home site map our company advisory board contact us update profile
| 
| 
| 
| 
| Ann Glaser, Editor in Chief |
| News & Information » News » Articles » Interviews » Ask the Expert » Submissions |
| » 800.242.5183» Email Us |
| Home | Articles | Article Details |
  |
||||||||||
 5/11/2009 Language and Reading Skills and Their Relationship to High School Graduation Test Performance Dawn M. Betts, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, Clermont County Educational Service Center | |||||||||||
| Note: This article will be peer-reviewed for ASHA CEUs. If you are interested in receiving ASHA CEUs, be sure to check back. Introduction and Background Statement of the Problem Reading and writing are intricate and complex processes that are closely related to and dependent on other language abilities (Pearson & Stephens, 1994). Language is the vehicle by which individuals acquire literate behaviors. Without language, we could not effectively express our thoughts and opinions or understand the thoughts and opinions of others. Language plays an important role in the development of literacy during the school-age and adolescent years. Therefore, the reciprocal relationship between language and literacy is one that cannot be ignored when considering students’ academic success. From decoding and comprehension (Curtis, 2002) to succinctly expressing one’s thoughts through writing, language skill—such as appropriately posing and replying to questions vocabulary knowledge, and inference—are vital for academic success. The academic needs of struggling adolescent readers are not receiving appropriate attention by educators and researchers (Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, & Rycik, 1999). Academic problems encountered by low-achieving students are often language related; however, teachers rarely attribute academic failure to language deficits (Ehren, 2002). The International Reading Association (2001) stated, Adolescents entering the adult world in the 21st century will read and write more than at any other time in human history. They will need advanced levels of literacy to perform their jobs, run their households, act as citizens, and conduct their personal lives. They will need literacy to cope with the flood of information they will find everywhere they turn. (p. 3)Nevertheless, more and more adolescents are unable to meet the literacy demands of their home and school environments (Hock & Deshler, 2003). When students lack appropriate language and literacy skills, they cannot fully access the curriculum. Consequently, academic failure is often the result. It is reported that approximately, five million (60%) high school students cannot read well enough to understand the information presented to them in their textbooks or other materials written for their grade level (Hock & Deshler, 2003). Yet, existing mandates expect these students to read well enough to sift through high-stakes state tests that are designed to measure academic competence in the subject areas such as language-arts, mathematics, science, and social studies (Moore et al., 1999). These tests evaluate a student’s mastery of the curriculum content standards created by each state as necessary for graduation from high school. According to the Ohio Department of Education (2005, 2006b, 2007a), between 24-27% of Ohio’s tenth-grade students failed to meet the state standards in reading and writing as revealed by the 2005, 2006, and 2007 Ohio Graduation Tests (OGT). Although it is presumed that complex variables play into this phenomenon, a better understanding is needed about why Ohio’s adolescents are performing poorly on exams such as the OGT. Hock and Deshler (2003) claimed that students are failing standardized tests, not because they do not have the knowledge and intelligence to pass, but because they do not possess the reading skills necessary to pass. If this is true, exploring the relationship between language skills and literacy as they relate to state assessments may be warranted to provide further insight on this issue. Rationale for Research As previously stated, roughly 60% of secondary students cannot read well enough to understand their own textbooks (Hock & Deshler, 2003). In spite of this reality, the federal government via the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2002) makes it mandatory for students to participate in testing that has yielded undesirable outcomes in many cases. Although NCLB places emphasis on the importance of reading, there is an apparent lack of focus on reading beyond the third grade. There is an existing body of research regarding the language and literacy skills of preschool and elementary children that demonstrates a clear reciprocal relationship between language and literacy skills. It suggests that language skills can be strong predictors of literacy problems and academic achievement. Few studies have examined these skills in the adolescent population. Still, fewer have focused on how language and literacy relate to state assessments (Gordon Pershey, 2003b, 2006). The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship among language, literacy, and state assessments by comparing the language and literacy skills of students who have passed and failed the Ohio Graduation Test (OGT). Working with the central hypothesis that students who fail will present with subaverage reading and language skills, the long-range goal of this project is to contribute to the current body of knowledge by gaining a better understanding of the association and/or interaction among language, literacy, and state assessments. Furthermore, the project will discuss the possible effects of language and literacy on standardized test performance. It is expected that findings will provide evidence for why students may be failing the OGT. The impact of the findings may have implications for policy and practice within the educational system. Research Questions The research questions that follow were examined by the current investigation.
