Struggling readers read in a slow, halting manner while ...



Repeated Reading:

Weighing the Effects on Students with Learning Disabilities

Effects of Repeated Reading Instruction on

Learning Disabled Students

RE5040

Teacher as a Researcher

Dr. Moorman

Danielle Griffin

April 19, 2007

Struggling readers read in a slow, halting manner while trying to sound out each letter of every word and trying to blend the sounds together. By the time they get to the end of the sentence they have forgotten how the sentence began. After all their mental energy has been expended, they cannot tell you one thing about what they have read. This is typical of a child who has not developed reading fluency. This is a common scenario in my classroom. As a special educator, I spend about 80% of my time working with children on reading; however, I have never focused directly on reading fluency. I assumed that by teaching students how to decode effectively and read high frequency words, I was helping them to read fluently.

Fluency is more than being able to read words correctly on a page. Fluency means being able to read quickly, knowing what the words are and what they mean, and properly expressing certain words (National Reading Panel, 2000). For many educators, the attainment of reading fluency has meant an emphasis on word attack skills and the development of word accuracy. Recent research has suggested that in order to improve the reading fluency and comprehension of poor readers, reading instruction must also focus on ways to increase the speed of word recognition (Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985).

Although teachers of students with learning disabilities devote the greatest portion of instructional time to reading, development of fluency is often overlooked (Weinstein & Cooke, 1992). Not only is fluency overlooked in special education classes, but in most reading instruction. In its 2000 report, the National Reading Panel (as cited by Hudson et al.) stated that reading fluency is often neglected in classroom instruction. Fluency was also identified as one of only five critical components of reading and has since received increasing amount of attention (Therrien & Kubina, 2006).

One fluency strategy that has received extensive research is repeated reading. Repeated reading consists of re-reading a short and meaningful passage until a satisfactory level of fluency is reached (Therrien, 2004). I first became aware of repeated reading last summer when I was completing an internship at an elementary school. Towards the end of the practicum, I began using the strategy with a fourth grade male with whom I was working, but unlike my students, he did not have a disability. Based on the information I read, I thought repeated reading would not help my students since they were diagnosed with a learning disability and were three or more grade levels behind in reading.

Last year I began doing guided reading with my disabled students. I wondered how I could help them become more fluent in their oral reading. Assessments at the beginning of the year showed my students struggle far behind in oral reading fluency. Of my three fifth grade students, two had an oral reading rate of 43 words per minute at the first grade level, which is below average. The other student’s oral reading rate was 69 words per minute at the second grade level, which is average for second grade.

After reading instructional level text two or more times, the majority of my students still read word-for-word even when they knew all of the words. Reading is a laborious task for them. I struggled with what I could do to help my students read more fluently and with expression. I

tried different strategies, but nothing seemed to help. I wondered if the strategies I learned that summer would help my learning disabled students who are well below grade level in reading. The purpose of my research is to determine if repeated reading would help increase my

students’ oral reading fluency. The research reported here addresses the question: How does repeated reading affect fluency in students with learning disabilities?

Theoretical perspective

The idea of using repeated reading to develop reading fluency is based on the theory of automaticity developed by LaBerge and Samuels (as cited in Rashotte and Torgesen, 1985). Based on this theory, proficient word decoding happens when the reader is able to move beyond consciously trying to decode words to more automatic accurate decoding within a text. Automaticity is knowing how to do something so well that you do not have to think about it. Fluent readers are able to decode text automatically without using all their energy in decoding individual words (1974). My research will help me determine if repeated reading will lead to fluent oral reading of instructional level text for my students.

Related research

In recent years, the focus on fluency instruction has increased. Early research studies have been done on the effectiveness of repeated reading in improving fluency; however many did not take into account cognitive disabilities and their effects on gains made with repeated reading. William Therrien (2004) did a meta-analysis of different studies to look at the effect of repeated reading in increasing fluency and comprehension; instructional components needed in the repeated reading method, and if students with learning disabilities benefit from repeated reading. His results showed repeated reading improves fluency and comprehension in children with and without learning disabilities. Research presented by Rashotte and Torgesen (1985) investigated the effect of repeated reading and reading fluency on learning disabled children. The research showed gains influency and comprehension can be increased by repeated reading of passages with a large amount of word overlap; however, the commonality of words have little effect on error reduction and comprehension gains for learning disabled students. Even though the amount of words has little effect on comprehension, it does help increase fluency. Continuous gains in fluency can lead to better comprehension.

The significance of fluency-building strategies continues to be clearly established based on research findings. Carver and Hoffman (1981) feel that repeated reading holds the greatest promise for beginning readers (defined as students reading below a fifth-grade level). Therrien, et al. stated disabled students with instructional reading levels between first and third grade are most likely to benefit from fluency instruction (as cited in Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). This study examines the effectiveness of repeated reading in increasing oral reading fluency in disabled students who are reading at a second grade instructional level.

