Lee-Russell Action Research Project 2



Lee-Russell Action Research

 

 

Third Grade Fluency Instruction Using Partner Reading and Repeated Readings

Kristen Lee-Russell

Wichita State University

College of Education

Spring 2009

[pic]

Abstract

Effective, research-based fluency instruction is necessary in order for children to succeed in reading and in school in general.  This is evidenced in "No Child Left Behind" in requiring teachers to use proven educational methods to ensure the academic success of each student.  What research based strategies are designed to improve reading fluency in struggling third grade readers?  Research indicated a focus on partner reading and repeated readings as proven instructional methods.  The results from the pre-assessments and post-assessments indicated that partner reading was a bit more effective, however, also clearly showed that all students made gains and the majority met the fluency benchmark level on both strategies.  This indicated that a combination of both strategies would provide effective fluency instruction for third graders.

[pic]

 

    "The children of the 21st century will face many challenges that will require them to use reading and writing in different forms.  As we begin the new millennium, teachers are learning research-based approaches to teach reading and writing that will prepare their students for the future" (Tompkins, 2003, p. 3).  As you can see, reading is an essential skill to ensure success not only in school, but in life.  Therefore, it comes as no shock that there is such a strong emphasis placed on reading in today's schools.  Also, in today's society, a teacher will encounter a variety of skill levels when it comes to reading.  There is not one approach to teaching reading that works universally.  Teachers must make accommodations and use various strategies to meet the needs of all students.  This action research project focuses on how to increase oral reading fluency, which is one component of being an effective reader.

    Within this third grade classroom this year, there is a very diverse population of students. The class consists of twenty-one students.  Out of the twenty-one, there are two gifted students, two students being tested for gifted, two special education students, and three students being tested for special education.  Therefore, there is a wide range of skills and abilities.  For the teacher, the biggest struggle has been with the students who have a tremendous difficulty in reading.  Reading levels range from first grade to sixth grade.  For the lower readers, it is very difficult to figure out how to modify instruction so it is still meeting everyone's needs and the teacher is also questioning what exactly should be done to get these struggling readers to the point they need to be.  The biggest stressful academic event that is coming up is the Kansas State Assessments.  There is a big emphasis placed on these, therefore, the teacher is striving to prepare the students so that they can all be successful.  The teacher would like to come up with at least one research-based strategy that focuses on enhancing reading fluency in below grade-level, struggling readers.  As mentioned above, it is crucial to ensure that instruction is effective and accommodating to each student, taking all the skill levels into consideration.  What research-based strategies are designed to improve reading fluency in struggling third grade readers? 

 

Literature Review

    

    To find an appropriate strategy to improve the reading fluency in struggling third grade readers, several strands of research were investigated. The following review provides information on (1) combining an antecedent intervention with consequences, (2) effects of contingent rewards, modeling, and practice, (3) the importance of context in repeated readings, (4) Readers' Theater, (5) pre-teaching key words, (6) partner reading, and (7) repeated readings.  The effectiveness of each strategy will be discussed and then one will be chosen to implement in this action research study.

     "In today's schools, too many children struggle with learning to read.  As many teachers and parents will attest, reading failure has exacted a tremendous long-term consequence for children's developing self-confidence and motivation to learn, as well as for their later school performance" (Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2002, ¶. 1).  Despite there not being one solution that will maximize all students' reading achievement, there has been extensive research done on the skills students must possess in order to read well.  One of the skills is fluency.  Fluency is having the ability to read rapidly cand with accuracy.  Fluent readers are able to identify words automatically.  The reason fluency is so important is that "it provides a bridge between word recognition and comprehension.  Because fluent readers do not have to concentrate on decoding the words, they can focus their attention on what the text means" (p. 22, ¶. 2).  In this review, a variety of strategies designed to increase oral reading fluency will be discussed.  They will include partner reading, repeated readings, antecedent interventions with consequences, contingent rewards, modeling, practice, paired oral reading, reading passages with words out of context, Readers' Theater, and teaching key words.

 

Combining an Antecedent Intervention with Consequences

    The participants in this study were six elementary-aged students.  The purpose of the study was to determine whether combining an antecedent intervention with consequences was effective in increasing oral reading fluency.  Consequences came in the form of contingent reinforcement and performance feedback.  The antecedent intervention consisted of repeated readings and listening to a preview of the passage.  The results indicated that the antecedent intervention increased the fluency rate for all six of the students.  However, for four of them, a combination of consequences and the antecedent intervention resulted in higher reading rates.  Therefore, the results suggest that combining the two strategies may increase the fluency of students with reading problems (Eckert, Ardoin, Daly, & Martens, 2002). 

Effects of Contingent Rewards, Modeling, and Practice

    The participants in this study were three fourth-grade boys who had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.  They were enrolled in a summer school program.  The study began by evaluating the students' reading across three levels of text.  Contingent reward was applied to start with, then reward, modeling, and practice if the number of words correct per minute was not in the mastery range.  The contingent reward was a token coupon that could be exchanged for some type of reward in the summer school program.  Modeling and practice consisted of the teacher reading the passage aloud to the student.  Reward, modeling, and practice combined all three of the strategies mentioned above.  The results indicated that a combination of contingent rewards, modeling, and practice were effective interventions in increasing oral reading fluency (Noell, Gansle, Witt, Whitmarsh, Freeland, & Lafleur, 1998).

