USING REPEATED READING AS A STRATEGY TO IMPROVE READING

FLUENCY AT THE ELEMENTARY LEVEL

Kate Berg
Catherine Lyke

An Action Research Project Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the

School of Education in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Teaching and Leadership

Approved Content Designation for Teacher Leader Endorsement: Reading Teacher

Saint Xavier University

Master of Arts Teaching and Leadership Program

Chicago, Illinois

May 2012
 i

Table of Contents

Abstract............................................................................................................................ iii

Chapter 1: Problem Statement and Context................................................................. 1

General Statement of the Problem......................................................... 1

Immediate Context of the Problem........................................................ 1

Local Context of the Problem................................................................. 9

National Context of the Problem............................................................ 13

Reflection.................................................................................................. 14

Chapter 2: Problem Documentation............................................................................. 16

Evidence of the Problem ......................................................................... 16

Summary.................................................................................................. 28

Reflection ................................................................................................. 29

Probable Causes...................................................................................... 29

Summary ................................................................................................. 35

Chapter 3: The Solution Strategy ................................................................................. 37

Review of the Literature ........................................................................ 37

Summary ................................................................................................. 61

Project Objective and Processing Statement ....................................... 62

Project Action Plan................................................................................ 63

Methods of Assessment.......................................................................... 67

Chapter 4: Project Results………………………………………………………….. 69

Historical Description of the Intervention …………………………. 69

Presentation and Analysis of Results ………………………………….. 77

 ii

Summary ……………………………………………………………… 88

Conclusions and Recommendations ………………………………… 89

References…………………………………………………………………………….. 91

Appendix A: Parent Survey………………………………………………………….. 95

Appendix B: Student Survey…………………………………………………………. 96

Appendix C: Teacher Survey………………………………………………………… 97

Appendix D: Teacher Interview……………………………………………………… 98

Appendix E: Progress Monitoring Chart……………………………..…………….. 99

Appendix F: Sample Reading Passage – District Curriculum …………………….. 100

Appendix G: Teacher Researcher B’s Intervention Group Schedule …………….. 101

 iii

Abstract

The purpose of this action research project report was to increase reading fluency for 38 third-,
fourth-, and fifth- grade students. The teacher researches collected data from a Parent Survey
(n=26), Student Survey (n=38), Teacher Survey (n=12), and Teacher Interviews (n=4) for a total
of 80 participants. Data was collected from September 8, 2011 through September 16, 2011.

Children’s struggles with fluency were apparent through observation of student’s fluency rate
data which was obtained through a review of student records. Further evidence of the problem
was exhibited in the results of Student and Parent Surveys. These offered greater insight into
parent and student opinions of reading practices in the home in relation to student reading
achievement and the level of understanding of class work. Teacher Surveys and Interviews were
also helpful in defining problems such as a lack of an effective fluency curriculum which
contributed to difficulties with reading fluency.

A repeated reading strategy was implemented as a means to increase the reading fluency rates of
students. The repeated reading intervention was structured around a daily fluency routine that
was implemented during small group reading. The weekly fluency routine included timed pre-
tests, teacher models, choral reading, partner reading, error correction and feedback, and timed
post tests.

It was found that the repeated reading strategy was effective in increasing the fluency rates of
students who participated in the intervention. Data collected throughout the 11-week
intervention showed an overall average gain of 25 words per minute for all students (n=38). This
result was mirrored by the participants (n=37) with an average gain of 15 words per minute from
pre- and post fluency assessments. In conclusion, this repeated reading strategy was an effective
way to increase both the speed and accuracy of reading for general education students, as well as
students receiving special education services.
 1

Chapter 1

Problem Statement and Context

General Statement of the Problem

The students at Sites A and B exhibited deficits in the area of reading fluency. The

teacher researchers believed that, as a result, the students suffered in all areas of reading and

scored below average on standardized tests. The two teacher researchers documented evidence

of this problem by the use of teacher, student, and Parent Surveys, Teacher Interviews, and

analysis of student performance data from the beginning of the school year.

Immediate Context of the Problem

This action research was conducted by two teacher researchers in two different public

elementary schools. The schools were located in the same neighborhood in an urban area of

Northern Illinois. One researcher taught special education for upper elementary students at Site

A while the other researcher taught fourth grade at Site B. Specific information from each site is

presented in Site A and Site B respectfully. Unless otherwise noted, the following data was

retrieved from the Illinois Interactive Report Card (IIRC), 2010.

Site A.

Site A was a large elementary school that not only addressed general education of

students, but also focused on meeting special education needs. With students diagnosed with

severe and profound disabilities, students with hearing impairments, and students in self-

contained classrooms, Site A offered a wealth of resources for students in early childhood

education through fifth grade. A description of the student body of Site A is listed in Table 1.

With a total enrollment of 546 students, 54.2% were Caucasian, which was considerably higher

than the percentage of Caucasian students in the district (37.1%). The overall African-American
 2

population (14.5%) was almost half of the district’s level (29.6%). Site A had a higher

enrollment of multi-racial students (11.5%) compared to the district (6.6%) and state (2.9%).

Table 1

Site A Demographic Information as Compared to District and State by Percentage

African- Native
Caucasian American Hispanic Asian American Multi-racial
School 54.2 14.5 18.7 1.1 0 11.5
District 37.1 29.6 23.1 3.4 0.1 6.6
State 52.8 18.8 21.1 4.2 0.2 2.9

Site A had a population of special education students (22.9%) that was markedly higher

than the district (12.9%) and state (13.1%). Many of the resources and related services that were

available to help students included: speech and language services, occupational and physical

therapies, social work, interpreters, paraprofessionals, communication devices, etc.

Site A’s Limited English Proficiency Rate (LEP) was determined to be 2.9%, which is

considerably lower than the district (10.2%) and state (7.6%). The LEP rate describes students

who were “eligible for transitional bilingual programs.”

Students whose household income fell within the Federal Income Guidelines were

eligible for free or reduced breakfast/lunch and were considered to have a low-income status

(Nutri-Link Technologies, 2009). Low-income students came from families that received public

aid; lived in institutions for neglected or delinquent children; were supported in foster homes

with public funds; or were eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches. At Site A, 71.4% of

students were considered low-income. This was comparable to the 75.3% of students qualifying

for low income benefits in the district. However, a lower number (45.4%) of students were

considered low-income in the state of Illinois.

 3

Site A had a lower truancy rate as compared to district and state according to the

information shown in Table 2. The attendance rate was comparable between school (94.3%),

district (92.1%), and state (93.9%). The mobility rate at Site A (9.5%) was less than the district

(13.5%) and state (13.0%).

Table 2

Site A Truancy, Mobility, and Attendance Rates by Percentage

Chronic
Truancy Rate Mobility Rate Attendance Rate
School 0.9 9.5 94.3
District 6.1 13.5 92.1
State 3.6 13.0 93.9

The Site A classroom had a special education curriculum focusing in the core areas of

reading, language arts, and mathematics. Students met in groups in the special education

resource room as per minutes outlined in their Individualized Education Program (IEP). The

amount of time spent with each student varied from 150 to 600 minutes per week. Each subject

in which the student received services was covered during that time. In general education,

students received 120 minutes daily in reading and language arts instruction. Special education

minutes in these areas were to be in addition to that time. Students who qualified for special

education services may have had accommodations listed on their IEPs for state assessments.

Accommodations could have included small group setting, read aloud in mathematics only, and

extended time, among others. Some students with these accommodations took the assessment

outside of their general education classroom; possibly in the resource classroom.

All students in grades three, four, and five participated in the Illinois Standards

Achievement Test (ISAT). Site A’s performance on the ISAT are described in Table 3.
 4

According to the IIRC, at least 77.5% of all students must have met or exceeded standards for

reading and mathematics in order to have been considered as making Adequate Yearly Progress

(AYP). The students in Site A scored almost 16 points higher in mathematics than in reading.

Mathematics scores for Site A did meet AYP. However, the score of 69.5% for reading did not

make the AYP target.

Table 3

Performance of Students Who Met or Exceeded on ISAT by Percentage

Reading Math
School 69.5 85.1
District 60.0 70.0
State 73.7 86.0

Faculty and staff for Site A consisted of 36 certified teachers and 20 non-certified staff

members. Included in the 36 certified teachers are: 19 classroom teachers, 7 hearing-impaired

teachers, 3 self-contained teachers, 2 resource teachers, 3 physical education teachers, 1 art

teacher, and 1 music teacher. The average class size for general education classes was 26.9.

One-hundred percent of the certified staff was female. Of the non-certified staff,

paraprofessionals were placed in classrooms based on the needs of students with IEPs. Other

specialized staff (n=12) members at Site A included: two hearing-impaired interpreters, three

speech and language pathologists, one social worker, one school psychologist, one educational

diagnostician, one occupational therapist, one physical therapist, one vision itinerant, and one

hearing-impaired itinerant resource teacher. All teachers had bachelor’s degrees, while 70% of

teachers had earned a master’s degree or above. Monetarily, the typical salary for district

teachers was $66,771, compared to $63,286 for state educators’ average. The average years of

teaching experience for the district was 15.4 years and 12.7 for the state.
 5

Site A had one principal and one assistant principal. There was also a hearing clinic

housed at the site. There were two full-time secretaries, one full-time nurse, two custodians

available during the day for building maintenance, as well as three custodians in the evening

hours. Site A benefited from the use of eight cafeteria workers who performed kitchen duties as

well as playground supervision.

The location of Site A consisted of a pre-existing structure that operated as a school, built

in 1950, and added another building in 1969, doubling its size. The research school at Site A,

was a single-story brick building with two parking lots and a circle drive. The grounds at Site A

included a playground, cemented area, a baseball diamond, hill, and tennis courts. Each

classroom at Site A had at least two computers with Internet accessibility and wireless

connections for certified-staff issued laptops.

Site B.

Site B was a kindergarten through fifth grade building with 344 enrolled students. The

ethnic background for Site B is listed on Table 4. The Caucasian population was listed at 42.2%,

which was a 5.1% higher difference from the district and a 10.6% lower difference from that of

the state average. The Hispanic population at Site B (16.9%) showed a lower average than the

district (23.1%) and state (21.1%). The multi-racial status (12.2%) was markedly higher than the

district (6.6%) and state (2.9%).

Table 4

Site B Demographic Information as Compared to District and State by Percentage

African- Native Multi-

Caucasian American Hispanic Asian American racial
School 42.2 24.1 16.9 4.7 0 12.2
District 37.1 29.6 23.1 3.4 0.1 6.6
State 52.8 18.8 21.1 4.2 0.2 2.9
 6

The Limited English Proficiency Rate (LEP) for Site B was 3.8% in comparison to the

district’s average of 10.2% and the state of 7.6%. Low-income students come from families

receiving public aid; live in institutions for neglected or delinquent children; are supported in

foster homes with public funds; or are eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches. Site B’s

percentage of families who are considered to be low-income was 79.7. This was comparable to

the district at 75.3%, while both the school and district levels of low income are 30% higher than

the state level of 45.4%. The mobility rate was 12.2% for the school, 13.5% for the district, and

13% for the state. The school attendance rate was 94% compared to 92.1% for the district and

93.9% for the state. Site B had a 3.8% chronic truancy rate, which was lower than the district’s

6.1%, but comparable to the state’s 3.6% chronic truancy rate. Truancy, mobility, and

attendance rates are presented in Table 5.

Table 5

Site A Truancy, Mobility, and Attendance Rates by Percentage

Chronic
Truancy Rate Mobility Rate Attendance Rate
School 3.8 12.2 94.0
District 6.1 13.5 92.1
State 3.6 13.0 93.9

Based on full-time equivalents, Site B had 20 teachers: 3 males and 17 females. Although

all teachers had a bachelor’s degrees, 99% of teachers had earned a master’s degree or beyond.

The average class size was 23.6 students. Financially, the average salary for the district was

$66,771, compared to $63,286 for the state. The average years teaching experience for the

district was 15.4 years and 12.7 years for the state.
 7

The teacher at Site B was committed to teaching the core subjects for fourth grade during

the regular school day. The academic programs at Site B consisted of the core subjects:

mathematics, science, social studies, reading, writing, and language arts. Other subjects the

students participated in were art, music, physical education, library skills, and technology. Table

5 presents the amount of time devoted to teaching the core subjects as found in the IIRC, 2010.

At Site B, less time was spent in reading and language arts than in the district and state, while

time devoted to mathematics was aligned with the district and state. Table 6 shows the time

spent on teaching core subjects at Site B.

Table 6

Time Devoted to Teaching Core Subjects by Minutes Per Day

Reading/Language
Mathematics Arts Science Social Studies
School 60 120 30 30
District 65 136 31 32
State 59 145 30 30

All students in grades three through five took part in the ISAT. At least 77.5% of all

students had to meet or exceed standards for reading and mathematics in order to be considered

as making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Site B scored considerably higher in mathematics

(79.1%) than that of the district (70.0%), and did meet the AYP criteria. In reading, however,

Site B scored 63.2%, which was consistent with the district’s score (60.0%), but 10.5% lower

than the state’s value, and did not make AYP. Performance of students on the ISAT is displayed

in Table 7.
 8

Table 7

Performance of Students Who Met or Exceeded on ISAT by Percentage

Reading Math
School 63.2 79.1
District 60.0 70.0
State 73.7 86.0

Research Site B had one principal, one head teacher, and one literacy coach. One full-

time secretary was available during school hours along with a part-time nurse. One building

engineer was available during the day, while one night porter worked in the evening hours. The

staff at Site B also included four cafeteria aides whose duties included kitchen activities and

lunch/recess supervision. There was one part-time social worker, one educational diagnostician,

one psychologist, a speech and language pathologist, and a home school counselor. Site B

employed one full-time special education resource teacher and one half-time resource teacher.

There were three specialist teachers who taught art, music, and physical education. The art and

music teachers were both employed half-time. There were four full-time kindergarten teachers at

the site. Two of the kindergarten classrooms were incubation. According to Site B’s public

school website (Definition Incubation Kindergarten, n.d.), students in incubation kindergarten

attended kindergarten in a school in which they may not have been able to continue attending. It

was a temporary placement due to a contractual obligation to hold 21 kindergarten seats and 26

first grade seats. Additionally, three paraprofessionals assisted the needs of students with

disabilities at Site B. Paraprofessionals were placed in classrooms based on allocations in

students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEP). Site B was transitioning from a three-strand

to a two-strand school. Each grade level, with the exception of kindergarten and fifth grade, had

two classrooms.
 9

The research school of Site B was erected in the 1950s. It was established as a one-story

brick construction with three wings. The north wing housed primary classrooms and the resource

room. The middle wing consisted of the gymnasium, main office, computer laboratory, teachers’

lounge, and the art room. The computer laboratory housed 30 computers, a Smart Board, and an

industrial printer. The south wing contained the upper elementary grade classrooms along with

the music room. Each classroom at Site B had document projectors and at least two computers

for teacher and student use. There was a new playground erected in 2009 with the help of

fundraising from the Parent Teacher Organization and a state senator.

Local Context of the Problem

The two research schools were situated within one district in northern Illinois and were

located very close to the Wisconsin and Illinois border. Both schools were in the same

established residential neighborhood and each school’s population consisted of children from the

neighborhood, as well as children who were bused from all areas of the community, based on

school choice. School choice allowed parents to rank the schools that they would like their child

to attend within the district. The school district took those preferences into account when

assigning children to schools using the school choice method of placement (District Website,

2011). In 2010, the school district adopted a neighborhood zoning policy in which children

would be assigned to one of a few schools located in their zone (District Website, 2011). The

neighborhood zoning policy would take six years to fully implement.

The total population of the city was 157,280 in 2009, which was an increase of 4.8%

since 2000 (City-Data.com, 2010). Males accounted for 48.2% (n=75,838) of the population,

while females accounted for the remaining 51.8% (n=81,442) (U. S. Census Bureau, 2010). The

median age for both genders was 34.4 years comparable to the Illinois median age of 34.7 (City-
 10

Data.com, 2010), while the median male age was 32.8 years and the median female age was 36

years (idcide.com, 2010). The age distribution is shown in Table 8.

Table 8

Age Distribution of Males and Females by Percentage

Males Females Combined

Under 20 years 15 14 29
20 to 40 years 14 15 29
40 to 60 years 12 12 24
Over 60 years 7 10 17

The estimated median household income in 2008 was $38,135, similar to 2000 with a

$37,667 median, demonstrating a nominal increase of $468 over eight years (City-Data.com,

2010). Residents below the poverty level in 2008 represented 23.3% of the population (City-

Data.com, 2010). According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), Caucasians (72%) made up the

majority of the population in the research community. African American (17%) and Hispanic

(10%) ethnicities represented a larger portion of the minority community than Asian and Native

American ethnicities (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The ethnicity in the area is shown in Table 9.

Table 9

Racial/Ethnic Background of Local Context by Percentage

African Native
Caucasian American American Asian Hispanic Other/Mixed
72 17 0 2 10 3

High school graduates in the city represented 77.8% of the population, compared to the

national average of 80% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d.). Those who had attained a

bachelor’s degree or higher were represented at 19.8%, compared to the national average at

24.4% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d.).

