The Effects of Repeated Reading Instruction on Oral Reading Fluency

By Lana TitusCI 843 Spring 2013 Online

• How will repeated reading effect fluency?

• What is Fluency?• First grade students in a rural district• Methodology for teacher-led, peer

coaching, & technology interventions• Assessments used • Data analysis to compare results from

interventions• Results of 3 repeated reading

interventions• References

Outline

• How do the repeated reading interventions of teacher-led, small groups, peer coaching, and use of technology effect the oral reading fluency of first grade students?

Guiding Question

• Fluency: the ability to read with speed, accuracy, and proper expression (Lo, Cooke, & Starling, 2011, p. 115).

• Complex skill that requires accurate decoding skills, automaticity, and correct expression

Fluency

1. Accuracy:o correct word decoding and

identificationo need to have between 90% to 95% on

grade level material (Rasinski, 2004)o when decoding too slow it slows down

comprehension (Therrien, 2004)

Three Essential Parts of ORF

2. Automaticity:o recognition of words that bypass the

decoding process (Wise et. al., 2010)o uses little mental effort to decodeo more effort can be put on meaning of

the text

Three Essential Parts of ORF

3. Prosody:o expressiveness that a student reads

witho intonation, rhythm, and emphasis given

to words and sentences when reading out loud

o must take note of the punctuation and give appropriate expression (Therrien, 2004)

Three Essential Parts of ORF

• If fluency is choppy, focus is on decoding not comprehension (Conderman & Strobel, 2008)

• Early identification of reading difficulties is best way to help at risk students

Reading Practice

• Supplemental program that consists of re-reading short meaningful passages

• RAND (2002) states repeatedly reading is the most effective way to instruct fluency

• Targets ORF and is easily integrated into programs

Repeated Readings

• First grade classroom• 15 students• 7 males, 8 females• 2 retained from 2011-2012• 4 Speech/Language• 4 Title I• 15 included in the study due to

developmental readiness

Participants

• Most common form of repeated reading

• Helps to prevent reading difficulties for at-risk students because of reduced group sizes

• Allows for more practice time to be focused on specific skills

• Focus on similar skills within the group

• Quicken the pace for higher reading groups

Teacher-Led Small Group

• Students outnumber teachers• Teachers are able to walk around

and give support as needed• Students enjoy celebrating

successes together

Peer Coaching

• Find the "thing" that sparks interest of students and gets them to practice

• It’s adaptive, facilitates repetitive practice, and motivates

• Voice playback application• Children can hear themselves read• They can suggest corrections

Technology

1. Students are called back2. Children get copy of the leveled

reader at instructional level3. Review characteristics of a good

reader4. Picture walk the book5. Read out loud for one minute using

reading phones

Methods:Teacher-Led Small Group

Cont.

6. Teacher listens to each child and assists with miscues

7. At one minute, students stop and mark the last word

8. Total up WPM on data sheet9. Repeat for 3 readings

Methods:Teacher-Led Small Group

Cont.

1. Students are called back2. Review characteristics of a good

reader3. Materials: instructional level

passages, transparencies, markers, and data sheets

4. One student is reader, other is counter

Methods:Peer Coaching Format

5. When one minute begins, reader reads, counter marks miscues, teacher listens

6. At one minute, reader stops and counter provides feedback

7. Reader records WPM on data sheet8. Repeat for 3 readings then switch

roles

Methods:Peer Coaching Format

Cont.

1. Students are called back2. Review characteristics of a good

reader3. Review iPod usage4. Students given instructional level

passage, iPod, headphones, and mic.

5. One minute timer begins, students begin reading and teacher moves around to assist with miscues

Methods:Technology - iPod Touch

6. At one minute, reader stops, counts up WPM, and records on tracking sheet

7. Student then listens to voice recording before beginning next reading

8. Repeat 3 recorded readings

Methods:Technology - iPod Touch

Cont.