 

The Importance of Context in Repeated Reading

    The participants in this study were twenty-one third, fourth, and fifth grade students who were reading below grade level.  In this study, the control group read passages with words in context and the experimental group read passages with words out of context.  The results indicated that reading words in context was definitely more effective than reading words out of context.  While reading text with words in context, fewer errors were made and students met the goal sooner than they did when reading words randomly.  Therefore, reading words in context is more effective in improving fluency and accuracy than reading words out of context (Therrien & Kubina, 2007). 

 

Readers' Theater

      The participants in this study were four second grade classrooms with students who read at a variety of levels.  The purpose was to determine the effectiveness of Readers' Theater as an intervention to increase oral reading fluency.  Two of the classrooms used Readers' Theater as well as additional instruction and mini-lessons designed specifically to increase fluency.  The other two classrooms only used Readers' Theater as an intervention, with no additional instruction.  Results indicated that students in all four classrooms made significant gains in their reading fluency.  There was not a significant difference between the results of the two groups (Keehn, 2003). 

 

Pre-Teaching Key Words

    The participants in this study consisted of twenty third and fourth grade students who had been identified as Learning Disabled in reading.  During this study, the control group received a reading passage and comprehension questions with no intervention prior to reading it.  The experimental group received instruction prior to reading the passage.  The purpose of the instruction was to teach the students key words before they actually read the passage.  The students who were taught key words exhibited positive gains in reading fluency and comprehension.  However, the gains were higher in comprehension than in fluency (Burns, Dean, & Foley, 2004). 

 

Partner Reading

    The participants in the first study on partner reading consisted of third grade students who were divided into two groups.  The groups were comprised of students with significant reading problems and low to average achieving students.  The students received two interventions, partner reading to increase fluency and collaborative strategic reading to increase comprehension.  During the partner reading intervention, a higher skilled reader was paired with a lower reader.  The fluent reader would model how to read the passage first and then the struggling reader would have a chance and the other student could correct them as necessary.  Collaborative strategic reading consisted of four reading strategies that students were supposed to apply before, during, and after reading.  The four strategies included preview, click and clunk, get the gist, and wrap up.  Previewing required students to look at the text and its features and make predictions as to what it was about. Clicking and clunking required students to take turns reading, which was the clicking, and then using strategies to determine the meaning of unknown words, which was clunking.  Get the gist required students to summarize what they read and identify the main idea.  Wrapping up was when the students again summarized the story and formulated questions pertaining to the story.  The results from this study indicated that there were significant gains regarding the rate of reading and the number of words correct per minute for both interventions.  However, accuracy and comprehension did not have significant effects (Vaughn, Chard, Bryant, Coleman, Tyler, & Linan-Thompson, 2000).  

 

    A second study was done to also determine the effectiveness of partner reading.  The participants in this study were four students in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades who were also reading at least one grade level behind.  The intervention included oral reading and then a discussion.  During the oral reading, a skilled reader would read first to model fluent reading and then the struggling student would read the passage.  The discussion involved reviewing what was read the day before and talking about the story.  The results in this study indicated that the students' reading fluency did increase a great deal, however, their accuracy and comprehension remained about the same (Nes, 2003).  

 

Repeated Readings

    The participants in this study were elementary students with learning disabilities.  The interventions focused on repeated readings with a model and without a model, sustained reading, number of repetitions, and text difficulty.  From the results, it was determined that the following were effective fluency interventions: an explicit model of fluent reading, repeated readings on familiar text independently with corrective feedback, and having established performance criteria for the increase of text difficulty (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002).  

 

    A second study was done using repeated readings as the intervention.  The participants in this particular study were school-aged students who ranged in age from five to eighteen.  The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of repeated readings on not only reading fluency but on comprehension as well.  Fluency was calculated by words correct per minute, while comprehension was figured using retelling and comprehension questions.  The results in this study indicated that this intervention was very effective in increasing oral reading fluency as well as comprehension in all students, including students with learning disabilities (Therrien, 2004).  

 

    The final study was also done using repeated readings with either one passage or two similar passages.  The six participants in this study were all third graders.  Two interventions were used that both incorporated repeated readings.  The first one required students to read one passage four times and the second one required students to read two similar passages two times each.  The results indicated that both interventions were effective in increasing students' oral reading fluency (Ardoin, McCall, & Klubnik, 2007).   

 

    Many of the strategies mentioned above have proven to be very effective in increasing oral reading fluency. After carefully studying and considering each of the interventions described above, repeated readings have been chosen to use in this particular third grade classroom.  The three studies above that focused on repeated readings all showed significant gains in students' fluency.  According to Therrien and Kubina (2007), repeated readings involve "students re-reading a story (a) a pre-established number of times, (b) to a pre-established level of fluency, or (c) until they increase their fluency to a pre-established percent above their baseline fluency" (p. 56).  Repeated readings are also defined as "a supplemental reading program that consists of re-reading a short and meaningful passage until a satisfactory level of fluency is reached" (Samuels, 1979, p. 404).  During the research study that is going to be taking place, students are going to be given a passage and will have to re-read it a pre-established number of times as Therrien and Kubina (2007) mentioned.  The students will read the passage a minimum of eight times before their final timing.  Results will then be calculated and will show the effectiveness of repeated readings with this particular group of third graders.     

Methodology

 

    Within this section, a detailed description of the school and classroom where this action research project took place is given.  The methods of fluency instruction for both strategies will be described to you.  Within each strategy, there were assessments that clearly portray the data and show the effectiveness of the instructional methods.  An additional tool to collect data was used during strategy two to help determine the effectiveness.