 11

In 2000, there were 63,570 total housing units in the research schools’ area. The number

of occupied housing units was 59,158, or 93.1% of the total units in the area. Of these, 61%

were owner occupied and 39% were renter occupied. There were also 4,412 vacant homes in the

research area in the year 2000. Of homes owned, the median house value was $79,900. The

average household size was 2.46, compared to the average in the United States at 2.59. Two-

thirds (66%) of the occupations in the research area were management, professional, and related

occupations at 23%, sales and office occupations at 22%, and production, transportation, and

material moving occupations at 21%. Approximately 75% of workers in the community work

for companies, 10% work for the government, and 5% are self-employed. Leading industries in

the research area are manufacturing, educational services, health care, social assistance, and

retail trade (SimplyHired, Inc., 2005-2010). The labor force was represented as 64.3% of the

population (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d.). The crime rate in the research area was 1.03

times the national average in murder and 1.51 times the national average in robbery

(CityRating.com, 2002). Burglary in the research community was 2.32 times the national

average. Other crime values are listed in Table 10 (CityRating.com, 2002).

Table 10

Number of Crimes Listed in 2003

Type Frequency
Property Crime 12,055
Larceny/Theft 7,895
Burglary 2,996
Violent Crime 1,244
Car Theft 1,164
Aggravated Assault 732
Robbery 500
Murder 12
 12

The area was founded in 1834 and changed to its current name in 1837

(GoRockford.com, 2011). In 1917, the research community was home to an important military

center that trained soldiers for World War I. The research community was recognized as a vital

industrial hub by the turn of the century and was home to numerous manufacturing companies

that produced machine tools, furniture, and agricultural equipment. Many of these companies

were extinct by the 1960s. Currently the research area is home to numerous attractions for

visitors and residents. The community includes many professional performing arts groups and

facilities, museum, art galleries, sporting entertainment, festivals parks and gardens, and family

entertainment.

The district in which the research was being conducted believed that students should be

life-long learners and serve their communities. The mission statement of Site A was to:

serve the community by ensuring all of its diverse students develop the capabilities to

contribute to society, succeed in the global economy, and learn throughout their lives by

creating dynamic integrated learning environments that respond to the needs and

aspirations of the individual student and partnership with family and community.

(District Website, 2010).

As cited on its school website, Site A “exists to provide our diverse student population

with an accepting and challenging atmosphere in which all children can achieve their fullest

potential, socially and academically, through a partnership of students, staff, and community.”

(District website, 2010).

Site B’s mission statement stated:

through high expectations and active partnership with the community it promoted

character development, encouraged a life-long desire for learning, and motivated all
 13

students to strive for academic excellence in a safe, caring, equitable environment that

prepared all children for success in a changing society (District Website, 2010).

To accomplish their mission statements, the school district educated children in

32 elementary school buildings, 6 middle schools, and 7 high school buildings. Specialized

educational structures included a language immersion site, one art academy, a first through

eighth grade gifted academy, a Montessori school, and two early-education sites. There was one

superintendent that supervised all of the school buildings.

The highest expenditure for the district and state was allocated to instruction. The

district (51.9%) spent 5.8% more on instruction the state (46.1%). The least amount of funds

dispersed for both district and state were on general administration, with less than 5% spent on

both. An 8.8% difference existed in the other expenditures category with the district spending

9.7% compared to the state disbursement of 18.5%. Expenditures for the 2008-2009 school year

are listed in Figure 1 (IIRC, 2010).

60
51.9
50 46.1

40 34.1 32.2
30
District
18.5
20
9.7 State
10 4.3 3.2
0
Instruction General Supporting Other
Administration Services Expenditures

Figure 1. Expenditure by Function 2008-2009 by Percentage

National Context of the Problem

In a nationally representative study of 1,779 fourth graders, it was implied that 40% of

United States readers are considered “non-fluent” readers (Daane et al., 2005, as cited in Begeny,
 14

Krouse, Ross, & Mitchell, 2009). Additionally, early reading failure has been shown to persist

and become more pronounced as children advance in school (Fuchs et al., 2001, Juel, 1996, &

Stewart, Martella, Marchand-Martella, & Benner, 2005, as cited in Alber-Morgan, 2006).

Statistics suggest that despite the attempts made by schools and researchers to improve students’

reading skills, the average reading scores of fourth-graders has not improved since 1992 (Perie,

Grigg, & Donahue, 2005, as cited in Ardoin, McCall, & Klubnik, 2006).

Reflection

The teacher researchers have identified three pertinent areas that impacted reading

fluency as related to the demographics of the community. These included the urban location of

the schools, the socioeconomic status of students as indicated by free and reduced lunches, and

the special education population of Site A. Studies have shown that the intersection of language

and literacy dramatically increases the probability that urban students will have difficulty with

reading and, in turn, perform below grade level (Klingner & Artiles, 2006, as cited in Musti-Rao,

Hawkins, & Barkley, 2009). Studies have also shown that students from low socioeconomic and

culturally diverse backgrounds are disproportionately referred for special education services and

classified as having a learning disability based on their poor reading skills (Hitchcock et al.,

2004, as cited in Musti-Rao, et al., 2009). Almost three million students are identified as having

learning disabilities, with 80% having reading needs (Shapiro, Church, & Lewis, 2002, as cited

in Therrien & Hughes, 2008).

The elevated crime rate and pronounced poverty rate were attributes of the issues

surrounding student reading achievement. The crime rate in the research community was higher

than the national average, with burglary being markedly higher (CityRating.com, 2002). The

educational process was affected because students’ lives were impacted by crime in their homes
 15

and neighborhoods. Poverty was an issue that the children in the research community were

faced with. As of 2008, the poverty level in the community was at 23.3%. Schools had to

address the needs of the increasing number of students living in impoverished circumstances.
 16

Chapter 2

Problem Documentation

Evidence of the Problem

The purpose of this research project was to increase reading fluency through repeated

reading for third, fourth, and fifth grade students. The teacher researches collected data from a

Parent Survey, Student Survey, Teacher Survey, and Teacher Interviews. The Parent Surveys

were distributed to 42 parents with 26 returned. Teacher Researcher A collected data from 6

third-grade, 4 fourth-grade, and 4 fifth-grade students for a total of 14 students during scheduled

small group interventions. Teacher Researcher B collected data from 24 fourth grade students

during the reading block. The total number of student participants was 38. Teacher Surveys

were requested from 22 teachers with 12 returned. Additionally, four teachers were interviewed

as an additional means to gather data. Data was collected from September 8, 2011 through

September 16, 2011.

Parent Survey.

The purpose of the Parent Survey (Appendix A) was to establish parents’ opinions

concerning their child’s reading habits in the home and the amount of parent involvement during

the reading process. The Parent Survey was sent home with all students, via backpacks, on

September 8, 2011 with a return date of September 16, 2011. The survey was distributed to a

total of 42 parents. Of the 42 Parent Surveys distributed, the teacher researchers had a return rate

of 62% (n=26). The survey contained six questions requiring parents to select a choice

indicating their opinions on the adequacy of their child’s reading ability in relation to their grade

level, how often their child read at home, book selection and independent reading habits,

frequency of parent assistance during reading, how often they read to their child for enjoyment,

and the regularity of book discussions in the home. Questions were administered using a likert
 17

scale that displayed options of; 1 (rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3 (usually), and 4 (always). Space was

provided for optional comments with 23% (n=6) offering additional feedback.

The first question on the Parent Survey asked parents if they felt that their child read

adequately for their grade level. Parents were asked to circle the selection that best described

their beliefs. Teacher Researcher A’s data was displayed separately from Teacher Researcher

B’s due to the challenges related to reading abilities among students with special education

eligibilities, as opposed to general education reading expectations. As previously stated, 62%

(n=26) of the Parent Surveys were returned. Teacher Researcher A accounted for 7 of the

responses and Teacher Researcher B accounted for the remaining 19 returned Parent Surveys.

The results in Figure 1a indicate the percentage of parents who had a negative opinion (71%;

n=5/7) of their child’s reading ability according to grade level. Figure 1b displays that 26%

(n=5/19) of the parents expressed a negative opinion of their child’s reading ability based on

grade level.

29% 0 0
Negative
Opinion
Positive Opinion
71%

Figure 1a. Parent opinion toward grade level reading adequacy - Teacher Researcher A (n=7)

0 0
26%
Negative
Opinion
Positive
74% Opinion

Figure 1b. Parent opinion toward grade level reading adequacy - Teacher Researcher B (n=19)
 18

The second question on the Parent Survey asked parents if their child read at home.

Respondents were given four categories on a likert scale as choices; 1 (rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3

(usually), and 4 (always). Parents were asked to circle their selection. The results displayed in

Figure 2 show that 31% (n=8) usually read at home and 15% (n=4) sometimes read at home.

Almost half of the responding parents, 46% (n=12) stated that their children did not always read

at home.

0%
15% Rarely
54% 31% Sometimes
Usually
Always

Figure 2. Parent observation of child reading habits at home (n=26)

The third question on the Parent Survey asked parents to identify their child’s book

selection and independent reading habits. They were given four different categories as choices: 1

(rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3 (usually), and 4 (always). Out of 26 parent responses, 46% (n=12)

reported that their children rarely or sometimes choose books and read independently.

15% 23% Rarely

Sometimes
39% 23% Usually
Always

Figure 3. Parent observations of children’s book selection and independent reading habits (n=26)

The fourth question on the Parent Survey asked if parents helped their child when they

had difficulties reading. They were given four categories as choices: 1 (rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3
 19

(usually), and 4 (always). Twelve percent of parents (n=3) sometimes or rarely assisted their

child with reading difficulties.

0 0
12%

Usually & Always

88% Rarely & Sometimes

Figure 4. Parent response to frequency of assistance with reading difficulty (n=26)

The fifth selection on the survey stated, “I read aloud to my child for enjoyment.”

Parents were asked to select one choice from the following: 1 (rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3

(usually), and 4 (always). Of the responses, 62% of parents (n=16) reported that they sometimes

or rarely read to their child for enjoyment.

0 0

38%
Usually & Always
62%
Rarely & Sometimes

Figure 5. Parent responses to reading to their children for enjoyment (n=26)

The final selection on the Parent Survey stated, “My child discusses books read at home

or at school with me.” This statement was broken down into four categories: 1 (rarely), 2

(sometimes), 3 (usually), and 4 (always). Parents were asked to circle a response from one to

four, corresponding with the frequency of book discussions. Responses show that 50% of

families (n=13) did not discuss books in the home environment.

 20

50% Usually & Always

Rarely & Sometimes

Figure 6. Parent responses to book discussions in the home (n=26)

An optional comments section was provided at the end of the Parent Survey. Of the total

respondents (n=26), five parents (19%) utilized the space for additional feedback. One parent

felt that it was beneficial to read with children on a daily basis. The respondent stated that

parents can be exactly like teachers. It was further stated that this involvement can improve

reading skills, especially for students in a lower reading level. Another respondent reported that

they attempted to read with their child on a daily basis, but did not always accomplish that goal.

A third response indicated a need for more reading materials. The fourth response indicated that

reading was encouraged and enjoyed in the home, and the fifth parent responded that their child

had ADHD, which contributed to their responses on the survey and reading habits in the home.

Student Survey.

The purpose of the Student Survey (Appendix B) was to gain information about students’

feelings toward reading habits. The Student Survey was distributed and completed during class

on September 9, 2011 to students in Teacher Researcher A and B’s classrooms. Of the 42

surveys distributed, 88% (n=37) were completed and used for data analysis. The survey

contained six statements and one open-ended response question. Responses were selected by the

use of a likert scale. Four response categories were given: 1 (rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3 (usually),

and 4 (always). Two of the statements on the Student Survey asked students to express their

feelings and habits regarding reading; “I enjoy reading” and “I read at home every day.” The
 21

remaining four statements were as follows: I can read and understand my textbooks, I can read

and understand my class work, I reread information when I don’t understand something, and I

volunteer to read aloud in class. The final question asked students to indicate what they do if

they do not understand something while reading.

One statement on the Student Survey asked students to indicate how often they read at

home. Students were asked to select a word that best described their beliefs. Choices were

selected from the following: 1 (rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3 (usually), and 4 (always). Of the

responses, 9% (n=3) reported that they never read at home. Additionally, 24% of the

respondents (n=9) sometimes read at home.

9%

32% Never
24%
Sometimes
Usually
35%
Always

Figure 7. Student responses to frequency of reading at home (n=37)

Another statement required the students to address their opinions toward reading for

enjoyment. Teacher Researcher A’s data is displayed in Figure 8a. Data from Teacher

Researcher B is found in Figure 8b. The data from Teacher Researcher A and Teacher

Researcher B were separated due to the fact that student responses from Teacher Researcher A

may be less favorable and therefore their responses may not be reflective of a student who has a

positive opinion regarding reading. Students with special education eligibilities in the area of

reading struggle with reading for enjoyment due to lack of skills, while general education

students may have a more positive opinion toward reading. Figure 8a shows that 58% (n=8) of

Teacher Researcher A’s students sometimes or never enjoyed reading. Half of those students,
 22

29% (n=4) never enjoyed reading. Figure 8b indicates that 35% (n=8) reported that they

sometimes read for enjoyment.

0%
Never Never
29% 29% 39% 35%
Sometimes Sometimes
13%
29% Usually 26% Usually
Always Always

Figure 8a. Responses to reading for Figure 8b. Responses to reading for
enjoyment from Teacher Researcher A enjoyment from Teacher Researcher B
(n=14) (n=23)

The data from the statements, “I can read and understand my textbooks,” and “I can read

and understand my class work” were combined as they are both related to tasks performed within

the school setting. Teacher Researcher A and Teacher Researcher B’s data was again kept

separate as students receiving special education services were more likely to have difficulties in

this area than general education students. Figure 9a shows that more than half, 53% (n=15) of

the respondents could not read or understand their textbooks and class work. According to

Figure 9b, 35% (n=16) were able to read and understand their textbooks and class work

sometimes. Additionally, 22% (n=10) of Teacher Researcher B’s students were always able to

read and understand their textbooks and class work.

 23

0%

14% 14% 22% 35% Never

Never
Sometimes
32% Sometimes
39% 43% Usually
Usually
Always
Always

Figure 9a. Students’ ability to read and Figure 9b. Students’ ability to read and
understand textbooks and class work for understand textbooks and class work for
Teacher Researcher A (n=28 duplicated) Teacher Researcher B (n=46 duplicated)
An additional statement on the Student Survey asked students to assess their frequency of

volunteering to read aloud in class. They were given four different categories as choices on a

likert scale: 1 (rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3 (usually), and 4 (always). The data from the Teacher

Researchers’ classrooms was separated. Due to stronger reading skills, general education

students are more likely to have a positive outlook toward reading in front of their peers than

students with special education needs. Figure 10a shows that none of the students from Teacher

Researcher A responded that they always volunteered to read aloud in class. Figure 10a also

noted that 29% (n=4) of the students never volunteered to read aloud in class. The data from

Figure 10b indicates that more than half of the respondents (n=12), 52%, sometimes or never

volunteered to read aloud in class.

 24

14% 0%
Never Never
29% 22% 26%
Sometimes Sometimes
57% Usually 26% Usually
26%
Always
Always

Figure 10a. Teacher Researcher A’s Figure 10b. Teacher Researcher A’s
students that volunteer to read in class
students that volunteer to read in class
(n=23)
(n=14)

The final statement on the Student Survey required students to determine if they reread

information that they did not understand. Students were to make a selection from a likert scale

including: 1 (rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3 (usually), and 4 (always). The results from this statement

can be found in Figure 11. Data shows that 57% of students (n=21) reread information when

they did not understand something.

3%

22% Never
57%
Sometimes
19%
Usually
Always

Figure 11. Student responses to rereading information when needed (n=37)

The Student Survey included one open ended question. Out of 37 respondents, 95%

(n=35) responded to this question. Teacher Researcher A had two responses that were

inadequate or illegible. Out of the 35 respondents, 60% (n=21) reported that they used a

rereading strategy when they did not understand what was read. Eleven percent (n=4) reported

that they asked for help, three students stated that they skipped or moved on if they did not

understand something, and one student skipped what was read and returned to it at the end of the
 25

passage. Nine percent (n=3) attempted to use decoding strategies when words were unknown,

one student used illustrations, and one used key words or thought about word meanings.

Teacher Survey.

The purpose of the Teacher Survey (Appendix C) was to gain knowledge of teachers’

opinions about reading fluency curriculum and fluency interventions used in the classroom. The

survey was placed in each teachers’ school mailbox on September 8, 2011 and was to be

returned to the teacher researchers’ mailboxes by September 12, 2011. Of the 22 surveys that

were given, 12 were returned for a 55% return rate. Teachers were asked to read five statements

and choose the selection that best described their feelings. An optional comments section was

provided for additional feedback. Respondents were given four different categories as choices on

a likert scale; 1(Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Agree), and 4 (Strongly Agree).

