Role of Reading Fluency on Fourth Grade Reading ...



Role of Reading Fluency on Fourth Grade Reading Comprehension

Travishia M. Pickens

University of St. Thomas

Research Professor: N. A. Gichuri-Echessa, Ph.D.

Research Program Director: Catherine R. Barber, Ph.D.

May, 2013

Table of Contents

Abstract 4

Chapter 1: Introduction 5

Self Reflection and Theories 6

Hypothesis and Research Design 8

Chapter 2: Literature Review 12

Definition of Reading Fluency 12

Components of Reading Fluency 12

Correlation of Fluency and Comprehension 14

Effect of Oral Reading Fluency in Reading Comprehension 18

Improving Reading Fluency and Comprehension 19

Computer Based Fluency Program 20

Viewing Reading Fluency Differently 22

Chapter 3: Methods 25

Participants 25

Measures 26

Design 27

Procedure 28

Data Analysis 30

Ethical Issues 31

Chapter 4: Results 32

Chapter 5: Discussion 36

Interpretation of Findings 36

Strengths and Limitations 41

Recommendations and Action Planning 42

References: 44

Appendix 46

Abstract

The study examined the role that reading fluency plays on reading performance. Twenty-two participants from various demographics participated in this study. The quantitative one-group pretest-posttest design was used. Participants were administered a fluency pretest and comprehension pretest at the beginning of the study. The students were then exposed to reading fluency strategies on the iStation program, Reading A-Z program, and research based practices to improve fluency levels. Participants were then administered a fluency and comprehension posttest. Using the inferential statistical analysis of the paired t test, the difference in performance on the pretest and posttest of the reading comprehension assessment was t(21) = 1.47 with a standard error of difference of 2.81 and a corresponding p value of 0.16. The inferential statistical t test difference between the performance on the iStation reading fluency assessment pretest and posttest revealed a paired t(21) = 2.73 and standard error of difference at 0.18 with a corresponding p value equal to 0.01. Therefore, this study concluded that reading fluency does play a role on reading comprehension levels. Consequently, the results rejected the null hypothesis which stated reading fluency does not play a role on reading comprehension levels.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Reading is an essential and critical element in every discipline and area of life. Fluency and comprehension are two important and major components of reading. It is important that students fully develop these two reading components while in elementary school. According to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for English Language Arts (ELA), elementary school teachers’ focus is on fluency more than secondary educators. Since fluency and comprehension are important, yet challenging components for some students to fully develop and grasp, this research study investigated the role reading fluency has in the Reading performance of fourth grade participants.

The elementary school campus chosen for the study is located in a school district in Houston, Texas that caters students from diverse language and socio-economic backgrounds. This school is a Title I campus, acceptable according to state standards, and has a school enrollment of 816 students. Majority of the students at this campus are on free or reduced lunch. According to federal standards, the school campus and school district did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress for the 2012 school year.

The research population was an English Language Arts fourth grade class of twenty-two students. This group was chosen because they had the widest cognitive developmental range. Out of these twenty-two participants, six participants were labeled as English Language Learners. In the beginning of the research study, fourteen of the participants were labeled Gifted and Talented. However, one of the Gifted and Talented participants transferred to another school campus at the beginning of February 2013. Therefore, the number of participants labeled Gifted and Talented dropped from fourteen to thirteen. In addition to this, a week later, another participant transferred to a different school district. As a result of having two participants withdraw from the classroom, the school principal decided to transfer two students from the afternoon class to the morning class. Even though two participants withdrew from the classroom, the number of participants was still twenty-two because of the addition of the two participants from the afternoon classroom. With these changes, the demographics slightly changed. There were ten males and twelve female participants, ten participants were labeled at risk, and the twenty-two participants were also from diverse ethnic backgrounds.

Self Reflection and Theories

As a student in grade school, my second, third and fourth grade teachers had daily whole-group reading sessions in class for approximately twenty-to-thirty minutes. During these whole-group reading sessions, my teachers would randomly select students to read portions of the stories aloud. When the students who were fluent readers took their turn, I comprehended most of what I heard. However, I did not comprehend the information that was read by students who were not fluent readers. Often times, I would hear other students laughing or snickering at the students who were not fluent readers. My third grade teacher would always tell us that it did not matter how fast or how slow one read, what was most important was whether or not the student understood what they were reading.

After we read our selected text aloud, my teachers paused to ask us questions that pertained to what we had just finished reading. Some of the students who lacked reading fluency could not answer the simple comprehension questions that were asked. Surprisingly, the students who were “speed readers” could not answer the questions either. I hypothesize that the students who were “speed readers” could not answer the questions because they concentrated more on reading the text as fast as possible without focusing on comprehending what they were actually reading. On the other hand, I similarly hypothesize that the slow readers could not answer the questions because they did not comprehend what they read due to spending too much time decoding the words in the text. During that time, I really did not understand the significance or impact that reading fluency had on comprehension.

Later on in life, I began tutoring students in reading. One of the students I tutored struggled with reading comprehension. I tried assigning him grade appropriate stories to either read aloud or silently, and then I asked him a series of follow-up comprehension questions but he was not able to answer half of those comprehension questions. I began to pay close attention to his reading automaticity and prosody. When he read aloud, he struggled with pronouncing the words in the text. I noticed that he spent a lot of time trying to correctly pronounce each word; decoding each word slowly caused him to not comprehend the sentence and paragraph he had just read.

My first teaching assignment was in a fourth grade Math and Science class. When my students read stories during science instruction, I noticed that many of them struggled with comprehending the text. I eventually asked their English Language Arts teacher whether she too had noticed the same trend. She responded that many of the students who struggled with comprehension in my class struggled with comprehension in her class, and they were not fluent readers.

Now, as a fourth grade English Language Arts teacher, my students are engaged in reading aloud at least once every two days. Listening to my students read aloud allows me to learn their fluency level. After reading aloud, the students engage in either a group or individual assignment to measure their level of comprehension of the information read. I have observed that many of my students that engage in lengthy decoding of words tend to forget the information they are reading and as a result, their comprehension of the text is low.

Currently on my campus, there is no strong focus to improve student fluency level in the intermediate grades. In most cases, reading comprehension and reading fluency are viewed as two different entities and are taught separately.

In terms of the “Aligning Theory and Assessment of Reading Fluency: Automaticity, Prosody, and Definitions of Fluency”, there is consensus among published research studies that accuracy, automaticity, and prosody are three contributing factors to the meaning of fluency (cited in Khun, Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger, 2010). In particular, automaticity encompasses the four attributes of speed, effortlessness, autonomy, and a lack of conscious awareness. Prosody is when one reads with appropriate expression, intonation, and phrasing (Khun, Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger, 2010).

Research shows that there are five important components of reading literacy: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary instruction, text comprehension strategies, and reading fluency (Therrien, 2004). According to research conducted by Rasinki (2012), research studies have shown high correlations between reading rate and comprehension. If students spend majority of their energy and time decoding words while reading, they will not have much cognitive energy left for reading comprehension (Rasinki, 2012). In addition to this, research shows that reading fluency requires an individual to have a rapid reading rate, skills in rapid word recognition, great exposure to reading texts, accurate comprehension, and incremental learning (Grabe, 2010).