 

Population

    School.  Participants in the study were similar to ones used in a previous study (Lee-Russell, 2008).  

Brown Elementary is located in a growing urban area. It is one of eleven schools in the district. Brown is also a growing school, which is evident in the new additions the bond issue recently provided. Brown Elementary is currently in the status of making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). This has been the case for the past few years as well. This achievement gives the school an “accredited” Quality Performance Accreditation (QPA) status. In fact, the past two years the third graders at this school have achieved “Standard of Excellence” in both reading and math. The Brown Elementary School Improvement Plan (2008) consists of three goals: (1) all students will improve reading comprehension skills across the curriculum, (2) all students will improve problem-solving skills, (3) all students will develop skills in written composition.

 

Approximately 406 students attend Brown Elementary. The most recent Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) report card (2006-2007) shows that Brown Elementary consists of 77.1 percent White students, 1.8 percent African American, 12.6 percent Other, and 8.4 percent Hispanic. Of the students that attend this school, 31.6 percent are considered economically disadvantaged, 12.1 percent are English Language Learners (ELL), and 13.4 percent have a disability (Methodology, ¶¶. 2-3). 

 

     Participants.

The class where the research project was completed was a third grade classroom at Brown Elementary. The class was comprised of eight and nine year old students, thirteen (62%) males and eight (38%) females. Of the students in this classroom, 90 percent were White students, 5 percent were Hispanic, and 5 percent were considered Other. Students with special needs made up 10 percent of the class and 10 percent of the students were English Language Learners (ELL) (Methodology, ¶. 4). 

Methods

    Strategy one.  The first strategy focused on using partner reading to increase oral reading fluency.  Students were assigned a passage based on their current reading levels.  Passages ranged from first grade to sixth grade.  Students participated in a cold read on their passage.  This required them to read the passage aloud for one minute.  If the student paused for three seconds on an unknown word, the teacher went ahead and pronounced it.  The number of words the student read correctly in one minute determined their score.  Throughout the week, students would participate in partner reading activities to help them increase their oral reading fluency (see Appendix A for complete plans).  Students were paired together based on ability levels to start with.  Higher level students were placed with lower level students.  During these pairings, the higher reader would model reading the passage fluently.  The lower reader would listen.  They would then take turns reading.  Another form of partner reading occurred with students reading with someone who had the same passage they had.  At the end of the week, the assessment was given again.  Students read the same passage they had been practicing all week.  They read it for one minute, with the same procedures as the cold timing.  Their score was determined by the number of words read correctly in one minute.

 

    As for the instruments used to collect data, the pre and post assessment were identical in content.  The assessment consisted of a passage at the child's reading level.  Other ways that the teacher formatively assessed students throughout this unit were by observations and by listening to the partner reading that took place.  As for the pre and post assessment, data was acquired from the students' scores and then gain scores were calculated to determine the effectiveness of partner reading in increasing oral reading fluency.  The formative assessments provided immediate feedback throughout the week, as to whether or not partner reading was an effective strategy in increasing fluency.

 

    Strategy two.  In a second study of fluency strategies, the focus was on using repeated readings (See Appendix B for complete plans).  Students were again assigned a passage based on their current reading levels.  Students participated in a cold read of their passage.  Their score was determined by the number of words read correctly in one minute.  Throughout the week, students participated in repeated readings of their passage.  This consisted of students reading their passage at least eight times.  Students read it to the teacher, to a partner, and also independently every day.    At the end of the week, the assessment on the passage was given again.  Students read the same passage they had been working on all week.  They read it for one minute, following the same procedures as the cold timing.  The number of words read correctly in one minute determined their final score.

 

    As for the instruments used to collect data, the pre and post assessment given were identical in content.  The assessment consisted of a passage at the child's reading level.  The teacher formatively assessed students throughout the week by observing and by listening to the repeated readings that took place.  Two additional instruments used to collect data and pertinent information were two types of notes, as described in a previous study (Lee-Russell, 2008).

 

The first type was field notes as Ratcliff describes as "a running account of what happens" (2002, ¶. 1). The teacher observed and recorded detailed observations of what happened each day throughout this week-long unit. The second type was methodology notes, which Ratcliff defines as a "description of methods used, reasons for using those methods, and ideas for possible changes" (2002, ¶. 2). Data was analyzed using all three methods described above. As for the pre and posttest, data was acquired from the students' scores and then gain scores were calculated to determine the effectiveness of the vocabulary strategies and instructional methods. The field notes provided a detailed account of what took place each day, giving the teacher essential information regarding whether or not the students were engaged and were fully grasping the content. The methodology notes provided very useful data as well. These notes included an overview of what instructional methods took place, as well as provided a reflection opportunity for the teacher which will be very beneficial when planning future lessons. The data showed whether these methods were effective or what parts needed to be adjusted to better meet the needs of the class (Methodology, ¶. 9).

    The description above provides a clear picture of the school and classroom where this action research project on fluency occurred.  The methods of instruction for two different strategies have been defined, as well as the instruments used to collect data.  Results will now be presented for each of the two strategies mentioned above.  After both sets of results have been presented, a comparison of the two strategies is given to show you which one was more effective.  To conclude the paper, you will read a discussion of the results, as well as the conclusion the teacher came to regarding each fluency strategy.

Results

 

    Within the results section, you will see results from both of the strategies individually, as well as a comparison of the two.  Within the results, data is given regarding the pre-assessment scores, post-assessment scores, and gain scores.  Graphs are shown to give a clear picture of what took place.  There will also be descriptions of what you can conclude from looking at each graph.