When the teacher researchers analyzed the responses, they chose to combine the strongly

disagree and disagree responses and used the term disagree to report the data from those

responses. The terms agree and strongly agree were also combined as the term agree. Data

illustrates an even split on opinions regarding the adequacy of the reading curriculum’s fluency

component and the focus on fluency in the classroom. Teachers (n=11) believed that parents

supported the need for fluency interventions. Additionally, 100% of teachers surveyed (n=12)

felt that fluency interventions were supported by administration . Teachers (n=11) reported that a

portion of small group instruction time was devoted to rereading strategies to gain fluency. See

Figure 12 for Teacher Survey data.

 26

12

10

Disagree
4
Agree

0
Curriculum A portion of Building Administration Parents
adequately small group fluency has a supports support
addresses instruction strong focus fluency teaching
fluency supports interventions techniques
rereading to and reading
gain fluency interventions

Figure 12. Teacher Survey Results (n=12)

The final portion of the Teacher Survey contained an optional comments section. Of the

12 respondents, 25% of the teachers (n=3) utilized this space for further feedback. One teacher

reported that fluency was a highly inaccurate judge of reading ability. She communicated that

some good readers displayed low fluency numbers whereas some fluent readers did not have

strong comprehension skills. Another teacher communicated that fluency was addressed on her

own initiative and was not a serious component of the basal series. In response to the statement

regarding parental support of reading interventions, one teacher stated that it was too soon to

judge parental support at the beginning of the school year with only 14 parents attending open

house in the current school year.

 27

Teacher Interview.

The purpose of the Teacher Interview (Appendix D) was to gain knowledge of the

opinions regarding reading skills and interventions at various elementary grade levels. The

interviews were conducted on September 14, 2011 during school hours. Together, the teacher

researchers interviewed 1 third-grade teacher, 1 fourth-grade teacher, and 1 fifth-grade teacher,

as well as an elementary reading coach. The interview consisted of five discussion questions:

describe the characteristics of below grade level readers and how it impacts your teaching, what

interventions are currently in place to address the problems with low achieving readers, do you

supplement curriculum to meet the needs of struggling readers and explain, explain your small

group reading activities and how they address reading skills, and in your opinion, how does

reading fluency relate to other skills.

All interviewees described below grade level readers as having poor comprehension and

decoding skills. Two of the four interviewees added that the teaching process was slowed in

order to reteach, redirect, review, and make needed accommodations. One participant stated that

instruction must be differentiated so all students are able to learn material at their level.

When asked about what interventions were in place to address the needs of struggling

readers, all respondents agreed that the use of differentiation and supplemental

programs/practices were used to assist with growth in reading. Tutoring and leveled reading

groups were also noted as being used as interventions.

Additionally, all Teacher Interviewees reported that they did use supplemental material to

meet the needs of struggling readers. Some strategies that were provided included: leveled

books, technology, graphic organizers, and adapted lessons. All teachers agreed on the

implementation of literacy centers as a means of addressing reading skills in small groups. The
 28

amount of teacher guidance was dependent upon the ability levels within small groups. Three of

four interviewees stated that the more fluent a reader, the better they will comprehend. The

fourth teacher believed that fluency relates to other skills to a degree. The interviewee stated that

fluency does not automatically guarantee good comprehension. However, if students are not

fluent, they will have difficulty understanding content area material. One respondent stated that

reading fluency forms a bridge from decoding to comprehension.

Summary

After reviewing the data from the parent and Student Surveys, a relationship was found

between home reading habits and reading skill levels that are evident at school. It was found that

62% (n=16) of parents rarely or sometimes read to their child for enjoyment (Figure 5) and 50%

(n=13) of parents reported discussing books in the home (Figure 6). The Student Surveys

indicated that 29% (n=4) of Teacher Researcher A’s students and 26% (n=6) of Teacher

Researcher B’s students never volunteered to read aloud in class (Figures 10a & 10b). In

addition, over half of the students (53%, n=14) from Teacher Researcher A’s class sometimes or

never understood their textbooks and class work, and less than half of the students (22%, n=10)

from Teacher Researcher B’s class always understood their textbooks and class work (Figures 9a

& 9b). Data from pre-documentation showed that there seemed to be a relationship between

home reading habits and a lack of confidence in the reading skills of students.

Data from the Teacher Interviews indicated that teachers used supplemental materials to

meet the needs of struggling readers. This is supported by the data from Figure 12, which shows

that 50% (n=6) of the respondents did not feel that the current curriculum adequately addressed

reading fluency. Figure 12 showed that 11 of the 12 Teacher Survey respondents devoted a

portion of small group instruction time to rereading selections to build fluency. The teacher
 29

researchers concluded that supplemental strategies must be used to improve fluency skills if the

fluency component of the reading curriculum is not sufficient.

Reflection

The data showed that not all students practiced reading at home, some students did not

feel comfortable with textbooks and class work, and some did not enjoy reading. Additionally,

teachers felt that fluency needed to be a serious component of an effective reading program. The

Student, Parent, and Teacher Surveys reminded us that reading practice is the most effective way

to improve fluency skills and is often neglected. It was eye opening to see that most students

claimed to use rereading strategies and understood their importance when text was not

understood, however, teachers did not observe these strategies carried out in a manner that

sufficiently improved reading in all content areas.

Probable Causes

Reading fluency poses a challenge for teachers across the United States. According to

the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 36% of fourth graders have not obtained a

basic level of reading, and only 31% read proficiently (U.S. Department of Education, 2005, as

cited in Therrien & Hughes, 2008). Reading difficulties continue past primary grades (Therrien

& Hughes, 2008). Approximately 38% of fourth graders and 26% of eighth graders fail to meet

basic reading performance standards (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998, as cited in Alber-Morgan,

2006). Furthermore, approximately three-fourths of children who are poor readers in third grade

will continue to be poor readers throughout high school (Lyon & Moats, 1997, as cited in

Therrien & Hughes, 2008, & Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing, Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 1996, as cited

in Alber-Morgan, 2006). With these driving statistics, educators are challenged to address

reading needs and produce more success in reading with each passing year.
 30

A review of literature regarding reading suggests five possible causes that impact reading

fluency. These five causes are identified as: student background, curriculum and assessment,

prosody and automaticity of decoding during reading, comprehension, and special education.

Student background.

Students entering school arrive with varying levels of reading exposure. It is often the

case that poor readers, those learners whose reading development does not keep the pace with

their peers, have significantly fewer opportunities to read oral and written language and

connected texts than other students do (Allington, 1977, 1983b, Stanovich, 1986, as cited in

Kuhn, 2005). Consequently, non-fluent readers tend to avoid reading entirely, and reveal a

deterioration of skills and expansion of the achievement gap with their peers (Huang, Nelson, R.,

& Nelson, D., 2008). Some researchers suggest that schools make the problem worse by placing

students from low socioeconomic and culturally diverse backgrounds in lower tracked classes

offering lower level instructional materials. If students are grouped by ability levels, the lower

performing students do not have a proficient reader to serve as a model (Musti-Rao et al., 2009).

Many classroom teachers expect reading practice to occur at home. However, the integrity of

parent involvement in reading practice at home is questionable. Although parents may indicate

that reading is occurring consistently, it can be difficult to determine whether parental efforts are

consistent with strategy effectiveness (Huang et al., 2008).

Curriculum and assessment.

Reading deficiencies are a large contributor to the achievement gap for students in

American schools (Alber-Morgan, 2006). The ability to read successfully is a multi-faceted

process. It consists of five subcomponents: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary,

and comprehension. Of these subgroups, fluency, which is a crucial piece of effective reading
 31

instruction, is the portion that is least understood and commonly neglected in comprehensive

reading programs (Kame’enui & Simmons, 2001, as cited in Huang et al., 2008; National

Reading Panel, 200a, 200b, as cited in Ardoin et al., 2006). Fluency is also among the most

difficult dimensions of reading to remediate (O’Connor, White, & Swanson, 2007, as cited in

Staudt, 2009). Reading curriculum must specifically address fluency. Although reading fluency

depends on well developed word attack and decoding skills, improved competency in word

identification does not necessarily produce fluency gains without explicit fluency instruction

(Meyer & Felton, 1999, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000, as

cited in Lo, Cooke, & Starling, 2011). Research from Logan (1997) suggests that reading from

text is complex and requires integration across all levels of processing; from decoding individual

words to acquiring meaning from sentences, paragraphs, and whole texts (as cited in Therrien,

2004). Curriculum and interventions used may be successful when used correctly. However,

many reading tutoring programs that are present in elementary schools are commonly lacking a

consistent method that tutors can follow to address the needs of non-fluent readers. Thus, tutors

are minimally effective in that there is no systematic method used to examine whether the

intervention is responsible for gains made (Huang et al., 2008) and not all methods of reading

remediation that are being used in schools are effective to increase reading fluency. It is

impractical and inefficient to have students repeatedly read every story in order to achieve

generalized fluency gains, thus researchers have begun to explore precise strategies for

generalization programming of reading fluency for readers’ (Silber & Martens, 2010). Even

though there is great importance in documenting student growth, many teachers do not have

strong assessment skills (Haladyna, 1994, as cited in Conderman & Strobel, 2006). Effective

remediation should be coupled with proper assessment methods to track progress with reading
 32

fluency. Without a solid background in assessment, teachers are likely to make errors in their

use of data to make instructional decisions and in reflecting on interventions being used

(Conderman & Strobel, 2006).

Prosody and automaticity of decoding.

Reading fluency is dependent upon prosody and the automaticity of decoding skills.

Prosody is comprised of a series of features including pitch or intonation, stress or emphasis,

tempo or rate, and the rhythmic or regularly reoccurring patterns of language (Hanks, 1990,

Harris & Hodges, 1981, 1995, as cited in Kuhn, 2005). A number of authors have indicated that

struggling readers are not as prosodic in their reading or as effortless with their use of

appropriate phrasing as good readers (Dowhower, 1991, Ruetzel, 1996, Scheiber, 1991, as cited

in Kuhn, 2005). Additionally, according to Schrieber (1980), reading fluency difficulties stem

from the absence of prosodic cues in written language (as cited in Therrien, 2004). It is often the

case that reading is monotonous for readers who have not achieved fluency. Their qualities

reflect an inability to transfer prosodic elements (pitch, stress, and phrasing) that occur naturally

in speech onto written text (Kuhn, 2004/2005). Therefore, learners who have not achieved

fluency read either word-by-word or by grouping in ways that do not parallel spoken language

(Dowhower, 1991, Reutzel, 1996, & Schreiber, 1991, as cited in Kuhn, 2004/2005). Decoding

of words is a natural and instinctive process for fluent readers. Basic deficits in alphabetic

coding are the underlying cause of reading difficulties, with deficits most often attributed to

difficulties in reading-related cognitive abilities; phonological skill deficiencies (Stanovich,

2001, & Torgesen et al., 2001, as cited in Chard, Ketterlin-Geller, Baker, Doabler, &

Apichatabutra, 2009). Additionally, below average readers frequently experience difficulties

with metaphonological and metalinguistic tasks, supporting the idea that they experience a
 33

phonological core deficit (Snowling, 2000, Stanovich & Siegel, 1994, & Vellutino et al., 1996,

as cited in Chard et al., 2009) and research from LaBerge and Samuels (1974) indicates that

reading fluency problems stem from readers’ poor decoding skills (as cited in Therrien, 2004).

Labored readers intentionally decode and they need to identify virtually every word they

encounter (Kuhn, 2005). There needs to be a connection between decoding words in isolation

and transferring to passage reading. Children often have difficulty reading connected text

fluently even though they have learned to decode individual words fairly well (Rasinski, 1994, as

cited in LeVasseur, Macaruso, & Shankweiler, 2008). Successful readers have the ability to

easily interpret meaning from what they read. In order for readers to have enough attention

available to create meaning from text, their decoding must become instinctive (Kuhn, 2005).

Struggling readers lack this skill. Automaticity theorists (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, as cited in

Musti-Rao et al., 2009) believe that if more attention is spent on decoding each word, less

attention is available for comprehension (Kuhn, 2005, as cited in Musti-Rao et al., 2009), and

automatic decoding of text is a necessary skill for fluent readers (Musti-Rao et al., 2009).

Decoding issues limit students’ opportunities to read texts, decrease students’ exposure to words,

limit vocabulary, and hinder the development of content-area knowledge through reading

comprehension (Chard et al., 2009).

Comprehension.

Research indicates that comprehension difficulties are often associated with deficiencies

in the lower-order skill of reading fluency and/or the higher-order skill of text comprehension

strategy usage (as cited in Therrien, Wickstrom, & Jones 2006). Additionally, poor readers often

do not monitor their comprehension or actively process information as they read (Torgesen,

1977, as cited in Therrien et al., 2006). Therefore, the role of fluency in readers’ ability to
 34

comprehend depends on two main theories, the automaticity theory (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974,

as cited in Kuhn, 2005) and prosody’s role of written language (Dowhower, 1991; Schrieber,

1991, as cited in Kuhn, 2005). The automaticity theory argues that individuals have a limited

amount of attention toward any given cognitive task, including the task of reading. As a result,

the more attention a person spends on decoding, the less that remains on comprehension of the

text (Adams, 1990, Stanovich, 1984, as cited in Kuhn, 2005). Readers who need to spend a

significant time identifying individual words rarely have attention left to focus on the text’s

meaning (Adams, 1990, LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, Perfetti, 1985, & Stanovich, 1980, as cited in

Kuhn, 2004-2005). As previously stated, comprehension difficulties may be caused by the fact

that attention is consumed with decoding words in text. To comprehend what is read, individuals

must be able to decode words accurately and automatically (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, as cited

in Homan, Klesius, & Hite, 1993). Hence, when reading is dysfluent, students must devote a

significant portion of their cognitive effort on decoding, leaving little cognitive capacity for

comprehension (Adams, 2000, & LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, as cited in Therrien & Hughes,

2008). As a result, readers who are non-fluent tend to stumble through selections word by word

and are unexpressive in their reading. There is also little meaningful comprehension taking place.

(Goodlad, 1984, Strzepek, Newton & Walker, 2000, & Treleas, 2006, as cited in Huang et al.,

2008). Unless struggling readers develop word recognition that comes with practice, they will

continue to spend an unequal percentage of their attention to decoding; leaving them with less

attention focusing on the text’s meaning (Adams, 1990, Dowhower, 1991, Stanowich, 1980, &

1986, as cited in Kuhn, 2005).

 35

Special education.

Students receiving special education services require extra assistance when addressing

reading challenges such reading fluency. Students with learning disabilities are those who are

most likely to be dysfluent readers (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002, as cited in Staudt, 2009).

Additionally, students with disabilities are often considered passive learners who do not engage

in active processing of information (Griffey, Zigmond, & Leinhardt, 1988, as cited in Therrien et

al., 2006). Instruction for these students must first address the challenges regarding processing

abilities as well as reading strategy effectiveness. Research has found that students from low

socioeconomic and culturally diverse backgrounds are disproportionately referred for special

education services and classified as having a learning disability based on their poor reading skills

(Hitchcock et al., 2004, as cited in Musti-Rao et al., 2009). Special education services are a

much needed and beneficial intervention, however, basic challenges in reading do not necessarily

equate to a learning disability. In conclusion, instruction, interventions, and assessments must

comprehensively determine that a student requires special education services for reading, not a

student’s personal background.

Summary

Many factors influence a student’s reading ability. A child’s background can impact

reading acquisition skills both positively and negatively. While parent involvement with reading

is encouraged by teachers, it cannot be guaranteed. All reading programs need to include a

specified fluency component and assessment methods should be performed in a manner that

accurately represents students’ abilities. Many students’ challenges with reading fluency stem

from an inability to decode individual words. When too much time is given to this process,

fluency and comprehension suffer. The special education population has specific needs in the
 36

area of reading skills. There is an abundance of needs that must be addressed. It is important to

include a fluency component for students receiving special education services.

Statistics show that reading is a hardship at all grade levels. Reading fluency is a major

component of the reading process. In order to improve upon reading skills at any grade level,

fluency must be addressed. It is evident that a challenged reader will continue to struggle

throughout their academic career. Future endeavors may become out of reach for an individual

with low reading ability. The teacher researchers have acknowledged the impact of low reading

fluency skills on elementary school students. Struggling readers must be identified and reading

difficulties should to be addressed quickly, because struggles with reading will persist beyond

the elementary grades.

 37

Chapter 3

The Solution Strategy

Review of the Literature

An abundance of research has been conducted regarding the repeated reading strategy as

a means to increase the reading fluency of children. Researchers agree that reading instruction

should ensure that students understand that sounds of speech are associated with letters of the

alphabet, have an appropriate vocabulary, be allowed to practice reading so they can become

more fluent readers, and be taught various comprehension strategies (Adams, 1990, Foorman &

Torgesen, 2001, Rayner et al., 2001, & Snow et al., 1998, as cited in Begeny & Silber, 2006).

One of the major ways people become fluent readers is to read a passage over several

times. The first time, a lot of emphasis is on identifying words. The second time, individuals

read phrases as the brain puts them together into meaningful units. The third time, readers read

more rapidly, with good expression, and in a seemingly effortless way (Cunningham &

Arlington, 2007).