Methods

Subjects

Subjects for this research study consisted of three African-American male students who were diagnosed as specific learning disabled (LD) in the area of reading and writing according to North Carolina state criteria. They have been receiving Special Education services for three years. There ages range from 11 to 12 years old. All students are fifth graders and receive resource for one hour each day. Based on the results of an Individual Reading Inventory (IRI), midyear assessments show all students are reading at approximately 2.0 to 2.5 instructional reading levels. In September two of the students’ instructional reading levels were 1.5 and the other student’s instructional level was approximately 2.5.

Context

The research study took place at a Title 1 elementary school in Greensboro, North Carolina. Most of the schools population comes from the inner city as well as the lower-middle class neighborhoods. Approximately 90% of the students receive free and reduced lunches. The setting for the research study was a resource class where special education students are served in a pullout setting. The teacher/researcher is in her tenth year of teaching at the elementary school.

Data

The data collected for this study was in several forms. The majority of data was from the observations and data recorded during oral repeated readings. Other data consisted of baseline and final assessments, DIBELS leveled reading passages, repeated reading graphs, teacher observation, and discussions with participants.

Procedures

The study consisted of nine days of repeated reading instruction. Each student participated in two timed readings per day.

Baseline data was collected by having each student read a second grade passage from

DIBELS Oral Fluency Assessment. To determine their oral reading rates, I took a one-minute time sampling at their reading level. It was a cold read since the passage was unfamiliar to them. To ensure that the results I obtained were reliable, I completed a second fluency assessment. Both assessments yield similar results. As students read, I followed along and marked any errors made. After reading the passage, I gave students feedback on their errors and how they read. Before I continued, I compared their oral reading rate to the Oral Reading Norms for second grade (J.E. Hansbrouck & G. Tindal, 2006). Then I checked their reading accuracy to make sure I was using the correct text at their instructional reading level. Based on the results of their baseline assessment, each student and I agreed on a reading goal for the next reading.

On the first day of the study, I explained what a fluent reader sounded like. I modeled and explained intonation, expression, and pitch. On subsequent days, I had them tell me what fluent reading sounded.

Each day I would introduce the new passage and ask questions to build prior knowledge of the topic. Then I would model how the passage should sound when read with the proper expression. After I read the selection, we would discuss how I read. After our discussion, I had the students practice reading the passage. While the students practiced, I pulled one student to do two one-minute timed readings. After each reading, I would go over the number of words the student

read, the errors made, and how many words they read correctly. After the readings, students

plotted their fluency rates on a graph. This was very motivating for them and after the first selection I asked their input in setting a goal for the subsequent timed readings. The next day we would review the passage and any words they read incorrectly. Then we would do two more timed readings for a total of four readings per passage.

After a few days of modeling the entire passage, I split the passage up. Each student received a paragraph from the passage. They practiced reading for about five minutes then we would take turns reading our sections fluently so each section would flow together. I always read first to model how the sections should be read and whoever had the next number would continue reading. Students enjoyed practicing this way as they found the method to be motivating.

The introduction and discussion took about ten minutes each day. The process of doing the timed reading took about five minutes per student each day for a total of fifteen minutes. After seven repeated reading sessions, a final assessment was done on each child.

There were disruptions in the research that caused us to do fewer sessions than planned. Due to testing, we lost a week of instruction. Then the students had a field trip the same week after which came the spring break. We went two weeks before being able to continue the research and the study had to be shortened.

Data Analysis

Comparisons of the collected data from this study were constantly being made. I completed a comparative analysis on the baseline and final assessment. Fluency and accuracy rates were assessed after each session. I continued to look through the data I was collecting from each repeated reading session and compared it to data I collected earlier in the study. Observations were done throughout the study and notes were taken, which were later reviewed. Discussions with students gave me an idea of the students’ thoughts about repeated reading instruction.

Results

This research stemmed from the question: How does repeated reading affect fluency in students with learning disabilities? For this study, fluency was defined in terms of speed (words read correct per minute [WCPM]) and oral reading accuracy. My results are presented from this

viewpoint.

All students except one made gains in their mean words correct per minute with the repeated reading strategy (see Table 1). Based on oral reading fluency norms from Hasbrouck and Tindal (2006), all of the students’ scores were in the 50th percentile. Students averaged 83.67 WCPM on the baseline assessments, but improved to 88.33 WCPM on the final assessment. The number of errors was the same for S1 and S3 on both assessments whereas S2 had four errors on the baseline and none on the final yet he scored lower on the final assessment than the other students. The greatest improvement was with subject S1 who started out with medial scores. My strongest student made the least gains.

Students showed growth on the repeated reading done for most passages. The number of errors made did not decrease substantially, but they manage to keep their reading accuracy in the instructional range. This shows that the students were reading the text accurately for their reading level. On the first through the fourth session, the students’ average WCPM was 72.75, 91.75, 98.17, and 83.25, respectively. Data from a study done by Fuchs et al. (as cited in Hudson et al., 2005)

suggested that on average, 2.5-3.5 words per week increase in WCPM is a reasonable expectation for improvements among average, poor, and disabled readers. In three weeks, you could expect a child possibly to make a gain of 7.5-10.5 words correct per minute. The subjects in this study made a gain of an average of 11 WCPM in a three-week period. This suggests to me that the rate at which my students progressed was reasonable. Table 2 shows the mean of each student’s individual repeated readings on the four passages and the gains made between passage 1 and passage 4.

