Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Human and automated assessment of oral reading fluency.

Authors: Daniel Bolaños; Ron A. Cole; Wayne H. Ward; Gerald A. Tindal; Jan Hasbrouck; Paula J. Schwanenflugel;

Human and automated assessment of oral reading fluency.

Abstract

This article describes a comprehensive approach to fully automated assessment of children’s oral reading fluency (ORF), one of the most informative and frequently administered measures of children’s reading ability. Speech recognition and machine learning techniques are described that model the 3 components of oral reading fluency: word accuracy, reading rate, and expressiveness. These techniques are integrated into a computer program that produces estimates of these components during a child’s 1-min reading of a grade-level text. The ability of the program to produce accurate assessments was evaluated on a corpus of 783 one-min recordings of 313 students reading grade-leveled passages without assistance. Established standardized metrics of accuracy and rate (words correct per minute [WCPM]) and expressiveness (National Assessment of Educational Progress Expressiveness scale) were used to compare ORF estimates produced by expert human scorers and automatically generated ratings. Experimental results showed that the proposed techniques produced WCPM scores that were within 3–4 words of human scorers across students in different grade levels and schools. The results also showed that computer-generated ratings of expressive reading agreed with human raters better than the human raters agreed with each other. The results of the study indicate that computer-generated ORF assessments produce an accurate multidimensional estimate of children’s oral reading ability that approaches agreement among human scorers. The implications of these results for future research and near term benefits to teachers and students are discussed.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    32
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
32
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!