One fluency strategy that has an extensive research base is repeated reading. It is a

supplemental reading program that consists of re-reading a short passage until a satisfactory level

of fluency is reached (Samuels, 1979, as cited in Therrien, 2004). Two recent literature reviews

concluded that repeated reading has the potential to improve students’ fluency (Meyer & Felton,

1999, & National Institute, 2000, as cited in Therrien, 2004). Readers can be helped to attain

fluency through training and such training improves their oral reading ability (Blum & Koskinen,

1991).

Repeated reading directly targets oral reading fluency and can easily be interwoven into

an existing reading program (Therrien & Kubina, 2006). There are various modifications that can
 38

be adapted to the repeated reading strategy, but all should include three main components:

students practice reading a weekly passage, ongoing teacher feedback, and biweekly progress

monitoring to increase effectiveness (Conderman & Strobel, 2006). Fluency is advanced through

multiple opportunities to respond, followed by performance feedback, and reinforcement for

responding (Ardoin et al., 2006). In 2000, The Report of the National Reading Panel identified

five essential areas for reading instruction that included lower- (phonemic awareness, phonics,

and reading fluency) and higher- (vocabulary and text comprehension strategies) order skills

(Therrien et al., 2006). Reading fluency is included in the reading essentials list as a lower order

skill that needs to be mastered before higher order skills can be successfully attained.

Benefits of repeated reading.

Repeated reading is a great strategy that is flexible and adaptive for classroom use, thus

teachers and researchers continue to explore ways to integrate the practice more extensively into

classroom instruction (Blum & Koskinen, 1991). Thus, it is a research-validated approach that is

used most often (Kuhn; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003, as cited in Musti-Rao et al., 2009) and has a

legitimate place in the reading program at all grade levels when used wisely (Homan et al.,

1993). Repeated reading improves students’ fluency on passages that are reread (Herman, 1985,

Kamps et al., 1994, Levy, Abello, & Lysynchuk, 1997, Meyer & Felton, 1999, O’Shea et al.,

1985, 1987, Sindelar et al., 1990, Stoddard, Valcante, Sindelar, O’Shea, & Algozzine, 1993, &

Weinstein & Cooke, 1992, as cited in Therrien & Hughes, 2008). Not only is fluency improved

through the use of this strategy, but word recognition and reading comprehension are enhanced

when it is used in the context of an overall reading program (NICHD, 2000, as cited in Staudt,

2009). Research on the effects of repeated reading has been well documented since the 1970s

(Chard et al., 2009). Several earlier studies found that repeated reading approaches led to
 39

equivalent gains in fluency development (Kuhn, 2000, Kuhn & Stahl, 2003, as cited in Kuhn,

2004/2005). Several literature syntheses have been published documenting research support for

repeated reading (Chard et al., 2002; Meyer & Felton, 1999, as cited in Chard et al., 2009) and

meta-analyses have found positive results on students’ reading achievement as a result of this

intervention (Therrien, 2004, as cited in Chard et al., 2009).

Research shows that repeated reading can facilitate growth in reading fluency and other

aspects of reading achievement (Adams, 1990, National Reading Panel, 2000, Therrien, 2004, as

cited in Therrien & Kubina, 2006). Repeated reading was the most widely used method for

helping weak readers improve their reading fluency (Samuels, 1997, as cited in Staudt, 2009).

Thus, regardless of present grade level, repeated reading appears beneficial to those who read

between a first-grade and third-grade instructional reading level. The intervention may be useful

for students who, although able to decode words at a third-grade level, read in a slower, more

halting manner (Therrien & Kubina, 2006).

Repeated reading offers considerable benefits as a strategy for enhancing fluency and

comprehension while fostering proficiency. This approach seems to contribute to an increase in

content and strategy knowledge as well as increase motivation for children (Blum & Koskinen,

1991). Repeated reading procedures allow students to work at a level of difficulty that fosters

success (Blum & Koskinen, 1991).

Given the importance of reading fluency in the overall reading process, the repeated

reading approach appears to be an effective means of integrating fluency instruction with the

literacy curriculum (Kuhn, 2004/2005). Recent studies have displayed the positive outcomes of

utilizing repeated readings with non-fluent readers (Chard et al., 2002, NRP, 2000, & Therrien,

2004, as cited in Begeny et al., 2009).

 40

Repeated reading training has been shown to lead to higher reading rates, as measured in

words correct per minute (WCPM) (LeVasseur et al., 2008). This increase is supported in the

findings of many others (Dowhower, 1987, Faulkner & Levy, 1994, Herman, 1985, O’Shea,

Sindelar, & O’Shea, 1985, & Rasinski, 1990, as cited in LeVasseur et al., 2008). Throughout

fluency interventions, the repeated reading condition was more successful than other strategies

when analyzing a child’s immediate word count per minute gains (Begeny et al., 2009).

Another benefit of this strategy is an increase in comprehension. Repeated reading

improves students’ reading fluency and may improve comprehension (Meyer & Felton, 1999,

Morgan & Sideridis, 2006, & Therrien, 2004, as cited in Therrien & Hughes, 2008). Third grade

students who participated in a fluency and comprehension intervention made significant gains.

Although the gains were not sufficient to get them to grade-level reading skills (Vaughn et al.,

2000, as cited in Staudt, 2009), a level of progress was still achieved.

Many studies have been conducted to analyze the benefits of using a repeated reading

strategy to increase fluency. In a study done by Staudt (2009), students showed substantial

growth in reading fluency, comprehension, and word recognition skills. Additionally, a study

performed by Musti-Rao et al. (2009) confirmed that repeated reading is an effective fluency-

building intervention for urban learners. At the end of the study, all students showed increases in

oral reading rate with repeated readings compared with the silent reading condition. Although

the students showed increases in fluency, none of them met end-of-year goals on the spring

benchmark assessments for fourth grade. Time spent may not be enough for these students to

catch up to grade level reading (Musti-Rao et al., 2009). Although limited gains were made by

the students, results from this study suggest that repeated readings promote fluency rates among

struggling readers (Musti-Rao et al., 2009). Kuhn (2005) evaluated the effectiveness of repeated
 41

reading and non-repetitive reading for second grade students in a small group setting. Results

showed that the students in the repeated reading group also showed gains in fluency word

recognition (Musti-Rao et al., 2009). As in previous reviews (Meyer & Felton, 1999, & National

Institute, 2000, as cited in Therrien, 2004), findings from a study conducted by Therrien (2004)

indicated that repeated reading improves the reading fluency and comprehension of both

nondisabled students and students with learning disabilities. The effectiveness of this program is

supported in literature.

Repeated reading is a supplemental reading program that consists of rereading a passage

until a satisfactory level of fluency is reached (Samuels, 1979, as cited in Therrien et al., 2006)

and can improve the reading fluency of nondisabled students (Bryant et al., 2000, O’Shea et al.,

1985, & Radinski et al., 1994, as cited in Therrien et al., 2006) and students with LD (Bryant et

al., 2000, Freeland et al., 2000, Gilbert et al., 1996, Mathes & Fuchs, 1993, Mercer et al., 2000,

O’Shea et al., 1987, Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985, Sindelar et al., 1990, & Vaughn et al., 2000, as

cited in Therrien et al., 2006).

Modifications.

Effective repeated reading interventions are most often implemented as part of a

multifaceted treatment package that includes several essential interconnected components (Lo et

al., 2011). As stated by Alber-Morgan (2006), “Combining repeated readings with other effective

practices will help students attain their optimum reading performance so they can be successful

in school” (p. 276). Researchers have shown several critical instructional components that

enhance the effectiveness of repeated readings (Nelson et al., 2004, & Alber et al., 2005, as cited

in Alber-Morgan, 2006), including echo reading, choral reading, taped reading/listening, timed

repeated reading, and paired repeated reading (Cunningham & Allington, 2007) and previous
 42

literature showed that repeated reading with appropriate adult support from modeling (Nichols,

Rupley, & Rasinski, 2009, Richards, 2000 as cited in Lo et al., 2011) or from unison reading

(Heller, Rupert, Coleman-Martin, Mezei, & Calhoon, 2007, as cited in Lo et al., 2011) can be

helpful in providing prosodic cues and natural reading rate which is essential for improving

reading fluency (Lo et al., 2001).

Repeated reading typically involves a student rereading a specific passage out loud

numerous times to a teacher or peer tutor. The teacher or peer tutor may first choose to model

expressive reading or involve the student in reading in unison (Richards, 200, Therrion &

Kubina, 2006, as cited in Lo et al., 2011). One way to provide a model for students is to have

them read along with an audiotape or compact disc recording of a book or story, because a

combination of memorization of text and reading allows the student to have the true experience

of successful, effective, and fluent reading (Cunningham & Allington, 2007). This is supported

by research done by Carbo (1978) and Chomsky (1976) who found that providing a live or audio

taped model was a successful way to assist in the repeated reading strategy (as cited in Blum &

Koskinen, 1991).

The repeated reading strategy may also be accomplished in a small group setting. Data

suggests that elementary- and secondary-school teachers prefer interventions that do not require

one-on-one instruction and are less time intensive (Marcoe, 2001, & Witt et al., 1984, as cited in

Begeny & Silber, 2006). Additionally, data indicates that grouping practices can significantly

impact students’ reading outcomes (Elbaum et al., 1999, as cited in Begeny & Silber, 2006).

Thus, group-based reading fluency interventions are a viable alternative to one-on-one and

dyadic fluency-building interventions (Begeny & Martens, in press; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001,

as cited in Begeny & Silber, 2006).

 43

Another approach to the repeated reading strategy is choral reading. Repeated reading

practice can be modified by students taking turns being the group leader, and reading a passage

aloud while the rest of the group reads aloud slightly softer. In this manner Begeny et al.

incorporated choral reading into their repeated reading intervention (Begeny et al., 2009, as cited

in Silber & Martens, 2010). Results showed that the modified reading condition was most

effective at increasing students’ immediate oral reading fluency (Silber & Martens, 2010). A

modification of the traditional repeated reading strategy was for students to choral or echo read

an equivalent amount of text without repetition, for use with small groups of struggling readers

(Kuhn, 2004/2005). Overall the study by Begeny et al. (2009) supported the use of small group

fluency intervention, suggesting that repeated readings can be modified for use in small groups

(Silber & Martens, 2010).

An alternative to small group instruction is paired repeated reading. When students are

able to practice repeated reading while paired with another student, both as readers and listeners,

the cooperative learning setting provides an opportunity for students to reflect on their reading

improvement (Blum & Koskinen, 1991). Providing modification to the repeated reading strategy

enhances its effectiveness.

Error correction and feedback.

Monitoring students’ oral reading and providing feedback is directly tied to a repeated

reading program’s success (Therrien & Kubina, 2006). Feedback on word errors and reading

speed needs to be communicated to students. Depending on the type of word error, tutors should

use either immediate or delayed corrective feedback. Providing performance feedback often

motivates the children and allows them to explicitly see their progress (Therrien & Kubina,

2006). It is important to provide performance feedback. Instructors should tell students how
 44

many words they read correctly at the end of each session (Chalfouleas et al., 2004, as cited in

Alber-Morgan, 2006) and give students a comparison to their prior performances (Alber et al.,

2005, as cited in Alber-Morgan, 2006). There are greater improvements in reading rates when

students are provided with performance feedback of incorrect words over performance feedback

of correct words (Eckert, Dunn, & Ardoin, 2006, as cited in Alber-Morgan, 2006).

Additionally, it is beneficial to use systematic error correction. For each missed word,

the teacher is to provide the correct word, the student should then repeat the word, and reread the

sentence (Nelson et al., 2004, as cited in Alber-Morgan, 2006). Error correction should be

immediate, direct, and result in the student providing the correct response (Alber-Morgan, 2006).

The inclusion of error correction helps learners to improve response accuracy in future readings,

and at the same time prompts the reader to practice prosody in phrases that may add to

advancement in oral reading fluency (Alber-Morgan et al., 2007, Begeny et al., Nelson, Alber, &

Gordy, 2004, Therrien, 2004, as cited in Lo et al., 2011).

Progress monitoring is an essential tool used for data collection. Providing a way to

monitor progress adds to the effectiveness of fluency instruction (Gibb & Wilder, 2002, & Scott

& Shearer-Lingo, 2002, as cited in Alber-Morgan, 2006). A graph should be used (Alber-

Morgan, 2006). The Great Leaps Program and Jamestown Reading suggest graphing the data to

provide a visual for success and involve the student in their reading goals (Dudley, 2005 as cited

in Conderman & Strobel, 2006). Graphing performance and cueing students to focus on fluency

serve as both prompts and feedback that help individuals attain higher achievement during

subsequent rereading (Lo et al., 2011). Repeated oral reading combined with advice had been

found to be one of the most valuable means to improve reading fluency in both struggling and

successful readers. (Chard, Vaughn, & Taylor, 2002, as cited in Huang et al., 2008).
 45

Time allotment.

Repeated reading methods and feedback are strategies used to increase time spent on

literacy during guided reading time. (Welsh, 2007, as cited in Huang et al., 2008). A study

performed by Samuels suggests that students need instruction and time to practice their decoding

skills, which repeated reading provides, in order to develop automaticity in reading (Staudt,

2009). Ideas on the amount of time needed for the repeated reading strategy vary when using

repeated readings as a supplement to a reading curriculum (Alber-Morgan, 2006). They may be

used daily with brief sessions (Alber et al., 2005, & Nelson et al., 2004, as cited in Alber-

Morgan, 2006). Other researchers recommend that intervention sessions be conducted with

sufficient frequency, ranging from three to five times per week. Administration of repeated

reading practice requires a time commitment between 10 to 20 minutes per session (Therrien &

Kubina, 2006). According to Begeny and Silber (2006), implementing the full combination of

the intervention components takes about 9 to 12 minutes.

Samuels (1979) offered a plan for guided repeated reading as an adaptation of repeated

reading (as cited in Conderman & Strobel, 2006). The plan is listed as follows. On Mondays,

students were to read a new weekly passage of about 50 to 200 words at his or her instructional

level for the first time. The teacher then recorded the number of words read correctly in one

minute. The teacher also read the passage orally to provide a model of fluent reading. Then the

students were to read the passage again with assistance from the teacher. On Tuesdays, students

were to read an unfamiliar passage one grade level above their instructional level. The students

were to read the weekly passage again and chorally read it with three to five students. On

Wednesdays, the students were to practice the weekly passage at least twice with immediate

feedback from the teacher. On Thursdays, the process from Tuesday was repeated with a new
 46

unfamiliar passage. The students also read the weekly passage at least twice. On Fridays, the

students read the weekly passage aloud to the teacher and data was again recorded. The

differences from the week were shared with the student.

Instructional level.

Using essential instructional components and selecting appropriate materials enhances

the effectiveness of repeated reading (Therrien & Kubina, 2006). Scott and Shearer-Lingo

(2002) and Gibb and Wilder (2002) agree that appropriately leveled instructional materials

should be provided (as cited in Alber-Morgan, 2006). The teacher or tutor must first choose a

passage of interest to the student that is at the student’s instructional level and time the reading

for several trials to monitor progress and ultimately increase the rate (Cunningham & Allington,

2007). If a student needs to reread passages for extended periods of time to meet fluency

criterion, easier passages should be used. Similarly, if a child is able to reach fluency criterion in

a few readings, a more challenging passage needs to be used (Therrion & Kubina, 2006). Using

materials at the students’ instructional or independent level during repeated reading may allow

students to concentrate on fluency building (Lo et al, 2011). Instructional planning entails

matching levels of teaching materials (both content and vocabulary) and the ability of the student

(Welseh, 2007, as cited in (Huang et al., 2008). According to Huang et al. (2008), appropriate

leveling is essential to success in fluency instruction.

Criteria.

Several interventions have been shown to be beneficial to advancing oral reading fluency.

One procedure that has acquired substantial empirical support is repeated readings (Samuels,

1979, as cited in Silber & Martens, 2010). In this procedure, students read a story either a pre-

specified number of times or to a pre-specified fluency criterion (Silber & Martens, 2010). This
 47

idea is also supported in research completed by Musti-Rao et al. in 2009. When assigning a

passage, appropriate performance criteria should be selected based upon the learner’s

instructional reading level. Meta-analyses have demonstrated the overall effectiveness of this

practice in increasing students’ reading fluency rates (Therrien & Kubina, 2006).

Therrien (2004) also found that repeated reading should include the reading of a short

passage two or more times; sometimes reading the selection until a suitable fluency level is

achieved (Therrien, 2004, as cited in Begeny et al., 2009). It was found that repeatedly reading

the first part of a story until reaching a criterion of 100 words correct per minute increased the

speed and accuracy of the reading of the second part (Dowhower, 1987, as cited in Silber &

Martens, 2010). Daly et al. (Daly et al., 1996, 2005, as cited in Silber & Martens, 2010) found

that students demonstrated the greatest generalization of new stories when trained stories were

matched to their instructional level (students could read the text with high fluency and accuracy)

and contained an increased level of word overlap (Silber & Martens, 2010). Repeated reading

continues to gain support as an effective strategy to improve reading fluency rates.

Motivation.

