Reading and Comprehension in the African Context: A Cognitive Enquiry

Chapter Five: Reading and Comprehension: Techniques of Assessment

Techniques of Assessment CHAPTER FIVE ReadingandComprehension: Techniques ofAssessment Approaches of Reading Assessment T he purposes of reading assessment include comparing a learners’ progress to that of his or her peers, screening learners for special assistance, measuring an individual’s progress over a period of time, diagnosing particular areas of strength or weakness, using information for decisions about instruction, and determining placement within a reading program or special facility. There are many different approaches to reading assessment based upon these differing purposes and on the conception of reading development held by the test designer. The value of any assessment tool depends on the importance of the quality to be measured, and the capacity of the person to perform the task. Teachers use various methods to assess learners’ reading comprehension ability. The method employed depends on what the teacher wishes to test and the theory of reading held. The most widely used techniques for assessment include, Informal Reading Inventory (IRI) Oral Miscue Analysis (OMA), and the Cloze Procedure. The Informal Reading Inventory (IRI) An Informal Reading Inventory (IRI) is a series of graded representative selections taken from each reader level in a published 73 Reading and Comprehension in the African Context reading series and is used as a criterion – referenced test. The authors observe that it can be employed to determine a learner’s general level of reading ability as well as yielding diagnostic information. The Informal Reading Inventory (IRI) provides a mechanism for observing a child’s reading process. The short tests help the teacher to place the learner at an appropriate structural level and to determine what books a child can read independently and how difficult an assigned reading can be and still be used as instructional material. There are at least two passages at each reading level. One passage is to be read orally by a learner and one is to be read silently. A learner reads passages of increasing difficulty until the frustration level is reached. Frustration level is that level at which a learner has to struggle considerably with word recognition or comprehension. Based on the learners’ word recognition accuracy and comprehension accuracy at various reading levels an instruction reading level is determined. The informal reading inventory consists of a sight vocabulary test, silent and oral reading passages with comprehension questions and a listening capacity test. The tests are administered on a one to one basis where the learner reads successfully difficult passages while the examiner records errors. Errors typically recorded on word recognition include substitutions of the written word with another, additions, omissions, and alterations to the word sequence. Repetitions, self-corrections, hesitations, missed punctuation marks and mispronunciations due to dialect are not counted as errors. Both repetitions and self corrections are usually positive signs indicating that a learner is attempting to read for meaning and can self correct a word that does not make meaning. Although IRI is said to assess a learner’s strengths and needs in the areas of word recognition, word meaning, reading strategies, and comprehension, it has been criticized for a number of shortcomings . Pumfrey (1985) argues that the validity of the criteria specifying levels of reading is suspect. The instructional reading level is defined as the level at which students can read with 74 Techniques of Assessment approximately 95 per cent accuracy in word recognition and approximately 75 per cent accuracy in comprehension. Frustration level is defined as the level at which a learner is reading with less than 70 per cent accuracy in comprehension. Spache (1976:33) observes that IRIS is not simple or practical to use because its scoring standards are subjective and probably invalid. Its based reader source is questionable and its testing procedures differ from that used in the research on which it is supposed to be used. Pumfrey (1985) summarizes some other shortcomings of IRI including the notion that a reader’s performance varies with the type of material pressures and that it requires training for one to be able to categorize the reading errors correctly so as to attain accurate scores. It is also time consuming as it is administered on an individual basis. He further notes that framing comprehension questions is a difficult task and that the information elicited by IRI contains an unqualified degree of error. Thus, on the whole, IRI has to be used with caution. The Oral Reading Miscue Analysis (ORMA) Another procedure used for assessing reading proficiency...