Presentation on theme: "A Component analysis of repeated reading Lsu-shreveport Kevin M. Jones, PhD Katherine F. Wickstrom, PhD."— Presentation transcript:
A Component analysis of repeated reading Lsu-shreveport Kevin M. Jones, PhD Katherine F. Wickstrom, PhD
NASP 2010 All data used in this study were collected during 4 summers of the School of Reading & Organization for Cool Kids
Reading and Organization for Cool Kids
School of R.O.C.K. 10 – 13 children below DIBELS oral reading fluency benchmarks at end of second grade. 14 days (8:30 – 11:30 am) Teachers: School psychology graduate students Four academic stations 1.Fluency Intervention (repeated and sequential readings) 2.Comprehension Intervention (R.A.A.C.) 3.Motivation (reinforcer assessment) 4.Self-Monitoring (direct behavior ratings)
Reading is C.O.O.L. Difficulty learning to read squashes the excitement and love of learning…It is embarrassing and even devastating to read laboriously and slowly, and to demonstrate this weakness in front of peers on a daily basis. (Lyon, 1998)
Is repeated reading effective? One must be exposed to a word multiple times in context in order for that word to become automatic (Berends & Reitsma, 2006; Samuels, 1979) Repeated reading (RR), has been shown to increase fluency, word recognition, and comprehension (Homan, Klesius, & Hite, 1993; Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985; Samuels, 1979)
Is it the repeated or the reading that is effective? Fluency gains during repeated reading (RR) may be a result of having more exposure and practice to reading, rather than the repetition of passages (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; Pressley, 2006)
Sequential vs. Repeated To date, there are four commonly cited studies that have directly compared repeated reading to reading the same amount of text. All four found no significant differences (Ardoin et al, 2006; Homan et al., 1993; Mathes & Fuchs, 1993; Van Bon, Boksebold, Font Freide, & Van Den Hurk, 1991). Three of the four did not include all essential elements of RR (Therrien, 2004): 1.First – to third-grade instructional levels 2.Corrective feedback 3.Adult-led sessions
Sequential vs. Repeated Ardoin et al. (2006) included all three, but also included various other components in both RR and the comparison condition, such as modeling, incentives, and segmenting/blending drills. It is still unclear whether RR improvement is due to repetition or the amount of reading (i.e., practice)
Method June 2006 10 students read aloud for 1 hour per day. The time was divided into 30 minutes of repeated reading and 30 minutes of sequential reading.
Materials Passage Sets (N = 8) 150-200 words each 3 rd grade readability Repeated Reading Passage Set (4): Original Story Sequential Reading Passage Set (4): 1.Passage 1: Original Story 2.Passage 2: Generalization (60% match; 80% overlap with original) 3.Passage 3: Generalization (60% match; 80% overlap with original) 4.Passage 4: Generalization (60% match; 80% overlap with original)
Materials How to create a generalization passages: A new story was created using the same words in the original story, but arranged to make up a new story with a different plot Overlap - 70% to 90% of words in generalization story were included in the original passage at least once. Match - 50% to 70% of word units in generalization story corresponded to a word unit in the original passage. Example: If the word between occurred 5 times in the original and 10 times in the generalization passage, the match would be 50%)
Procedures Repeated Student read randomly selected original passage four times Sequential Student read randomly selected passage set (original and 3 generalization passages) one time Alternating Treatment Design: Each condition was alternated four times, each time with a new passage set.
Procedures Dependent Variables Within-session CWPM and EPM Original story Second trial or second story Third trial or third story Fourth trial or fourth story Retention CWPM and EPM Original story, administered without instruction, 24 hours later Word Mastery Net words mastered between first reading and retention reading
How Fluent is Enough? At end of second grade, children should be reading about 90 CWPM (Good et al., 2002; Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2005) Narrative speech rate is about 130 wpm
Preliminary Analyses These data simply show that passages were equivalent difficulty. There were no differences between first reading of passage in each set (except for trial 1).
2006 Results Retention CWPM: RR led to an average gain of + 4 CWPM per day over SR, with no difference is errors.
2007 Results Words Mastered On average, the number of words mastered was higher in RR (m = 8.17) than the SR condition (m = 4.2).
Cause for Celebration
Year 2 True experimental design: Randomly assigned 12 Sequential Reading Passage Sets to a repeated reading (RR), sequential reading (SR), and control (CO) condition: RR: read original story four times (4 x 1 story) SR: read each of four stories once (1 x 4 stories) CO: read original story once (1 x 1 story)
2007 Results Retention CWPM: RR led to an average gain of + 13 CWPM per day, with no difference is errors. SR led to average gain of + 3 CWPM per day over no treatment.
2008 Results Retention CWPM: RR led to an average gain of + 16 CWPM per day.
2009 Results Retention CWPM: RR led to an average gain of + 9 CWPM per day.
Conclusions 1.Repeatedly reading the same text leads to greater fluency gains than reading the same amount of high-overlap text. 2.Repeated reading does not lead to higher error rates. In fact, repeatedly reading the same text leads to greater mastery of unknown words than reading the same amount of high-overlap text. 3.These effects are consistent across children with varying oral reading fluency levels and general reading achievement.
Future Directions 1.Is RR more effective at various instructional levels? 2.How effective is RR without error correction? 3.Are there cognitive, or other learner characteristics, that predict the differential effects of RR? 4.Change name to summer school. Young kids are scared of Mick Jagger.
Essential Readings Ardoin, S. P., McCall, M., & Klubnik, C. (2006). Promoting Generalization of Oral Reading Fluency: Providing Drill versus Practice Opportunities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(1), 55-70. Berends, I. E., & Reitsma, P. (2006). Addressing semantics promotes the development of reading fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 247-265. 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, 94-99. Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3-21. Pressley, M. (2006, April 29). What the future of reading research could be. Paper presented at the International Reading Associations Reading Research 2006, Chicago, Illinois. Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403-408.
Questions? http://www.chicagotheband.com/Lets go see Chicago! firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com