Special and General Education Teachers' Beliefs About Writing and Writing Instruction.

Seventy-six general education and 67 special education teachers working in the same 66 elementary schools were surveyed about their beliefs about writing. Each teacher taught writing to one or more fourth-grade students receiving special education services, including students with learning disabilities. Survey findings indicated that general education teachers believed that they were better prepared to teach writing than special education teachers, and they were more positive about their own efforts to learn to teach writing. General education teachers also held more positive attitudes about teaching writing and their own capabilities as a writer than their special education counterparts. Furthermore, general educators were more likely than special educators to indicate that writing developed through effort and process, and less likely to think that writing knowledge came from experts. Beliefs about adequacy of preparation to teach writing predicted teachers' beliefs about their level of knowledge to teach writing, efficacy to overcome students' writing difficulties, and attitudes toward teaching writing. Recommendations for future research and implications for practice are presented.

The influence of language knowledge and test components on reading comprehension scores.

This study investigated the dependability of reading comprehension scores across different text genres and response formats for readers with varied language knowledge. Participants included 78 fourth-graders in an urban elementary school. A randomized and counterbalanced 3 × 2 study design investigated three response formats (open-ended, multiple-choice, retell) and two text genres (narrative, expository) from the Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI-5) reading comprehension test. Standardized language knowledge measures from the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement (Academic Knowledge, Oral Comprehension, Picture Vocabulary) defined three reader profiles: (a) < 90 as emerging, (b) 90-100 as basic, and (c) > 100 as proficient. Generalizability studies partitioned variance in scores for reader, text genre, and response format for all three groups. Response format accounted for 42.8 to 62.4% of variance in reading comprehension scores across groups, whereas text genre accounted for very little variance (1.2-4.1%). Single scores were well below a 0.80 dependability threshold (absolute phi coefficients = 0.06-0.14). Decision studies projecting dependability achieved with additional scores varied by response format for each language knowledge group, with very low projected dependability on open-ended and multiple-choice scores for readers with basic language knowledge. Multiple-choice scores had similarly low projected dependability levels for readers with emerging language knowledge. Findings evidence interactions between reader language knowledge and response format in reading comprehension assessment practices. Implications underscore the limitations of using a single score to classify readers with and without proficiency in foundational skills.

Comparing Students With and Without Reading Difficulties on Reading Comprehension Assessments: A Meta-Analysis.

Researchers have increasingly investigated sources of variance in reading comprehension test scores, particularly with students with reading difficulties (RD). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine if the achievement gap between students with RD and typically developing (TD) students varies as a function of different reading comprehension response formats (e.g., multiple choice, cloze). A systematic literature review identified 82 eligible studies. All studies administered reading comprehension assessments to students with RD and TD students in Grades K-12. Hedge's g standardized mean difference effect sizes were calculated, and random effects robust variance estimation techniques were used to aggregate average weighted effect sizes for each response format. Results indicated that the achievement gap between students with RD and TD students was larger for some response formats (e.g., picture selection ES g = -1.80) than others (e.g., retell ES g = -0.60). Moreover, for multiple-choice, cloze, and open-ended question response formats, single-predictor metaregression models explored potential moderators of heterogeneity in effect sizes. No clear patterns, however, emerged in regard to moderators of heterogeneity in effect sizes across response formats. Findings suggest that the use of different response formats may lead to variability in the achievement gap between students with RD and TD students.

Development of First-Graders' Word Reading Skills: For Whom Can Dynamic Assessment Tell Us More?

Dynamic assessment (DA) of word reading measures learning potential for early reading development by documenting the amount of assistance needed to learn how to read words with unfamiliar orthography. We examined the additive value of DA for predicting first-grade decoding and word recognition development while controlling for autoregressive effects. Additionally, we examined whether predictive validity of DA would be higher for students who have poor phonological awareness skills. First-grade students (n = 105) were assessed on measures of word reading, phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, and DA in the fall and again assessed on word reading measures in the spring. A series of planned, moderated multiple regression analyses indicated that DA made a significant and unique contribution in predicting word recognition development above and beyond the autoregressor, particularly for students with poor phonological awareness skills. For these students, DA explained 3.5% of the unique variance in end-of-first-grade word recognition that was not attributable to autoregressive effect. Results suggest that DA provides an important source of individual differences in the development of word recognition skills that cannot be fully captured by merely assessing the present level of reading skills through traditional static assessment, particularly for students at risk for developing reading disabilities.

Modeling Polymorphemic Word Recognition: Exploring Differences Among Children With Early-Emerging and Late-Emerging Word Reading Difficulty.

Comprehensive models of derived polymorphemic word recognition skill in developing readers, with an emphasis on children with reading difficulty (RD), have not been developed. The purpose of the present study was to model individual differences in polymorphemic word recognition ability at the item level among 5th-grade children (N = 173) oversampled for children with RD using item-response crossed random-effects models. We distinguish between two subtypes of RD children with word recognition problems, those with early-emerging RD and late-emerging RD. An extensive set of predictors representing item-specific knowledge, child-level characteristics, and word-level characteristics were used to predict item-level variance in polymorphemic word recognition. Results indicate that item-specific root word recognition and word familiarity; child-level RD status, morphological awareness, and orthographic choice; word-level frequency and root word family size; and the interactions between morphological awareness and RD status and root word recognition and root transparency predicted individual differences in polymorphemic word recognition item performance. Results are interpreted within a multisource individual difference model of polymorphemic word recognition skill spanning item-specific, child-level, and word-level knowledge.