Presentation on theme: "Reading Fluency Intervention Strategies and Techniques 1. Does repeated reading alone show students gaining at least 10% reading comprehension skills of."— Presentation transcript:
Reading Fluency Intervention Strategies and Techniques 1. Does repeated reading alone show students gaining at least 10% reading comprehension skills of dysfluent reader? 2. Does listening to a passage out loud show students gaining at least 10% reading comprehension skills of a dysfluent reader? 3. Does repeated reading with the intervention from a teacher while reading a passage for the first time show students gaining at least 10% reading comprehension? 4. Do students choose the reading fluency intervention that showed the most growth in their reading comprehension percent of correct answers?
Introduction Oral reading fluency occurs when a person reads accurately, at an appropriate rate, and with prosody. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of teacher intervention or other methods and strategies when working with dysfluent readers. Today the state of reading fluency in the United States is that it is clear that more and more educators view fluency as an important goal of reading instruction. The use of oral reading fluency scores with reading comprehension gains is just one way to examine the effects of reading interventions.
Previous Research Consequences can be dire for students who fail to become fluent readers: students who do not develop reading fluency, regardless of how bright they are, are likely to remain poor readers throughout their lives (NRP, 2000). Today the state of reading fluency in the United States is that it is clear that more and more educators view fluency as an important goal of reading instruction. The routes of fluency development seem reasonably clear. One route is to have students get considerable practice reading books that are at their own independent reading level. By encountering high frequency, common words in a variety of meaningful contexts, students acquire the ability to recognize the words automatically. The other route for building fluency is through using the many varieties of repeated readings (Rasinski et al. 2006). Teachers who implement systematic progress monitoring in general classrooms likely will reap benefits not only for students with identified needs but also for their other students, regardless of their achievement levels (Stecker, Lembke, & Foegen, 2008). Welsch (2007) concluded that special educators need a variety of information about their students as special education services are designed to meet the individual needs of students.
Methodology The participants in the study were eight fourth, fifth or sixth grade students. There were two males and six females, ages ten, eleven and twelve. The participants were in the fourth, fifth or sixth grade. All participants were being serviced with Individual Education Plans (IEP) with specific learning disabilities in reading. All the students were Caucasian. These Learning Disabled students receive special education services by an Intervention Specialist in a Learning Center using the school ’ s grade level curriculum with modifications and/or accommodations. The socioeconomic status for most of these students is upper-middle class. The research was conducted in a suburban elementary school that served grades one through six. The population of the school was around 500 students. The research was collected in the school ’ s Learning Center that the students came to for their daily interventions and tutoring. The study was also conducted after school, during lunch periods or during tutoring times within the school day. Participants were seated at the experimenter ’ s tutoring table. The students were familiar with this setting. The interventions that were used in the study were the Benchmark Education Company ’ s Reading Fluency Program and the Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System ’ s Word Features Tests. The instruments were selected because they provided relevant information. The Reading Fluency Program gathered information about the students ’ reading fluency speed, accuracy, and comprehension. There were three passages that students read for a minute. The passages were analyzed and scores for speed, accuracy and comprehension were recorded. The Word Features Test gathered information about the grade level vocabulary word recognition. The information was valuable because it identified students' grade level at which they were functioning in vocabulary recognition.
Data Collection For a baseline the participants were given a timed reading fluency passage to read orally at their current grade level. After reading the fluency passage participants were given comprehension questions to answer orally.Correct words per minute were tallied by dividing the time it took to read the passage by the number of correct words read within the passage. Next the percentage of reading comprehension questions answered correctly were tallied. A vocabulary test was administered to each participant to determine their independent, instructional and frustration reading levels. Also the participants Accelerated Reading (AR) grade levels or Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) were used to determine grade level reading abilities. The second phase was the participants were introduced to three different oral reading fluency techniques and/or strategies. The first reading fluency technique was the independent repeated reading technique. This was where the participant read a fluency passage independently. The participants were allowed to read the passage independently as many times in a three minute time period. After the participant had read the passage independently they read the same fluency passage orally to the experimenter. Experimenter tallied correct words per minute. Experimenter asks comprehension questions orally and tallied percent correct. The second reading fluency technique was to listen to a passage read orally to the participant. The passage was only read to the participant once. After the participant had listened to the passage they read the same fluency passage orally to experimenter. Experimenter tallied correct words per minute. Experimenter asks comprehension questions orally and tallied percent correct. The third reading fluency technique was the participant reads the fluency passage with the experimenter ’ s intervention. While the participant read passage orally to experimenter, the experimenter assisted with words unknown to the participant. The participants were able to ask questions and have a dialog with the experimenter on words unknown and other content questions while reading the passage. After the participant had read the passage with the experimenter ’ s intervention they read the same fluency passage orally to experimenter. Experimenter tallied correct words per minute. Experimenter asks comprehension questions orally and tallied percent correct. The third phase was after all three reading fluency techniques had been given to each participant the participant took a best practice survey. The survey was for the participants to choose the best reading fluency technique and/or strategy they thought would work for them on a daily basis. To evaluate the participant ’ s performance on the three reading fluency techniques and/or strategies the experimenter tallied all scores for correct words read per minute and correctly answered comprehension question percentage. The scores where then compared to what each participant thought was their own individual best reading fluency technique and/or strategy.