 

Results for Strategy One

    Pre-assessment results.  For the pre-assessment, also known as the cold timing, passages were chosen for each student based on their individual reading level.  Passages ranged from first through sixth grade.  The cold timing occurred the first time the student was exposed to the text.  The teacher timed the student for one minute.  Students were instructed to read the passage and that if they paused more than three seconds at a word, the teacher would give them the word.  At the end of the one minute, a cold read score was determined based on the number of words read correctly.  A post-assessment, or final timing, occurred a week later, after the students had participated in partner readings all week.  Partner reading consisted of students reading their passage with someone at their skill level and also pairing a high reader with a low reader.  The figures below show pre-assessment and post-assessment data as well as gain scores.  Figure 1 shows the pre-assessment data for the 21 third graders.

Figure 1:  Pre-assessment data on a third grade assessment of oral reading fluency.

 

 

[pic]

    Data in the figure above show the scores that students received on the pre-assessment over their oral reading fluency.  The assessment consisted of a reading passage ranging from first grade through sixth grade, depending on the students' reading level.  Students read the passage for one minute and a score was determined by the number of words read correctly.  From the results, you can conclude that thirteen students scored below 110 words per minute, which is the benchmark score for students at the end of third grade.  The graph also indicates that three students' scores were in the sixties.  From these results, effective strategies focusing on fluency were necessary if all students were going to make gains and potentially meet the goal of 110 words per minute.  The graph also shows that eight students already met the third grade benchmark.  The range of scores on the pre-assessment was 98 words per minute, which signified a wide range of skill levels pertaining to oral reading fluency.

 

    Pre-assessment and post-assessment comparison for strategy one.  Strategy one involved partner reading.  Students were paired with a higher-skilled reader in order to have the opportunity to hear their passage modeled fluently.  They also were paired with students at their level, to give them extra reinforcement.  Listening to the skilled reader was an essential part of this strategy.  After listening, the student was familiar with the passage and aware of how it should sound when being read aloud.  Data in figure two show the pre-assessment and post assessment data.

Figure 2:  Pre and post-assessment data on a third grade assessment of oral reading fluency.

 

[pic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    The data in the figure above show pre and post-assessment data for each student.  From the graph, the results indicate that all twenty-one students scored higher on the post-assessment than on the pre-assessment.  The range of scores on the post-assessment was 112 words per minute.  Twenty out of the twenty-one students met the benchmark goal of 110 words per minute.  The one student that did not only missed the goal by two words. 

 

    Gain scores for strategy one.  All twenty-one students made significant gains.  Seventeen of the students made gains of at least fifty words per minute.  To provide a clearer picture, gain scores are provided in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3:  Gain scores between a pre-assessment and a post-assessment of third grade oral reading fluency.

 

[pic]

 

 

 

 

 

    Gain scores were obtained by taking the post-assessment score and subtracting the pre-assessment score.  The results indicated the gain score for each student.  The range of the gain scores was 57 words per minute.  All twenty-one students made a gain of at least 43 words per minute.  Thirteen students made gains of at least 60 words per minute.  Student sixteen made the highest gain by going from 120 words per minute to 220 words per minute.  Student twenty-one made the lowest gain, however, the score still increased by 40 words bringing the final score to 128 words per minute.

 

    After looking at the pre-assessment data, the teacher concluded that thirteen students scored below the third grade fluency benchmark of 110 words per minute.  This indicated that effective fluency strategies were necessary in order for all students to make gains and meet the goal of 110 words per minute.  Then when looking at the post-assessment data, you can see that all students did make significant gains.  All but one student met the goal.  The one student that didn't only missed it by two words and is also in the special education program.  The graph with the gain scores  indicates that all students made gains of at least 43 words per minute. 

 

Results for Strategy Two

    Pre-assessment results.  For the pre-assessment, also known as the cold timing, passages were chosen for each student based on their individual reading level.  Passages ranged from first through sixth grade.  The cold timing occurred the first time the student was exposed to the text.  The teacher timed the student for one minute.  Students were instructed to read the passage and that if they paused more than three seconds at a word, the teacher would give them the word.  At the end of the one minute, a cold read score was determined based on the number of words read correctly.  A post-assessment, or final timing, occurred a week later, after the students had participated in repeated readings all week.  Repeated readings consisted of students reading their passage at least eight times.  They read it independently, to a partner, and to a teacher throughout the week.  The figures below show pre-assessment and post-assessment data as well as gain scores.  Figure 4 shows the pre-assessment data for the 21 third graders. 

 

    Figure 4:  Pre-assessment data on a third grade assessment of oral reading fluency.

 

[pic]

 

 

 

 

    Data in the figure above show the scores that students received on the pre-assessment over their oral reading fluency.  The assessment consisted of a reading passage ranging from first grade through sixth grade, depending on the students' reading level.  Students read the passage for one minute and a score was determined by the number of words read correctly.  From the results, you can conclude that twelve students scored below 110 words per minute, which is the benchmark score for students at the end of third grade.  The graph also indicates that two students' scores were in the sixties and one student scored fifty.  From these results, the fluency strategies needed to be well thought out and implemented if all students were going to make gains and potentially meet the goal of 110 words per minute.  The graph also shows that nine students already met the third grade benchmark.  The range of scores on the pre-assessment was 141 words per minute, which signified a wide range of skill levels pertaining to oral reading fluency among the students.