• Initial assessment: AIMSweb R-CBM Winter data (median score)

• Final assessment: 3 first grade AIMSweb R-CBM probes (median score)

• Pretest and posttest: 2 first grade AIMSweb R-CBM probes (mean score)

• Student engagement checklist: effects of engagement on fluency

• Student survey: used to make adjustments to future implementations

Assessments

• R-CBMs: district is using AIMSweb this year for fluency, suggested for MTSS

• Student is taken to a quiet testing area• Directions are read verbatim to student• Student is given their copy of passage• Timer is began when student reads first word• Miscues are marked as student reads• At one minute times, student stops reading

and teacher marks last word read• Process continues for total of 3 probes• Computer records median score

Assessments (Continued)

• Compare initial and final results to see if repeated reading is effective to improve ORF

• Compare the 3 interventions• Males vs. Females• Special Education vs.

Speech/Language• Special Education vs. non• Speech/Language vs. non

Data Analysis

• 11 made positive gains• Average WCPM gain for all was 6.2• #1-7 are males, #8-15 are females• All males made gains/half females• Average WCPM gain for males was

12.7• Average WCPM gain for females was

0.5• Speech/Language gain was 10

WCPM vs. non at 4.8• Title 1 gain was 11.8 vs. non at 3.8

Teacher-Led Strategy Results

Teacher-Led StrategyORF Gain Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Intervention #1: Teacher-Led Small Group Gain Scores

I #1 Gains

Students

Gai

n Sc

ores

• 13 made positive gains• Average WCPM gain for all was 7.7• #1-7 are males, #8-15 are females• No gain 1 male, 1 female high

readers• Average WCPM gain for males was 8• Average WCPM gain for females was

7.4• Speech/Language gain was 6.5

WCPM vs. non at 8.1• Title 1 gain was 4.3 vs. non at 8.5

Peer Coaching Strategy Results

Peer Coaching StrategyORF Gain Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Intervention #2: Peer Coaching Gain Scores

I #2 Gains

Students

Gai

n Sc

ores

• 11 made positive gains• Average WCPM gain for all was 6.5• #1-7 are males, #8-15 are females• 3 males/1 female made 0 or

negative• Average WCPM gain for males was

3.1• Average WCPM gain for females was

9.5• Speech/Language gain was 7.3

WCPM vs. non at 6.2• Title 1 gain was 3.5 vs. non at 7.6

Technology (iPod) Results

Technology (iPod) StrategyORF Gain Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Intervention #3: Technology - iPods Gain Scores

I #3 Gains

Students

Gai

n Sc

ores

• All made positive gains in 9 weeks• Average WCPM gain for all was 24.1• #1-7 are males, #8-15 are females• Average WCPM gain for males was 28.6• Average WCPM gain for females was 20.3• Speech/Language gain was 17.3 WCPM• Title 1 gain was 13.3 WCPM• Non-special services gain of 28 WCPM• Males made continual decrease in gains through

interventions-best with teacher-led strategy• Females made continual increase in gains

through interventions-best with peer coaching

Initial to Final Assessment Results

Initial to Final AssessmentORF Gain Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150

10

20

30

40

50

60

Initial and Final Oral Reading Fluency Gain Scores

Overall

Students

Gai

n Sc

ores

• More practice time prior to peer coaching

• Peer coaching whole class to group heterogeneously to assist with accuracy in lower readers

• Read passages entirely after last one minute timing

• Smaller technology group for less playing

• Continue using all 3 strategies in rotation to differentiate and reach all children

What to do next time?

Conderman, G., & Strobel, D. (2008, Fall). Fluency flyers club: An oralreading fluency intervention program. Preventing School Failure, 53(1), 15-20.

Lo, Y.-Y., Cooke, N. L., & Starling, A. L. P. (2011). Using a repeated readingprogram to improve generalization of oral reading fluency. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(1), 115-140.

RAND. (2002, November). RAND report on reading comprehension.Educational Leadership, 60(3), 92. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov02/vol60/num03/RAND-Report-on-Reading-Comprehension.aspx

References

Rasinski, T. (2004, March). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership,61(6), 46-51. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar04/vol61/num06/Creating-Fluent-Readers.aspx

Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result ofrepeated readings. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4),

252-261.

Wise, J. C., Sevcik, R. A., Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., Wolf, M., Kuhn, M.,

... Schwanenflugel, P. (2010, July). The relationship between different measures of oral reading fluency and reading comprehension in second-grade students who evidence different oral reading fluency difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(3), 340-348.

References Continued