The Effects of Repeated Reading Instruction on Oral Reading Fluency By Lana Titus CI 843 Spring 2013 Online

How will repeated reading effect fluency? What is Fluency? First grade students in a rural district Methodology for teacher-led, peer coaching, & technology interventions Assessments used Data analysis to compare results from interventions Results of 3 repeated reading interventions References Outline

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

Fluency: the ability to read with speed, accuracy, and proper expression (Lo, Cooke, & Starling, 2011, p. 115). Complex skill that requires accurate decoding skills, automaticity, and correct expression Fluency

1. Accuracy: o correct word decoding and identification o need to have between 90% to 95% on grade level material (Rasinski, 2004) o when decoding too slow it slows down comprehension (Therrien, 2004) Three Essential Parts of ORF

2. Automaticity: o recognition of words that bypass the decoding process (Wise et. al., 2010) o uses little mental effort to decode o more effort can be put on meaning of the text Three Essential Parts of ORF

3. Prosody: o expressiveness that a student reads with o intonation, rhythm, and emphasis given to words and sentences when reading out loud o must take note of the punctuation and give appropriate expression (Therrien, 2004) Three Essential Parts of ORF

If fluency is choppy, focus is on decoding not comprehension (Conderman & Strobel, 2008) Early identification of reading difficulties is best way to help at risk students Reading Practice

Supplemental program that consists of re-reading short meaningful passages RAND (2002) states repeatedly reading is the most effective way to instruct fluency Targets ORF and is easily integrated into programs Repeated Readings

First grade classroom 15 students 7 males, 8 females 2 retained from Speech/Language 4 Title I 15 included in the study due to developmental readiness Participants

Most common form of repeated reading Helps to prevent reading difficulties for at-risk students because of reduced group sizes Allows for more practice time to be focused on specific skills Focus on similar skills within the group Quicken the pace for higher reading groups Teacher-Led Small Group

Students outnumber teachers Teachers are able to walk around and give support as needed Students enjoy celebrating successes together Peer Coaching

Find the "thing" that sparks interest of students and gets them to practice It’s adaptive, facilitates repetitive practice, and motivates Voice playback application Children can hear themselves read They can suggest corrections Technology

1. Students are called back 2. Children get copy of the leveled reader at instructional level 3. Review characteristics of a good reader 4. Picture walk the book 5. Read out loud for one minute using reading phones Methods: Teacher-Led Small Group Cont.

6. Teacher listens to each child and assists with miscues 7. At one minute, students stop and mark the last word 8. Total up WPM on data sheet 9. Repeat for 3 readings Methods: Teacher-Led Small Group Cont.

1. Students are called back 2. Review characteristics of a good reader 3. Materials: instructional level passages, transparencies, markers, and data sheets 4. One student is reader, other is counter Methods: Peer Coaching Format

5. When one minute begins, reader reads, counter marks miscues, teacher listens 6. At one minute, reader stops and counter provides feedback 7. Reader records WPM on data sheet 8. Repeat for 3 readings then switch roles Methods: Peer Coaching Format Cont.

1. Students are called back 2. Review characteristics of a good reader 3. Review iPod usage 4. Students given instructional level passage, iPod, headphones, and mic. 5. One minute timer begins, students begin reading and teacher moves around to assist with miscues Methods: Technology - iPod Touch

6. At one minute, reader stops, counts up WPM, and records on tracking sheet 7. Student then listens to voice recording before beginning next reading 8. Repeat 3 recorded readings Methods: Technology - iPod Touch Cont.

Initial assessment: AIMSweb R-CBM Winter data (median score) Final assessment: 3 first grade AIMSweb R-CBM probes (median score) Pretest and posttest: 2 first grade AIMSweb R-CBM probes (mean score) Student engagement checklist: effects of engagement on fluency Student survey: used to make adjustments to future implementations Assessments

R-CBMs: district is using AIMSweb this year for fluency, suggested for MTSS Student is taken to a quiet testing area Directions are read verbatim to student Student is given their copy of passage Timer is began when student reads first word Miscues are marked as student reads At one minute times, student stops reading and teacher marks last word read Process continues for total of 3 probes Computer records median score Assessments (Continued)

Compare initial and final results to see if repeated reading is effective to improve ORF Compare the 3 interventions Males vs. Females Special Education vs. Speech/Language Special Education vs. non Speech/Language vs. non Data Analysis

11 made positive gains Average WCPM gain for all was 6.2 #1-7 are males, #8-15 are females All males made gains/half females Average WCPM gain for males was 12.7 Average WCPM gain for females was 0.5 Speech/Language gain was 10 WCPM vs. non at 4.8 Title 1 gain was 11.8 vs. non at 3.8 Teacher-Led Strategy Results

Teacher-Led Strategy ORF Gain Results

13 made positive gains Average WCPM gain for all was 7.7 #1-7 are males, #8-15 are females No gain 1 male, 1 female high readers Average WCPM gain for males was 8 Average WCPM gain for females was 7.4 Speech/Language gain was 6.5 WCPM vs. non at 8.1 Title 1 gain was 4.3 vs. non at 8.5 Peer Coaching Strategy Results

Peer Coaching Strategy ORF Gain Results

11 made positive gains Average WCPM gain for all was 6.5 #1-7 are males, #8-15 are females 3 males/1 female made 0 or negative Average WCPM gain for males was 3.1 Average WCPM gain for females was 9.5 Speech/Language gain was 7.3 WCPM vs. non at 6.2 Title 1 gain was 3.5 vs. non at 7.6 Technology (iPod) Results

Technology (iPod) Strategy ORF Gain Results

All made positive gains in 9 weeks Average WCPM gain for all was 24.1 #1-7 are males, #8-15 are females Average WCPM gain for males was 28.6 Average WCPM gain for females was 20.3 Speech/Language gain was 17.3 WCPM Title 1 gain was 13.3 WCPM Non-special services gain of 28 WCPM Males made continual decrease in gains through interventions-best with teacher-led strategy Females made continual increase in gains through interventions-best with peer coaching Initial to Final Assessment Results

Initial to Final Assessment ORF Gain Results

More practice time prior to peer coaching Peer coaching whole class to group heterogeneously to assist with accuracy in lower readers Read passages entirely after last one minute timing Smaller technology group for less playing Continue using all 3 strategies in rotation to differentiate and reach all children What to do next time?

Conderman, G., & Strobel, D. (2008, Fall). Fluency flyers club: An oral reading fluency intervention program. Preventing School Failure, 53(1), Lo, Y.-Y., Cooke, N. L., & Starling, A. L. P. (2011). Using a repeated reading program to improve generalization of oral reading fluency. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(1), RAND. (2002, November). RAND report on reading comprehension. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 92. Retrieved from leadership/nov02/vol60/num03/RAND-Report-on-Reading- Comprehension.aspx References

Rasinski, T. (2004, March). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61(6), Retrieved from leadership/mar04/vol61/num06/Creating-Fluent-Readers.aspx Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated readings. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), Wise, J. C., Sevcik, R. A., Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., Wolf, M., Kuhn, M.,... Schwanenflugel, P. (2010, July). The relationship between different measures of oral reading fluency and reading comprehension in second- grade students who evidence different oral reading fluency difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(3), References Continued