The ability to use speech and language to communicate is a characteristic specific to all human beings. Language is the foundation of communication and it may take on several modes for communication to occur. These modes may include but are not limited to speaking, listening, reading, writing, and signing. The term literacy may be defined in countless ways. A common definition of literacy is the ability to read and write. Other accepted definitions of the word literacy go beyond simple reading and written skills and serve as a basis for effective communication. Hock and Deshler (2003) define literacy as the ability to read, write, speak, listen, and think effectively. As a result, literacy can be viewed as the vehicle or mode through which language is used to communicate effectively. The Impact of Language and Literacy Deficits on Learning and Academic Achievement Language and literacy are intricately connected. There is an existing body of knowledge suggesting that deficits in one area are related to deficits in the other (Catts & Kamhi, 2005; Menyuk & Chesnick, 1997; Whitmire, 2005). Specifically, deficits in early language skills have been connected to later reading abilities. Stothard, Snowling, Bishop, Chipchase, and Kaplan (1998) determined that preschool students with language impairments continued to have difficulties with language and in particular literacy tasks throughout adolescence. As a result, this lack of skill kept them at risk for language, literacy, and other difficulties later in their academic careers. Catts, Fey, Tomblin, and Zhang (2002) states that, “reading is a language-based skill, and thus deficits in language development can negatively affect reading achievement” (p. 1142). Catts and colleagues investigated the reading outcomes of kindergartners with specific and nonspecific language impairment (SLI and NLI, respectively) by evaluating their language and reading skills in kindergarten, second, and fourth grades to determine the effects of their language impairment on their reading abilities. When compared to normal controls, the kindergarteners with language impairment (SLI and NLI) scored lower on all measures of word recognition and reading comprehension. Moreover, children whose language difficulties have persisted past the age of 5½ years are at greater risk for later reading difficulties (Larney, 2002). Although it cannot be expected that all children with language impairment will struggle with reading acquisition and development, there is much evidence to support that speech-language impairment often coexists with impairments of reading (Flax et al., 2003). Simkin and Conti-Ramsden (2006) examined the reading abilities of three subgroups of 11-year-old students who were language impaired, including those with expressive, expressive-receptive, and resolved SLI. This study provides further evidence that not all children with SLI have reading difficulty; however, it is substantiated that there is a high incidence of language impairment and reading difficulty co-occurring within individuals, especially with children who have receptive and expressive language problems. In summation of the above research, the relationship between language and literacy is well-established. Whether impairments in one domain cause impairments in the other remains unknown; nevertheless, it is known that language impairment tends to coexist with reading impairment and that early language impairment and higher level language skill plays into later reading abilities. It is well-accepted that successful learning within any literate society is contingent upon appropriate literacy skills. As the relationship between language and literacy has been discussed, it is apparent that adequate language skills are necessary to support literacy development. It is of chief importance to fully understand the ramifications that deficient language and literacy skills may have on academic achievement. Currently, it is thought that anywhere from 50%-100% of children with speech-language disorders demonstrate academic difficulties (Lewis, Freebairn, & Taylor, 2000). Students must be competent users of language and efficient language comprehenders in order to meet curricular demands and perform a variety of academic tasks. The Ohio Graduation Test The literature reviewed up to this point has provided an overview of the relationships between language, literacy, and academic achievement. It is known that language and literacy play a major role in standardized test performance such as the National Assessement of Educational Progress (NAEP; Grigg & Donahue, 2005) and the ACT (ACT, 2006; Ehren, Lenz, & Deshler, 2004; Grigg & Donahue, 2005). With this known, it may be presumed that language and literacy also play a part in outcomes on state mandated tests, specifically, the Ohio Graduation Test (OGT). The OGT takes the place of the Ohio 9th grade proficiency test. It is a series of tests that are aligned to Ohio’s state academic content standards (Ohio Department of Education, 2006a). The content standards reflect the academic subjects of English/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. According to the Ohio Department of Education, the standards were strategically designed to equip students with the knowledge necessary to be successful in post-secondary pursuits and to successfully function in society. Starting with the class of 2007, it was mandatory for students to pass all five portions of the OGT to be awarded a high school diploma (Ohio Department of Education, 2006b). The five sections of the test include reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. Students first take the OGT in the spring (March) of their sophomore year and are allowed up to seven attempts to take the test until all parts are successfully passed. They are allotted up to 2½ hours to take each portion of the test. The OGT reading section tests students’ skills involving the content standards of acquisition of vocabulary; concepts of print; comprehension strategies and self-monitoring; informational, technical, persuasive, and literary text. Reading passages presenting poetry, newspaper articles, essays, and short stories are a few of the types of selections used to allow students to answer 32 multiple choice questions, 4 short-answer questions, and 2 extended response questions (Ohio Department of Education, 2006a). Sample reading questions are as follows.  Click Here to View Larger Version of Sample Questions (PDF) The OGT writing section tests a student’s ability to actively engage in the writing process. This section covers the content standards of writing process, writing applications, and writing conventions. The writing section presents 10 multiple choice questions, a short-answer question, and 2 writing prompts (Ohio Department of Education, 2006a). An example writing prompt follows.  Click Here to View Larger Version of Sample of Writing Prompt (PDF) The mathematics portion of the OGT reflects the standards of numbers, number sense, and operations; measurement; geometry and spatial sense; patterns; functions and algebra; data analysis and probability; and mathematical processes. The OGT math test assesses the students’ abilities of calculation, computation, and understanding word problems. There are 32 multiple choice questions, 5 short-answer questions, and an extended response question (Ohio Department of Education, 2006a). Students are allowed to use calculators on this portion. A sample OGT math problem follows.  