There has also been research that focuses specifically on the reading fluency and comprehension of fourth graders. According to research conducted by Busuck (2004), 40% of fourth graders do not have the needed reading skills to be successful on grade level assignments (Busuck, 2004).

Hypothesis, Research Design, and Justification

I predicted that the reading fluency level of the fourth grade participants would have an observable role on the information they comprehend. Therefore, I hypothesized that if the reading fluency level of the participants improved, then their reading comprehension would improve as well. This hypothesized role of participants’ reading fluency level on comprehension was based on informal and casual instructional observations of fourth grade English Language Arts students. Furthermore, I believed that if participants spent majority of their time decoding unfamiliar words, they would not comprehend much of what they read. Theories and studies conducted by researchers helped to anchor this hypothesis about the role that ample time spent on decoding words has on reading comprehension.

Given that this research was quantitative in approach, this study used the one-group pretest-posttest design. In November 2012, I collected the results from the iStation program to determine the initial reading fluency level of my participants. The iStation program is a district mandated computer program that initially assesses students to determine specific levels of reading. The interactive program also has several online activities designed to improve students’ fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, and phonemic awareness levels.

The school district mandates students to take a reading comprehension assessment during the Fall and Spring semesters of the school year. The November 2012 District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension along with the district mandated iStation computer program’s initial assessment served as the participants pretest in this study. After administering their pretest, I introduced instructional intervention aimed at improving the fluency rate of each of the participants using several research-based strategies, which will included the iStation program, Reading A-Z program, and research based practices. Initially, I desired to use the Tucker Signing Strategies for Reading as an intervention. However, due to more instructional time spent on state wide testing preparation and a lack of resources, I was not able to utilize the Tucker Signing Strategies for Reading program. The Reading A-Z program is a web based program that provides teachers with resources to help improve students’ reading, fluency, and comprehension levels. The participants were able to move on to the next reading level once they mastered their current reading level. In addition to this, the interactive resources provided by the iStation program were also used to help improve participants’ fluency levels.

After implementing research based strategies for improving reading fluency rates, the Reading A-Z program, and iStation activities, the participants took the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension in March 2013. This assessment, together with the corresponding February 2013 district mandated iStation computer program’s assessment served as the study’s posttest. Initially, I planned to conduct the iStation posttest in March. However, due to the school district’s mandate to test students in February to learn their current levels for statewide testing preparation, all teachers were mandated to test students in February 2013. Participants’ scores from the school district administered District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension and iStation computer program’s assessment were used to determine the role that increased student reading fluency had on their performance in the school-district administered comprehension assessments.

Personally, I chose this topic to study because I believe it is important that students comprehend what they read in any discipline. According to research conducted by Hausheer, Hansen, and Doumas (2011), “the future success of children lies in the ability to read fluently and understand what is read” (Hausheer, Hansen, & Doumas, 2011). Reading is a fundamental subject and is used in every aspect of life. If students are not taught proper comprehension skills and strategies, it would be difficult for them both inside and outside of our school.

As previously stated, I believe that reading fluency plays a significant role in terms of how much students comprehend when they read. In addition to this, reading comprehension is tested across disciplines in education practice. School districts and their states administer comprehension assessments several times throughout the school year in various subject areas. Students must demonstrate their comprehension of the questions that are asked as well as of the content that is read.

Chapter Two

Literature Review

Definition of Reading Fluency

Several researchers have conducted studies on reading fluency, reading comprehension, and the role that reading fluency has on reading comprehension. In his research, Grabe (2010) revealed that defining fluency in reading is a challenging and extensive task. “Fluency itself, as a concept, is complex, involving rapid and accurate processing that is also prosodically appropriate” (Grabe, 2010).

Reading fluency also entails automatic processing, extensive amounts of reading, and incidental learning. Fluent readers also read rapidly with ease, accuracy, and expression. Readers also develop fluency by spending time reading. Grabe discovered that reading fluency requires readers to acquire and develop skills in word recognition, reading rates, large amounts of reading time, comprehension, and learning; these skills require automaticity and an extensive vocabulary (Grabe, 2010).

Components of Reading Fluency

In the article, “Aligning Theory and Assessment of Reading Fluency: Automaticity, Prosody, and Definitions of Fluency”, Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, and Meisinger (2010) studied theories that explain reading fluency and comprehension; they present an explanation and provide a deeper understanding of the theories about reading fluency and comprehension. They also explain work presented by the National Reading Panel pertaining to reading fluency and comprehension. After studying theories from other researchers they concluded that reading fluency has three major components: accuracy, automaticity, and prosody (Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger, 2010). Each component plays a significant role in reading fluency.

After discovering that automaticity is a common term used in defining reading fluency, I studied more research to gain a deeper understanding of automaticity. Accordingly, there are four major components of automaticity: speed, effortlessness, autonomy, and a lack of conscious awareness. These four components must be automatic when a person reads (Kuhn et al., 2010). When studying how speed affects the reading fluency of students, I discovered that readers’ speed will continue to increase each time they read. However, students make the most progress with speed in reading during their younger years; students’ speed in reading will increase more at an earlier age versus in junior high or high school (Kuhn et al., 2010).

In examining the effortlessness of reading, it is important to note that fluent readers must lack a sense of struggle in recognizing words they read. Autonomy is defined by how automatic reading is for readers; automatic process must occur without intention. Fluent readers must also lack conscious awareness when reading. Word recognition is automatic and comes with ease for fluent readers (Kuhn et al., 2010).

According to research, prosody is another important concept in reading fluency. Kuhn et al. discovered that prosody is crucial to the development of reading (2010). Likewise, prosody is heavily related to the development of reading fluency (Kuhn et al., 2010). Prosody relates to the flow of how one reads; prosody refers to reading with “appropriate expression or intonation coupled with phrasing that allows for the maintenance of meaning” (Kuhn et al., 2010). Like music, rhythm, pitch, and appropriate pausing are important in prosodic reading.

Often, it is believed that students are “good and fluent” readers if they read quickly. However, studies show that readers must stress and unstress words appropriately, resulting in appropriate duration while reading. The duration component is the second component of prosody. Students will not be able to read both quickly and with proper prosody. According to research conducted by Kuhn et al., as students improve their fluency skills while reading, they make shorter and less variable intersentential and intrasentential pauses and larger pitch declinations (2010).

While reviewing this article, I found several strengths. Kuhn et al. (2010) present various strategies and methods that teachers can use to improve not only the fluency and comprehension levels of their students, but also the overall reading levels of their students. They suggest that assessment of reading is multifaceted. Echo, choral, and partner reading are all ways that Kuhn et al. present that allow students to have an engaging reading experience.