 

    Pre-assessment and post-assessment comparison for strategy two.  Strategy two focused on repeated readings, which required students to read the same passage at least eight times throughout the week.  Students read the passage independently, with partners, and with the teacher.  The purpose of this strategy was to give the students multiple exposures to the same text in order to increase their fluency score.  Data in Figure five show the pre-assessment and post-assessment data. 

 

Figure 5:  Pre and post-assessment data on a third grade assessment of oral reading fluency.

 

 

 

[pic]

 

 

 

    The data in the figure above show pre and post-assessment data for each student.  From the graph, the results indicate that all twenty-one students scored higher on the post-assessment than on the pre-assessment.  The range of scores on the post-assessment was 172 words per minute.  Nineteen out of the twenty-one students met the benchmark goal of 110 words per minute.  Two students did not meet the goal, however, they did make gains.  Both students are English Language Learners and are in the special education program.

  

    Gain scores for strategy two.  For strategy two, all twenty-one students made gains, many of them very significant.  Fourteen of the students made gains of at least forty words per minute.  To provide a clearer picture, gain scores are provided in Figure 6 below.

 

Figure 6:  Gain scores between a pre-assessment and a post-assessment of third grade oral reading fluency.

 

[pic]

 

 

 

 

    Gain scores were obtained by taking the post-assessment score and subtracting the pre-assessment score.  The results indicated the gain score for each student.  The range of the gain scores was 83 words per minute.  All twenty-one students made a gain of at least 15 words per minute.  Fourteen students made gains of at least 40 words per minute.  Twelve students made gains of at least 50 words per minute.  Student four made the highest gain by going from 126 words per minute to 224 words per minute.  Student seventeen made the lowest gain of 15 words per minute.

 

    After looking at the pre-assessment data, the teacher concluded that twelve students scored below the third grade fluency benchmark of 110 words per minute.  This indicated that effective fluency strategies were necessary in order for all students to make gains and meet the goal of 110 words per minute.  Then when looking at the post-assessment data, you can see that all students did make gains, many of them quite significant.  All but two students met the goal.  The two students that didn't meet the goal did make gains, and they are also English Language Learners and in the special education program.  The graph with the gain scores indicates that all students made gains of at least 15 words per minute. 

 

    After reviewing the field notes, as Ratcliff describes as "a running account of what happens" (2002, ¶. 1), the teacher could conclude that the students were actively engaged during the strategy.  There were occasional times when students had to be reminded to stay focused and on task, however, for the most part, the students were engaged in their passages.  The methodology notes, which Ratcliff defines as a "description of methods used, reasons for using those methods, and ideas for possible changes" (2002, ¶. 2), show that the teacher felt very confident with the instructional strategies that had been chosen and felt that they were effective in increasing oral reading fluency.  In the reflection part of the notes, the teacher mentioned a few minor changes that could occur within the instruction, however, the method itself would remain the same.

 

Comparison of Results for Strategies One and Two.

    Comparison of Pre-assessment results for strategies one and two.  For both assessments, a reading passage was chosen with a reading level ranging from first grade to sixth grade, depending on each student's reading level.  A pre and post-assessment was administered on these passages and students were expected to meet 110 words per minute, which was the ending fluency benchmark for third grade.  In between the assessments, two strategies were implemented to increase oral reading fluency.  The first strategy was partner reading, where a student was paired with a higher level reader.  The higher level reader was able to model how to read the passage fluently.  The second strategy was repeated readings, which required students to read the same passage multiple times.  Multiple exposures to the same text was expected to increase oral reading fluency scores.  The figures below show pre-assessment and post-assessment data as well as gain scores for both strategies.  Figure 7 shows the pre-assessment data for the 21 third graders during both of the fluency units.

 

Figure 7:  Comparison of Pre-assessment data on two third grade assessments of oral reading fluency.

 

[pic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Data in the figure above show the scores that students received on both of the pre-assessments given over oral reading fluency.  Both pre-assessments were comprised of one reading passage, ranging in level from first through sixth grade depending on the students' reading level.  Both assessments required students to read the passage aloud for one minute.  Their score was determined by the correct number of words read in one minute.  From the results, you can conclude that fourteen out of the twenty-one students scored higher on pre-assessment two than on pre-assessment one.  Seven students scored lower on pre-assessment two.  The range of scores on pre-assessment one was 98 words per minute and 141 words per minute on pre-assessment two.  From that data, you can conclude that for both strategies, direct and explicit fluency instruction was necessary in order for all students to make gains and meet the benchmark score of 110 words per minute.

 

    Comparison of post-assessment results for strategies one and two.  For both strategies, the post-assessment was identical to the pre-assessment.  It was administered both times after approximately a week of instruction that focused on two fluency strategies.  Both post-assessments consisted of an identical passage to the pre-assessment.  The goal was for students to read 110 words per minute.  Figure 8 shows the post-assessment data for the twenty-one third graders for both fluency units.

 

Figure 8:  Comparison of Post-assessment data on two third grade assessments of oral reading fluency.

 

[pic]

 

 

 

 

 

    Data in the figure above show that twelve students scored higher on the first post-assessment and nine scored higher on the second post-assessment.  Ten students read at least 140 words per minute on both post-assessments.  The range on post-assessment one was 112 words per minute and the range on post-assessment two was 172 words per minute.  The data also indicate that the lowest score on the first post-assessment was 108 words and 65 words on the second post-assessment.

 

    Gain scores for strategies one and two.  For strategy one, twenty out of twenty-one students met the goal of 110 words per minute and for strategy two, nineteen students met the goal.  To provide a more detailed picture, gain scores are provided in Figure 9 below.

