university of minnesota - College of Education & Human Development

Relationship Between Reading Inventory Instructional Level and Student Reading Performance Sandra M. Pulles, Kathrin E. Maki, & Matthew K. Burns

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Department of Educational Psychology

College of Education + Human Development

Results

Introduction • Instructional match is closely associated with improved student learning (Burns, 2007; Daly, Martens, Kilmer, & Massie, 1996) • Instructional level occurs when students have sufficient background knowledge to interact with the material, yet still experience some level of challenge (Betts, 1946). • Frustrational: 120

Reading 1 Accuracy Reading 1 Accuracy Reading 2 Accuracy

r = .67*

Reading 3 Accuracy

r = .67*

84-140

Reading 3 Accuracy

r = .47*

r = .61* r = .68*

r = .59*

Table 3 Percent Agreement and Kappa Among Accuracy Measures from Three Reading Performance Assessments

Reading 1 Accuracy < 84

Reading 2 Accuracy

Reading 2 Accuracy

Reading 3 Accuracy

70.3%

68.8%

> 140

• Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System (BAS) • Instructional level determined by spring scores based on fluency, accuracy, and comprehension. • Curriculum Based Assessment for Instructional Design (CBA-ID) • Administered by researchers one time in the spring. • Students read from 3 books (1 minute each) based on their BAS instructional level. • The number of words read correctly divided by the total words read was recorded and the median score was used for analyses. School Psychology 250 Education Sciences Building 56 E. River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455

Reading 1 Accuracy Reading 2 Accuracy

k =.49*

Reading 3 Accuracy

k = .47*

Discussion • Students did not consistently read with accuracy from books rated at their IRI instructional level • Students read with 93 to 97% accuracy about 28% of the time • Struggling readers frequently failed to read with 93% accuracy • High readers were not challenged enough by their IRI instructional level • Psychometric issues associated with IRIs make it difficult to obtain an accurate student instructional level • Reliability-inconsistency across books • Validity-use of IRIs for determining instructional level • Matching instructional material with student skill level results in improved student outcomes (Burns, 2007) • Students should therefore be reading at their instructional level to ensure adequate reading growth

67.2% k = .42*

Limitations • Many students were higher readers therefore limiting generalizability to other skill levels • No direct measure of comprehension was used • There was no control over prior exposure thus it is unknown whether or not students were familiar with the material Contacts:

Sandra M. Pulles: [email protected] Kathrin E. Maki: [email protected] Matthew K. Burns: [email protected]