1.
The comprehension performance of both Year Four and Year Eight students
falls far short of their word accuracy assessments.
While 83% of Year Four and 95% of Year Eight were reading word accuracy
at 90% and above only 55% of the Year Four and 38% of the Year Eight scored
60% or above in the comprehension.
This low level of being able to bring meaning to the passage read is also
reflected in the self correction behaviours. The average self correcting
rates of 1:7 and 1:4.3 for Years Four and Eight respectively are far from
healthy. The lack of adequate self correcting behaviour corresponds with
the heavy focus on decoding skills shown by most readers.
Both Year groups did considerably better on the literal questions as against
the higher order. The gap had closed significantly (61-25 compared with
57-38) by Year Eight. This trend towards the Year Eight students who were
comprehending well to be able to think beyond the literal was further
reinforced by the passage independent examples of the higher order questions
being dealt with very well by this group and not at all well by the Year
Four students.
An
oral reading performance assessment of this type is not a suitable way
to assess comprehension.
The focus for the reader in this task is to perform as an oral reader,
read the words accurately and use decoding skills where there are difficulties.
The nature of the task and its administration does not make for a good
setting to encourage in depth comprehension.
Examples of ways to reduce the extent of the problems here could include:
o silent reading of the passage before the oral reading
o comprehension following silent reading
o shared reading and discussion of an opening paragraph
o brief retell with some probe questions and discussion before comprehension questions are asked
o use of practice cloze paragraph to encourage thinking and interaction with the text
o greater attention to administration of the test in order to engage the student and provide a greater focus on meaning.
Numerous issues arise concerning teachers misunderstanding of task administration
and lack of flexibility to make it a satisfying experience for the student
and worthwhile in terms of the data provided.
It is of major concern that many students read passages that are not at
their instructional level. At Year Four eight out of nine students read
at least one passage at the instructional level and only one read both
at the easy level. Five students were required to read passages at the
easy level, ten at instructional and three at the hard reading level.
At Year Eight there is a larger problem with six out of ten students reading
both passages at the easy level. Only four out of ten read at least one
passage at the instructional level. In total fourteen read easy passages,
six instructional and one hard.
Some teachers were clearly not familiar and confident with the testing
procedures. Several teachers with the Year Four students read the instructions
in a very mechanical, uninteresting manner. Numerous teachers failed to
engage the student before giving instructions or introducing the story.
Very few teachers went to any lengths to ensure that the students were
really aware of the need to look for meaning and be prepared to answer
comprehension questions. Only three teachers directed students to the
text during comprehension (on one occasion each).
Overall there did appear to be a big need for teachers to establish a
rapport and some communication with the student. They needed to work at
engaging students through interest and eye contact. There needed to be
flexibility to allow teachers to provide some prompts and the facility
to repeat, rephrase and reword questions.
