Students in Grades 4, 5, 7, and 8 (N = 1,343) took part in a study to determine whether students with learning disabilities (LD) would benefit from having mathematics test items read aloud. Two 30-item alternate forms of a large-scale multiple-choice mathematics test were administered. One form was presented in standard format; the other was read aloud to students from a video monitor. Using linguistic features, 4 or 5 Difficult Reading items were selected from each form. The performance of students with LD on these items was compared to that of a randomly selected group of general education students. Analysis of variance showed mixed results. Elementary school students with LD tended to perform better when test items were read aloud; general education students at this level did not receive this benefit. No significant interactions were found at the middle school level. Results are discussed in relationship to previous studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
2.
Barney, L. (1972). Problems associated with the reading of arithmetic . The Arithmetic Teacher, 19, 131—133.
3.
Cohen, S.A., & Stover, G. (1981). Effects of teaching sixth-grade students to modify format variables of math word problems. Reading Research Quarterly , 16, 175—199.
4.
Cook, B. (1973, February). An analysis of arithmetic, linguistic, and algebraic structural variables that contribute to problem solving di ficulty in algebra word problems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 076 433)
5.
Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1988). Syntactic complexity and reading acquisition. In A. Davison & G. M. Green (Eds.), Linguistic complexity and text comprehension (pp. 167—192). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
Dale, E., & O'Rourke, J. (1976). The living word vocabulary. Elgin, IL: Field Enterprises Educational Corp.
7.
Fry, E. (1990). A readability formula for short passages. Journal of Reading, 33, 594—597.
8.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C., & Karns, K. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65—85.
9.
Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M.A., Tindal, G., Heath, B., & Almond, P.J. (1999). Reading as an access to mathematics problem solving on multiple-choice tests for sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 113—125.
10.
Homan, S., Hewitt, M., & Linder, J. (1994). The development and validation of a formula for measuring single-sentence test item readability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 349—358.
11.
Jerman, M.E., & Mirman, S. (1974). Linguistic and computational variables in problem solving in elementary mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 5, 317—362.
12.
Johnson, E.S. (2000). The effects of accommodations on performance assessments . Remedial and Special Education, 21, 261—267.
13.
Linville, W.J. (1969). The effects of syntax and vocabulary upon the difficulty of verbal arithmetic problems with fourth grade students (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International, 30, 4310A.
14.
Loftus, E.F., & Suppes, P. (1972). Structural variables that determine problem-solving difficulty in computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 6, 531—542.
McCarthy, M.M. (1980). Minimum competency testing and handicapped students . Exceptional Children, 47, 166—173.
17.
Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
Perfetti, C., Marron, M.A., & Foltz, P.W. (1996). Sources of comprehension failures: Theoretical perspectives and case studies. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension di ficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 137—167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
Phillips, S.E. (1994). High stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93—120.
20.
Samuels, S.J. (1987). Factors that influence listening and reading comprehension . In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 295—325). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
21.
Stanford Achievement Test Ninth Edition: Reviewer's Edition, Intermediate 2. (1996). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace.
22.
Thompson, E.N. (1967). Readability and accessory remarks: Factors in problem solving in arithmetic (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1967). Dissertation Abstracts International, 28, 2464A.
23.
Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. (2000). A summary of research on test change: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. Lexington: University of Kentucky, Mid-South Regional Resource Center.
24.
Tindal, G., Glasgow, A., Helwig, R., Hollenbeck, K., & Heath, B. (1998). Accommodations in large scale tests for students with disabilities: An investigation of reading math tests using video technology . Unpublished manuscript.
25.
Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An empirical study of student response and test administration demands . Exceptional Children, 64, 439—450.
26.
Tindal, G., Hollenbeck, K., Heath, W., & Almond, P. (1997). The e fects of using computers as an accommodation in a statewide writing test (Technical Research Report). Eugene: University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching.
27.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Spearing, D. (1995). Semantic and phonological coding in poor and normal readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59, 76—123.
28.
Weston, T.J. (1999). Investigating the validity of the accommodation of oral presentation in testing (learning disabilities, fourth-grade) (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 1083A.
29.
Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children's problems in text comprehension: An experimental investigation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
