Transcript The Effects of Repeated Reading Instruction on Oral

The Effects of
Repeated Reading
Instruction on Oral
Reading Fluency
By Lana Titus
CI 843 Spring 2013 Online
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
How will repeated reading effect fluency?
What is Fluency?
First grade students in a rural district
Methodology for teacher-led, peer coaching,
& technology interventions
Assessments used
Data analysis to compare results from
interventions
Results of 3 repeated reading interventions
References
Guiding Question
• How do the repeated reading
interventions of teacher-led, small
groups, peer coaching, and use of
technology effect the oral reading
fluency of first grade students?
Fluency
• Fluency: the ability to read with speed,
•
accuracy, and proper expression (Lo,
Cooke, & Starling, 2011, p. 115).
Complex skill that requires accurate
decoding skills, automaticity, and
correct expression
Three Essential Parts of ORF
1. Accuracy:
o correct word decoding and identification
o need to have between 90% to 95% on grade
level material (Rasinski, 2004)
o when decoding too slow it slows down
comprehension (Therrien, 2004)
Three Essential Parts of ORF
2. Automaticity:
o recognition of words that bypass the
decoding process (Wise et. al., 2010)
o uses little mental effort to decode
o more effort can be put on meaning of the
text
Three Essential Parts of ORF
3. Prosody:
o expressiveness that a student reads with
o intonation, rhythm, and emphasis given to
words and sentences when reading out loud
o must take note of the punctuation and give
appropriate expression (Therrien, 2004)
Reading Practice
• If fluency is choppy, focus is on
•
decoding not comprehension
(Conderman & Strobel, 2008)
Early identification of reading
difficulties is best way to help at risk
students
Repeated Readings
• Supplemental program that consists of
re-reading short meaningful passages
• RAND (2002) states repeatedly reading
•
is the most effective way to instruct
fluency
Targets ORF and is easily integrated
into programs
Participants
• First grade classroom
• 15 students
• 7 males, 8 females
• 2 retained from 2011-2012
• 4 Speech/Language
• 4 Title I
• 15 included in the study due to
developmental readiness
Teacher-Led Small Group
• Most common form of repeated reading
• Helps to prevent reading difficulties for
•
•
•
at-risk students because of reduced
group sizes
Allows for more practice time to be
focused on specific skills
Focus on similar skills within the group
Quicken the pace for higher reading
groups
Peer Coaching
• Students outnumber teachers
• Teachers are able to walk around and
give support as needed
• Students enjoy celebrating successes
together
Technology
• Find the "thing" that sparks interest of
students and gets them to practice
• It’s adaptive, facilitates repetitive
practice, and motivates
• Voice playback application
• Children can hear themselves read
• They can suggest corrections
Methods:
Teacher-Led Small Group Cont.
1. Students are called back
2. Children get copy of the leveled reader
at instructional level
3. Review characteristics of a good
reader
4. Picture walk the book
5. Read out loud for one minute using
reading phones
Methods:
Teacher-Led Small Group Cont.
6. Teacher listens to each child and
assists with miscues
7. At one minute, students stop and mark
the last word
8. Total up WPM on data sheet
9. Repeat for 3 readings
Methods:
Peer Coaching Format
1. Students are called back
2. Review characteristics of a good
reader
3. Materials: instructional level passages,
transparencies, markers, and data
sheets
4. One student is reader, other is counter
Methods:
Peer Coaching Format Cont.
5. When one minute begins, reader reads,
counter marks miscues, teacher listens
6. At one minute, reader stops and
counter provides feedback
7. Reader records WPM on data sheet
8. Repeat for 3 readings then switch roles
Methods:
Technology - iPod Touch
1.
2.
3.
4.
Students are called back
Review characteristics of a good reader
Review iPod usage
Students given instructional level
passage, iPod, headphones, and mic.
5. One minute timer begins, students
begin reading and teacher moves
around to assist with miscues
Methods:
Technology - iPod Touch Cont.