Correlation of Fluency and Comprehension

Reading Statistics. Research conducted by Therrien (2004) shows that at least one out of five students has difficulty in reading acquisition. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, forty percent of fourth graders in America read below a basic level and master little or none of the knowledge and skills that are needed to successfully perform in their appropriate grade level (Bursuck, Smith, Munk, Damer, Mehlig, and Perry, 2004). In addition to this, twenty percent of the students in the United States, that is about ten million children, encounter severe reading problems before third grade. Unfortunately, many of these students are mislabeled and placed in special education classes (Bursuck et al., 2004). After conducting research, Bursuck et al. (2004) discovered that effective reading instruction starts in the early stages of one’s education (2004). The reading instruction must include strategies designed to develop phonological awareness, alphabetic understanding, reading fluency, and vocabulary.

Preventing and remediating reading problems. Bursuck et al. (2004) took a closer look at Project PRIDE (Preventing and Remediating Reading Problems through Early Identification and Direct Teaching), a federally funded reading program designed to prevent reading issues in at-risk children. I decided to include this study because it focuses on improving reading skills of students from communities similar to those of the participants of this study. The major components of Project PRIDE are “systematic explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension; a multi-tiered teaching approach; data-based decision making; and ongoing professional development” (Bursuck et al., 2004). According to this research, Project PRIDE tested reading fluency to learn the fluency level of students; the researchers stated that fluency rates highly correlate with reading comprehension (Bursuck et al., 2004).

The data-based decision making aspect of Project PRIDE was based on the assumption that an effective system that prevents reading problems should have a method that documents the continual increase in basic reading skills, makes assumptions about student performance on criterion referenced tests, and provides tools that yield to success in reading (Bursuck et al., 2004).

Project PRIDE was implemented in three high-poverty and ethnically-diverse schools that displayed high failing rates in reading. A fourth school (the control group) was added later in the implementation process. The Project PRIDE program was implemented at the kindergarten level during the first year, first grade during the second year, second grade during the third year, and third grade during the fourth year.

Tier 1 of the program was carried out by the kindergarten, first grade, and second grade teachers. At this level, whole-group instruction and reading strategies including advance organizers, energetic pacing while reading, and guided and independent practice were implemented in the classroom. Tier 2 of the program consisted of extra reading practice in small ability groups on important reading skills. Student performance on bimonthly and monthly curriculum assessments was taken into consideration when moving students to Tier 2. Reading strategies that were worked on at this level included blending letter sounds, building fluency rates, and decoding words. Students who were in the third Tier of the program were taught by Title I or special education teachers. The students were pulled out of the general classroom in order to receive intense instruction on improving reading skills (Bursuck et al., 2004).

The results from this study show a correlation between reading fluency and reading comprehension. According to this study, “effective prevention-based early literacy programs for at risk children should include a scientifically validated reading curriculum including systematic, explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary and comprehension” (Bursuck et al., 2004).

After reviewing the results from the implementation of the Project PRIDE program, I discovered that as the fluency rates and phonemic awareness of students improved, their comprehension improved as well. Also, the fluency rates of the students improved in great amounts compared to those in the control group. PRIDE students were successful on benchmark tests; the reading growth of students in all three tiers of the PRIDE program increased.

There were strengths in this study. The fluency rates of students who were apart of PRIDE were significantly higher than the control group. The reading growth made by students in all three tiers of PRIDE was also very significant. I also found limitations to this study. Initially, there was no control group; the control group was added at the end of year three of the study. In addition to this, the research was not experimental and therefore not generalizable. In order for this study to be an experimental study, an equal number of participants would have to have been randomly selected and assigned to the experimental and control groups. Bursuck et al. also stated that students should have been exposed to the Reading Mastery program for more time, and students should have been entered into Tier 3 of the program sooner. (Bursuck et al., 2004).

Correlation between reading comprehension and fluency. While reviewing research about the correlation between reading comprehension and fluency, I found a study conducted by (Neddenriep, Fritz, and Carrier, 2011). The researchers stated that practice, modeling error correction, contingent reinforcement, performance feedback, and repeated reading encompass strategies used to help improve reading skills. Repeated reading helps to improve accuracy, speed, and understanding of the passage. The participants were exposed to this treatment in order to improve the fluency and comprehension rates.

There were five participants in this study: two males and three females. The participants were students with high reading frustration levels and were identified by their teacher to participate in the study. The participants also practiced sight phrases and reading passages. At the end of the study, the researchers discovered that as the reading fluency level increased, the student’s reading comprehension levels increased as well (Neddenriep, et al., 2011).

There were limitations in this study. First, it was a non-experimental study, thus the researchers were not able to make a true cause-effect relationship between the increased fluency rates and comprehension rates. The researchers also failed to follow-up with participants to continue monitoring their fluency and comprehension progress. Finally, the sample size was too small to make a general conclusion for a large population; only five students participated in this study (Neddenriep et al., 2011). In addition, participants were not randomly selected, which means the study cannot be generalized to either the general population or other settings without additional replicable research.

One strength of this research study was that the research used current research practices to help improve the reading fluency of the students during the same time of trying to improve the comprehension score. In addition to this, the researchers used a single-case study design. Even though this design did not allow them to make a causal inference of the program intervention, it did allow them to learn the change in both measures of each participant (Neddenriep et al., 2011).

Effect of Oral Reading Fluency on Reading Comprehension

In a study conducted by Kim, Petscher, Schutschneider, and Foorman (2010), the relationship between the growth of oral reading fluency, vocabulary, phonological awareness, and nonsense word reading fluency to reading comprehension is examined (Kim, Petscher, Schutschneider, & Foorman, 2010). They used the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literary Skills (DIBELS) assessment in the beginning of the school year, throughout the school year, and at the end of the school year as their measurement instrument.

The first DIBELS assessment given was used as a baseline score for students. The Stanford Achievement Test was used to assess reading comprehension. At the end of their study, the researchers discovered that there was a positive correlation between the oral reading fluency rates, vocabulary, phonological awareness and comprehension. However, the growth rates for students varied depending on the student and grade level (Kim et al., 2010).

There were strengths presented in this study. This study provided more information about the students’ reading comprehension levels and achievement. This study also provided empirical evidence that oral reading fluency growth rates may have a potential to facilitate instructional decision making. There were also limitations in this study; there were a large number of low socioeconomic participants in the study which could have skewed the findings, and limits the study’s generalizability to the general population.

Improving Reading Fluency and Comprehension

Typically, reading fluency is heavily taught and evaluated in elementary school when compared to middle and high school. Research conducted by Hausheer, Hansen, and Doumas (2011), revealed that the fluency level of students does not usually increase in high school, but the comprehension level does (Hausheer, Hansen, & Doumas, 2011). Hausheer et al. (2011) conducted a research experiment to examine the effectiveness of a remedial reading program designed to improve the reading fluency and reading comprehension levels among elementary students; the participants for their study were twenty-four fourth through sixth graders. They used elementary students because fluency and comprehension are important and critical influences on academic development of students at this particular age, and early intervention can prevent reading difficulties (Hausheer et al., 2011).

The twenty-four students were chosen as participants in this study because they had the lowest reading fluency and comprehension levels on the Gates-MacGinitie and Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) assessments (Hausheer et al., 2011). The remedial reading program that was used in this study was Read Right. This program is designed to help improve fluency and comprehension levels by practicing repetition; this program believes that reading skills are improved when one hears text being read fluently and then reads the text orally themselves.

