1. National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects Formulating Public Opinion on Reading Definitions American Educational Research Association San Francisco, CA April 10, 2006

2. National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects 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. National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects 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. National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects 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. National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects 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. National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects 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. National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects 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. National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects 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. National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects 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. National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects 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. National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects 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. National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects Other issues The nature and scope of the term text. When reading ends and literacy begins. ELL students not addressed.

13. National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects 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.