Repeated reading appears to provide opportunities for individuals to develop proficiency

by contributing to gains in knowledge and awareness of improvement while providing

considerable motivation for continued practice (Blum & Koskinen, 1991). Motivation to

practice can be provided by adjusting the purposes for repeated reading and by using different

types of materials and modalities (Blum & Koskinen, 1991). A relevant purpose for repeated

reading will need to be provided to students, such as, reading to younger students, improving rate

(use a chart to show growth), reading with expression to classmates, making an audio tape, or

engaging in dramatic readings for an audience (Homan et al., 1993). One way to motivate
 48

students is by reinforcing student performance. Participation, effort, and improvement should be

followed by praise (Alber et al., 2005, & Nelson et al., 2004, as cited in Alber-Morgan, 2006).

Tangible rewards should be used if necessary (Chalfouleas et al., 2004, & Velleley & Shriver,

2003, as cited in Alber-Morgan, 2006).

Research suggests another alternative for motivating students may be the use of repetitive

pattern books which can be used for repeated readings to avoid the loss of interest (Lauritzen,

1982, as cited in Homan et al., 1993). Additionally, using poetry for repeated reading works well

for all students by helping them improve word recognition efficiency and to develop greater

sensitivity to syntax (Rasinski, 2000, as cited in Staudt, 2009). The use of poetry for repeated

reading can also lead to improved attitudes toward reading for struggling readers (Wilfong, 2008,

as cited in Staudt, 2009). Combining intensive word study with the repeated reading of poetry

was successful in improving the reading fluency, word recognition, and comprehension skills of

the students, while also improving their understanding of how language works (Staudt, 2009).

Overall, poetry was found to be very effective (Staudt, 2009).

In addition to poetry, timed reading can be used as a motivator for students. Research

performed by Samuels (1997) found that timed repeated readings were an excellent motivating

device for students when they recorded gains in their reading times. Success encouraged them to

work harder (as cited in Staudt, 2009). When using the repeated reading strategy it is beneficial

for students to set goals for themselves (Therrien, 2004). There is a plethora of ways to motivate

students to increase fluency rates. Instructors may adjust motivational techniques as needed.

Practice.

Fluency develops from reading practice (National Reading Panel, 2000, as cited in Chard

et al., 2009). Researchers have devoted much effort into researching two major approaches for
 49

reading practice: repeated oral reading practice or guided repeated oral reading practice and

independent or recreational reading. Research has concluded that there is sufficient experimental

evidence supporting the use of repeated reading, but insufficient research to suggest that

increasing independent reading time will increase fluency or reading achievement (Chard et al.,

2009). Silent reading allows students to form habits and a love for reading, but if the goal is to

improve fluency, more time is needed for overt reading activities (Musti-Rao et al., 2009). And

guided repeated reading practice serves that purpose. Through independent practice, students

gain skill in rereading as a strategy for acquiring information (Blum & Koskinen, 1991).

One of the ways to transition struggling readers to becoming fluent readers is to provide

them with multiple opportunities to practice reading at their instructional level (Kuhn; Kuhn et

al., 2006, as cited in Musti-Rao et al., 2009). Repeated reading directly addresses lower-order

skill deficits, by providing students multiple opportunities to resolve the difficulties they may

have reading fluently (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, as cited in Therrien et al., 2006). It is

recommended that students receive sufficient practice with familiar text to improve their sight-

word vocabulary and reading fluency (Adams, 1990, & Torgesen et al., 2001, as cited in Begeny

& Silber, 2006).

Other involvement.

Reading development does not only occur in the classroom. It develops more effectively

with support from the home, community, and all school staff. There should be an emphasis on

home-school partnerships (Esler, Godber, & Christenson, 2004, & Sheridan, Napolitano, &

Swearer, 2004, as cited in Huang et al., 2008). Parent involvement helps students in boosting the

amount of time spent reading, exposure to reading materials, presenting additional opportunities

for repetition and learning, and allowing for chances of success (Huang et al., 2008). Parents are
 50

allies in providing occasions for repeated reading, which is a simple method for helping their

children become better readers (Huang et al., 2008). Teachers should consider involving parents,

paraprofessionals, and peers to assist with reading fluency instruction (Alber-Morgan, 2006).

Comprehension.

There is considerable evidence that rereading improves reading comprehension,

(Dowhower, 1987, & O’Shea, Sinselar, & O’Shea, 1985, as cited in Blum & Koskinen, 1991)

increases vocabulary, (Ell, 1989, & Koskiken & Blum, 1984, as cited in Blum & Koskinen,

1991) and helps students understand and remember more concepts (Bromage & Mayer, 1986, &

Taylor, Wade, & Yekovich, 1985 as cited in Blum & Koskinen, 1991). Fluency and

comprehension can be targeted simultaneously. Therrien and colleagues used a combination of

repeated reading and question generation interventions and significantly increased students’

reading fluency and comprehension (Therrien, Wickstrom, & Jones, 2006). Repeated reading for

fluency and question generation for comprehension has extensive research bases and strong

empirical support indicating their effectiveness (Meyer & Felton, 1999, National Institute of

Child Health and Human Development, 2000, & Therrien, 2004, as cited in Therrien et al.,

2006). In fact, repeated reading is maximized when fluency is a concern for the targeted students

and when literal comprehension is emphasized (Therrien & Hughes, 2008). According to the

theory of automatic word processing, repeated reading improves reading fluency by providing

students with numerous exposures to the same words. Improved fluency allows students to use

more of their resources for comprehension. Students are also exposed to the facts of the passage

numerous times (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, as cited in Therrien & Hughes, 2008).

Automaticity theorists (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, as cited in Kuhn, 2005) further argue

that it is quick and effortless word recognition that allows readers to focus their attention upon
 51

text’s meaning rather than upon its words (Kuhn, 2005). Perfetti’s (1985) proposed “verbal

efficiency theory” highlights the importance of lower level lexical skills and explains the impact

of fluent processing of information to reading comprehension. This theory suggests that lower

level processes must reach a particular threshold level before higher processes can be performed

simultaneously during reading (as cited in Chard et al., 2009).

By helping learners to become fluent readers, teachers are aiding them not only in their

ability to accurately and automatically decode, but helping them in their ability to make meaning

from reading as well (Kuhn, 2005). In addition to reading curriculum and the repeated reading

strategy, a comprehension strategy should be included to activate prior knowledge. Prior to

reading, students can write down what they know and what they want to learn. After reading,

students can write down what they learned (Alber-Morgan, 2006). Repeated reading training

supports comprehension of trained passages, which is similar to others’ results regarding

comprehension gains with text (Dowhower, 1987, O’Shea, Sindelar, & O’Shea, 1985, & Young,

Bowers, & MacKinnon, 1996, as cited in LeVasseur et al., 2008) and word lists (Levy et al.,

1997, & Tan & Nicholson, 1997, as cited in LeVasseur et al., 2008).

Some studies show that repeated reading with text improves comprehension (Bourassa,

Levy, Dowin, & Casey, 1998, Herman, 1985, O’Shea, Sindelar, & O’Shea, 1985, 1987, as cited

in LeVasseur et al., 2008), but others show no benefits (Conte & Humphreys, 1989, as cited in

LeVasseur et al., 2008). Mixed reports were shown for Dowhower, (1987) that found

comprehension benefits after assisted repeated reading training but not after unassisted repeated

reading training (as cited in LeVasseur et al., 2008). Homan, Klesius, and Hite (1993) found that

the repeated reading method improved comprehension among sixth grade students who received

instruction for a seven week period. It has been found that repeated reading does not address
 52

inference generation (as cited in Therrien & Hughes, 2008). However, although not prompted to

make inferences, students using repeated reading were able to compensate and achieve similar

scores on inference questions due to their solid factual knowledge base (Therrien & Hughes,

2008).

Not only should fluency be assessed, but comprehension gains must be documented as

well. Teachers must assess reading comprehension. Questions should be asked after reading a

selection (Alber et al., 2005, as cited in Alber-Morgan, 2006). Retell can be used (Hansen, 2004,

as cited in Alber-Morgan, 2006). Students can paraphrase, (Fisk & Hurst, 2003, as cited in

Alber-Morgan, 2006) and a story map may be used (Babyak, Koorland, & Mathes, 2000, &

Swanson & De La Paz, 1998, as cited in Alber-Morgan, 2006). Overall, findings from literature

reviews indicate support that repeated reading improves students’ reading fluency and

comprehension (Faulkner & Levy, 1999, Meyer & Felton, 1999, & Therrien, 2004, as cited in

Therrien & Hughes, 2008).

Comprehension RAAC Study.

A specific study that addresses both fluency and comprehension was known as the

Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend (RAAC). The RAAC intervention is a supplemental

program that includes components of repeated reading and question generation literature bases

(Therrien et al., 2006). Students that were involved with the RAAC intervention dramatically

improved their reading speed on passages that were reread. This is similar to previous repeated

reading studies (Herman, 1985, Levy et al., 1997, O’Shea et al., 1985, 1987, Sindelar et al.,

1990, & Stoddard et al., 1993, as cited in Therrien & Wickstrom, 2006).

Question generation has readers generate questions while reading. It is found to be

effective for general education students (Andre & Anderson, 1979, Billingsley & Wildman,
 53

1988, Cohen, 1983, Davey & McBride, 1986a, Gilroy & Moore, 1988, Griffey et al., 1988,

Helfeldt & Lalik, 1976, Lysynchuk et al., 1990, Nolte & Singer, 1985, Palincsar & Brown, 1984,

Short & Ryan, 1984, Wong & Jones, 1982, & Wong et al., 1986, as cited in Therrien et al.,

2006). Question generation is also effective for students with learning disabilities (Billingsley &

Wildman, 1988, Griffey et al., 1988, Wong & Jones, 1982, & Wong et al., 1986, as cited in

Therrien et al., 2006). It is probable that question generation can only improve comprehension

when students have enough cognitive ability to use it. As previously mentioned, if students are

reading material above their instructional level, they may spend too much of their comprehension

energy on decoding, leaving little time to question generation (Therrien et al., 2006).

Four findings from the study confirm and extend previous knowledge on comprehension

and fluency. First, students involved in RAAC significantly improved their reading speed on

passages that were reread. Second, students successfully adapted and answered prompts which

had a positive impact on inferential comprehension. Third, students significantly improved their

oral reading fluency, measured by correct words per minute. Finally, the results showed that

RAAC has the potential to improve students’ overall reading achievement (Therrien et al., 2006).

Transfer.

Existing literature on repeated reading often reports its effects on students’ ability to

fluently read two passages: non transfer (i.e., passages that have been practiced many times

during repeated readings sessions) and transfer passages (i.e., new passages that have not been

practiced before) (Lo et al., 2011). An aim in the repeated readings procedure is that the benefits

of rereading a passage would transfer to passages that were similar in words and content (Ardoin

et al., 2006). The strategy is an effective means for improving reading fluency and

comprehension on a passage that is read repeatedly. It may also improve students’ ability to
 54

fluently read and comprehend new selections (Therrien, 2004). Results of the most recent

reviews suggested that repeated reading improves reading fluency with moderate to large effect

sizes on transfer passages for students with and without disabilities (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler,

2002, Meyer & Felton, 1999, Morgan & and Sideris, 2006, Institute of Child Health and Human

Development, 2000, Therrien, 2004, Therrien, Wickstrom, & Jones, 2006, Wexler, Vaughn,

Edmonds, & Reutebuch, 2008, as cited in Lo et al., 2011).

All repeated reading interventions should have students reading aloud to an adult. An

adult is recommended because the fluency and comprehension effect sizes for students in

transfer interventions conducted by adults were three times larger than those conducted by peers

(Therrien, 2004). Most studies have shown that repeated reading training contributes to accuracy

and speed gains in reading new text (Carver & Hoffman, 1981, Faulkner & Levy, 1994, Herman,

1985, Morgan & Lyon, 1979, & Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985, as cited in LeVasseur et al., 2008).

There are many different approaches to aid in the transfer of words read across texts.

Some instructors preview isolated words before reading the passage to help with rapid

identification during reading. The inclusion of isolated word previewing and practice in repeated

reading interventions may provide additional support to promote greater fluency effects on

transfer passages (Lo et al., 2001). However, repeated reading of text may be more beneficial

than repeated reading of word lists, because text training promotes development of rich semantic

associations, which, in turn, benefit word recognition in subsequent readings (Martin-Chang &

Levy, 2005, & Perfetti & Hart, 2002, as cited in LeVasseur et al., 2008). It is beneficial to

modify standard procedures for repeated readings by having students practice reading words in

multiple contexts, rather than drilling words in the same context (Ardoin et al., 2006).
 55

One strategy for oral reading fluency focuses on features of text that are common across

both previously practiced and new passages (Silber & Martens, 2010). Research conducted by

Faulkner and Levy (1994) examined the characteristics of passages that may promote

generalization (applying prior knowledge) to the reading of similar passages, indicated that

regardless of passage difficulty, students benefited if the two texts were high in content overlap

(as cited in Ardoin et al., 2006). Providing numerous opportunities to practice words/sequences

helps to develop a child’s knowledge of how to respond when faced with a task (stimulus

control) and allows for accurate and fluent reading of drilled passages. Once stimulus control is

developed for words/word sequences, fluent responding ideally generalizes when words/word

sequences appear in different contexts (Ardoin et al., 2006). Additionally, providing multiple

examples may be effective at promoting generalization to untrained passages without students

needing to practice entire passages, but by reading only a subset of the passage (Silber &

Martens, 2010). The expectation is that the number of repetitions needed to achieve fluency

decreases over a period of time as rereading continues and repeated reading of one passage

transfers to the reading of new material (Samuels, 1979, as cited in Homan et al., 1993).

Repeated readings help students to develop proficiency in reading in syntactically

appropriate phrases, which is also a necessary component of fluent reading (Schrieber, 1980, as

cited in Rasinski, 1990). The observation that gains in fluency made through repeated readings of

one text are transferred to new, previously unread texts is crucial to the practice of repeated

readings (Rasinski, 1990).

Special education.

Research on repeated reading is valuable and special education researchers should

consider further work in this area to enhance the understanding of repeated reading’s efficacy for
 56

building fluency in students with or at risk for learning disabilities (Chard et al., 2009). Previous

research has shown that repeated reading is effective with a variety of students, including

students with disabilities (Therrien & Kubina, 2006). Targeting students’ reading fluency

through specific reading procedures is critical because providing low-progress readers with more

reading opportunities may not be sufficient to increase their sight-word vocabulary and overall

reading fluency at an acceptable rate (Begeny & Silber, 2006). Because a core deficit can have a

long-term effect on reading achievement, early reading interventions usually focus on improving

students’ phonological awareness, decoding skills, sight word identification, and fluency

development. Evidence suggests that this focus can be beneficial for many students (Mathes et

al., 1998, McMaster et al., 2005, Simmons et al., 2008, & Vellutino et al., 1998, as cited in Chard

et al., 2009).

The Response to Intervention (RtI) model suggests providing interventions for all

children, early on, before challenges build upon each other, and the child continues to experience

frustration and failure (Huang, et al., 2008). With repeated reading training, significant gains

have been made in reading speed for practiced text (Carver & Hoffman, 1981, O’Shea, Sindelar,

& O’Shea, 1985, 1987, as cited in LeVasseur et al., 2008). Non-fluent readers have shown

similar results (Faulkner & Levy, 1994, & Herman, 1985, as cited in LeVasseur et al., 2008) as

well as students with reading disabilities (Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985, Stoddard, Valcante,

Sindelar, O’Shea, & Algozzine, 1993, as cited in LeVasseur et al., 2008).

Some research suggests that the repeated reading strategy can be effective for students

with disabilities. According to Rashotte and Torgesen, (1985) non-repetitive reading was as

effective as repeated reading; however repeated reading using stories with overlapping words

were more effective for improving speed for non-fluent students with learning disabilities at the
 57

elementary level (as cited in Homan et al., 1993). According to a study conducted by Therrien

and Hughes (2008), when reading instructional level material designed for repeated reading and

question generation, repeated reading is more effective at improving factual comprehension for

students with learning disabilities who read at a second- or third-grade instructional level

(Therrien & Hughes, 2008). The use of repeated reading for students with learning disabilities

shows that students consistently made fluency improvements, however, improvements in reading

comprehension were not always evident (Bryant et al., 2000, Freeland, Skinner, Jackson,

McDaniel, & Smith, 2000, Kamps, Barbetta, Leonard, & Delquadri, 1994, Mathes & Fuchs,

1993, Mercer, Campbell, Miller, Mercer, & Lane, 2000, O’Shea, Sindelar, & O’Shea, 1987,

Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985, Sindelar, Monda, & O’Shea, 1990, Vaughn, Chard, Bryant,

Coleman, & Kouzekanani, 2000, & Weinstein & Cooke, 1992, as cited in Therrien & Hughes,

2008).

According to Staudt (2009),

My teaching experience has taught me that intensive remediation in phonemic

awareness and phonics does not necessarily lead to fluent reading for students

with learning disabilities; however, the addition of timed repeated reading to their

instruction will increase students’ reading fluency. Improved reading fluency

generates additional improvements in comprehension and decoding skills (p.150).