There were four components used in this reading program: “excellent reading component, coached reading component, independent reading component, and critical thinking component” (Hausheer et al., 2011).

The participants were each assigned to a specific reading group based on their grade level and reading level; they participated in a 40 minute reading block, five days a week. In the groups, the students were coached individually and as a group, their oral reading was monitored, positive feedback was given, and reading fluency and comprehension were assessed (Hausheer et al., 2011).

There were six levels of the reading program. The students read with their coach, listened to a recording of the text while reading the passage silently to themselves, summarized the story, and completed critical thinking questions on the stories read. After mastering the current level, they moved up to the next level. The students were assessed using the CBM and the Gates Mac-Ginitie assessments. The results from this research show that the strategies used and skills taught using the “Read Right” program worked; the students improved their reading fluency and comprehension levels (Hausheer et al, 2011).

There were limitations found in this research study. The number of males and females were not equal; there were 18 male and 6 female participants. The results could therefore not be generalized to the larger population of students because the sample size of 24 participants was too small, and not randomly selected. In addition, further limit to generalizability was the fact that the participants were mainly Caucasian students; 70% of the students were Caucasian. There was also no control group used in this study (Hausheer et al., 2011). One strength of this study was that the findings support the importance of reading programs for male students and female students in fourth, fifth, and sixth grade. The programs assist students academically (Hausheer et al., 2011).

Computer Based Fluency Program

In today’s society, students are technologically advanced. Video games, computers, and music based technological devices are used very often. As a strategy to help improve the fluency rates of the participants, one of the programs I use is computer based. While conducting research about fluency and comprehension programs, I discovered a study that was conducted to determine the effectiveness of a silent reading program that has web-based activities and assignments.

Rasinski, Samuels, Hiebert, Petscher, and Feller (2011) conducted a study to determine the correlation between student participation in a silent reading program and student achievement on their school and district mandated tests. They used the Reading Plus (RP) program; this program is a computer based intervention that is designed to develop reading fluency and reading proficiency (Rasinski, Samuels, Hiebert, Petscher, & Feller, 2011). There were 16, 143 students from two regions in the Miami-Dade County School system. The participants ranged from fourth grade to tenth grade. Out of the 16, 143 participants, 5, 758 participants made up the treatment group, and 10,385 students made up the control group. Both regions had significant populations of minority and English Language Learner students (Rasinski et al., 2011).

The participants either attended two 45 minute sessions or three 30 minute sessions per week for six weeks. During the sessions, the students were exposed to guided reading activities, vocabulary development activities, and stories with subsequent questions. In addition, the RP program also had a scan and flash computer activity that was used to improve students’ visual perception, automaticity and attention skills. The RP program consisted of approximately 600 reading stories that ranged in level of difficulty. As students progressed to the next level, the content became increasingly informative. Criterion Referenced and Norm Referenced assessments were given to determine the effect of the of the RP program (Rasinski et al., 2011).

The strength of this study was that the study supports the fact that reading fluency is an important goal for reading instruction beyond primary grades. There were positive outcomes of enhancing fluency beyond primary grades. The results of the study revealed that the Reading Plus computer program was successful for participants; students that participated in the program made significant gains in all grade levels and the African American, Latino American, Special Education, and learning disabled subpopulations. The limitation of this study was that no significant gains were made with the English Language Learners’ (ELL) subpopulation. I view this to be a limitation of the study because even though all other subpopulations made significant gains, the results show that there was not significant progress with the program for the ELL students (Rasinski et al. 2011).

Viewing Reading Fluency Differently

I have discovered that many students and educators believe that rapid reading equates to effective reading fluency and comprehension. Pilonieta (2012) conducted a quantitative and qualitative research to help educators view reading fluency through a wider lens. In her study, she explains that reading fluency is associated with reading comprehension. However, she believes that educators overemphasize fluency instruction. According to Pilonieta, “though reading with speed and accuracy is fundamental in reading, the end goal is comprehension” (Pilonieta, 2012). Pilonieta’s research and theories relate to my hypothesis about the correlation of reading fluency and reading comprehension as well as the misconception that “fast” reading equals reading comprehension.

Pilonieta (2012) studied a school campus in 2009-2010. This campus had to increase the reading fluency of their students by using the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Fluency exam. She studied two second grade classes with a total of 33 students.

The two teachers from each class used various reading strategies to improve the fluency rate of their students. One teacher used reader’s theater, fluency songs, and partner reading focused to increase students’ reading rate; the second teacher used fluency songs and partner reading daily. Each teacher spent 20-30 minutes daily on whole group fluency instruction (Pilonieta, 2012).

The assessment of the students only tested the Correct Words per Minute (CWPM) aspect of reading fluency. Pilonieta (2012) stated that while observing the students, she noticed that many of the students were reading at a rapid pace. She noted this observation, and she asked herself whether the students fully comprehended the text they were reading.

Pilonieta began questioning whether or not the students were reading at the “appropriate” reading fluency rate for their age. She then compared the students’ reading rates to the norms of reading rates for students outlined by researchers Hasbrouck and Tindal. According to Hasbrouck and Tindal (2006), acceptable reading rates for students in second grade are 72 CWPM and 89 CWPM in the spring. After observing the two classrooms, Pilonieta learned that several children were reading more than 190 CWPM (Pilonieta, 2012). In their research, Hasbrouck and Tindal recommended that if a student scores 10 words above or below the 50th percentile, there score should be interpreted as the student reading at the appropriate level for their current grade (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006).

Pilonieta (2012) decided to use this 10 point interval to compare the reading rates of the students that she observed with the “norms” set by Hasbrouck and Tindal. She discovered that all but two children read above the 50th percentile with over half of the students reading at the 90th percentile. In addition, even when the target words per minute (wpm) rate increased in the spring semester, only four children were reading below level. She then concluded that the majority of the students she observed read at or above the normal fluency level for their age group (Pilonieta, 2012).

During her study, Pilonieta (2012) questioned whether teachers needed to focus so much attention on fluency rates, given that students’ fluency levels were at or above their grade level. She concluded by saying, “though reading with speed and accuracy is fundamental in reading, the end goal is comprehension” (Pilonieta, 2012). Pilonieta stated that if teachers understand the appropriate reading fluency levels for particular age groups, they will be able to determine the intensity of reading fluency instruction that is needed (Pilonieta, 2012).

There were strengths and limitations presented in this study. Although this study provides teachers with tools to understand fluency norms and how much fluency instruction students need, the study was not based on a random sample (Pilonieta, 2012).

Chapter 3

Methods

Participants and sampling

For this research study, I sampled participants from my current school campus. The school is a Title I campus that educates students with diverse language, socio- economic status, and home backgrounds. According to the state standards and the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) report issued by the State of Texas, the school campus is rated as an Acceptable campus. The school campus services approximately 816 students. The teacher-student ratio is approximately 1:21 students.

