Archives
Current issue
About
About us
Aims and Scope
Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Journal History
Publisher
Follow us: Twitter
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licencing
Publication Fees
Fee Waiver Policy for Doctoral Students
EJMSTE Language Editing Service
More
Statistics
Special Issues
Special Issue Announcements
Published Special Issues
Use of Audio Modification in
Science Vocabulary Assessment
1
Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, Istanbul, TURKEY
Publication date: 2011-12-21
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2011;7(4):215-225
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The purposes of this study were to examine the utilization of audio modification in
vocabulary assessment in school subject areas, specifically in elementary science, and to
present a web-based key vocabulary assessment tool for the elementary school level.
Audio-recorded readings were used to replace independent student readings as the task
demand for progress monitoring science vocabulary for 162 fifth grade students in 14
schools. Scores on vocabulary tests obtained by students who used the audio texts for
readings were compared with scores obtained by the same students who did not use the
audio texts. A statistically significant difference between the two scores in favor of the
students who used the audio texts was found. Benefits for at-risk students of school
failure, and the trend between the amount of audio use and test scores were also
investigated. Results suggest that, if appropriately conducted, the use of this type of
modification together with written text may enable students feel confident about their
science vocabulary knowledge.
REFERENCES (38)
1.
Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M.L., Ysseldyke, J., Freidebach, J., & Freidebach, M. (2001). Read-aloud accommodations: Effects on multiple-choice reading and math items (NCEO Technical Report 31). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota: National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved Jan 4, 2011 from http://education.umn.edu/nceo/ OnlinePubs/Technical31.htm.
2.
Blachowicz, C.L., Fisher, P.J., & Watts-Taffe, S. (2005). Integrated vocabulary instruction: Meeting the needs of divers learners in grades K-5. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
3.
Blashfield, R.K., & Aldenderfer, M.S. (1988). The methods and problems of cluster analysis. In J.R. Nesslerode & R.B. Cattell (Eds.), International handbook of multivariate experimental psycholog (pp. 447–473). New York: Plenum Press.
4.
Boyle, E.A., Rosenberg, M.S., Connelly, V.J., Washburn, S.G., Brinckerhoff, L.C., & Banerjee, M. (2003). Effects of audio texts on the acquisition of secondary-level content by students with mild disabilities. Learn Disability Quarterly, 26(3), 203-214.
5.
Braun, P.A. (2009). The effects of reading nonfiction aloud on the vocabulary acquisition of middle-school students (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.nl.edu/d....
6.
Bravo, M.A., Cervetti, G.N., Hiebert, E.H., & Pearson, P.D. (2008). From passive to active control of science vocabulary. In the 56th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 122–135). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
7.
Brossart, D.F., Parker, R., & Willson, V.L. (1998). A comparison of two methods for analyzing longitudinal data: Tuckerized growth curves and an application of K means analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 10, 121- 136.
8.
Brown, P.J., & Augustine, A. (2001, April). Screen reading software as an assessment accommodation: Implications for instruction and student performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
9.
Buckland, M. (1999). Vocabulary as a central concept in library and information science. In T. Arpanac et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (pp. 3–12). Zagreb, Croatia: Lokve.
10.
Calhoon, M.B., Fuchs, L.S., & Hamlett, C.L. (2000, Fall). Effects of computer-based test accommodations on mathematics performance assessments for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(4), 271–282.
11.
Chatham County Schools. (2010). Essential science vocabulary kindergarten (2007-2010). Savannah, GA: Chatham County.
12.
Coniam, D. (2001). The use of audio or video comprehension as an assessment instrument in the certification of English language teachers: A case study. System 29, 1-14.
13.
Dougherty Stahl, K.A., & Bravo, M.A. (2010). Contemporary classroom vocabulary assessments for content areas. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 566-578.
14.
Edgemon, E., Jablonski, B., & Lloyd, J. (2006). Large-scale assessments: A teacher’s guide to making decisions about accommodations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(3), 6–11.
15.
Elliott, S.N., Kratochwill, T.R., & Schulte, A.G. (1999). Assessment accommodations guide. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw Hill.
16.
Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2003). An experimental analysis of accommodation decisions on large-scale mathematics tests. Exceptional Children, 69, 211-225.
17.
Huynh, H., Meyer, J.P., & Gallant, D.J. (2004). Comparability of student performance between regular and oral administrations for a high-stakes mathematics test. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 38–57.
18.
Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7) 14-26.
19.
Johnson, E. (2000). The effects of accommodations on performance assessments. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 261–267.
20.
Klingner, J.K., & Edwards, P. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 108-117.
21.
Krashen, S.D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
22.
Lee, O., Deaktor, R.A., Hart, J.E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2005). An instructional interventions’ impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 857-887.
23.
Medina-Jerez, W., Clark, D.B., Medina, A., & Ramirez-Marin, F. (2007). Science for ELLs: Rethinking our approach, practical considerations and support for instruction of English language learners. The Science Teacher, 74(3), 52- 56.
24.
Meloy, L.L., Deville, C, & Frisbie, D.A. (2002). The effect of a read aloud accommodation on test scores of students with and without a learning disability in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 248-255.
25.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Chapter 4, Part I: Vocabulary instruction. Retrieved Jan 9, 2011, from National Reading Panel: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publi... upload/ch4-i.pdf.
26.
Olson, J.K., Levis, J.M., Vann, R., & Bruna, K.R. (2009). Enhancing science for ELLs: Science strategies for English language learners that benefit all students. Science and Children, 46(5), 46-48.
27.
Pearson, P.D., Hiebert, E.H., & Kamil, M.L. (2007, Apr/May/June). Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 282-296.
28.
Perozzi, J.A., & Chavez-Sanchez, M.L. (1992). The effect of instruction in L1 on receptive acquisition of L2 for bilingual children with language delay. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools 23, 348–352.
29.
Pritchard, R., & O'Hara, S. (2009). Vocabulary development in the science classroom: Using hypermedia authoring to support english learners. The Tapestry Journal, 1(1), 15- 29.
30.
Rodriguez, M. & Sadoski, M. (2000). Effects of rote, context, keyword, and context/keyword methods on retention of vocabulary in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(2), 385-412.
31.
Shear, L. (1999). Science, language, and deformed frogs: A design framework for linguistically aware science instruction. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
32.
Suh, J.M., & Moyer, P.S. (2007). Developing students' representational fluency using virtual and physical algebra balances. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(2), 155-173.
33.
Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Technical Report 34). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
34.
Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Hamiss, M. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64, 439-450.
35.
Uribe-Flórez, L.J., & Wilkins, J.L. (2010). Elementary school teachers' manipulative use. School Sciences & Mathematics, 110(7), 363-371.
36.
Vannest, K., Adiguzel, T., & Parker. R.E. (2007). Science Key Vocabulary Assessment (SKeVA): A web based system for formative assessment and instruction. (Beta Version) [Webbased application]. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University. Available from http://skeva.tamu.edu/ resources/SKeVA_Manual.pdf.
37.
Weston, T.J. (2002). The validity of oral accommodation in testing (NCES 200306). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
38.
Wetzel, D.R. (2009). Vocabulary building techniques in science: Teaching strategies for making connections with science concepts. Retrieved Jan 3, 2011, from Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/conten....
| eISSN: | 1305-8223 |
| ISSN: | 1305-8215 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