Click Here to View Larger Version of Sample Math Questions (PDF) The OGT science test includes the science standards of earth and space science, life science, physical science, science and technology, scientific inquiry, and scientific ways of knowing. This test presents scientific information in a variety of formats including graphs and charts, reading passages, and maps. The science test taps into the students’ ability to interpret, draw conclusion, and engage in data analysis. There are 32 multiple choice questions, 4 short-answer questions, and 2 extended response questions (Ohio Department of Education, 2006a). Below is a sample OGT science extended response question.  Click Here to View Larger Version of Extended Responses (PDF) The OGT social studies test includes 32 multiple choice items, 4 short-answer questions, and 2 extended response questions. World and American history are embedded within the content standards of history, people in societies, geography, economics, government, citizenship rights and responsibilities, and social studies skills and methods. Students are required to interpret tables, charts, graphs, and reading passages (Ohio Department of Education, 2006a). A sample multiple choice question is illustrated below.  Click Here to View Larger Version of Sample Multiple Choice Questions (PDF) As demonstrated by the sample test questions, it is obvious that the OGT is a complex set of tests that aim to demonstrate student mastery of rigorous content standards across subject areas. The sample test questions also demonstrate that intricate levels of language and literacy competence are necessary to accomplish such tasks. The test items require students to perform a myriad of language and literacy tasks that include but are not limited to: problem solving, critical thinking, making inferences, predicting, and comparing/contrasting. The test also requires students to have a grasp of content-specific vocabulary and to be able to analyze, explain, interpret, and summarize information presented to them in addition to other language operations (see Appendix A). For students with compromised language and/or literacy skills, the OGT can pose a threat to their academic progress. Methodology Participants The research participants selected for this study included two groups (pass group vs. fail group) of students attending public high schools within and around a large city in Ohio (N = 96). Participants were between the ages of 15 years, 7 months and 18 years, 7 months and were in grades 10, 11, and 12. The participants took part in the Ohio Graduation Test (OGT) for the first time during either the March 2006 or March 2007 statewide testing periods. The participants were Caucasian (white) or African-American (black), were of average intelligence, and did not exceed 18 years of age (18 years, 11 months). To prevent secondary factors from affecting the research findings and other data, students with the following conditions were not included in the study:
Table 1 Characteristics of Participants Measured in Percent  Click Here to View Larger Version of Table 1 (PDF) Materials The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (4th ed.; CELF-4; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003), was used to determine the receptive and expressive language abilities of the participants. The Test of Language Competence (Exp. ed.; TLC-E; Wiig & Secord, 1989) was used to assess higher level language skills. The Gray Silent Reading Tests (GSRT-1; Weiderholt & Blalock, 2000), was used to measure the silent reading comprehension ability of each participant. Procedures Consent was obtained from all participants. Each participant met one-on-one with a member of the research team for approximately 2 hours and 30 minutes and was administered the CELF-4, TLC-E, and GSRT-1 in random order. The principal investigator scored all assessments and also met with school personnel to obtain OGT scores for each participant. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics such as means and standard deviations were calculated to describe and compare the OGT Pass group and the OGT Fail group on measures of receptive, expressive, and higher level language; word definitions; and reading ability. This is displayed in the form of tables and figures. Next, univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) tests were performed to determine whether a significant difference exists between the OGT Pass group and the OGT Fail group on the individual measures of receptive language, expressive language, higher level language, and reading ability. These results were used to answer research questions 1 through 4. To answer research question 5, a discriminant analysis (enter method) was used to determine whether the measures of receptive language, expressive language, word definitions, higher level language, and reading ability could individually or in combination, distinguish between participants who belonged to either the pass group or fail group. Lastly, a binary logistic regression (enter method) was completed to determine what individual measure or combination of measures (receptive language, expressive language, word definitions, higher level language, or reading ability) would most accurately predict the OGT performance outcomes of “pass” or “fail.” This was used to answer research question 6. Results A combination of statistical analyses were performed. The following section describes the descriptive, univariate, and multivariate statistics. Descriptive Statistics Table 2 presents the overall scores; including minimum, maximum, means, and standard deviations for receptive language, expressive language, word definitions, higher level language, and reading ability standard scores for both pass and fail groups. Table 2 Means and Ranges for All Measures  Click Here to View Larger Version of Table 2 (PDF) In addition to the descriptive data results derived from the language/reading measures, the overall description of OGT performance outcomes must also be considered. Figures 1 and 2 provide a breakdown of the OGT performance outcomes for the entire sample of participants. Figure 1 Number of OGT Tests Passed/Failed  Figure 2 Number of Participants Who Failed Specific Content Area OGT Tests  Inferential Statistics This portion of the results details the outcomes of the univariate and multivariate analyses. Research Question 1 Is there a significant difference between the receptive language skills of students who have passed all 5 sections of the OGT and of students who have not passed all 5 sections of the OGT as measured by the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (4th ed.; CELF-4; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003)? The average ages of the participants were 16 years, 7 months and 16 years, 8 months for the pass group and fail groups, respectively. Using these average