ED students’ mean English ORF scores surpassed SD students across cohorts. See table 2 for means and standard deviations. SD students’ demonstrated comprehension mean scores ranging from 4.67-8.64 on a 10-point scale for English passages. The first grade SD students scored high on the English comprehension passages (M=8.6), the second grade cohorts’ mean English comprehension score decreased, and the fourth grade cohort jumped back up (M=7.89) on

17 English passages. SD speakers’ Spanish comprehension score were similar to the English comprehension scores. The second grade cohort decreased on Spanish measures, and jumped up in fourth grade (M=8.65). ED students’ mean English comprehension scores increased across cohorts (grades 1-4), with the largest increase between the third grade cohort (M=6.29), and the fourth grade cohort (M=8.93). On Spanish comprehension measures, ED students’ mean scores increased between the first and second grade cohort, remained stable between 2nd and 3rd grade, then jumped in 4 th grade (M=8.47).

Correlations were calculated for SD students in first through fourth grade for English fluency and English comprehension, and Spanish comprehension and Spanish fluency (see Table 3). Overall correlations were calculated for all participants on English fluency and English comprehension measures, and Spanish fluency and Spanish Table 2

Oral Reading Fluency and Comprehension Mean Scores

Englis h Measures

Spanish

Measures

Grade Dominant

N

O R F

Comprehension

N

OR F

Comprehension

Language

1

Spanish

19

34.4 4

8 .6 7

1 9

4 3 .7 5

5.5 8

(2 3 .72)

( 3 .32)

(21.64)

( 2 .09)

1

English

11

7 5 .0 0

3 .5 6

1 1

3 2 .33

4 .67

(34.52)

(0.98)

(23.94 )

(1.88)

2

Spanis h

16

7 1 .8 8

4.1 9

15

5 9 .0 7

4.6 3

(34.70)

(2 7 .99)

(1.89)

(2.71)

2

English

14

9 0 .1 4

5 .38

9

7 3 .2 2

4.6 7

(4 0 .19)

(3.31)

(20.93 )

(1.56)

3

Spanish

19

8 0. 7

4 .15

19

67.7 5

6.0 5

(4 5 .60)

(3.75)

(33.11 )

(2.93)

3

Engli sh

11

9 5 .0 0

6 .29

11

6 5 .5 3

5.4 1

(39.50)

(3.60)

(35.09 )

(2.34)

4

Spanish

15

122.1 8

7.8 9

14

8 7 .5 1

8 .64

(54.25)

(2.92)

(53.43 )

(2.39)

4

En g lish

1 5

13 6 .0 0

8 .93

15

7 3 .57

8 .47

(50.09)

(2.61)

(18.10 )

(2.29)

Note: Standard Deviation reported in parenthesis ( ); N=n u mber

of

participants;

OR F =Oral

Reading

Fluency mean score.

18 comprehension measures. Significant correlations were found for SD students between English ORF and comprehension in first through third grade. Statistically significant correlations were found for ELL students on English fluency and English comprehension, English fluency and Spanish comprehension, and English fluency and Spanish fluency. Correlations calculated for ED students for students first through fourth grade for English fluency and comprehension, and Spanish fluency and comprehension. Overall, ED students correlational results indicated ORF and comprehension were approaching significance or found to be of a significant value meaning ORF and comprehension were related for English and Spanish passages. Significant values were found for English ORF and comprehension in second grade, and were approaching significance for the third and fourth grade cohorts. Spanish ORF and comprehension correlations were found in third and fourth grade. Although the sample size is small, this data proved interesting. Table 3. Correlations

Full document contains 35 pages
Abstract:   National mandates and student population changes increase the need for appropriate reading assessment of Spanish speaking students (IDEA, 2004; USDE, 2003; 2004). We felt with these national mandates, such as No Child Left Behind, more research on SD students reading fluency and comprehension on English and Spanish passages should be examined (USDE, 2003; 2004). English Dominant and Spanish Dominant speaking students' oral reading fluency and comprehension performance were assessed in both English and Spanish to see if oral reading fluency and comprehension were related for these participants, and measures. Results indicate statistically significant correlations between oral reading fluency and comprehension in Spanish and English for dominant English and Spanish speaking students.