Establishing reliable procedures for rating ell students’ reading comprehension using oral retellings

R. Sudweeks, Connie B. Glissmeyer, Timothy G. Morrison, B. Wilcox, Mark W. Tanner
{"title":"Establishing reliable procedures for rating ell students’ reading comprehension using oral retellings","authors":"R. Sudweeks, Connie B. Glissmeyer, Timothy G. Morrison, B. Wilcox, Mark W. Tanner","doi":"10.1080/19388070409558405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Oral retellings are strongly recommended as a way to measure reading comprehension for second language learners (Bernhardt, 1985, 1990, 1991). However, the reliability of such ratings is a matter of concern for a variety of reasons (Aiken, 1996; Cooper, 1981; Saal, Downey, & Lahey, 1980). The purpose of this study was to establish reliable rating procedures to assess the reading comprehension of college‐age second language learners using oral retellings. A three‐facet (passage, rater, and rating occasion) generalizability study was conducted using oral retellings of expository passages. Retellings of three passages provided by 24 ELL students were rated by two trained raters on two occasions. The largest sources of error variance identified were the passages and the student‐by‐passage interaction. Results showed that the most important step that could be taken to reduce measurement error and increase generalizability would be to use at least four and preferably six passages to assess ELL students’ reading comprehension. The gain in generalizability from using additional raters or rating occasions was minimal.","PeriodicalId":88664,"journal":{"name":"Reading research and instruction : the journal of the College Reading Association","volume":"43 1","pages":"65 - 86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19388070409558405","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading research and instruction : the journal of the College Reading Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070409558405","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

Abstract Oral retellings are strongly recommended as a way to measure reading comprehension for second language learners (Bernhardt, 1985, 1990, 1991). However, the reliability of such ratings is a matter of concern for a variety of reasons (Aiken, 1996; Cooper, 1981; Saal, Downey, & Lahey, 1980). The purpose of this study was to establish reliable rating procedures to assess the reading comprehension of college‐age second language learners using oral retellings. A three‐facet (passage, rater, and rating occasion) generalizability study was conducted using oral retellings of expository passages. Retellings of three passages provided by 24 ELL students were rated by two trained raters on two occasions. The largest sources of error variance identified were the passages and the student‐by‐passage interaction. Results showed that the most important step that could be taken to reduce measurement error and increase generalizability would be to use at least four and preferably six passages to assess ELL students’ reading comprehension. The gain in generalizability from using additional raters or rating occasions was minimal.
建立可靠的程序,以评估学生的阅读理解能力
口头复述被强烈推荐作为一种衡量第二语言学习者阅读理解能力的方法(Bernhardt, 1985,1990,1991)。然而,由于各种原因,这种评级的可靠性是一个值得关注的问题(Aiken, 1996;库珀,1981;Saal, Downey, & Lahey, 1980)。本研究的目的是建立可靠的评分程序,以评估大学年龄的第二语言学习者使用口语复述的阅读理解。通过口头复述说明性段落,进行了三方面(段落、评价者和评价者)概括性研究。24名ELL学生复述三篇文章,由两名训练有素的评分员在两个场合对其进行评分。最大的误差方差来源是文章和学生之间的相互作用。结果表明,减少测量误差和提高概括性的最重要的步骤是使用至少四篇,最好是六篇文章来评估ELL学生的阅读理解能力。使用额外的评级员或评级场合所获得的泛化性增益是最小的。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信