The sample size of this study consisted of twenty-two participants in my fourth grade English Language Arts morning class. The participants that made up the sample size varied in ethnic backgrounds, socio-economic status, and learning abilities. In the sample, there were ten male participants and twelve female participants. Initially, the sample size included eleven males and eleven females. However, at the beginning of February 2013, two of the male participants relocated to another school campus. As a result of the two participants transferring from the morning class, the campus principal moved one female student and one male student from the afternoon class to the morning class, bringing the number of participants back to twenty-two participants. The interventions, pretest, and posttest that the morning class received were also received by the afternoon class. Therefore, the two newly added participants received equal intervention treatment and were administered the exact same pretest and posttest as the other participants. There were ten African American participants, three Hispanic American participants, one Native American participant, seven Asian American participants, and one Caucasian American participant.

Of these twenty-two participants, thirteen participants were labeled Gifted and Talented, and six participants were labeled English Language Learners. One participant was retained in second grade, and ten participants were labeled at risk. In this sample, eighteen participants were nine years of age, three participants were ten years of age, and one student was eleven years of age.

For the study, the testing results were obtained from the archival records through the school’s testing coordinator and were viewed anonymously to further ensure that student assessment information was kept confidential. The participants’ parent(s)/guardian(s) were notified before studying the role of reading fluency on student reading comprehension performance. An informational letter was sent home in the participants’ Friday Folder explaining the nature and purpose of the study.

Measures

In order to conduct the research study, I used the iStation program mandated for all teachers and students to use in the school district. The iStation program is a computer program that has adaptive assessments that provide individual student’s reading levels in comprehension, fluency, and vocabulary. After participants were initially assessed on the program, the iStation program then offered individualized interventions to improve participants’ comprehension, fluency, and vocabulary levels. The participants were given the iStation program pre-assessment in October of 2012 and again posttested in February of 2013. Originally, I planned to give participants the iStation posttest in March 2013. However, the school district directed teachers to test students in February 2013 for statewide testing preparation purposes. The iStation assessments were used to learn and study whether there was an increase in the reading fluency levels of the participants.

The participants were also administered a reading comprehension assessment by the school district as part of its routine formative curriculum assessment protocol. In addition to the iStation Program, the results from the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension pretest and posttest that were given in November of 2012 and March of 2013 were used. These assessments were used to study the comprehension levels of the participants and observe the role of the reading fluency intervention on their performance levels in reading comprehension.

The iStation Program was adopted by the school district and is a program that all teachers are expected to use in the classroom; the program is deemed reliable by the school district. The iStation Program is used to test the reading comprehension and fluency levels of students. The students’ scores are a true reflection of their comprehension and fluency levels. The school district has a team of trained educators who create the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension. The assessment is deemed valid and reliable in measuring the reading comprehension level of students.

Design

Since this research study is quantitative in approach, the one-group pretest-posttest design was used. According to Gay et al. (2012), the one-group pretest-posttest-design is used for individual groups. The group was administered a pretest, provided interventions, and then given a posttest. With this research study, the pretests administered were the iStation fluency assessment and the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension. I then administered interventions using the iStation program, Reading A-Z program, and research based practices proven to improve reading comprehension. Initially, I planned to use the Tucker Signing Strategies for Reading program. However, due to preparation for statewide testing and a lack of resources, I was unable to use the Tucker Signing Strategies for Reading program. Therefore, twice a week, each participant read aloud in a small group setting and whole group setting. After the iStation, Reading A-Z program, and the research based interventions were conducted, the iStation fluency assessment and District Reading Comprehension assessment were administered again as the posttests.

For this study, the independent variable was the reading fluency intervention component. The dependent variable for the study was the comprehension performance of the participants. The one-group pretest-posttest design was chosen because it was important to learn the role of reading fluency on reading comprehension after using various fluency programs and strategies to improve reading fluency. I desired to administer a comprehension and reading fluency pretest, provide strategies to improve reading fluency, and finally, administer a comprehension and reading fluency posttest. The main threat to validity associated with this one-group pretest-posttest design is statistical regression. According to Gay et al. (2012), some students may not perform as well on the pretest because of simple bad luck. In order to address this threat, I ensured that participants used all strategies to help reduce their chances of guessing on the reading comprehension and reading fluency pretests.

Procedures

In order to learn the beginning reading fluency levels and comprehension levels of the participants, I collected the iStation pretest data explaining the fluency level of the participants in November 2012 and the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension in November 2012. The iStation fluency scores range from Tier1- Tier 3. Tier 1 is the level where students are performing at grade level, Tier 2 is the level where students are performing moderately below grade level and in need of intervention, and Tier 3 is the level where students are performing seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention. The individualized interventions provided by iStation were used to help improve the fluency levels of the participants.

The interventions were computer based individualized instructional exercises and activities. Participants were engaged in activities that included them being asked to read passages, decode words, and choose the appropriate words to fill in the blank to complete sentences. The twenty-two participants were allowed to work on their individualized interventions twice a week for thirty minutes. In addition to this, on the iStation program, there is an application that allows instructors to keep track of the assignments that students complete.

In addition to the iStation program, the Reading A-Z Program was also used as an intervention. This program offered reading fluency and reading comprehension interventions that were used to help participants improve these reading areas. Participants were provided reading passages according to their reading levels, phonological awareness lessons, fluency passages, and comprehension passages. The interventions used were also specific to each participant based on their reading level and fluency level.

Based on research conducted, I learned that students do not comprehend much of what they read because they spend a great amount of time decoding words. Therefore, the participants in this research study worked daily on decoding words. Research also proves that students who are provided more opportunities to read aloud increase their reading fluency level. It is also important that students develop prosody while reading. In order to help the participants in this research study improve their prosody while reading, they were engaged in small group read alouds as well as whole class group read alouds twice a week. These practices were also used in an attempt to improve the fluency rates of the participants.

After exposing the participants to reading fluency interventions on iStation, Reading A-Z program, and research proven practices, the iStation fluency assessment posttest was administered in February 2013 and the posttest District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension was administered in March of 2013. The scores from the assessments were analyzed to learn the role that fluency plays in the reading comprehension performance of the participants.

In November 2012, data from the iStation fluency pretest and the reading comprehension district assessment pretest that the participants were administered was collected. I also recorded how often students were exposed to the iStation program, the Reading A-Z program, and the research based practices that was used with the participants. Finally, data from the February 2013 iStation posttest and the March 2013 District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension posttest was collected.

Data Analysis

For this study, a quantitative approach was used. In order to ensure that the data was organized throughout the research process, test results from the pretest and posttest were kept in separate files. An electronic copy of the results was created as well. Also, all information was kept confidential; the file cabinet had a lock that only I have access to. In order to organize and manage data during the statistical analyses, the Data Management Form was used.

The data was analyzed by reviewing the pretest results and the posttest results. The purpose for conducting this study was to learn the role that fluency has on fourth grade reading comprehension performance. When analyzing the results, I statistically compared the results from the pretest to the results of the posttest. Descriptive and inferential statistics analyses were used to analyze the data. The mean, standard deviation, and t-test were used to learn if there was a significant difference between the female and male participants and the Gifted and Talented and Non Gifted and Talented participants.

Ethical Issues

In order to obtain permission to conduct the research study, the Human Subject Committee Application was first submitted to the University of St. Thomas. On the Human Subjects Committee Application, I had to describe the purpose, setting, participants, procedures, and data of this research study. The Human Subjects Committee had to approve the research before starting the study.