 

Figure 9:  Gain scores between both pre-assessments and post-assessments on third grade oral reading fluency.

 

[pic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Gain scores were obtained by taking the post-assessment score and subtracting the pre-assessment score.  The results indicated the gain score for each student on both post-assessments.  The range of the gain scores for strategy one was 57 words per minute and the range for strategy two was 83 words per minute.  All twenty-one students made gains of at least 15 words on both strategies.  The data also indicate that fifteen students made higher gains on strategy one, therefore, only six made higher gains on strategy two.  Seventeen of the twenty-one students had a gain score of at least 50 words for strategy one and twelve students for strategy two.

 

    To conclude the results section, data has been presented for each strategy, as well as a comparison of both.  Pre-assessment, post-assessment, and gain scores have been given for each strategy.  Graphs have been given, as well as facts that can be seen from looking at each one.  The teacher has discussed how the students did with each strategy and then again how the results of the two strategies compared to each other.  You will now read the conclusion section, which gives a brief overview of the action research project.  It ends by stating what fluency strategy proved to be the most effective, meaningful, and engaging for this diverse group of third graders.

 

   Conclusions

 

    In the conclusions section, you will read a brief overview of each strategy.  The overview will include a description of the strategy that was used.  A summary is then given, accompanied with quotes from research to support the strategies and the conclusions that were drawn after carefully examining the data.

 

Strategy One

    The teacher began this unit by selecting a reading passage for each student, ranging in level from first through sixth grade.  The students were assigned a passage based on their current reading levels.  A pre-assessment was given in the form of a cold timing.  Students read the passage for one minute, receiving help on unknown words.  Their score was determined by the number of words they read correctly in one minute.  After each student read their passage for their pre-assessment score, the strategy to enhance their reading fluency began.  The strategy was partner reading, where higher level students were paired with lower level students.  The purpose of this pairing method was to allow the higher reader to model how to read the text fluently.  The lower reader would then read the passage after listening to it a few times.  Throughout the week, this strategy continued.  Another variation of partner reading was also used, which allowed students that had the same level passage to read together.

 

    After the pre-assessment, participating in partner reading for a week, and the post-assessment, the teacher could see the results and conclude that all of the students did make significant gains.  This indicated that the strategy was effective and meaningful to the students because their scores increased a great deal.  The results showed that eight students were already at the benchmark level before the teaching began.  This indicated that these students could benefit from reading a passage at a higher level.  All of the students reached the benchmark level, even the students who started out the lowest.  Every student's score increased by at least 40 words per minute. 

 

    This unit included the strategy of partner reading to increase oral reading fluency.  According to Vaughn et al. (2000), "partner reading is one research-based activity that has been demonstrated as being effective in boosting students' reading fluency" (¶. 8).  The teacher found this to be true within the instruction of this unit.  Students read the passage multiple times with a partner and therefore made sizeable gains between the pre and post-assessment.

 

Strategy Two

    The teacher began this unit by selecting a reading passage for each student, ranging in level from first through sixth grade.  The students were assigned a passage based on their current reading levels.  A pre-assessment was given in the form of a cold timing.  Students read the passage for one minute, receiving help on unknown words.  Their score was determined by the number of words they read correctly in the one minute.  After each student read their passage for their pre-assessment score, the strategy to enhance their reading fluency began.  The strategy was repeated readings.  This required students to read the same passage at least eight times.  Throughout the week, students repeatedly read their passage independently, to a partner, and to the teacher.

  

    After the pre-assessment, doing repeated readings for a week, and the post-assessment, the teacher was able to see the results and conclude that all of the students did make gains.  This indicated that the strategy was effective.  The results showed that nine students were already at the benchmark level before the teaching began.  Again, this indicated that these students could possibly benefit from reading at a higher level.  All but two of the students reached the benchmark level after a week of repeated readings.  These two students' scores did increase despite not meeting the benchmark.  Both students were English Language Learners and also in the Special Education program.  For this strategy, every students' score increased by at least 15 words per minute.

 

    The strategy that this unit emphasized was repeated readings.  According to Tompkins (2003), "the best approach to improve students' reading speed is repeated readings" (p. 201).  The gains made on this strategy were not quite as significant as they were with partner reading, however, the teacher could still conclude that repeated readings were an effective strategy with the majority of the students.

 

Summary of Both Strategies

    In conclusion, both strategies, partner reading and repeated readings, appeared to be very effective as you can see from the data given.  As mentioned above, there have been research studies on both strategies and the teacher found very similar results as the researchers.  As in the studies, these students made significant gains and the majority of the students met the benchmark level that had been set.  Partner reading provided the students with a model of what fluent reading sounds like.  This proved to be very effective, just as Vaughn et al. (2000) found.  Repeated readings provided the students with multiple exposures to the text, which Therrien (2004) also found to be very effective.  However, there are always ways to improve a unit and to make it more effective for all students.  If either strategy was used again, it would be beneficial to do a more in-depth study to determine the appropriate level of passage for each student.  Some passages were too high and some were too low.  Another idea would be to send the passage home to allow them more time to work on their fluency.  As far as the additional methods of gathering information, field and methodology notes were used.  These notes provided a detailed description of the methods used each day and their effectiveness, as well as a day by day evaluation of how the students reacted to the strategies.  These methods of note-taking were beneficial in the reflection process, as they allowed the educator to look back and reflect on what took place each day.  So, to conclude, taking notes as an additional way to gather data was an excellent tool that the teacher would definitely use again, as the reflections gained from the notes were very helpful in planning future fluency instruction that was effective.  As far as the strategies, a combination of partner reading and repeated readings appear to be the key in making fluency instruction effective for this group of third graders.