ages and the mean standard score for each group, it was found that the receptive language skills of each group fell within normal limits according to the CELF-4 Examiner’s Manual (Semel, Wiig & Secord, 2003). There was an 8.8 point difference between group mean scores on the measure of receptive language. A univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) using receptive language as the dependent variable was calculated. The ANOVA revealed that the 8.8 point observed difference between the groups was statistically significant [F (1, 91) =14.35, p <.001, η2=.136]. Thus the null hypothesis was rejected. There is a significant difference between the receptive language scores of the students who passed the OGT and those who did not, with the pass group exhibiting higher scores. Research Question 2 Is there a significant difference between the expressive language skills of students who have passed all 5 sections of the OGT and of students who have not passed all 5 sections of the OGT as measured by the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (4th ed.; CELF-4; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003)? On the measure of expressive language, both the pass and fail groups’ skills were again, deemed to be appropriate for their age as the scores for each group fell within normal limits (Semel, Wiig & Secord, 2003). There was a 7.4 point difference between group means. A univariate ANOVA was computed using expressive language as the dependent variable. The ANOVA determined the 7.4 point difference to be statistically significant [F (1, 92) =15.86, p <.001, η2=.147]. As a result, the null hypothesis is rejected. The group of students who passed the OGT had significantly higher scores on the expressive language measures than those students who did not pass the OGT. Research Question 3 Is there a significant difference between higher level language skills of students who have passed all 5 sections of the OGT and of students who have not passed all 5 sections of the OGT as measured by the Test of Language Competence (Exp. ed.; TLC-E; Wiig & Secord, 1989)? According to the TLC-E Administration Manual (Wiig & Secord, 1989), both the pass group and fail group demonstrated group mean scores consistent with average skills and abilities in the area of higher level language. Despite these average abilities, a 13.9 point difference existed between the two group means. A univariate ANOVA was computed using higher level language as the dependent variable. Results from this analysis determined the 13.9 point difference between groups to also be statistically significant [F (1, 94) =29.81, p <.001, η2=.241] and therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. There was a significant difference between the higher level language scores of students who passed the OGT and students who did not pass the OGT, with the pass group demonstrating stronger higher level language skills. Research Question 4 Is there a significant difference between the reading ability of students who have passed all 5 sections of the OGT and of students who have not passed all 5 sections of the OGT as measured by The Gray Silent Reading Tests (GSRT-1; Weiderholt & Blalock, 2000)? There was a 16-point difference between group mean scores on the silent reading comprehension measure. According to the GRST-1 Examiner’s Manual (Weiderholt & Blalock, 2000), the pass group with a mean 104 demonstrated reading comprehension skills falling within the average range. Conversely, the manual explained that the fail group with a mean of 88, had silent reading comprehension skills falling within the below average range. After calculating a univariate ANOVA utilizing silent reading quotient as the dependent variable, it was confirmed that the 16 point difference between groups was a statistically significant difference [F (1, 93) = 32.22, p <.001, η2=.257]. As such, the null hypothesis was rejected. There is a significant difference between the reading comprehension skills of the students who passed the OGT and those who did not, with the pass group exhibiting higher scores. The results of all fours ANOVAs are displayed in Table 3 for ease of reference. The results of the ANOVAs suggest that the pass group possessed stronger receptive, expressive and higher level language skills as well as reading skills than did the fail group. Table 3 ANOVA Results Pass vs. Fail Groups on Language Measures  Click Here to View Larger Version of Table 3 (PDF) Research Question 5 Is there a subset of language/literacy skills (e.g., receptive language, expressive language, higher level language, reading comprehension, word definitions) that will significantly discriminate among students who have passed all five sections of the OGT and students who have not passed all five sections of the OGT (after controlling for school rating)? Significant differences between group means on the individual measures of receptive language, expressive language, higher level language, and reading comprehension have been established via analyses of variance, with students who passed the OGT performing better on all measures. Proceeding a step further, it must be determined which individual measure or combination of measures can be used to discriminate between the two groups. A discriminant analysis was performed, entering all language and reading variables simultaneously. Results of the analysis are depicted in Tables 4 through 6. Table 4 shows the statistic for Wilks’ Lambda that demonstrates the fit of the discriminant analysis model. The higher the Wilks’ Lambda value, the more likely the data will fit the model. Table 4 Wilks’ Lambda for Discriminant Analysis of Group Membership  Click Here to View Larger Version of Table 4 (PDF) Wilks’ Lambda is significant indicating that the model produced is one of robustness and thus a good fit for the data. Furthermore, the beta scores and standardized coefficients indicate that silent reading comprehension, higher level language, expressive language, receptive language, and word definitions, in this order, contribute to discriminating between the pass group and the fail group. The model was able to correctly classify group membership with 77.2% accuracy. Table 5 shows the language and reading measures that contribute to discriminating between groups in descending order. Table 6 shows the number and percent of participants correctly classified into the OGT pass group or OGT fail group based on language and reading measures. Table 5 Beta Scores & Standardized Coefficients for Language and Reading Measures  Click Here to View Larger Version of Table 5 (PDF) Table 6 Classification Results Based on Language and Reading Scores  Click Here to View Larger Version of Table 6 (PDF) Research Question 6 Is there a subset of language/literacy skills (e.g., receptive language, expressive language, higher level language, reading comprehension, word definitions) that will significantly predict student performance outcomes (i.e., passage/failure) on the OGT (after controlling for school rating)? Via discriminant analysis, it was revealed that the measures of reading comprehension and higher level language were the strongest variables that