Discussion

The data from the research supported the use of repeated reading as an instructional strategy to help learning disabled students make gains in fluency. Even struggling readers who are performing at a second grade reading level can increase their fluency and accuracy of material read. Oral reading rates increased from one passage to next. All students made some gains even though it was not always consistent. My weakest student (S3) who began the year at a first grade reading level made the greatest gains. The data shows that even students who are substantially below grade level in reading can make gains in oral reading fluency and accuracy. Repeated readings also increase fluency with each reading, help word recognition, and improves reading rate on subsequent passages.

During my observations and analysis of the data, I found that results were inconsistent from one passage to the next. Instead of seeing a steady increase in rate for each reading, the results

fluctuated. My thought was that the content might have been too difficult for the students even though the reading passages were at the same readability level and from the same source. During one of our group discussions after viewing our graphs, I asked students who experienced a

decrease in their reading fluency from one passage to the next what they thought the reason was. Student 1 said that some days he was ready to read first and other days he was not. Student 2 thought his inconsistent scores were due to him not being in the right mode as he says it. I could see where that could have adversely affected his scores. When Student 3 was asked the same question, he stated that the other students may not have liked the story as much and did not get some of the words. Student 3 made consistent gains in all four readings of his passages.

I believe all three of their responses gave me insight as to the possible reasons for their inconsistent results. I believe Student 2’s results are not an accurate measure of his oral reading fluency. He is learning disabled and also diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) . If his morning does not start well, his whole day is affected. He is the strongest reader of the three, but his fluency rate dropped significantly although his reading accuracy increased.

The method of repeated reading was also very motivating to my students. They enjoyed trying to beat their own score with each repeated reading. They also tried to beat each other’s score. I did emphasis how this was not a competition against each other, but they could compete against themselves. They became supportive of each other. They were highly motivated by the graphing also. Having them graph their own results gave them a sense of ownership and helped to keep them motivated. My lowest student (S3) was very proud of himself on the last passage. He scored higher than anyone else for the first time and was very proud to show his results. His last score was 107 WCPM with 96% accuracy on passage 4. This increased his confidence and he shared the results with his reading tutor.

This research was conducted in a short period of time and within the context of my study I feel repeated reading is effective in helping learning disabled students and any reader significantly below grade level achieve fluency. My findings are limited to the sample I took and this same research done on a larger scale my produce different results.

The results of this research have implications for other special educators and anyone working with struggling readers. To increase reading fluency teachers should do repeated reading at least twice a week with students. This will result in gains in oral reading fluency and can help with word recognition. When teachers do use repeated readings, students should be allowed to graph their own results. This motivates the students to do well and gives them ownership of their work. If teachers chose to do repeated readings it is best to first model fluent reading to the students and discuss why it is important before having students read a passage.

References

Carver, R., & Hoffman, J. (1981). The effect of practice through repeated reading on gain in reading ability using a computer-based instructional system. Reading Research Quarterly. 16, 374-390.

Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G.A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: a valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636-644.

Hudson, R, Lane, H, & Pullen, P. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? Reading Teacher. 58, 702-714.

Kuhn, M, & Stahl, S. (2003). Fluency: a review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Pscyhology. 95, 3-21.

Rashotte, C.A., & Torgesen, J.K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly. 20, 180-188.

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

Therrien, W.J., & Kubina, R.M. (2006). Developing reading fluency with repeated reading. Intervention in School and Clinic. 41, 156-160.

Weinstein, G, & Cooke, N.L. (1992). The effects of two repeated reading interventions on generalization of fluency. Learning Disability Quarterly. 15, 21-28.

-----------------------

Table 1

Mean Words Correct Per Minute on Baseline and Final Assessments

Students Baseline Final Gains

S1 84 97 +13

S2 92 87 -5

S3 75 81 +6

Table 2

Mean WCPM and Errors on Each Passage Read during Repeated Reading Instruction

|Students |Passage 1 |Passage 2 |Passage 3 |Passage 4 |Average Gain |

| |WCPM/Errors |WCPM/Errors |WCPM/Errors |WCPM/Errors | |

|S1 |76.8/ 2.0 | 88.3/ 5.5 | 97.8/ 3.5 | 83.0/ 5.5 |6.3 WCPM |

|S2 |80.0/ 6.0 | 99.8/ 5.0 |109.8/ 2.5 | 74.8/ 2.5 |-5.3 WCPM |

|S3 | 61.5/ 9.0 |87.3/ 5.5 | 92.0/ 5.5 | 92.0/ 5.0 |30.5 WCPM |

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download