Students with and without disabilities in elementary and secondary schools have shown

significant increases in oral reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension due to repeated reading

practices (Mastropieri, Leinhart, & Scruggs, 1999, & Therrion, 2004, as cited in Alber-Morgan,

2006).
 58

Comparison of types of repeated reading trainings.

In a study conducted by LeVasseur et al. (2008), assisted repeated reading training of text

was contrasted with repeated reading training of word lists. Three forms of repeated reading

trainings were used: standard text, cued text, and word lists. A theory proposed by Dowhower

(1987) explained how the greater benefit of repeated reading of text over word lists comes from

the fact that text training, but not list training, directs the learner’s attention to sentence structure

(helps the student identify syntactic segments that correspond to the spoken form) (as cited in

LeVasseur et al., 2008). Results from the study conducted by LeVasseur et al. (2008) showed

that repeated reading of cued text (breaks and pauses are shown with large spaces or line breaks)

led to higher fluency ratings and fewer false starts than repeated reading of standard text and

word lists (LeVasseur et al., 2008). This study also found that repeated reading’s effectiveness

can be enhanced by phrase-cued text, instead of standard text at the earlier stages of fluency

training. Reading speed, accuracy, and phrasal reading will generally benefit with such training

(LeVasseur et al., 2008).

The increase in fluency ratings was significantly greater for the cued text condition than

the standard text and word list conditions (LeVasseur et al., 2008). Gains in phrasal reading after

cued text training were twice and three times as large as after standard text and word list

trainings and resulted in dramatically fewer dysfluencies at line breaks (“false starts”) than

repeated reading training of standard text and word lists (LeVasseur et al., 2008). This study

showed that participants made larger gains in words correct per minute after repeated reading

training of text (standard or cued) than after repeated reading training of word lists. No

significant differences in gains were found between the standard and cued conditions (LeVasseur
 59

et al., 2008). There was an increase in words correct per minute and a reduction in word errors

for untrained passages across all three conditions (LeVasseur et al., 2008).

Children with lower scales on a fluency subtest made larger gains in words correct per

minute (WCPM) and rated fluency. They also had greater reductions in word errors than

students who had higher scores on the subtest (LeVasseur et al., 2008). Participants gained about

50 WCPM after training on text versus 25 WCPM after training on word lists (LeVasseur et al.,

2008).

Comprehension also showed a great training effect. There was a significant increase in

percent correct from pretest to post-test for all three conditions (LeVasseur et al., 2008).

Significant gains were found for comprehension for all three types of trainings (LeVasseur, et al.,

2008). Regardless of the type of training used (standard text, cued text, word list), participants

made significant gains on the untrained passages in WCPM, word errors, fluency ratings, other

dysfluencies, and comprehension (LeVasseur et al., 2008). Although many gains were made, the

findings in this study did not yield definitive evidence of transfer effects (LeVasseur et al.,

2008).

FOOR study.

The fluency-oriented oral reading (FOOR) study is an additional modified repeated

reading strategy. This study incorporated extensive opportunities for students to read connected

text, provided models of expressive reading, and used both challenging materials and student

accountability (Kuhn, 2004/2005). Three intervention groups were used including: a fluency-

oriented oral reading (FOOR) group, a wide-reading group, and a listening only group. Kuhn did

not find it surprising that the students in the groups made gains in word recognition and prosody,

whereas the students in the control group did not (Kuhn, 2004/2005). The wide-reading and
 60

FOOR groups were able to identify a greater number of words in isolation than the listening-only

or control groups on the Test of Word Recognition Efficiency (Kuhn, 2004/2005). According to

two independent raters, the reading of the students in the FOOR and wide-reading groups was

more fluent than that of the students in the listening-only and control groups (Kuhn, 2004/2005).

FOOR and wide-reading groups showed greater growth in terms of the number of correct words

read per minute on informal reading inventory passages at their independent and instructional

levels than the listening-only or control groups (Kuhn, 2004/2005). Only the students in the

wide-reading group showed improvements in comprehension (Kuhn, 2004/2005). The students

exposed to listening-only did not make similar growth. This shows that, while reading aloud to

students is important to fostering a love for reading, learners must actively engage in the reading

of connected text if they are to become skilled readers (Kuhn, 2004/2005).

RAVE-O study.

The Retrieval, Automaticity, Vocabulary, Engagement, and Orthography (RAVE-O)

program is suggested for use in combination with a systematic phonologically based program

and is intended to improve students’ accuracy and fluency in reading sub-skills and fluency in

word identification, word attack, and comprehension. It also includes strategies for improving

students’ vocabulary and utilizes computerized games to allow students to receive sufficient

practice opportunities with reading skills (Wolf et al., 2001, & Wolf et al., 2000, as cited in

Begeny & Silber, 2006).

Begeny and Martens (in press) have developed a different group-based reading fluency

intervention program that incorporates four reading-fluency interventions that have been

demonstrated to be effective in improving students’ reading fluency in a one-on-one context with

a wide variety of populations (as cited in Begeny & Sibler, 2006). The following interventions
 61

have been integrated, as cited in Begeny and Silber, (2006): repeated readings (RR; Chard et al.,

2002; National Reading Panel, 2000, as cited in Begeney & Silber, 2006) listening passage

preview (LPP; Rose, 1984a, 1984b, as cited in Begeney & Silber, 2006), word-list training

(WLT; Levy et al., 1997; Royer, 1997, as cited in Begeney & Silber, 2006), and phrase-drill with

error correction (Daley et al., 1998; Jones & Wickstrom, 2002, as cited in Begeney & Silber,

2006).

Results showed that each of the four interventions (repeated readings, listening passage

review, word-list training, and phrase-drill with error correction) promoted larger fluency gains

compared to baseline conditions, but the intervention combining all of the group-based

intervention components was the most effective (Begeny & Silber, 2006). Data is consistent

with the results found by Begeny and Martens (in press), that group-based interventions

including word-list training, listening passage preview, and repeated reading can have a positive

effect on students’ reading skills. This study also extends their findings by using a full

combination of intervention components, adding phrase-drill with error correction, to prove that

it is more beneficial for increasing students’ reading fluency (as cited in Begeny & Silber, 2006).

Summary

Research shows that there is an abundance of evidence supporting the use of a repeated

reading strategy to increase reading fluency. There are many ways to effectively implement

repeated reading into current curriculum. Combining the essential components of repeated

reading may lead to greater student achievement in reading performance. It has also been found

necessary to monitor student progress and provide feedback in order to attain the greatest

outcome. Although there are various theories as to the amount of time needed to successfully

implement the strategy, it can be easily incorporated into an existing reading program with
 62

minimal daily time requirements. It is essential that materials are presented at the students’

instructional level. Performance criterion must be established and students must be motivated to

accomplish the task. Practice is necessary to build upon the reading fluency goal. Repeated

reading can have an added benefit of improving reading comprehension and may success may be

linked to transfer passages. It is important that a home/school connection be made for optimal

success. Research supports the repeated reading strategy and its ability to improve reading

fluency with students in general education and those receiving special education services. Many

specific studies have been conducted to examine the benefits of implementing a repeated reading

intervention program. These studies have proven overall effectiveness.

Project Objective and Processing Statements

As a result of a repeated reading strategy during the period of Thursday, September 8th

through Friday, December 16th, 2011, the students of Teacher Researcher A and Teacher

Researcher B intended to increase fluency when reading.

The teacher researchers performed the following tasks prior to beginning the intervention

process:

Identify the number of children performing below targeted reading level.

Select reading groups between 3-6 students per group.

Establish small group routines and intervention procedures.

Create progress monitoring charts.

Project Action Plan

The purpose of the project action plan was to assess and improve fluency rates of

students at the elementary level. A multifaceted repeated reading intervention was used in

combination with the current reading curriculum.

 63

Pre-Documentation

Week 1: September 5-10, 2011

Parent permission slips due back to researchers

Have students complete the Student Survey

Send Parent Surveys home

Distribute Teacher Surveys

Week 2: September 12-16, 2011

Analyze testing and report card data from student files

Conduct Teacher Interviews

Teacher Surveys to be returned

Parent Surveys to be returned

(The teacher researchers will be using the Pearson Reading Street curriculum for the fourth-

grade general education classroom. The third- through fifth-grade special education students will

be instructed in the resource room using the Pearson My Sidewalks on Reading Street

curriculum, levels B-E. Texts and passages that will be used for data collection are generically

noted by unit and week).

Intervention

Week 3: September 19-23, 2011

Students will be given a “Fresh Read” baseline fluency assessment to be documented on

their individual progress monitoring chart.

Introduce the students to the repeated reading purpose and model procedures.

Week 4: September 26-30, 2011

 64

Repeated reading tasks will be administered using the Unit 1 Week 5 story from the

Pearson Reading Series curriculum.

Day 1- Story introduction, passage fluency pretest, followed by teacher model of passage

fluency, small group reading activities, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Day 2- partner repeated reading (error correction and feedback), small group activities

Day 3- choral repeated reading, small group activities

Day 4/Day 5- Timed reading posttest, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Week 5: October 3-7, 2011

Repeated reading tasks will be administered using supplemental material from Pearson

Reading Series curriculum due to a unit review week.

Day 1- Story introduction, passage fluency pretest, followed by teacher model of passage

fluency, small group reading activities, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Day 2- partner repeated reading (error correction and feedback), small group activities

Day 3- choral repeated reading, small group activities

Day 4/Day 5- Timed reading posttest, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Week 6: October 10-14, 2011

Repeated reading tasks will be administered using the Unit 2 Week 1 story from the

Pearson Reading Series curriculum.

Day 1- Story introduction, passage fluency pretest, followed by teacher model of passage

fluency, small group reading activities, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Day 2- partner repeated reading (error correction and feedback), small group activities

Day 3- choral repeated reading, small group activities

Day 4/Day 5- Timed reading posttest, data will be charted for progress monitoring
 65

Week 7: October 17-21, 2011

Repeated reading tasks will be administered using the Unit 2 Week 2 story from the

Pearson Reading Series curriculum.

Day 1- Story introduction, passage fluency pretest, followed by teacher model of passage

fluency, small group reading activities, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Day 2- partner repeated reading (error correction and feedback), small group activities

Day 3- choral repeated reading, small group activities

Day 4/Day 5- Timed reading posttest, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Week 8: October 24-28, 2011

Repeated reading tasks will be administered using the Unit 2 Week 3 story from the

Pearson Reading Series curriculum.

Day 1- Story introduction, passage fluency pretest, followed by teacher model of passage

fluency, small group reading activities, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Day 2- partner repeated reading (error correction and feedback), small group activities

Day 3- choral repeated reading, small group activities

Day 4/Day 5- Timed reading posttest, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Week 9: October 31-November 4, 2011

Repeated reading tasks will be administered using the Unit 2 Week 4 story from the

Pearson Reading Series curriculum.

Day 1- Story introduction, passage fluency pretest, followed by teacher model of passage

fluency, small group reading activities, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Day 2- partner repeated reading (error correction and feedback), small group activities

Day 3- choral repeated reading, small group activities

 66

Day 4/Day 5- Timed reading posttest, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Week 10: November 7-11, 2011

Repeated reading tasks will be administered using the Unit 2 Week 5 story from the

Pearson Reading Series curriculum.

Day 1- Story introduction, passage fluency pretest, followed by teacher model of passage

fluency, small group reading activities, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Day 2- partner repeated reading (error correction and feedback), small group activities

Day 3- choral repeated reading, small group activities

Day 4/Day 5- Timed reading posttest, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Week 11: November14-18, 2011

Repeated reading tasks will be administered using supplemental material from Pearson

Reading Series curriculum due to a unit review week.

Day 1- Story introduction, passage fluency pretest, followed by teacher model of passage

fluency, small group reading activities, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Day 2- partner repeated reading (error correction and feedback), small group activities

Day 3- choral repeated reading, small group activities

Day 4/Day 5- Timed reading posttest, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Week 12: November 28-December 2, 2011

Repeated reading tasks will be administered using the Unit 3 Week 1 story from the

Pearson Reading Series curriculum.

Day 1- Story introduction, passage fluency pretest, followed by teacher model of passage

fluency, small group reading activities, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Day 2- partner repeated reading (error correction and feedback), small group activities
 67

Day 3- choral repeated reading, small group activities

Day 4/Day 5- Timed reading posttest, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Week 13: December 5-9, 2011

Repeated reading tasks will be administered using the Unit 3 Week 2 story from the

Pearson Reading Series curriculum.

Day 1- Story introduction, passage fluency pretest, followed by teacher model of passage

fluency, small group reading activities, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Day 2- partner repeated reading (error correction and feedback), small group activities

Day 3- choral repeated reading, small group activities

Day 4/Day 5- Timed reading posttest, data will be charted for progress monitoring

Post-Documentation

Week 14: December 12-16, 2011

Compile all data from weekly intervention progress monitoring charts

Review data from surveys and interviews

Cross reference data from students’ records (report cards, previous testing results) and

weekly fluency intervention charts to check for increases in fluency rates

Formulate result statements

Methods of Assessment

Testing results from each week will be recorded on progress monitoring charts and

analyzed for post documentation purposes. These charts will determine if gains have been made

in fluency rates using the repeated reading strategy from September 19, 2011 to December 9,

2011. Data from the eleventh week intervention will be outlined on one graph per participant for

a total of approximately 50 graphs. The progress monitoring charts (Appendix E) will be used to
 68

track fluency rates from pre- and posttests for each student. The pre- and post data will be

analyzed to note any changes in fluency rates.

 69

Chapter 4

Project Results

This action research project was based upon a lack of reading fluency skills among third-

through fifth-grade readers. The teacher researchers used reading assessment data, classroom

observations, and Parent, Teacher, and Student Survey results to determine present levels of

reading fluency rates. The teacher researchers used a guided repeated reading strategy that

included the rereading of passages with teacher modeling, choral reading, paired reading,

independent reading, and timed reading. For a sample of a reading passage, refer to Appendix F.

Teacher Researcher A collected data from 6 third-grade students, 4 fourth-grade students, and 4

fifth-grade students. The intervention services were completed during the resource intervention

minutes as listed on the students’ Individual Education Plans. Teacher Researcher B collected

data from 23 fourth-grade general education students during the scheduled guided reading block.

There were a total of 38 student participants. This study occurred from September 8, 2011

through December 16, 2011.

Historical Description of the Intervention

Description.

During the first week of the action research project (September 5th through September 9th

2011) we distributed parental permission slips to participate in research data collection,

distributed Parent, Teacher, and Student Surveys, and discussed the purpose of the research

project with the students. We found it encouraging that 100% of parent consent forms were

returned by the due date. Students seemed excited about improving their reading fluency levels

and were motivated to participate in the intervention.

 70

During the second week of the action research project (September 12th through

September 16th 2011) we viewed previous fluency data from student records. We used the

reading fluency data from the district reading curriculum that was administered by classroom

teachers to determine a baseline fluency rate for each child. We were surprised that our Teacher

Survey return rate was only just a little over half between both schools. Student Surveys were

also completed this week. We were not surprised by the number of students who selected

answers on the survey based on their personal goals to please the teacher.

During the third week of the action research project (September 19th through September

23rd 2011) we began the fluency intervention and data collection process with students. We met

with small groups to explain the weekly routine and the importance of goal setting in the reading

intervention process. We were pleased to see that most students in the groups were able to stay

on task while others completed their reading check. Students were also excited to view their

initial words per minute score, receive feedback on word errors, and use the skills they learned to

increase their fluency scores by the end of the week. Although the children were excited about

the routine, we both found that the intervention process was very time consuming and were

unable to effectively carry out the tasks required for the regular guided reading lessons during

the allotted time.

I, Teacher Researcher B, had to contact my research professor with concerns regarding

the amount of students in my classroom that were to receive the fluency intervention throughout

the course of each week. With 24 students, I was very overwhelmed by the time that the

preliminary and post data collection process was taking for each child and each reading group

combined with the demands of my regular guided reading responsibilities. Although less than 10

minutes of fluency intervention time was embedded into each guided reading small group, it was
 71

quite difficult to fit everything in and remain on schedule. I asked if I could create a schedule of

when I would be meeting with reading teams over the course of intervention. I was told that as

long as I administered the intervention services equally among students, then it would be

acceptable to alternate services bi-weekly. I devised a schedule (Appendix G) that allowed me to

meet and collect data from all of my students. During 3 of 11 weeks I collected data from all of

my students, and the remaining 8 weeks I alternated bi-weekly among the 24. This made the

intervention process a much smoother one.

Overall, the first week of the intervention was a learning process for both of us. All

parties, including the students needed this time to become familiar with the demands of the

routine.

Later, from September 26th through September 30th 2011, we completed the second week

of the intervention during the fourth week of the action research project. We continued to follow

the weekly fluency routine. Students seemed to become more comfortable with the routine. We

both noticed that a few students were displaying frequent absences which raised concerns

regarding accurate data collection for those students. Often times we were unable to get

preliminary and/or post data during the week. Due to time restraints we found it difficult to make

up the intervention time that was lost due to absences.

The fifth week (October 3rd through October 7th 2011) was considered a review week

according to the pacing guide of school district’s reading curriculum. During that week fluency

interventions were not implemented.