determined whether a participant belonged to the pass group or the fail group. To further validate the discriminant analysis and to determine which variables were significant predictors of OGT performance outcomes, a binary logistic regression was completed. The enter method was used in which all of the following variables were entered simultaneously: school rating 1, school rating 2, school rating 3, receptive language, expressive language, higher level language, reading comprehension, and word definitions. The results of the regression analysis demonstrated that only the measure of reading comprehension was a significant predictor of OGT performance outcomes, accounting for 43% (Nagelkerke r2 = .043) of the variance among participants passing or failing the OGT. The measure of reading comprehension can be considered a significant predictor of whether a participant passes or fails the OGT [χ2 (8) = 35.06, p < .001]. From these results, one can presume that for every point increase in reading comprehension score, that a participant is 1.07 times (6.8%) more likely to pass the OGT. The model predicted pass outcomes with 91.1% accuracy and fail outcomes with 66.7% accuracy. Overall, the model correctly predicted OGT performance outcomes with 81.5% accuracy. Silent Reading Quotient (SRQ) was the only significant measure. Discussion Group Language Skills Compared Receptive Language Although the mean scores of both groups fell within normal limits, it was found that the pass group performed significantly better on the measure of receptive language than did the fail group. The scores for the pass group all fell within the low-average to the above-average range (86-117). Scores for the fail group ranged from significantly below average to above average (66-119). As measured by the CELF-4 (Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003), the pass group demonstrated stronger skills on the following tasks: determining whether groups of words/meanings are associated; listening comprehension, including the identification of main idea and details; inferencing and prediction; and understanding sentences/phrases that use time, spatial, passive voice, and other cognitively and linguistically demanding concepts. Keeping in mind the nature of the OGT, it can be presumed that competency in the skills mentioned above are critical for OGT success. All five portions of the OGT are heavily loaded with content-specific vocabulary, as well as varied complexities of directions, and require students to use a number of language operations (see Appendix A) in addition to demonstrating the aforementioned skills. Expressive Language With regard to expressive language skills, both the pass and fail groups demonstrated mean scores within the average range. More specifically, the pass group’s distribution of scores was average to above average (93-124) and the fail group’s scores fell slightly below average to above average (80-120). It was found that the pass group performed significantly better on expressive language tasks. Again, using the CELF-4 (Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003) measures for expressive language, this research suggests that members of the pass group exhibited stronger abilities in expressing whether groups of words/meanings were associated, in verbal repetition of sentences of varying lengths (without syntactic errors), and in creating sentences when provided with a specific word and visual prompt. Referring again, to the OGT format, the strong expressive language skills demonstrated by the pass group can be associated with better performance on OGT test items that require short and/or extended written responses. Both short and extended responses are test items seen within all five sections of the state assessment. Likewise, one could expect that participants rely heavily upon their expressive language abilities to successfully pass the OGT-Writing Test as it consists of lengthy writing prompts. The better students perform on tasks that require expressive language skills, the higher their OGT scores will be. For OGT scoring purposes, short and extended response test items are assigned higher point values than are multiple-choice items. Short and extended response items are often afforded two to four points, whereas correct multiple choice questions earn only one point (Ohio Department of Education, 2007a). Similarly, writing prompts on the OGT-Writing Test can account for approximately 75% of the total point value of the assessment (Ohio Department of Education, 2007a). If students possess inadequate expressive language skills, it can be expected that performance on short and extended responses, and on the OGT-Writing assessment, which requires students to write at length, will be challenging. As short and extended responses are apart of each content area exam, this may result in poor performance on all OGT assessments. Higher Level Language On the measures of higher level language, there was an approximate difference of 14 points between the mean scores of the two participant groups. It was determined that the pass group performed significantly better on tasks requiring the use of higher level language skills than did the fail group. It should be noted, however, that the mean score for each group fell within the average range. More specifically, the pass group’s distribution of scores ranged from slightly below average to greatly above average (80-135). The distribution of scores for the fail group ranged from below average to above average (72-119) with a majority of scores falling below 100. Using the TLC-E (Wiig & Secord, 1989), this study demonstrated that participants in the pass group had stronger skills in the areas of interpreting sentences with multiple meanings, making inferences, explaining figurative language, and orally expressing various situations using another’s point of view. The skills of higher level language can be explained by the concept of perceptual-language distance first introduced by Blank, Rose, and Berlin (1978) to describe discourse during the preschool years. This conceptual framework has also been used in subsequent studies and/or dialogues to discuss the language of school instruction and to investigate book reading behaviors of parents (Berlin, Blank, & Rose, 1980; van Kleeck & Beckley-McCall, 2002; van Kleeck, Gillam, Hamilton & McGrath, 1997; Wolf-Nelson, 2005). The basic premise of perceptual-language distance is that language is formulated “along a continuum of abstraction” (Berlin, Blank, & Rose, 1980, p. 50), which includes four levels ranging from concrete to abstract (see Appendix B). In turn, it is thought that individuals demonstrate understanding along this same continuum. Although the previous research in this area was directed toward children who are younger than those in the current study, it is clear that academic success is strongly impacted by the development of adequate abstract language abilities, such as higher level language (Heath, 1983; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988; van Kleeck & Beckley-McCall, 2002; van Kleeck et al., 1997; Wells, 1986). Higher level language skills are embedded throughout all