 

    In summary, an action research project has been completed regarding the effectiveness of specific fluency strategies.  The first unit was taught using partner reading, which was an instructional strategy the teacher currently used.  After researching, the teacher found partner reading to be a highly researched strategy that has been proven to be effective.  The second unit was taught using a different fluency strategy.  Extensive research took place in order to find research-based fluency strategies that were appropriate for third graders.  After much research and consideration, repeated readings were chosen, as they provide multiple exposures to the same text.  This strategy was chosen because repetition has already proven to be effective with these students in other areas.  Each unit included a pre and post-assessment as well as a week of instruction using the two different strategies.  Graphs were created to represent the data that was collected.  The students were successful with each strategy, which is the same result the researchers found.  In this particular case, partner reading appeared to be a bit more effective.  This could possibly be due to the lack of motivation and attention for some students when they were repeatedly reading the text on their own.  From the results found, along with the research that was read, the teacher feels a combination of partner reading and repeated readings would provide extremely effective fluency instruction.  A great deal was learned from this action research project.  In the future, a combination of both strategies will be used to provide effective, meaningful fluency instruction.  Increasing oral reading fluency will, overall, create better readers, as "fluent readers are better able to comprehend what they read because they can identify words easily" (Tompkins, 2003, p. 200).    

 

[pic]

References

 

Ardoin, S. P., McCall, M., & Klubnik, C. (2007, March). Promoting generalization of oral reading fluency: Providing drill versus practice opportunities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(1), 55-70.

 

Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read, kindergarten through grade 3. Washington D.C., Washington: National Institute for Literacy.

 

Burns, M. K., Dean, V. J., & Foley, S. (2004, July/August). Preteaching unknown key words with incremental rehearsal to improve reading fluency and comprehension with children identified as reading disabled. Journal of School Psychology, 42(4), 303-314.

 

Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B.-J. (2002, September/October). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386-406.

 

Eckert, T. L., Ardoin, S. P., Daly, E. J., & Martens, B. K. (2002, Fall). Improving oral reading fluency: A brief experimental analysis of combining an antecedent intervention with consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35(3), 271-281.

 

Kansas State Department of Education. (2006-2007). Report card 2006-2007.  Retrieved September 28, 2008, from

 

Keehn, S. (2003, Summer). The effect of instruction and practice through readers theatre on young readers' oral reading fluency. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(4), 40-61.

 

Lee-Russell. (2008).  Third grade vocabulary instruction using repetition and graphic organizers.  Wichita State University at Kansas. Unpublished paper. Wichita State University.

Nes, S. L. (2003, Winter). Using paired reading to enhance the fluency skills of less-skilled readers. Reading Improvement, 40(4), 179-192.

 

Noell, G. H., Gansle, K. A., Witt, J. C., Whitmarsh, E. L., Freeland, J. T., Lafleur, L. H., et al. (1998, Winter). Effects of contingent reward and instruction on oral reading performance at differing levels of passage difficulty. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31(4), 659-663. 

 

Oatville Elementary. (2008). Oatville school improvement plan. Haysville, KS: Authors.

 

Ratcliff, D. (2002). Qualitative research: Part four: Data collection. Retrieved November 9, 2008, from  

 

Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated reading. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403-408. 

 

Therrien, W. J. (2004, July/August). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated readings: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 252-261.

 

Therrien, W. J., & Kubina, R. M., Jr. (2007, Winter). The importance of context in repeated reading. Reading Improvement, 44(4), 179-188.

 

Tompkins, G. E. (2003). Literacy for the 21st century (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

 

Vaughn, S., Chard, D. J., Bryant, D. P., Coleman, M., Tyler, B.-J., Linan-Thompson, S., et al. (2000, November/December). Fluency and comprehension interventions for third grade students. Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 325-335.

[pic]

Appendices

[pic]

Appendix A

 

Fluency Lesson Plans for Strategy One

 

Monday, April 6:  Students will be assigned a reading passage ranging in level from first through sixth grade depending on their individual reading level.  I will explain to students that they are going to be reading this passage for one minute and that their score will be determined by the number of words they read correctly in one minute.  I will explain that after pausing on an unknown word for three seconds, I will give them the word but it does not count towards their score.  I will let students know that they will be reading this passage all week and will be tested again on Friday.

 

Tuesday, April 7: Students will be assigned to a group of two or three.  Higher level readers will be paired with lower level readers.  I will number the kids, rather than label them high or low.  I will explain that number ones are going to be reading the passage aloud and that number twos and possibly threes need to listen closely so they will be able to read it the next time. 

 

Wednesday, April 8:  Students will be assigned to a person that has the same passage they have.  They will be instructed to take turns reading it.  They can each read the whole passage or take turns sentence by sentence.  They will do this multiple times until time is out.

 

Thursday, April 9: Students will be assigned again to the same group they were with on Tuesday.  Higher level readers will once again model how to read the passage and then the lower level reader will practice reading it as well.

 

Friday, April 10:  Students will be told that the goal is to read 110 words per minute today.  I will explain that the procedures are the same as they were when they read it to me on Monday.  Students will read the passage to me for one minute and their score will be calculated by the number of words read correctly in one minute.  I will show the students their scores and we will discuss the progress that was made throughout the week.