From week six through week nine (October 10th through November 11th 2011) we

continued to follow the fluency intervention routine. Students continued to show excitement

with raising their words per minute count, were motivated by feedback, and corrected many
 72

word errors by the end of each week. During this time, there were shortened weeks due to

scheduled holidays (Columbus Day, Veteran’s Day, and Halloween). Although students

continued to make gains, they were distracted by the breaks in their education.

The 10th week (November 14th through November 18th 2011) was another review week

according to the district’s reading curriculum. Week 11 (November 21st through November 25th

2011) offered only two days due to the Thanksgiving holiday. During this time students

reviewed material presented in the previous unit of the school district’s reading curriculum and

the fluency intervention was not implemented.

During the 12th week (November 28th through December 2nd 2011) we continued to

implement our reading fluency intervention. We had the opportunity to meet with students each

day due to a full calendar week. We noted the benefits of having the entire school week to fully

implement all fluency strategies with the appropriate amount time. Most students made greater

than average gains in words per minute.

In the 13th week (December 5th through December 9th 2011) which was the last week of

intervention before post documentation, we again implemented our intervention routine.

Students seemed proud of their successes and made gains in their reading fluency.

The 14th week (December 12th through December 16th 2011) started post documentation.

We compiled the results from the weekly fluency data. We recognized advances in fluency rates

from the beginning to the end of each week over the course of the intervention. However,

truancy and absenteeism posed a problem regarding data collection for select students. Often

times students were absent for consecutive days or weeks. We were unable to make up the time

that was lost which sometimes included pre- and/or post tests.
 73

Interventions.

We felt that increasing reading fluency skills in students was a dilemma faced by many

classroom teachers. Research showed that struggling readers would continue to have problems

with reading and fluency throughout their educational careers without the proper support. An

abundance of research has been performed regarding the benefits of implementing an intensive

fluency component to reading curriculums that specifically addressed these issues. With this in

mind, we decided to employ repeated reading strategies in our small reading groups as a means

of improving reading fluency rates among our students.

In order to provide the fluency intervention services to all children, we followed the

intervention plan during our scheduled small group reading block. Small groups were decided

based upon students’ similar reading abilities according to baseline reading assessments. Each

small group began with the repeated reading component and was followed with curriculum based

activities. Throughout the course of each calendar week, we followed a specific routine. The first

day of each week included the introduction of a story or passage, along with a pre-test of the

unknown text, a model of fluency performed by the teacher, and small-group reading activities

based on the schools district’s reading curriculum. The second day called for paired repeated

reading which included error correction and feedback, followed by various small-group reading

activities based upon the school district’s reading curriculum. On day three students participated

in choral repeated reading, again followed by small-group reading activities based on the school

curriculum. On day four, Teacher Researcher A conducted timed post tests for each child due to

the special education resource schedule that allowed for four days per week with the students.

Teacher Researcher B utilized day four to reinforce previously taught fluency strategies such as
 74

choral reading and paired reading, along with feedback and error correction. On day five,

Teacher Researcher B conducted the timed post tests for each child. Data collected from each

week of the intervention was used to measure the effectiveness of the repeated reading strategy

to increase fluency skills. By following the repeated reading routine, students were given

multiple opportunities to practice reading strategies which were aimed at improving fluency

skills.

Reflection.

I, Teacher Researcher A, have changed my teaching in many ways following the research

conducted for this project. I have a much greater appreciation for data collection than I ever

thought I would. I understand that we, as teachers, must collect data to determine whether or not

we are being effective in our classrooms. Data collection is necessary and meaningful when

used in the appropriate ways; improving our teaching strategies. I have also improved my

teaching by adding a more direct focus on skills taught. In the past, reading skills were taught,

but not as well structured and productive as they are after completing this project. I now have a

better understanding of the fluency component of reading and how it impacts all other factors in

the reading process. I learned through data collection which students were fluent readers, which

ones were not, and what could be done to improve the fluency of those who were struggling. As

a special education teacher, I understand that most of my students will not read at the same level

as their general education peers, but I learned that they are still able to make incredible gains;

more so, I feel, than if I had not carried out this intervention.

As a teacher researcher I feel that I will constantly be conducting research in my

classroom after completing this project. I learned so much regarding the implementation of

effective classroom strategies in keeping students engaged. I also learned how to collect data to
 75

rate the effectiveness of these strategies. Self reflection and the use of classroom data are

essential to maintaining a successful classroom. I hope that I will be seen as an effective teacher,

leader, and researcher after completing this program and project.

I have always been able to get along with others, take advice from those more

knowledgeable, and share suggestions when appropriate. This has held true throughout this

program. I have gotten along with all members of our cohort, as I do with the staff in my school

building. I have learned a great deal from those that are more seasoned than me, and I have been

able to share suggestions with others in our group, many times regarding special education

information. I am glad that I chose to work the fellow researcher that I did. I feel that we both

worked well together. We were flexible in our meetings, had the same interests in research, and

shared our strengths to make the research project the best it could be. I maintain my former

belief that two heads are better than one. I know that I am a hard worker and often have a

difficult time letting others participate. I feel I need to do everything myself, but I was able to

give up some of that during the course of this project. I have faith that everything will work out.

Many feelings that I have regarding myself are not things that I learned, but things that I have

reaffirmed. I continue to believe that I am a successful special education teacher, and the data

that I have collected supports that. I continue to believe that I am structured and organized to

provide an environment without the chaos that students may be used to. I feel, as I always have,

that teaching is not an easy profession, but I care about the students and hope that they will be

successful in life.

Upon conclusion of my research I, Teacher Researcher B, was able to reflect upon the 14

weeks that I spent teaching fluency strategies and collecting data. In essence I have learned that

through proper planning and execution of concepts and strategies, I have the potential to create
 76

solutions for many problems I see within my classroom and how my students learn. I have

gained a greater understanding of the kinds of classroom practices and interactions that could

lead to promoting enhanced learning and teaching. Although at times I found that conducting

research in addition to teaching was very time-consuming, I found that the benefits of going

through the process were numerous and invaluable. As a result of being involved in this action

research project, I have become more overt with identifying problems within my classroom and

school communities, as well as more rigorous in my efforts to find solutions. Additionally, I feel

that the quality of my teaching has changed, as specific goal setting has become a focus in all

aspects of my classroom. Furthermore, I have a new perspective on how to effectively provide

evidence to show my colleagues and my administrator if strategies actually work within the

classroom.

At the completion of this project I feel an immense sense of pride in the research I have

done. As a teacher researcher I have learned a number of things about my teaching, my students,

and myself. As I began my quest of filtering through past research to find valuable pieces of

information that would support my fluency strategy, I was quite overwhelmed by the daunting

task. However, soon I discovered that I actually enjoyed reading high-level professional writing

that I would otherwise have little time to delve. I learned the value of allowing well-informed

decision making to guide my teaching. In my opinion, referring to scholarly documents,

organizing and performing the fluency strategy routines, and collecting the pre- and post

documentation data was effective and well worth the time that it took.

I had the opportunity to work on this research project with a former colleague who

worked in the capacity of a special education resource teacher. Additionally, the collaborative

nature of working on this project allowed me the opportunity to share ideas, struggles, and
 77

successes of the process with someone who completely understood the demands of the everyday

classroom and the benefits of reflective practice in teaching. I truly enjoyed working on this

project with a partner that complimented my work ethic. I am unsure if I would have been able to

undergo this experience for the first time without such a competent and hard working action

research partner.

Presentation and Analysis of Results

The ability to read fluently continues to be problematic for many children. The purpose

of the action research project was to increase the reading fluency skills of elementary readers.

Teacher Researcher A collected data from 6 third-grade, 4 fourth-grade, and 4 fifth-grade

students for a total of 14 students, while Teacher Researcher B collected data from 24 fourth

grade students. This made for a total of 38 elementary students. Post documentation was

conducted from December 12th through December 16th 2011.

Two tools were used to document student growth. First, data was collected at the

beginning of the intervention to obtain a baseline word count per minute (WCPM) score for each

student via a passage taken from the reading basal known as a “Fresh Read”. The data from that

was then compared to a Fresh Read that was administered at the completion of the intervention

to measure the increase of words per minute over time. Secondly, data was collected throughout

the intervention via pre- and post test results that were obtained from reading passages provided

in the school district’s reading series. WCPM rates from the beginning and end of each week

were documented in the form of weekly charts. These results were analyzed and reviewed during

the post-documentation period to reflect the words-per-minute growth rate of each child from the

beginning to the end of each week.

 78

Fresh Reads.

A Fresh Read was used to obtain a baseline word count per minute score for each student

prior to receiving fluency intervention services. It was administered to all students, including all

38 student participants. These assessments were a required component of each student’s reading

assessment file for the school year and were administered by all classroom teachers in the school

district. Fresh Reads were short reading passages that were provided within the school districts’

reading curriculum series. The Fresh Read was administered in the form of a running record in

which the student read aloud an unknown passage for one minute while the teacher

tracked/logged reading errors. The errors were then totaled and subtracted from the total amount

of words read to obtain a WCPM score. The Teacher Researchers completed their intervention

directly before the school district’s winter break. Data from a Fresh Read that was administered

by the district’s classroom teachers before winter break coincided with the completion of the

Teacher Researchers’ intervention. The data from this Fresh Read was analyzed for post

documentation purposes to show fluency growth as well as the overall effectiveness of the

repeated reading strategy. The summary of these findings can be found in Figures 13 through

21.

Figure 13 shows students (n=4) from Teacher Researcher A’s first reading intervention

group. It displays the growth from the Fresh Read conducted prior to the intervention to the

Fresh Read conducted at the conclusion of the intervention. As summarized in Figure 13,

Teacher Researcher A observed from pre- to post documentation that all students in group 1

made increases in their words correct per minute rates. Increases in words per minute scores

ranged from 13 to 27 words per minute from pre- to post intervention.

 79

60 56

50 48 47

40 35
33 33
29 Pre- Intervention Fresh Read
30 WCPM Rate
22
Post Intervention Fresh Read
20
WCPM Rate

10

0
Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4

Figure 13. Changes in Fluency Rates for Students in Group 1- Teacher Researcher A (n=4)

Figure 14 outlines students (n=3) from Teacher Researcher A’s second reading

intervention group. Growth from the Fresh Read conducted prior to the intervention to the Fresh

Read conducted at the conclusion of the intervention is displayed. Likewise, all students in this

group made increases in their words correct per minute rates. The gains were similar to those of

group one, with a range of 14 words gained to 29 words gained from the reading of an unknown

passage.

140
117
120
96
100 91

80 Pre-Intervention Fresh
62 Read WCPM Rate
60 52
Post Intervention Fresh
38
40 Read WCPM Rate

20

0
Student 5 Student 6 Student 7

Figure 14. Changes in Fluency Rates for Students in Group 2- Teacher Researcher A (n=3)
 80

Data from the third of Teacher Researcher A’s reading intervention groups is displayed in

Figure 15 (n=5). It also displays the growth from the Fresh Read conducted prior to the

intervention to the Fresh Read conducted at the conclusion of the intervention. As demonstrated

in Figure 15, all students in group 3 made gains. Two students in this group made significant

gains from pre- to post intervention as measured by words correct per minute. Student 8 gained

53 words and student 11 made an increase of 38 words correct per minute from pre- to post

documentation. Student 12 increased by one word from pre- to post intervention; however, the

student had a high rate of absenteeism, and consequently could not participate fully in the

intervention process.

140
116
120 Pre-Intervention
100 93 Fresh Read
81 WCPM Rate
80
63
55 55 53 54 Post Intervention
60
40 WCPM Rate
40
24
20
0
Student 8 Student 9 Student 10 Student 11 Student 12

Figure 15. Changes in Fluency Rates for Students in Group 3- Teacher Researcher A (n=5)

Figure 16 reports on students (n=2) from Teacher Researcher B’s fourth reading

intervention group. Displayed is the growth from the Fresh Read conducted prior to the

intervention and the Fresh Read conducted at the conclusion of the intervention. Results from

Figure 16 show that one student made a gain of 20 words per minute while the other student

decreased by 11 words per minute from pre- to post intervention.

 81

120 110
99
100 93

80 73
Pre- Intervention Fresh
60 Read WCPM Rate
40 Post Intervention WCPM
Rate
20
0
Student 13 Student 14

Figure 16. Changes in Fluency Rates for Students in Group 4- Teacher Researcher A (n=2)

Figure 17 displays results of pre- to post reading fluency documentation for students in

Teacher Researcher B’s fourth grade general education classroom, specifically the students (n=5)

from Teacher Researcher B’s first guided reading group. Figure 17 displays a gain of 13 words

for one student from pre- to post intervention, minimal gains in words read per minute for two

students, a decrease in the fluency rate of one student, and incomplete data from a student that

had truancy issues. The student that experienced a decreased rate of fluency also received special

education services for a learning disability. Due to truancy matters, Student D was not available

for post documentation, thus was not included in averages of WCPM from pre- to post

documentation. This decreased the overall rate of participants by one (n=37) when averaging

this data. Group 1 of Teacher Researcher B’s guided reading groups typically struggled with

reading throughout the school year.

 82

90 84
80 76 77
71
70 65
60
60 52
46 47 Pre-Intervention Fresh Read
50
WCPM Rate
40
30 Post Intervention WCPM Rate
20
10
0
Student A Student B Student C Student D Student E

Figure 17. Changes in Fluency Rates for Students in Group 1- Teacher Researcher B (n=5)

Figure 18 illustrates students (n=4) from Teacher Researcher B’s second reading

intervention group. It presents the growth from the Fresh Read performed prior to the repeated

reading fluency intervention to the Fresh Read conducted at the conclusion of the intervention.

As summarized in Figure 18, Teacher Researcher B observed from pre- to post documentation

that all students in group 2 experienced gains in their WCPM rates. Increases in words per

minute scores from the Fresh Reads ranged from 9 to 15 words per minute from pre- to post

intervention.

120
99
100 91
84 83
78
80 72
67
58 Pre-Intervention Fresh
60 Read WCPM Rate
Post Intervention WCPM
40
Rate
20

0
Student F Students G Student H Student I

Figure 18. Changes in Fluency Rates for Students in Group 2- Teacher Researcher B (n=4)
 83

Below in Figure 19 are the student results (n=4) of the calculated growth from the Fresh

Read carried out prior to the intervention to the Fresh Read conducted at the conclusion of the

intervention. These results were compiled from Teacher Researcher B’s third reading

intervention group. As demonstrated in Figure 19, all students in group 3 made gains. One

student in this intervention group made strong gains from pre- to post intervention as measured

by words read correctly per minute; student J gained 21 more words correct per minute from pre-

to post documentation. Student L increased by 14 words. The remaining student increases in

fluency rates ranged from 8 to 13 more words from pre- to post documentation.

140
121
120
107

100
87
79 81 79
77
80 72 Pre-Intergention Fresh Read
59 WCPM Rate
58
60
Post Intervention WCPM Rate

40

20

0
Student J Student K Student L Student M Student N

Figure 19. Changes in Fluency Rates for Students in Group 3- Teacher Researcher B (n=5)

Data from the fourth of Teacher Researcher B’s reading intervention groups is displayed

in Figure 20 (n=5). It also displays the growth from the Fresh Read administered prior to the

intervention to the Fresh Read performed at the conclusion of the intervention. Figure 20

summarizes the increases in fluency rates of all students in intervention group 4. Student O

increased their fluency rate by 29 words, while Student S obtained an increase of 33 words from
 84

pre-to post documentation. These increases were above the average rate (n=20 words) of

progression for group 4. Fluency rates for the remaining students in group 4 increased by a range

of 11 to 15 words correct per minute.

200 185
180 170
160
140 127 122
120 109
98 98 Pre-Intervention Fresh Read
100 86 89 WCPM Rate
80 73
Post Intervention WCPM Rate
60
40
20
0
Student O Student P Student Q Student R Student S

Figure 20. Changes in Fluency Rates for Students in Group 4- Teacher Researcher B (n=5)

Figure 21 reports on students (n=5) from Teacher Researcher B’s fifth reading

intervention group. Displayed is the growth from the Fresh Read administered prior to the

fluency intervention to the one conducted at the close of the intervention. Student U increased

the rate of fluency on a Fresh Read by 34 words, while Student W advanced with 20 more words

from pre-to post documentation. These increases were above the average rate of progression

(n=16 words) for group 5. Fluency rates for the remaining students in group 5 increased by a

range from 7 to 9 words correct per minute. All students, with the exception of Student T, were

considered to be fluent readers at the pre- documentation stage of the intervention. The post

documentation WCPM score showed that Student T obtained a WCPM score of 92, which

successfully met the fluency standard of 90 WCPM set by school district’s reading curriculum.
 85

160
142 150
140 130
120 110
96 99 106
100 90
83 92 Pre-Intervention Fresh Read
80 WCPM Rate
60 Posts Intervention WCPM
40 Rate

20
0
Student T Student U Student V Student W Student X

Figure 21. Changes in Fluency Rates for Students in Group 5- Teacher Researcher B (n=5)

Weekly Pre- and Post Fluency Data.

