英語読解力の指標としての音読の流暢さ及び音読速度

本論の目的は,集団規準準拠テスト的側面と形成的評価的側面を兼ね備えた評価法であるカリキュラムに基づく評価法（Curriculum-based measurement=CBM）（Fuchs & Fuchs, 1999）として,L1の初等教育及び特殊教育において読解力の指標とされている音読の流暢さ（oral reading fluency = 1分間に正しく音読する語数）（Jenkins, et al., 2003）及び音読速度（1分間に音読する総語数）が,日本人英語学習者の英語読解力を示す指標となり得るか調査することである｡高校2年生39名を対象に,読解力と音読の流暢さ及び速度重視（速く読む）,内容重視（内容理解に努めて読む）,理解度換算（内容重視の音読×正誤問越の正答率）の音読速度の関係を調査した結果,(a)音読の流暢さと読解力の基準関連妥当性は,音読の流暢さが読解力の指標となり得る程は高くないが,読解力を示す参考になり得る,(b)音読速度は音読の流暢さと同様に読解力を示す参考になり得る,(C)胡!解度換算の音読速度がこの用途に適している,等が示 された｡併せて,英語教育への示唆も示された｡

This paper has two aims. The first aim is to explain the concepts of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and oral reading fluency. CBM is considered reliable and valid with characteristics of both formative and summative assessments (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1999). Oral reading fluency is one of the most effective CBMs in reading instruction for L1 elementary and special-education students aenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin & Deno, 2003). The second aim is to report investigations, which were conducted on thirty-nine Japanese second-year senior high school students of English, concerning: (a) whether oral reading fluency could index the English reading cOlnprehension for Japanese learners of English; and (b) whether oral reading speed could take the place of oral reading fluency in indexing their English reading comprehension. In the experiments, reading comprehension, oral reading fluency and three types of oral reading speeds of the participants were measured, and the correlations between them were computed. The three types of oral reading speeds were speed-focused, content-focused and comprehension-adjusted. The main results were: (a) there was a significant correlation between their reading comprehension and oral reading fluency (r=.482, p<.01); (b) there were significant correlations between their reading comprehension and three types of oral reading speeds (rs=.375-.479, p<.05), with the conlprehension-adjusted one being the highest (r=.479, p<.01); and (c) there were significant correlations between their oral reading fluency and three types of oral reading speeds (rs=.690-.770, p<.01) Findings based on the results were: (a) oral reading fluency can be a rough indicator of learners' English reading comprehension; (b) oral reading speed, which is much more handily measured than oral reading fluency, can also be a rough indicator of their English reading cOlnprehension; and (c) comprehension-adjusted oral reading speed can be a better indicator of their reading comprehension than the other types of oral reading speed. Implications for reading pedagogy were: (a) we should introduce the nleasurement of speed-focused oral reading speed into our reading pedagogy so that we may understand learners' decoding skills and deal with their deficiencies; and (b) we should also introduce the measurement of comprehension-adjusted oral reading speed into our reading pedagogy so that we may understand learners' comprehension skills as well as decoding skills and deal with their deficiencies.