1 / 13

Focus Group Process

Formulating Public Opinion on Reading Definitions American Educational Research Association San Francisco, CA April 10, 2006. Focus Group Process. Face-to-face (DARA): “Piggyback” on large conferences. Broader constituency of educators. Cost effective, convenient, open to all.

honorato-horne
Télécharger la présentation

Focus Group Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Formulating Public Opinion on Reading DefinitionsAmerican Educational Research AssociationSan Francisco, CAApril 10, 2006

  2. Focus Group Process • Face-to-face (DARA): • “Piggyback” on large conferences. • Broader constituency of educators. • Cost effective, convenient, open to all. • Web-based (PARA) • Not tied to specific conferences. • Focus on specific disability groups. • Targeted by GAC members and disability foci of projects.

  3. Face-to-Face Sessions • Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) • 6 sessions, 35 people • American Educational Research Association (AERA) / National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) • 3 sessions, 17 people • International Reading Association (IRA) • 5 sessions, 24 people • Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) • 4 sessions, 20 people • Society for the Scientific Study of Reading (SSSR) • 5 sessions, 19 people

  4. Teleconference Sessions • National Down Syndrome Society (NDSS) • 4 people • Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) • 1 person • Parent Advocacy Center for Educational Rights (PACER) • 3 people • The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) • 2 people • Gallaudet Research Institute • 4 people • The Association of State Consultants of Blind/Visually Impaired • 6 people • TASH/The ARC • 7 people

  5. Results • Most people preferred having the main emphasis in the definitions be placed on “understanding” of messages found in text. • Participants did not feel that it was appropriate to have “decoding” appear equal to “understanding” in importance (decoding was seen by many as a “means to an end).

  6. “Decoding” discussion • Much of the dislike for the inclusion of decoding as equal in importance to understanding seemed to stem from differences in the scope of what decoding represented: • Reading experts often viewed decoding as a more comprehensive term. • Teachers often viewed decoding as too simple a term, such as “sounding out” words.

  7. “Understanding” discussion • There was often discussion on the relative nature of the terms “understanding” and “meaning” (which were used in the definitions) and “comprehension” (which was not used). • Two different descriptions of how understanding is impacted for students were included in the definitions.

  8. “Speech/spoken words” discussion • Almost all groups objected to the references to “translating text to speech” and “spoken words” as being problematic to students who had no spoken language. • Teachers often interpreted “translating text to speech” as being specific to oral reading (reading out loud). • Some interpreted “translating text to speech” as an internal process.

  9. Braille discussion • The inclusion of braille was supported as simply being the version of text accessible to those students who read braille. • Classifying it as an adaptation or accommodation was questioned by some (i.e., braille = print). • The use of a read aloud accommodation instead of braille was mentioned a few times for students who either had not, could not, or would not learn braille (state accommodations policies are inconsistent in these areas)

  10. “Auditorization” discussion • Many felt that “auditorization” undermined a basic construct of reading which includes the interpretation of text. • No longer a reading test, but a listening test. • Some (mostly teachers of students with disabilities) argued that auditorization could be appropriate as a means to measure understanding.

  11. Understanding and decoding for students with disabilities • Participants noted a clear relationship between decoding and understanding for non-disabled students. • Less clear for students with disabilities: • Could show skill in decoding but had no understanding of what they read. • Capable of understanding but could not decode well.

  12. Other issues • The nature and scope of the term text. • When reading ends and literacy begins. • ELL students not addressed.

  13. Conclusion • Findings were relatively consistent across both face-to-face and phone/web-based focus groups. • According to participants, “understanding” is the most important element of reading. • “Translating text to speech” is problematic for a variety of readers. • Decoding is important, but not the most important facet of reading. • Auditorization is problematic as a construct of reading.

More Related