|
| Dimensions of Oral Reading Fluency |
| Sunday, May 25, 2008 |
| 10:30 AM–11:50 AM |
| Williford A |
| Area: EDC |
| Chair: Breda V. O'Keeffe (Utah State University) |
| |
| Comparison of Two Reading Fluency Methods: Repeated Reading to a Fluency Criterion and Interval Sprinting. |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| DOUGLAS E. KOSTEWICZ (Pennsylvania State University), Richard M. Kubina Jr. (Pennsylvania State University) |
| |
| Abstract: Teachers have used the method of repeated readings to build oral reading fluency in students with and without special needs. A new fluency building intervention called interval sprinting uses shorter timing intervals (i.e., sprints) across a passage. This study used an alternating treatment design to compare repeated readings and interval sprinting for three participants with, or at-risk for, reading deficits. The results show that the participants attained the fluency criterion at approximately the same time for both experimental conditions. Compared to readings in the first phase, students demonstrated higher average initial readings and reached criterion as fast or faster in the second phase, demonstrating reading transfer. The discussion covers possible reasons why both procedures showed similar reading changes and transfer. Additionally, the discussion reviews some particular aspects of interval sprinting, such as its demonstration of reading endurance. |
| |
| Variability in Reading Rate Assessment: The Effects of Goal Markers and Passage Differences. |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| BREDA V. O'KEEFFE (Utah State University), Lee L. Mason (Utah State University), Timothy A. Slocum (Utah State University) |
| |
| Abstract: This study investigated the effects of (a) visual goal markers and (b) passage difficulty on variability in the oral reading rate of third grade students. Approximately 80 third grade students who were receiving regular progress monitoring of their oral reading rate using the DIBELS progress monitoring passages were included. Across 10 weeks, participants alternated weekly between progress monitoring using existing standard practices, and modified progress monitoring practices that included a specific goal marker identifying their previous best performance. Results include identification of: (a) the effects of these visual goal markers on week-to-week variance in reading performance and (b) variance in reading performance that was attributable to differences among passages. |
| |
| Improving Reading Fluency and Comprehension for Struggling High School Students. |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| ANDREA D. HALE (Eastern Kentucky University), Renee Hawkins (University of Cincinnati), Wesley Sheeley (University of Cincinnati) |
| |
| Abstract: While much research has focused on research to improve literacy in the elementary grades, significantly less research has been conducted at the high-school level. Although an emphasis on prevention and early intervention is critical, evidence-based interventions that lead to improvements in both reading fluency and comprehension are still currently needed for struggling high school students. The current presentation will describe the results of two studies examining the effects of different reading interventions on high school students’ reading performance. Study I applied an alternating treatments design to compare the effects of three conditions: repeated reading with an error correction procedure, repeated reading with an error correction procedure and vocabulary previewing, and silent reading (control). Data from each of six participants will be graphically analyzed. Study II applied a multiple baseline across students design (N=6) to determine if the effects of the repeated reading with an error correction procedure and vocabulary previewing condition seen in Study I generalized to non-practiced reading material. Results will be graphically analyzed to determine effects of the intervention on overall reading fluency and comprehension. Discussion will focus on the continued need for research-based interventions to help high school readers and recommendations for practice. |
| |
|
| |