Once approval was obtained from University of St. Thomas, the school principal was contacted to obtain permission to conduct the research study on the school campus. The Conduct Action Research form was also completed. On the Conduct Action Research form, I had to describe the participants, instruments that were to be used during the study, procedure, and the time frame of the study. It took the campus principal approximately one week to approve the study.

It was crucial that the identity of the participants was kept anonymous. In order to keep the study confidential when recording data, numbers that corresponded with the participants’ name was assigned.

Chapter Four

Results

This study examined the role that reading fluency plays on the performance of fourth grade English Language Arts students. For this study, twenty-two participants from my morning fourth grade English Language Arts class were used. All twenty-two participants were given a fluency entry-level pretest using the iStation reading program. They were also administered a District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension to examine their entry-level reading comprehension level. I started collecting the iStation and District Reading Comprehension Assessment pretest data in November of 2012.

After the pretests were administered, all participants were exposed to reading interventions that were research based and purported to improve reading fluency. The interventions used were the individualized interventions provided by the iStation, the Reading A-Z Program, and select research proven practices to improve reading fluency. After exposing the participants to reading fluency interventions on the iStation program, the Reading A-Z program, and select research proven practices, an iStation fluency posttest assessment was administered in February of 2013 and the posttest District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension in March of 2013.

A research data codebook was used to help organize information, see Table 1 (Appendix A). The pretest and posttest data was organized and analyzed using the descriptive statistical analyses of the mean and the standard deviation and the inferential statistical analysis of repeat t-tests. For the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension pretest to posttest performance of all participants, the mean increased from 61.8% on the pretest to 66% on the posttest. For the iStation fluency pretest to posttest performance of all participants, the mean went from 2.09 out of a possible total score of 3 on the pretest to 1.59 on the posttest. The standard deviation of the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension pretest to posttest performance went from 14.4 on the pretest to 18.8 on the posttest; while the standard deviation of the iStation fluency pretest to posttest performance went from 0.86 on the pretest to 0.80 on the posttest (see Table 2, Appendix A).

Using the inferential statistical analysis of the paired t test, the difference between participants’ performance on the pretest and posttest of the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension was t(21) = 1.47 with a standard error of difference of 2.81 and a corresponding p value of 0.16. This difference in performance was above α = 0.05 and was therefore considered not to be statistically significant.

In addition, the inferential statistical t test difference between participants’ performance on the iStation reading fluency assessment pretest and posttest revealed a paired t(21) = 2.73 and standard error of difference at 0.18 with a corresponding p value equal to 0.01. This difference in performance was below α = 0.05 and was therefore considered to be statistically significant (see Table 2, Appendix A).

I also used the inferential statistical analysis of the unpaired t test to examine and compare the difference in pretest results between the female and male participants on the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension. The resultant t(9) = 1.23 with a standard error of difference of 7.101 and a corresponding p value equal to 0.25. This difference was above α = 0.05 and was therefore considered to not be statistically significant.

When examining the inferential statistical difference in performance results between the female and male participants on the iStation fluency pretest, t(9) = 2.38 with a standard error of difference equal to 0.38 and a corresponding p value equal to 0.04. This difference in performance was above α = 0.05 and was therefore considered to be statistically significant.

The difference in posttest results between the female and male participants on the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension revealed a t(9) = 1.69 with a standard error of difference of 8.214, and a corresponding p value equal to 0.13. This difference in performance was above α = 0.05 and was therefore considered to be not statistically significant.

The difference in posttest results between the female and male participants on the iStation fluency revealed a t(9) = 1.66 with the standard error of difference equal to 0.42 and a corresponding p value equal to 0.13. This difference in performance was above α = 0.05 and was therefore considered to be not statistically significant.

I also computed the t test to examine the inferential statistical difference in performance between Gifted and Talented participants and General Education participants. For the difference in performance on their pretest District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension, the t(8) = 2.93 with a standard error of difference of 6.87 and a corresponding p value equal to 0.02. This difference in performance was below α = 0.05 and was therefore considered to be statically significant. In addition to this, I also learned the mean for the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension pretest and posttest of the General Education participants and the Gifted and Talented participants. For the General Education participants, the mean increased from 52.5 to 53. For the Gifted and Talented participants, the mean increased from 68.3 to 75. Figure 1 (see Appendix B) presents the mean of the pretest and posttest results from the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension.

Additionally, inferential statistical difference in performance between the General Education and Gifted and Talented participants on the iStation fluency pretest revealed a t(8) = 4.2640 with a standard error of difference of 0.26 and a corresponding p value of participants was 0.0027. This difference in performance was below α = 0.05 and was therefore considered to be very statistically significant. I also learned the mean for the iStation fluency pretest and posttest of the General Education participants and the Gifted and Talented participants. For the General Education participants, the mean went from 2.66 to 2.11. For the Gifted and Talented participants, the mean went from 1.69 to 1.23. Figure 2 (see Appendix B) presents the mean of the pretest and posttest results from the iStation fluency assessment.

For the inferential statistical difference in performance between the General Education and Gifted and Talented participants on the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension posttest, the t(8) = 2.5155 with a standard error of difference of 8.692, and corresponding p value equal to 0.04. This difference in performance was below α = 0.05 and was therefore considered to be statistically significant.

For the inferential statistical difference in performance between the General Education and Gifted and Talented participants on the iStation fluency posttest of the General Education and Gifted and Talented participants, the t(8) = 4.24 with a standard error of difference of 0.24, and corresponding p value equal to 0.0028. This difference in performance was below α = 0.05 and was therefore considered to be very statistically significant.

Chapter 5

Discussion

Interpretation of Findings

This research study examined the role that reading fluency plays on the performance of fourth grade English Language Arts students. It was predicted that the reading fluency level of the fourth grade participants would have an observable role on the information they comprehend. It was hypothesized that if the reading fluency level of the participants improved, then their reading comprehension would improve as well. This hypothesized role of participants’ reading fluency level on comprehension was based on informal and casual instructional observations of fourth grade English Language Arts students. This research study rejects the null hypothesis which stated that the reading fluency level of fourth grade participants would not have an observable role on the information they comprehend.

Participants were administered a reading fluency pretest and reading comprehension pretest prior to reading fluency intervention, and a reading fluency posttest and reading comprehension posttest after the reading fluency intervention. The results of this study suggest that reading fluency may play a slight role on the student’s reading performance. This is consistent with previous fluency and comprehension theories and research. According to research conducted by Bursuck et al. (2004), fluency rates highly correlate with reading comprehension (Bursuck et al., 2004).

The mean average of all participants on the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension pretest was 61.8%, and the posttest average was 66% (see Table 2, Appendix A). The mean average of the iStation fluency pretest was 2.09, and the posttest average was 1.59. The scores for the District Formative Assessment ranged from 0-100, with 0 being the lowest and 100 being the highest. The iStation fluency scores range from Tier1- Tier 3, where Tier 1 is grade level, Tier 2 is where students are performing moderately below grade level and in need of intervention, and Tier 3 is where students are performing seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention.