Data Analysis In order to determine the effectiveness of the assessment in the identification of students ’ reading speed, accuracy and comprehension, data were triangulated by combining quantitative and qualitative measures. Quantitative data from the reading assessments were used across instruments. The first quantitative instrument completed by students was the Word Features Tests. The students read lists of thirty vocabulary words from third grade to sixth grade reading levels. Using the students ’ ZPD score combined with the Word Features Tests reading vocabulary levels, the students reading fluency level was determined. A score of 90% from the Word Features Tests was used to determine the instructional reading level for reading fluency speed, accuracy and comprehension. The second quantitative instrument used was the Benchmark Education Company ’ s Reading Fluency Program. The students read three different one page-reading passages. After reading the passages orally, using three different reading fluency techniques to the teacher, the students ’ speed was recorded after one minute by counting the number of words read. Accuracy was determined by the number of words read correctly over the number of words read per minute. Comprehension was determined by answering four comprehension questions after reading the passage orally to the teacher. Qualitative measures were obtained from the Reading Fluency Survey. The survey had three parts. First part was questions one and two. The questions were which reading strategy helped you the most with reading the passage out loud and which reading strategy helped you the most with answering the comprehension questions. The second part was using a Likert type scale (1=most helpful, 2=helpful, and 3+least helpful) to rate the types of intervention that helped them the most. The third part of the survey was an open-ended question asking how the teacher can help them with their reading and answering of comprehension questions. Data will be recorded to determine if the students ’ fluency speed, accuracy and reading comprehension will match what the students have chosen as their own best practice reading technique from the survey. The teacher will also be using the third part in the survey from each student to determine which technique the students will be using daily in school.
Student Survey Results
Interpretation of Findings The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of teacher intervention or other methods when working with dysfluent readers.. The performance of eight special needs students in the fourth, fifth and sixth grade with current IEPs were analyzed. They were screened using timed oral reading fluency passages followed by comprehension questions to see which reading fluency technique worked best for each individual student. Two students chose the same technique that would help them in reading fluency and comprehension using the teacher intervention. These students did indicate that they learned better by using the intervention technique and the results proved to be correct. Student #6, that is dyslexic, did about the same using repeated reading and oral reading but increase comprehension from 75% to 87% when she used the teacher intervention technique. Student # 6 did indicate that she liked using the oral reading technique the best, which did not show in her results. Student #4 who is also dyslexic really improved significantly when she used the teacher intervention technique, going from 25% comprehension to 100% comprehension using the teacher intervention technique. Student #5 was not placed in the correct reading grade level when she was screened because she finished all of the reading within one minute and did very well on the comprehension questions. She also was the only student who chose repeated reading has the best way to read fluently and to help her with comprehension. She may have had a different outcome had she been placed in the correct reading grade level. The results indicated that most students read more fluently and with greater comprehension using the teacher intervention technique. It was also interesting that the students did indicate that using the technique that helped them the most truly showed in the results.
Conclusions and Anticipated Action It is important for students with special needs that struggle with reading fluency and comprehension to know their best reading techniques and strategies to help them overcome their disability. Students with reading disabilities need to begin to understand their academic strengths and weaknesses. It is important that teachers and intervention specialists continue to support special needs students in their understanding of their disability and to support the best practice for them to continue with their success in reading. There must be an ongoing data driven progress- monitoring screening to support these students in their future success as readers. This study provides a window into how reading fluency and comprehension can be enhanced by the right technique and strategies for individual students with reading disabilities. But of most importance is that the struggling reader know and understand what is there own best way to learn how to reading and comprehend what they read. I will continue to work with my special needs students on how to determine their individual style of learning and succeeding. I will also work with the school ’ s Intervention Assistance Team (IAT) to work with other students in the building who are struggling with the reading process. I will also work closely with our school ’ s reading specialist to keep up with the most up to date practices, data collecting and monitoring student ’ s progress. Most importantly I will continue to work with special needs students to instill in them that they can succeed and work up to their potential, just like their typical learning peers.