sections of the OGT, and all levels of abstraction are represented. The OGT requires students to describe, sequence, evaluate, and infer, as well as perform other language operations (see Appendix A). At the preschool level, it is suggested that parents and teachers direct 70% of their discourse and/or instruction within abstraction levels 1 and 2 and 30% of their interactions within abstraction levels 3 and 4 to foster greater success in the development of abstract language skills (Blank, Rose, & Berlin, 1978; van Kleeck et al., 1997). Many of the participants in the current study presented with below average higher level language skills. Viewing these results through the lens of perceptual-language distancing may be indicative of adolescents who have yet to master abstraction levels 3 (reordering perception) and 4 (reasoning about perception). As a result, possessing weaker higher level language skills places students in a less than optimal position for academic success and furthermore, for positive OGT performance outcomes. Group Reading Skills Compared Members of the pass group demonstrated significantly stronger silent reading comprehension skills than did members of the fail group. An approximate 16 point difference existed between the mean scores of the two groups on the measure of reading comprehension. The distribution of scores fell within the very poor to very superior range for the pass group (57-135). The mean score for this group was average (104.34). The distribution of scores for the fail group ranged from very poor to above average (<55-113) with a majority of the scores falling below 100. The mean score for this group was below average (88.36). Findings from this study indicate that members of the pass group were better able to answer literal, inferential, evaluative, and affective questions that were passage-dependent (Weiderholt & Blalock, 2000) and therefore, presented with better reading comprehension skills than did members of the fail group as measured by the GSRT-1. As previous research highlights reading comprehension as a prominent factor in state-test assessment outcomes (Gordon Pershey, 2003b; Hull & Tache, 1993; Noel, 1994; Stroud, 1995), it is logical to conclude that it is an important factor for the OGT. Numerous factors may play into why students struggle in the area of reading comprehension. Oakhill and Yuill (1996), Perfetti and colleagues (1996), and Duke et al. (2004) consider the following factors to possibly impact reading comprehension:
Basic literacy describes fundamental skills that include word decoding and a basic understanding of what is read. Critical literacy moves beyond basic skill and literal understanding to encompass skills such as analyzing, explaining, and interpreting texts and producing written samples that demonstrate these same skills. Lastly, dynamic literacy calls for application of basic and critical literacies throughout various settings including the different subject areas (e.g., science, mathematics, etc.). If students have basic or below basic reading comprehension skills it is almost certain that taking on tasks that require critical or dynamic literacies will be challenging. This factor may be related to the performance of the fail group in the current study. Classification and Predictors of OGT Success The current study classified participants who passed or failed the OGT into their respective groups with approximately 77% accuracy. The measures of reading comprehension, which was the strongest classifier, and higher level language, the next strongest classifier, were the primary measures used to classify students into their corresponding groups. Given the findings of previous similar studies, the results of the current research are not surprising. What is surprising, however, is the fact that the receptive language measures were not significant predictors of the OGT performance outcomes of the participants in the current study. Gordon Pershey (2003b) found several receptive language tasks to predict performance outcomes on state reading and writing assessments for students in grades four and six. It remains unclear as to why receptive language skills were not predictive of OGT outcomes in the present study; however, the nature of the OGT could be a possible rationale. The current study not only examined performance on state reading and writing subtests but also explored performance on mathematics, science, and social studies. As stated earlier, higher level language tasks are embedded throughout the entire OGT series and are heavily concentrated within the math, science, and social studies subtests. Perhaps the current findings were produced by a lack of higher level language skills which were required on the OGT rather than a reduction in more basic receptive language skills. For members of the OGT fail group, what appears to exist is a lack of ability to adequately use language to critically think about information that is read. This is not only evidenced through the scores for higher level language, but also for scores in reading comprehension. The findings from the current study revealed that, of the measures investigated, reading comprehension was the sole predictor (81.5% success) of whether students passed or failed the OGT. This echoes the findings of previous research (Gordon Pershey, 2003b; Hull & Tache, 1993; Lanese, 1992; Nichols, 2003; Noel, 1994; Robinson & Moore, 1992; Smith, 1982; Stroud, 1995). However, due to the design of the current study, it should be noted, the predictor variable is not correlated to any one specific OGT subtest. Better stated, although reading comprehension can predict OGT outcomes, it does not predict performance on individual OGT subtests for this particular study (i.e., reading, mathematics, writing, science, or social studies) as it has been correlated to subtest outcomes in earlier studies (Hull & Tache, 1993; Lanese, 1992; Noel, 1994; Robinson & Moore, 1992; Smith, 1982; Stroud, 1995). Multivariate statistics were used in this study to classify and predict performance. All measures of language and reading could be used to classify participants into either the pass or fail group with a high level of accuracy. Furthermore, the study identified the skill of reading comprehension as the only predictor of OGT performance outcomes. Implications The findings from the current study are not only reflective of previous research (Wiig & Secord, 1989; Share & Leikin, 2004) but also add new insights to our knowledge of factors that contribute to successful outcomes on the Ohio Graduation Tests (OGT) in Ohio high school students. It appears that a lack of language and reading skill adversely affects success on state mandated assessments such as the OGT (Gordon Pershey, 2003a & 2003b; Hull & Tache, 1993; Lanese, 1992; Nichols, 2003; Noel, 1994; Robinson & Moore, 1992; Smith, 1982; Stroud, 1995). An inability to adequately use language to critically think about information that is heard and/or read is a likely culprit of negative OGT outcomes. As well, this research implicates that, at some point during adolescence, measures of oral language are no longer adequate or strong enough to predict academic