Using the inferential statistical analysis of the paired t test, the difference in performance on the pretest and posttest of the District Formative Assessment was t(21) = 1.47 with a standard error of difference of 2.81 and a corresponding p value of 0.16. This difference in performance was considered not to be statistically significant. The standard deviation of the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension pretest to posttest performance went from 14.4 on the pretest to 18.8 on the posttest. After analyzing the standard deviation of the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension pretest to posttest, there was a greater variability among participants on the posttest compared to the pretest. This variability in the standard deviation could be due to the difference in post-exposure performance between the General Education participants and the Gifted and Talented participants; which could be due to their varying mastery of test taking methods or differences in their focus levels during the study’s intervention exercises. The treatments used between the pretest and posttest were designed to improve participants’ fluency levels. According to research conducted by Pilonieta (2012), reading fluency is associated with reading comprehension. However, she explained that in many cases, educators overemphasize fluency instruction. She concluded her research study by saying, “though reading with speed and accuracy is fundamental in reading, the end goal is comprehension” (Pilonieta, 2012).

The inferential statistical t test difference between the performance on the iStation reading fluency assessment pretest and posttest revealed a paired t(21) = 2.73 and standard error of difference at 0.18 with a corresponding p value equal to 0.01. This difference in performance was considered to be statistically significant. In addition, the standard deviation of the iStation fluency pretest to posttest performance went from 0.86 on the pretest to 0.80 on the posttest. The standard deviation indicated that there was less variability range between participants on their posttest scores. This variability range may indicate that the fluency treatments that participants were exposed to between the fluency pretest and posttest did work to improve the low performing participants’ fluency. Participants were exposed to interventions provided by the iStation fluency program and the Reading A-Z Program. Participants were also exposed to select research proven practices to improve reading fluency that included guidance with decoding words, small group read alouds, and whole class group read alouds. In a study conducted by Kim, Petscher, Schutschneider, and Foorman (2010), there is a positive correlation between the oral reading fluency rates, vocabulary, phonological awareness, and comprehension of students. (Kim et al., 2010).

While analyzing data, I calculated the mean for the pretest and posttest District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension for the female and male participants. For the District Formative Assessment pretest, the mean for the female participants was 64.5%, and the mean for the male participants was 58.7%. For the District Formative Assessment posttest, the mean for the female participants was 72.08%, and the mean for the male participants was 58.7%. Using the unpaired t test to examine the difference in the pretest results between the female and male participants on the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension, t(9) = 1.23 with a standard error of difference of 7.101 and a corresponding p value equal to 0.25. This difference was considered to not be statistically significant. In addition, the difference in posttest results between the female and male participants on the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension revealed a t(9) = 1.69 with a standard error of difference of 8.214, and a corresponding p value equal to 0.13. This difference was therefore considered to be not statistically significant. This may be due to the difference between the initial starting comprehension reading level of the female and male participants. Also, the participants who had low comprehension results may have had low fluency results as well. According to research conducted by Bursuck et al. (2004), there is a correlation between reading fluency and reading comprehension. (Bursuck et al., 2004).

While analyzing data, I calculated the mean for the pretest and posttest iStation fluency assessment for the female and male participants. For the iStation pretest, the mean for the female participants was 1.75 and the mean for the male participants was 2.5. For the iStation posttest, the mean for the female participants was 1.25, and the mean for the male participants was 2. After examining the inferential statistical difference in performance between the female and male participants on the iStation fluency pretest, t(9) = 2.38 with a standard error of difference equal to 0.38 a corresponding p value equaled to 0.04. This difference in performance was considered to be statistically significant. This may be due to the difference between the initial starting fluency level of the female and male participants. In addition, the difference in posttest results between the female and male participants on the iStation fluency program revealed a t(9) = 1.66 with the standard error of difference equal to 0.42 and a corresponding p value equal to 0.13, therefore considered to be not statistically significant. This shows that the initial difference in performance between female and male participants on the pretest was resolved during the intervention period with both genders performing at similar levels by the posttest measure.

The difference in performance on the District Formative Assessment for reading comprehension pretest of the Gifted and Talented program participants and those that were General Education was t(8) = 2.93 with a standard error of difference of 6.87 and a corresponding p value equal to 0.02. This difference in performance was considered to be statistically significant. In addition, the mean on the District Formative Assessment comprehension pretest for the Gifted and Talented participants was 68%, and the mean on the District Formative Assessment comprehension pretest for the General Education participants was 52.5%. This difference in the mean and subsequent t-test result of the pretest scores may exist because of the starting comprehension level of each group of participants. The participants in the Gifted and Talented program may have had moderately higher fluency levels as indicated in the iStation analysis below, and maybe this might indicate they also started out with higher corresponding comprehension skills versus that of the General Education participants.

The inferential statistical difference in performance between the General Education and Gifted and Talented participants on the iStation fluency pretest was t(8) = 4.2640 with a standard error of difference of 0.26 and a corresponding p value of participants was 0.0027. This difference in performance was considered to be very statistically significant. The mean for the iStation fluency pretest was 2.66 for the General Education participants and 1.69 for the Gifted and Talented participants. This indicates that the Gifted and Talented participants started out with a higher fluency level at grade level versus the General Education participants who started out below grade level.

The difference in performance between the General Education and Gifted and Talented participants on the District Formative Assessment comprehension posttest was t(8) = 2.5155 with a standard error of difference of 8.692, and corresponding p value equal to 0.04. This difference was considered to be statistically significant. The posttest mean for the General Education participants increased by 0.5 percentage points to 53% for the General Education participants compared to the 6.7 percentage points increase to 75% for the Gifted and Talented participants. Therefore, although the Gifted and Talented participants started out with a higher pretest mean of 68.3% compared to the General Education participants pretest mean of 52.3%, the Gifted and Talented participants also showed higher improvement on the District Formative Assessment for comprehension compared to that of the General Education participants. Factors that could have contributed to this outcome could be the amount of time that participants actually spend reading outside of the allotted time in class or the actual focus level of the General Education participants. It could also mean that the General Education participants had a higher learning curve to master and may need longer exposure to the intervention to remedy deficient fluency and comprehension skills.

The difference in performance between the General Education and Gifted and Talented participants on the iStation fluency posttest of the General Education and Gifted and Talented participants was t(8) = 4.24 with a standard error of difference of 0.24, and corresponding p value equal to 0.0028. This was considered to be very statistically significant. The mean of the General Education participants increased to 1.23 and the mean for the Gifted and Talented participants increased to 2.11. This increase in reading fluency scores from both groups may be due to the intervention programs. Considering that the participants are very technologically advanced, the iStation fluency individualized interventions may actually be beneficial to the participants even though, the General Education participants appear to need lengthier exposure to the intervention.

Strengths and Limitations

A strength of this study was the diversity among the participants that were tested. The participants were a mixture of LEP and Non-LEP male or female participants from various ethnic backgrounds. The participants tested were a part of more than one service group; participants were either General Education participants or Gifted and Talented participants. A second strength of this study was the variety of interventions used to help improve the fluency level of the participants. Participants were exposed to two different research based programs as well as select research proven strategies to help increase fluency levels. A third strength of this study was that the iStation fluency program was a computer based program. According to research conducted by Rasinski et al., (2011), computer programs are successful in increasing the fluency level of students (Rasinki et al., 2011).