With the data gathered from the weekly pre- and post reading passages, the Teacher

Researchers were able to track the fluency growth of each student with more depth. The Teacher

Researchers used the reading passages from the school district’s reading curriculum series to

obtain a WCPM score at the beginning and end of each week. The Teacher Researchers

administered a fluency running record of an unknown passage to students at the beginning of

each week. During this process, the intervention participants read aloud from a passage while the

Teacher Researchers tracked words that were read correctly along with word errors for one

minute. The WCPM reading fluency rate was calculated for each student by subtracting the word

errors from the total amount of words read in the one-minute time allotment. This data was

charted for post documentation. Throughout the course of each school week, the Teacher

Researchers practiced various repeated reading fluency strategies using the same passage that

was introduced at the beginning of the week with the participants. At the end of each week, a

fluency running record from the same passage was administered for a second time using the

same guidelines as in the beginning of the week. The post WCPM rate was again obtained and
 86

charted for post documentation. The data was then analyzed by both Teacher Researchers during

the post-documentation period. WCPM rates from the beginning and end of each week were

averaged for each participant to show the typical weekly fluency development and the overall

success of the fluency intervention strategies. A summary of these findings can be found in

Tables 11 and 12.

Teacher Researcher A took the participating students (n=14) WCPM fluency scores from

the beginning of every intervention week and averaged them to show the typical rates of fluency

when reading unknown passages. Similarly, the WCPM rates from the same passage were again

averaged for each student at the conclusion of each week to determine a common WCPM rate of

growth. Results from this data are reflected in Table 11.

Table 11

Averages of Initial and Final WCPM Rates-Teacher Researcher A

Student Initial WCPM Rate Final WCPM Rate WCPM Rate of Growth
1 45 69 24
2 39 67 28
3 24 49 25
4 43 65 22
5 45 76 31
6 93 110 17
7 67 86 19
8 90 121 31
9 70 98 28
10 43 74 31
11 65 88 23
12 57 73 16
13 103 134 31
14 84 113 29

Table 11 demonstrates a growth in WCPM for all students which were influenced by the

practice that the repeated reading strategy provided. The minimum number of words gained

from the beginning of the week to the end was 16 and the maximum was 31 (n=4). Almost all
 87

children in Teacher Researcher A’s special education resource groups were not reading at a rate

of fluency that was considered to meet their grade level expectations, however significant gains

were made throughout the intervention process using the repeated reading strategy.

Similarly, Teacher Researcher B compiled each of the WCPM fluency scores of the

students (n=24) from the beginning of each week of the intervention and averaged them to show

the typical rates of fluency when reading an unknown passage. The WCPM rates from the same

passage were averaged again for each student at the conclusion of each week to determine a

common WCPM rate of growth. Results from this data are reflected in Table 12.

Table 12

Averages of Initial and Final WCPM Rates-Teacher Researcher B

Student Initial WCPM Rate Final WCPM Rate WCPM Rate of Growth
A 65 100 35
B 54 69 15
C 70 80 10
D 35 39 4
E 49 66 17
F 99 125 26
G 83 113 30
H 73 102 29
I 74 125 51
J 79 95 16
K 84 97 13
L 112 132 20
M 77 94 17
N 89 106 17
O 112 160 48
P 161 172 11
Q 117 162 45
R 86 111 25
S 127 150 23
T 86 111 25
U 107 158 43
V 148 166 18
W 101 131 21
X 108 143 35
 88

As shown in Table 12, the average growth of the WCPM rate was increased by all

students from the beginning of each week to the conclusion of each week of the intervention.

These increases were a product of the multiple opportunities to practice that the repeated reading

strategy provided. The minimum number of words gained by a student from the beginning of the

week to the end was 4. This was displayed by a student who was frequently absent. Initial data

for Student D was rarely collected throughout the course of the intervention. While final passage

data was obtained only twice. Student C gained an average of 10 words per minute over the

course of weekly passage assessments. This student was a member of Teacher Researcher B’s

lowest performing reading group. The maximum average WCPM rate was that of 51 words.

Summary

The data collected from the tools used in the repeated reading intervention process show

that participants were able to increase the words read correctly per minute, which indicated that

they had improved upon their fluency ability. This was evident in Figures 13 through 21, in

which both Teacher Researchers noticed the gains that were made on similar fluency

assessments that were performed outside of the intervention plan both prior to, and at the

conclusion of the repeated reading intervention process. Additionally, fluency rates were

improved upon throughout the course of each week. Data was displayed by averaging the

individual WCPM scores of each child from the beginning and ending of each week to show the

overall growth and evaluate the effectiveness of the repeated reading strategy as a means to

improve fluency (Tables 11 & 12).

While fluency rates increased as a result of the repeated reading strategy, some students

did not make enough WCPM gains to meet grade level fluency expectations. As previously

noted, many of the participants in this study received special education services. Historically,
 89

gains achieved by students with special needs should be praised, as these students face struggles

with reading and learning that general education students may not. Additionally, many students

in general education classes perform below grade level without receiving additional support

services. This may explain some of the data that shows minimal amounts of fluency growth in

some students both weekly and in the overall Fresh Read pre- and post intervention assessments.

Much research has been conducted which relates fluency to other reading skills such as

comprehension and word transfer across texts. Many believe that improving a student’s fluency

may, in turn, improve comprehension and transfer skills. While the Teacher Researchers did not

specifically address this connection, we did not observe similar results with our students. In

relation to the fluency intervention, it was noted that transfer of words and comprehension

received little or no change in skill levels at the conclusion of our study based upon outside

comprehension assessments and observational data.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions.

As a result of analyzing the data, we have come to a number of conclusions regarding

reading fluency and the effectiveness of the repeated reading strategy. The repeated reading

strategy was indeed an effective way to increase both the speed and accuracy of reading for

general educational as well as for students receiving special education services.

Data collected throughout the 11-week intervention showed an overall average gain of 25

words per minute for all students (n=38). This result was mirrored by the participants (n=37)

with an average gain of 15 words per minute from pre- and post fluency assessments.

The Teacher Researchers also concluded that students’ motivation with improving

fluency skills was enhanced in a manner that had not been previously observed. Due to the lack
 90

of a specific reading fluency component in many reading programs, this skill is often overlooked.

The Teacher Researchers concluded that the use of error correction, feedback, and progress

monitoring influenced the motivation to increase fluency skills for students. This was especially

evident at the end of each week when the children were able to view their fluency growth,

whether it was a vast or minimal increase in words per minute. Students of all ability levels

gained confidence with fluency with each passing week.

Recommendations.

At the conclusion of the intervention process, we recommend the repeated reading

strategy to be useful when striving to increase the fluency rates of our students. We found that

the effectiveness of this strategy was considered a success, however, if we were to continue

using a repeated reading routine there would need to be modifications made to best fit the needs

of our classrooms and schedules. For example, both teachers had difficulties with embedding the

fluency routine into our small group time allotments while continuing to maintain adequate

instruction of our regular guided reading lessons and following the instructional pacing guides

outlined by the school district. Modifications to this process could include the implementation of

independent practice opportunities for students within literacy centers for general education

students, and small groups in the special education resource setting. This is one possible solution

to the issues surrounding the time constraints of literacy centers and small group reading.

We believe this research project revealed constructive information that could be used if

one chose to create a similar research project. It proved that there are problems in the area of

reading fluency, provided a strategy to combat these issues, offered data to support the repeated

reading strategy, which proved to be an effective means of increasing the reading fluency for all

participants.
 91

References

Alber-Morgan, S. R. (2006). Ten ways to enhance the effectiveness of repeated readings. Journal
of Early & Intensive Behavior Intervention, 3(3), 273-279. Retrieved from
http://www.baojournal.com/JEIBI/jeibi-index.html

Ardoin, S. P., McCall, M., & Klubnik, C. (2006). Promoting generalization of oral reading
fluency: Promoting drill versus practice opportunities. Journal of Behavioral Education,
16(1), 54-69. doi: 10.1007/s10864-006-9020-z

Begeny, J. C., Krouse, H. E., Ross, S. G., & Mitchell, R. C. (2009). Increasing elementary
students’ reading fluency with small group interventions: A comparison of repeated
reading, listening passage preview, and listening strategies only. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 18(3), 211-228. doi: 10.1007/s10864-009-9090-9

Begeny, J. C., & Silber, J. M. (2006). An examination of group-based treatment packages for
increasing elementary-aged students’ reading fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 43(2),
183-195. doi:10.1002/pits.20138

Blum, I. H., & Koskinen P.S. (1991). Repeated Reading: A Strategy for Enhancing Fluency and
Fostering Expertise. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 195-200. Retrieved from
http://ehe.osu.edu/tip/

Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Baker, S. K., Doabler, C., & Apichatabutra, C. (2009).
Repeated reading interventions for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 75(3), 263-281. Retrieved from
http://www.cec.sped.org/am/template.cfm?section=Home

City-Data.com (2010). Retrieved from http:city-data.com/

CityRating.com (2002). Retrieved from http://www.cityrating.com/

Conderman, G., & Strobel, D. (2006). Problem solving with guided repeated oral reading
instruction. Intervention in School & Clinic, 42(1), 34-39. Retrieved from
http://isc.sagepub.com/

Cunningham, P. M., & Allington, R. L. (2007). Developing fluent decoders and spellers. In
Ramos, A. M. (Ed.), Classrooms that work: They can all read and write (pp. 58-
60).Boston, M.A.: Allyn and Bacon.

Definition Incubation Kindergarten (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://webs.rps205.com/files/EA98456223B74FB28FD6F51C91BAE130.pdf

District Website (2011). Retrieved from www.rps205.com

GoRockford.com (2011). Retrieved from http://gorockford.com

 92

Homan, S. P., Klesius, J. P., & Hite, C. (1993). Effects of repeated readings and nonrepetitive
strategies on students’ fluency and comprehension. Journal of Educational Research,
87(2), 94-99. Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com

Huang, L. V., Nelson, R.B., & Nelson, D. (2008). Increasing reading fluency through student
directed repeated reading and feedback. California School Psychologist, 13, 33-40.
Retrieved from http://www.casponline.org

IDecide.com (2010). Retrieved from http://idecide.com/

Illinois Interactive Report Card (2010). Retrieved from http://iirc.niu.edu. Retrieved on Tuesday,
November 30, 2010; updated on Monday, November 29, 2010.

Kuhn, M. (2004/2005). Helping students become accurate, expressive readers: Fluency

instruction for small groups. Reading Teacher, 58(4), 338-344. doi:10.1598/RT.58.4.3

Kuhn, M. R. (2005). A comparative study of small group fluency instruction. Reading

Psychology, 26(2), 127-146. doi:10.1080/02702710590930492

LeVasseur, V. M., Macaruso, P., & Shankweiler, D. (2008). Promoting gains in reading fluency:
A comparison of three approaches. Reading & Writing, 21(3), 205-230.
doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9070-1

Lo, Y., Cooke, N. L., & Starling, A. L. P. (2011). Using a repeated reading program to improve
generalization of oral reading fluency. Education & Treatment of Children, 34(1), 115-
140. Retrieved from http://www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net

Musti-Rao, S., Hawkins, R. O., & Barkley, E. A. (2009). Effects of repeated readings on the oral
reading fluency of urban fourth-grade students. Preventing School Failure, 54(1), 12-23.
Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com

My Sidewalks on Reading Street. (2010). Retrieved from pearsonschool.com

Nutri-Link Technologies (2009). Site A Public Schools #xxx: Online Free and Reduced
Application. Retrieved from https://www.schoollunchapp.com/Letter.aspx

Rasinski, T. V. (1990). Effect of repeated reading and listening-while-reading on reading

fluency. Journal of Educational Research, 83(3), 147-150. Retrieved from
http://www.informaworld.com

Reading Street Grade 4. (2010). Retrieved from pearsonschool.com

Silber, J. M., & Martens, B. K. (2010). Programming for the generalization of oral reading
Fluency: Repeated readings of the entire text versus multiple exemplars. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 19(1), 30-46 doi: 10.1007/s10864-101-9099-0
 93

Simply Hired, Inc. (2005-2010). Retrieved from http://www.simplyhired.com/

Staudt, D. H. (2009). Intensive word study and repeated reading improves reading skills for two
students with learning disabilities. Reading Teacher, 63(2), 142-151. Retrieved from
http://www.reading.org/General/Default.aspx

Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading.

Remedial & Special Education, 25(4), 252-261. Retrieved from http://rse.sagepub.com

Therrien, W., & Hughes, C. (2008). Comparison of repeated reading and question generation on
students’ reading fluency and comprehension. Learning Disabilities –A Contemporary
Journal, 6(1), 1-16. Retrieved from http://www.ldworldwide.org/research/learning-
disabilities-a-contemporary-journal

Therrien, W. J., & Kubina Jr., R. M. (2006). Developing reading fluency with repeated reading.
Intervention in School & Clinic, 41(3) 156-160. Retrieved from http://isc.sagepub.com

Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006). Effect of a combined repeated reading and
question generation intervention on reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 21(2), 89-97. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
5826.2006.00209.x

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/

U.S. Census Bureau (2010). Retrieved from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1765000.html Retrieved on Sunday, December
12, 2010; updated on Monday, August 16, 2010.
 94

APPENDICES
 95

Appendix A

Parent Opinion Survey on Reading

Directions: Please do not put your name on this survey. Answers will be kept anonymous. Read
each statement and circle the selection that best describes your beliefs. Please answer honestly.

1. When I listen to my child read, I feel that they read adequately for their grade level.

1 2 3 4
rarely sometimes usually always

2. My child reads at home.

1 2 3 4
rarely sometimes usually always

3. My child selects a book and begins reading without being told.

1 2 3 4
rarely sometimes usually always

4. I help my child when they have difficulty reading.

1 2 3 4
rarely sometimes usually always

5. I read aloud to my child for enjoyment.

1 2 3 4
rarely sometimes usually always

6. My child discusses books read at home or at school with me.

1 2 3 4
rarely sometimes usually always

Optional comments:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
 96

Appendix B

Student Opinion Survey on Reading

Directions: Please do not put your name on this survey. Read each statement and circle the word
that best describes you. Answer honestly.

1. I enjoy reading.
1 2 3 4
never sometimes usually always

2. I read at home every day.

1 2 3 4
never sometimes usually always

3. I can read and understand my textbooks.

1 2 3 4
never sometimes usually always

4. I can read and understand my class work.

1 2 3 4
never sometimes usually always

5. I reread information when I don’t understand something.

1 2 3 4
never sometimes usually always

6. I volunteer to read aloud in class.

1 2 3 4
never sometimes usually always

7. What do you do when you do not understand something you are reading?
_____________________________________________________________
 97

Appendix C

Teacher Survey

Directions: Please do not put your name on this survey. Read each statement and select the
choice that best describes your feelings.

1. The current reading curriculum adequately addresses reading fluency.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. A portion of my small group instruction time is devoted to rereading selections to gain

fluency.
1 2 3 4
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. Building fluency has a strong focus in my classroom.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

4. My administration supports the need for fluency interventions across grade levels.
1 2 3 4
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

5. Parents support my teaching techniques and reading interventions used in the classroom.
1 2 3 4
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Comments optional:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
 98

Appendix D

Opinions of Reading Skills and Interventions

Teacher Interview

1. Describe the characteristics of below grade level readers and how it impacts your
teaching? (reading and various content areas)

2. What interventions are currently in place to address the problems with low achieving
readers?

3. Do you supplement your curriculum to meet the needs of struggling readers? Please
explain.

4. Explain your small reading group activities and how they address reading skills.

5. In your opinion, how does reading fluency relate to other skills?

 99

Appendix E
Progress Monitoring Chart

Student Name Unit, Week Monday Friday

Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
Errors: WCPM: Errors: WCPM:
 100

Appendix F
Sample Reading Passage - School District Curriculum

Chase: An Instinct to Herd

“Chase!” shouts Kate. “What are you doing?” 7

Kate knows what Chase is doing, though. Chase, a Border Collie 18

puppy, is running in circles around a group of ducks. Kate knows that 31

Chase is trying hard to herd the ducks. Herding is gathering animals and 43

making them move. It is an instinct for Chase. Her ancestors have been 56

herding sheep for hundreds of years. 62

Even though Chase is born with the instinct to herd, she will still 75

need training. When Chase gets older, Kate will train her. She will 87

teach Chase to follow commands. “Come by” means to move in a circle 100

around the sheep. “Walk up” means to run toward the sheep and make 113

them move. Chase will learn to keep the sheep together. She will learn 126

to guide sheep into their pen. She will learn to separate one sheep 140

from the rest if it needs medicine. Sheepherding dogs have a big job on 154

farms. Chase will be quite a help to Kate when she gets bigger. 167

Right now Kate laughs at Chase as she tries to herd the ducks. 180

“Come, Chase,” she says. “You will have plenty of time for herding 192

later. Now, let’s play!” 196

 101

Appendix G
Teacher Researcher B’s Intervention Group Schedule

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5

Week 3 X X X X X
Week 4 X X X
Week 5 Review Review Review Review Review
Week 6 X X
Week 7 X X X
Week 8 X X
Week 9 X X X
Week 10 Review Review Review Review Review
Week 11 No Group No Group No Group No Group No Group
Week 12 X X
Week 13 X X X X X
Week 14 X X X X X