6. At one minute, reader stops, counts up
WPM, and records on tracking sheet
7. Student then listens to voice recording
before beginning next reading
8. Repeat 3 recorded readings
Assessments
• Initial assessment: AIMSweb R-CBM Winter data
•
•
•
•
(median score)
Final assessment: 3 first grade AIMSweb R-CBM
probes (median score)
Pretest and posttest: 2 first grade AIMSweb R-CBM
probes (mean score)
Student engagement checklist: effects of
engagement on fluency
Student survey: used to make adjustments to future
implementations
Assessments (Continued)
• R-CBMs: district is using AIMSweb this year for
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
fluency, suggested for MTSS
Student is taken to a quiet testing area
Directions are read verbatim to student
Student is given their copy of passage
Timer is began when student reads first word
Miscues are marked as student reads
At one minute times, student stops reading and
teacher marks last word read
Process continues for total of 3 probes
Computer records median score
Data Analysis
• Compare initial and final results to see
•
•
•
•
•
if repeated reading is effective to
improve ORF
Compare the 3 interventions
Males vs. Females
Special Education vs. Speech/Language
Special Education vs. non
Speech/Language vs. non
Teacher-Led Strategy Results
• 11 made positive gains
• Average WCPM gain for all was 6.2
• #1-7 are males, #8-15 are females
• All males made gains/half females
• Average WCPM gain for males was 12.7
• Average WCPM gain for females was 0.5
• Speech/Language gain was 10 WCPM vs.
non at 4.8
• Title 1 gain was 11.8 vs. non at 3.8
Teacher-Led Strategy
ORF Gain Results
Intervention #1: Teacher-Led Small Group Gain Scores
25
20
15
Gain Scores
10
5
0
-5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
-10
-15
-20
Students
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I #1 Gains
Peer Coaching Strategy Results
• 13 made positive gains
• Average WCPM gain for all was 7.7
• #1-7 are males, #8-15 are females
• No gain 1 male, 1 female high readers
• Average WCPM gain for males was 8
• Average WCPM gain for females was 7.4
• Speech/Language gain was 6.5 WCPM vs.
non at 8.1
• Title 1 gain was 4.3 vs. non at 8.5
Peer Coaching Strategy
ORF Gain Results
Intervention #2: Peer Coaching Gain Scores
25
20
Gain Scores
15
10
5
I #2 Gains
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
-5
-10
Students
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Technology (iPod) Results
• 11 made positive gains
• Average WCPM gain for all was 6.5
• #1-7 are males, #8-15 are females
• 3 males/1 female made 0 or negative
• Average WCPM gain for males was 3.1
• Average WCPM gain for females was 9.5
• Speech/Language gain was 7.3 WCPM vs.
non at 6.2
• Title 1 gain was 3.5 vs. non at 7.6
Technology (iPod) Strategy
ORF Gain Results
Intervention #3: Technology - iPods Gain Scores
30
25
Gain Scores
20
15
10
I #3 Gains
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-5
-10
Students
10 11 12 13 14 15
Initial to Final Assessment
Results
• All made positive gains in 9 weeks
• Average WCPM gain for all was 24.1
• #1-7 are males, #8-15 are females
• Average WCPM gain for males was 28.6
• Average WCPM gain for females was 20.3
• Speech/Language gain was 17.3 WCPM
• Title 1 gain was 13.3 WCPM
• Non-special services gain of 28 WCPM
• Males made continual decrease in gains through
interventions-best with teacher-led strategy
• Females made continual increase in gains through
interventions-best with peer coaching
Initial to Final Assessment
ORF Gain Results
Initial and Final Oral Reading Fluency Gain Scores
60
Gain Scores
50
40
30
Overall
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Students
10
11
12
13
14
15
What to do next time?
• More practice time prior to peer coaching
• Peer coaching whole class to group
•
•
•
heterogeneously to assist with accuracy
in lower readers
Read passages entirely after last one
minute timing
Smaller technology group for less playing
Continue using all 3 strategies in rotation
to differentiate and reach all children
References
Conderman, G., & Strobel, D. (2008, Fall). Fluency flyers club: An oral
reading fluency intervention program. Preventing School Failure, 53(1),
15-20.
Lo, Y.-Y., Cooke, N. L., & Starling, A. L. P. (2011). Using a repeated reading
program to improve generalization of oral reading fluency. Education and
Treatment of Children, 34(1), 115-140.
RAND. (2002, November). RAND report on reading comprehension.
Educational Leadership, 60(3), 92. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/nov02/vol60/num03/RAND-Report-on-ReadingComprehension.aspx
References Continued
Rasinski, T. (2004, March). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership,
61(6), 46-51. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/mar04/vol61/num06/Creating-Fluent-Readers.aspx
Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of
repeated readings. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 252-261.
Wise, J. C., Sevcik, R. A., Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., Wolf, M., Kuhn, M.,
... Schwanenflugel, P. (2010, July). The relationship between different
measures of oral reading fluency and reading comprehension in secondgrade students who evidence different oral reading fluency difficulties.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(3), 340-348.