 

Appendix B

 

    Fluency Lesson Plans for Strategy Two

 

Monday, April 13:  Students will be assigned a reading passage ranging in level from first through sixth grade depending on their individual reading level.  I will explain to students that this will work exactly like last week.  They will read a passage to me for one minute and I will be looking for the number of words they read correctly in one minute.  I will explain to them again that I will help them with an unknown word if they pause for three seconds.  I will let students know that they will be practicing the passage all week and will be tested again on Friday.

 

Tuesday, April 14:  I will explain that this week's strategy to increase fluency is "repeated readings".  I will explain that this simply means to read the same passage multiple times.  Today students will be reading the passage repeatedly to themselves.  I will walk around and monitor what is going on and help with unknown words.

 

Wednesday, April 15:  Today, students will be reading the passage multiple times with a partner that has the same passage.  Again, I will walk around and help with words they are stuck on.

 

Thursday, April 16:  Students will read the passage multiple times independently today.  As they are reading, I will stop and listen to each one and help them if necessary.

 

Friday, April 17:  Students will be told that the goal is to read 110 words per minute today.  I will explain that the procedures are the same as they have been.  Students will read the passage to me for one minute and their score will be determined by the number of words read correctly in one minute.  I will show the students their scores and we will discuss the progress that was made throughout the week.

 

Appendix C

 

Field and Methodology Notes for Strategy Two

 

Field Notes

 

Monday, April 13:  Today, students were assigned their reading passage for the whole week.  Passages ranged from first grade through sixth grade, however, students were not aware of this.  They just thought they had different passages.  I told students that we were going to be working on fluency again this week, just with a new strategy.  I explained that they would still be reading to me on Monday and Friday and that we would be calculating their scores.  I reminded students that I would help them with an unknown word, however, it would not count towards their score.  I asked if there were any questions and there were not.  All the students appeared aware of what was going on.  I called students up individually and received a "cold timing" score.  I told them their score and reminded them that the goal on Friday was to read 110 words per minute.  Some students were already at this score, so I encouraged them to work really hard to see how much they could increase their score by.  Many of the students were very excited when they heard how high their "cold timing" scores were. 

 

Tuesday, April 14:  I told the students that the strategy this week is called "repeated readings".  I explained that this means to read the same thing over and over again.  I asked students to get out their passages and read them to themselves, either silently or with a whisper phone.  I let them know that I would be walking around and that they needed to raise their hand if they were stuck on a word so that I could help them.  Students began reading.  Some chose to read silently, however, most of them got a whisper phone.  I walked around and monitored students.  Most of them raised their hands at least one time to ask me an unknown word.  Some students had to be reminded to stay focused on their passage.  At the end of today, students were coming to me and telling me that they had read the whole thing without any mistakes or had looked at the clock and timed themselves and gotten really far.  They were really excited!

 

Wednesday, April 15:  I asked students to get out their reading passages and I told them that they would be reading with one or two other students today that had their same passage.  I told them that they could take turns reading the whole passage or take turns, part by part.  I walked around and monitored what went on and most groups took turns sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph.  Three groups, however, took turns reading the whole passage.  I still had a few groups raise their hand and ask about a word.  As I walked around, students were being very helpful and encouraging to their partner.  Again, at the end of the time, many came up to me and had positive comments about either their own progress or even the progress of their partner today.

 

Thursday, April 16:  I asked students to get out their reading passages and told them that today they were reading independently again.  I reminded them that they could get a whisper phone if they wanted to.  Today, more students read silently to themselves, but some still used the whisper phones.  I walked around and sat by each student for a minute or two and listened to them read.  They were reading very well and with great expression.

 

Friday, April 17:  I told the students that they would be reading me their passage today and I would be timing them again like I did on Monday.  I reminded them that the goal was 110 words per minute.  I called students up one at a time and timed them for one minute.  I showed them their scores and we compared them to their previous score.  All of the students increased.  They were all excited when they saw their new scores. 

 

Methodology Notes

 

Monday, April 13:  The pre-assessment was given today.  Students read a passage for one minute and their score was determined by the number of words read correctly in one minute.  Their score was then recorded.  This method was used so that there was concrete data that could be compared to their post-assessment score.  The method also followed the procedures from DIBELS, which is an assessment the kids are familiar with.  I would not change how the assessment went because, as I mentioned, the students were familiar with the procedure and it provided concrete data.

 

Tuesday, April 14:  Today, students read their passages independently, using a whisper phone if they wished.  I walked around and helped when necessary with unknown words.  This method was used because it was a great way to implement "repeated readings".  Whisper phones were used for those students who needed to hear themselves read out loud.  This method worked very well, therefore, I would not make any changes.

 

Wednesday, April 15:  Today, students read the passage multiple times with a partner that had their same passage.  I still helped with unknown words when necessary.  Their partner was also available to help them.  This strategy was another way to implement "repeated readings".  I thought that this worked very well.  The students worked hard with their partners to improve their reading.  The only change would be to have had more time for students to read together today.

 

Thursday, April 16:  Today, students read their passages independently again.  I walked around and listened to them.  I did this to make sure that they were not struggling with the whole passage and to give me an idea of the progress they were making.  A change I would make would be to have made sure some students were using whisper phones.  These are great tools and I feel that some students would have benefited from them.

 

Friday, April 17:  Today, students read their passage to me for their final score.  The procedure was the same as Monday.  It went very well and I was able to quickly compare the two scores and show them to students.  The only change would be to have the students graph their scores, so they could see a visual picture of the progress that they made.

    

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download