One limitation of this study was the attrition of participants. Unfortunately, the sample size of this study changed throughout the course of the research study. This was an uncontrollable challenge. The change of participants did affect the demographics of the study. Another limitation of this study was the sample size. There were only twenty-two participants in this research study. The results may have been different if the sample size had been larger. Also, the participants were from the same class at the same school. Results may have varied if participants from different classrooms and schools were used. The third limitation to this research study is not being able to use all of the fluency programs that were initially indicated. Due to intense preparation for statewide testing and a lack of resources, I was unable to use the Tucker Signing Strategies for Reading program.

Recommendations and Action Planning

It is recommended that this research study be conducted with a larger and more diverse population. It would be interesting to see whether the results changed if the sample size was increased; and if students who participate in the Special Education department would benefit from the fluency programs. It is also recommended that participants be given more opportunities to engage in sustained silent reading throughout regular class time. The participants were engaged in read alouds, but were not given much time to read independently. This may be helpful in aligning intervention instruction to assessment, considering that the comprehension and fluency pretests and posttests were given for the participants to complete independently.

For future study, it would be beneficial to conduct the study among children in grades lower than fourth. According to research conducted by Hausheer et al. (2011), fluency and reading comprehension are crucial influences on academic development of students in elementary grade levels, and early intervention can prevent reading difficulties (Hausheer et al., 2011). It is recommended that Language Arts teachers be trained through professional development on fluency levels’ monitoring and how to improve the fluency and comprehension mastery of students.

As a fourth grade English Language Arts teacher, the information from this study would be very beneficial in planning lessons that are geared towards helping students improve their fluency and reading comprehension levels. I could also use the information learned to better assist other English Language Arts teachers on my campus. In the beginning of the upcoming school year, I would like to present this research at a Language Arts staff development session.

In conclusion, it is important for educators to understand the role that reading fluency plays on the reading comprehension of students. Reading is an important part of every subject in life. Targeting and learning the challenges that students have with their reading fluency and comprehension skills at an early age is very beneficial. This study indicates that reading fluency levels play a role on reading comprehension levels.

References

Bursuck, W. D., Smith, T., Munk, D., Damer, M., Mehlig, L., & Perry, J. (2004). Evaluating the impact of a prevention-based model of reading on children who are at risk. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 303-313.

Grabe, W. (2010). Fluency in reading--thirty-five years later. Reading in a Foreign Language, Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 636-644. Doi 10.1598/RT.59.7.322(1), 71-83.

Hausheer, R., Hansen, A., & Doumas, D. M. (2011). Improving reading fluency and comprehension among elementary students: Evaluation of a school remedial reading program. Journal of School Counseling, 9(9).

iStation Program Instructional Tiers. Retrieved from: (F(9sNeic28RA-qi4qv1JQUooiwIvfy66-1bnRfKcPm-puzTPDM8xvHi8mv4oVsyf2oRrM5d7gN9m28kjJ5P41lMw3BPgxkZMaQHZ2fhQSSepWOcw8Kf7h670qCcj8JTOX9ah8cbwxQci8TqrfCs2yEehVkxr9UGvd_1O1euU8MoxzOJoNgGQedkV_IKj_vzB2UCzKgsY8ZusxpUf4g6fyg2))/Help/ISIP_Assessments/ISIP_Advanced_Reading/Instructional_Tiers.htm.

Kim, Y., Petscher, Y., Schutschneider, B., & Foorman B. (2010). Does growth rate in oral reading fluency matter in predicting reading comprehension achievement. Journal of Educaitonal Psychology,102(3). 652-657.

Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230-251.

Motulsky, H. (2013). QuickCalcs. [GraphPad Software]. La Jolla, California.

Neddenriep, C. E., Fritz, A. M., & Carrier, M. E. (2011). Assessing for generalized improvements in reading comprehension by intervening to improve reading fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 48(1), 14-27.

Pilonieta, P. (2012). How fast is too fast? Fluency instruction in the classroom. California Reader, 45(3), 8-12. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.42.4.5

Rasinski, T. V. (2012). Why reading fluency should be hot. Reading Teacher, 65(8), 516-522.

Rasinski, T. V., Samuels, S. J., Hiebert, E., Petscher, Y., & Feller, K. (2011). The relationship between a silent reading fluency instructional protocol on students' reading comprehension and achievement in an urban school setting. Reading Psychology, 32(1), 75-97.

Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of remedial reading. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252-261.

Appendix A

Table 1: Research Codebook

Table 2: DFA & iStation Pretest to Posttest Performance Mean, Standard Deviation and t-test

Table 1

Research Codebook

|Variable |Name |Coding Values |

| | | |

|Student ID |ID |1 – 22 |

| | | |

| |Gender |1 = Female |

| | |2 = Male |

| | | |

|Ethnicity |Ethnicity |1 = African American |

| | |2 = Hispanic American |

| | |3 = Native American |

| | |4 = Asian American |

| | |5 = Caucasian American |

| | | |

|Limited English Proficiency |LEP |1 = LEP |

| | |2 = Non- LEP |

| | | |

|Special Services |SpS | 1 = General Education |

| | |2 = Gifted and Talented |

| | | |

|November District Formative Assessment |PretestDFA |0 - 100 Scale |

| | | |

|November iStation Fluency Assessment |PretestiS |1 = Grade Level |

| | |2 = Below Grade Level |

| | |3 = Seriously Below Grade |

| | |Level |

| | | |

|February District Formative Assessment |PosttestDFA |0 - 100 Scale |

| | | |

|February iStation Fluency Assessment |PosttestiS |1 = Grade Level |

| | |2 = Below Grade Level |

| | |3 = Seriously Below Grade |

| | |Level |

Note. iStation refers to the fluency assessment that participants took. The District Formative Assessment refers to the comprehension assessment that participants were administered.

Table 2

DFA & iStation Pretest to Posttest Performance Mean, Standard Deviation and t-test

M SD t-test df Sig (2-tailed)

DFA

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pretest 61.8 14.4

_________________________________________ 1.47 21 p = 0.16

Posttest 66.0 18.8

iStation

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pretest 2.09 0.86

_________________________________________ 2.73 21 p = 0.18

Posttest 1.59 0.80

Note: 95% Confidence Interval. P ≤ .05 (Statistically Significant). DFA refers to the District Formative Assessment average scores (mean) and the standard deviation (SD). df is Degrees of Freedom (n -2) and Sig (2-tailed) is the significance of the t-test scores.

Appendix B

Figure 1: District Formative Assessment (DFA) Pretest Mean and Posttest Mean

Figure 2: iStation Pretest Mean and Posttest Mean

[pic]

Figure 1. Mean pretest and posttest of the DFA comprehension assessment by subcategories including special services.

[pic]

Figure 2. Mean pretest and posttest iStation fluency assessment by subcategories including special services.

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download