success. Poorer expressive language skills may be related to poorer performance on written responses. Also, the results support previous findings that academic success is related to the development of adequate higher level language abilities (Health, 1983; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988; van Kleeck & Beckley-McCall, 2002; van Kleeck, Gillam, Hamilton, & McGrath, 1997; Wells, 1986). Research using the perceptual-language distancing framework (Blank et al., 1978) suggests that, during the early years, 70% of instruction and conversation with children occur within abstraction levels 1 and 2 and 30% of instruction and discourse occur within levels 3 and 4 to cultivate higher level language development (Blank et al., 1978; van Kleeck et al., 1997). The perceptual-language distancing practices in Ohio high schools are undetermined. Despite this, pairing the above suggestion with the higher level language outcomes of the fail group, it appears that as children mature, the need for interaction in levels 1 and 2 should possibly decrease with age and interaction in levels 3 and 4 should, conversely, increase with maturity to enhance abstract language skills. It would appear that students should also be directly taught abstract language skills in addition to increasing the instruction at levels 3 and 4 beyond 30%. For example, students may need to learn and understand what it means to “evaluate” or “infer” and the steps necessary to produce an adequate evaluation or inference. Students may need to view what a good evaluation or inference looks like. As stated previously, abstract language skills are embedded throughout the OGT but are heavily concentrated within the OGT math (Carlson, Gruenewald, & Nyberg, 1980; Ohio Department of Education 2006a, 2007a; Shaftel, Belton-Kocher, Glasnapp, & Poggio, 2006), science and social studies sections (Ohio Department of Education 2006a, 2007a). As such, creating ways to incorporate abstract language training into math, science, and social studies instruction is suggested. Further, this research indicates that the skill of reading comprehension is the primary factor in positive high-stakes testing outcomes (Gordon Pershey, 2003b; Hull & Tache, 1993; Noel, 1994; Stroud, 1995) and that measures of reading comprehension could perhaps be used to identify students who may be at-risk for failure of the OGT. Lastly, if schools are to prepare students for high-stakes testing and post-secondary pursuits, this research provides evidence to support the need for a more balanced approach to literacy instruction. Similar to the discussion regarding levels of abstraction, it is suggested that as students mature and become more competent in basic literacy, that more emphasis be placed on critical and dynamic literacies as these are the skills necessary for positive academic and testing outcomes. Recommendations for Adolescents Based on the findings and implications of the present study, recommendations to enhance the language and literacy experiences for the adolescent population are highlighted below.
High-stakes testing has become a reality for many students nationwide. These standards-based assessments may not only be difficult for the average student but especially so, for the student with compromised language and/or literacy skills. In this study, the Ohio high school students who passed the OGT and those who did not possessed average receptive and expression language skills; however, moving beyond basic language skills into higher level language use seemed to be a challenge for students who failed the OGT. What’s more, although linguistic competence is essential for success on high stakes testing (Gordon Pershey, 2003b), it appears that the skill of reading comprehension is the best predictor of pass versus fail for the adolescents participating in the Ohio Graduation Tests. The findings from this study not only highlight the importance of underlying language and literacy skills necessary for positive OGT outcomes but they implicate the need for the continuation of reading instruction beyond the third grade. As graduation requirements and curriculum standards become increasingly more rigorous, it is imperative that school administrators, policymakers, and staff rethink how language and literacy is addressed at each grade level and across the curriculum to ensure the academic success of all students. References ACT. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Retrieved October 28, 2006, from:www.act.org/path/policy/reports/reading.html Berlin, L. J., Blank, M., & Rose, S. A. (1980). The language of instruction: The hidden complexities. Topics in Language Disorders, 1, 47-58. Blank, M., Rose, S. A., & Berlin, L. J. (1978). The language of learning: The preschool years. New York: Grune & Stratton. Carlson, J., Gruenewald, L. J., & Nyberg, B. (1980). Everyday math is a story problem: The language of the curriculum. Topics in Language Disorders, 1(1), 59-69. Catts, H., Fey, M., Tomblin, J., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1142-1157. Catts, H., & Kamhi, A. (2005). Language and reading disabilities (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Curtis, M. (2002). Adolescent reading: A synthesis of research. The Partnership for Reading. Retrieved December 9, 2005, from 216.26.160.105/conf/nichd/synthesis.asp Duke, N. K., Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2004). Difficulties with reading comprehension. In C. Stone, E. Silliman, B. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy development and disorders (pp. 501-520). New York: The Guilford Press. Ehren, B. (2002). Speech-language pathologists contributing significantly to the academic success of high school students: A vision for professional growth. Topics in Language Disorders, 22(2), 60-80. Ehren, B., Lenz, B., & Deshler, D. (2004). Enhancing literacy proficiency with adolescents and young adults. In C. Stone, E. Silliman, B. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy development and disorders (pp. 681-701). New York: The Guilford Press. Flax, J., Realpe-Bonilla, T., Hirsch, L., Brzustowicz, L., Bartlett, C., & Tallal, P. (2003). Specific language impairment in families: Evidence for co-occurrence with reading impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 530-543. Gordon Pershey, M. (2003a). High-stakes testing: The background behind testing-based educational reforms and implications for speech-language pathologists. Contemporary Issues in Communication Sciences and Disorders, 30, 47-58. Gordon Pershey, M. (2003b). Relating African American students’ scores on state-mandated reading and writing tests to standardized measures of reading and oral and written language. Celebrating the freedom of literacy: The twenty-fifth yearbook of the College Reading Association, 175-195. Gordon Pershey, M. (2006). A comparison of African American students’ self-perceptions of school competence with their performance on state-mandated achievement tests and normed tests of oral and written language and reading. Proceedings of Literacy 2006: Bridging the Divide. Newark, DE: The District of Columbia Public Schools and the International Reading Association’s Urban Diversity Commission. Grigg, P., & Donahue, P. (2005). The nation’s report card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006–451). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Guthrie, J. T. (2002). Preparing students for high-stakes test taking in reading. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 370-391). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. NY: Cambridge University Press. Hock, M., & Deshler, D. (2003). Don’t forget the adolescents. Principal Leadership, 4(3), 50-56. Hull, M., & Tache, D. (1993). Are Iowa Test of Basic Skills stanines predictors of success on Ohio’s Ninth Grade Proficiency Test? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED361367) International Reading Association. (2001). Supporting young adolescents’ literacy learning: A joint position paper of the International Reading Association and National Middle School Association. Newark, DE: Author. Irvin, J. L., Buehl, D. R., & Klemp, R. M. (2007). Reading and the high school student: Strategies to enhance literacy. Boston, MA: Pearson Educational. Lanese, J. F. (1992). Statewide proficiency testing: Establishing standards or barriers? San Francisco, CA. American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED347196) Larney, R. (2002). The relationship between early language delay and later difficulties in literacy. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 183-193. Lewis, B., Freebairn, L., & Taylor, G. (2000). Academic outcomes in children with histories of speech sound disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders, 33, 11-30. Menyuk, P. & Chesnick, M. (1997). Metalinguistic skills, oral language knowledge, and reading. Topics in Language Disorders, 17(3), 75-87. Moore, D., Bean, T., Birdyshaw D., & Rycik, J. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position statement for the Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Morris, P. J., & Tchudi, S. (1996). The new literacy: Moving beyond the 3Rs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Nichols, J. D. (2003). Prediction indicators for students failing the state of Indiana high school graduation exam. Preventing School Failure, 47, 112-120. No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. § 16301 et seq. (2002). Noel, A. W. (1994). Predictors of success on Ohio’s Ninth Grade Proficiency Test. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED392803) Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N. (1996). Higher order factors in comprehension disability: Processes and remediation. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 69-92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ohio Department of Education. (2005). Highlights for March 2005 OGT administration. Retrieved January 18, 2006, from www.ode.state.oh.us/ Ohio Department of Education. (2006a). A guide to the new Ohio graduation tests for students and families: Reading, writing, mathematics, science, social studies. Columbus, OH: Author. Ohio Department of Education. (2006b). Resources for Ohio graduation tests. Retrieved October 20, 2006, from www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ Ohio Department of Education. (2006d). Highlights for March 2006 OGT administration. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from www.ode.state.oh.us/proficiency/PDF/ Ohio Department of Education. (2007a). Released test materials from the Ohio graduation tests. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates Ohio Department of Education. (2007c). Highlights for March 2005 OGT administration. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from www.ode.state.oh.us/proficiency/PDF/ Pearson, P. D., & Stephens, D. (1994). Learning about literacy: A 30 year journey. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed.; pp. 22-42). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Perfetti, C. A., Maroon, M. A., & Foltz, P. W. (1996). Sources of comprehension failure: Theoretical perspectives and case studies. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 137-165). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Robinson, M. A., & Moore, M. H. (1992). State proficiency tests and standardized tests. San Francisco, CA. American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED347201) Semel, E., Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (2003). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment. Shaftel, J., Belton-Kocher, E., Glasnapp, D., & Poggio, J. (2006). The impact of language characteristics in mathematics test items on the performance of English language learners and students with disabilities. Educational Assessment, 11, 105-126. Share, D., & Leikin, M. (2004). Language impairment at school entry and later reading disability: Connections at lexical versus supralexical levels of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 87-110. Simkin, Z. & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2006). Evidence of reading difficulty in subgroups of children with specific language impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 22(3), 315-331. Smith, M. (1982). The identification of students likely to fail the North Carolina Competency Tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 95-104. Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Stothard, S., Snowling, M., Bishop, D., Chipchase, B., & Kaplan, C. (1998). Language-impaired preschoolers: A follow-up into adolescence. Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research, 41, 407-419. Stroud, R. E. (1995). Correlations between the Metropolitan Achievement Tests (7th ed.) and the Ohio Ninth Grade Proficiency Tests. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED394992) Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up Literate: Learning from inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. van Kleeck, A., & Beckley-McCall, A. (2002). A comparison of mothers’ individual and simultaneous book sharing with preschool siblings: An exploratory study of five families. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 175-189. van Kleeck, A., Gillam, R., Hamilton, L., & McGrath, C. (1997). The relationship between middle-class parents’ book-sharing discussion and their preschoolers’ abstract language development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 1261-1271. Weiderholt, J., & Blalock, G. (2000). Gray Silent Reading Tests. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Wells, G. (1986). The Meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wiig, E. & Secord, W. (1989). Test of Language Competence-Expanded Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Whitmire, K. (2005). Language and literacy in the age of federal initiatives. Topics in Language Disorders, 28(1), 302-309. Wolf-Nelson, N. (2005). The context of discourse difficulty in classroom and clinic: An update. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(4), 322-331. Appendix A: Language Operations  Click Here to View Larger Version of Appendix A (PDF) Appendix B: Perceptual-Language Distance Levels of Abstraction  Click Here to View Larger Version of Appendix B (PDF) | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
