THE EFFECTS OF INTENSIVE READING INTERVENTION ON FOURTH THROUGH SIXTH GRADE READING FLUENCY THROUGH THE USE OF SRA DIRECT INSTRUCTION CURRICULUM

Transcription

1 THE EFFECTS OF INTENSIVE READING INTERVENTION ON FOURTH THROUGH SIXTH GRADE READING FLUENCY THROUGH THE USE OF SRA DIRECT INSTRUCTION CURRICULUM AND ECHO READING A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Stanislaus In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Education By Christi Cease Allan May 2014

2 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL THE EFFECTS OF INTENSIVE READING INTERVENTION ON FOURTH THROUGH SIXTH GRADE READING FLUENCY THROUGH THE USE OF SRA DIRECT INSTRUCTION CURRICULUM by Christi Cease Allan Signed Certification of Approval Page is on file with the University Library Dr. Granger Dinwiddie Associate Professor of Special Education Date Dr. Kimy Liu Associate Professor of Special Education Date Dr. Susan Neufeld Professor of Education Date

3 2014 Christi Cease Allan ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

4 DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my family. My husband, David, and my children, Easton and Addison, have given me the support, strength and courage to proceed on my journey of higher education. I am so very thankful for all of their continued love and support. To my parents who have continued to encourage me for as long as I can remember, thank you for believing in me and for making education a priority. To my friends, thank you for all of your encouragement in this journey, I am grateful to everyone who had a kind word of support when I needed it the most. iv

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been completed without the assistance and moral support of Dr. Granger Dinwiddie, Dr. Kimy Liu, and Dr. Susan Neufeld. It was their guidance, counseling and constant support during the writing of this thesis that allowed me to conduct a meaningful study. I am also very thankful to my principal, Diane Scott for allowing me to conduct the intervention at my school site and gather data that was used within this study. Her support of my research has allowed me to carry out a meaningful intervention that benefited so many students. To the students that participated, I am so truly blessed to have worked with each and every one of you. You have touched my life, and I hope that the time we spent working on reading will be something that you always remember. v

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Dedication... Acknowledgements... iv v List of Tables... viii List of Figures... Abstract... ix xi CHAPTER I. Introduction... 1 Statement of the Problem... 3 Purpose of the Study... 6 Research Questions... 7 Definition of Terms... 7 Summary... 9 II. Literature Review Direct Instruction Fluency Echo Reading Comprehension Summary III. Methodology Participants Assessment Plan Summary of Pretest Intervention and Ongoing Progress Monitoring Summary of Posttest Summary IV. Results Research Questions and Findings Summary vi

7 V. Discussions and Recommendations Implications Limitations Recommendations References Appendices A. Oral Reading Fluency Norms B. DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) Grades Four Through Six C. Oral Reading Scale vii

8 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Participants Demographics Information Assessment Used for Intervention Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (Form G. vs Form H) Data Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised Student Cluster Score Student Decoding B1 Descriptive Statistics for the Treatment Group Student Oral Reading Fluency Scale Student Comprehension viii

9 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised/NU Student 1 DIBELS Next DORF Scores Student 2 DIBELS Next DORF Scores Student 3 DIBELS Next DORF Scores Student 4 DIBELS Next DORF Scores Student 5 DIBELS Next DORF Scores Student 6 DIBELS Next DORF Scores Student 7 DIBELS Next DORF Scores Student 8 DIBELS Next DORF Scores DIBELS Progress Monitoring Errors Student 1 Individual Reading Progress Decoding B Individual Error Progress Decoding B Prosody Student 1 DIBELS Next DORF Retell Student 2 DIBELS Next DORF Retell Student 3 DIBELS Next DORF Retell Student 4 DIBELS Next DORF Retell Student 5 DIBELS Next DORF Retell Student 6 DIBELS Next DORF Retell Student 7 DIBELS Next DORF Retell ix

10 21. Student 8 DIBELS Next DORF Retell x

11 ABSTRACT This study explored the impact of using the SRA direct instruction Decoding B-1 curriculum to increase students reading fluency. Additionally, the study focused on increasing students prosody through the use of echo reading, a form of repeated reading that used modeling to provide students a demonstration of intonation, expression and pacing through the observation of the author s syntax. The fourth through sixth grade students within the study were homogeneously grouped and received 14 weeks of intervention to determine if the intervention had an effect on oral reading fluency as well as reading comprehension. This study used pre- and post-assessments to determine if the SRA direct instruction in conjunction with the echo reading were effective teaching strategies for the fourth through sixth grade students at risk for reading failure. xi

12 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The National Reading Panel (2000) highlighted five big ideas of early literacy skills development, ranging from phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension that are essential in students success in reading. Oral reading fluency is the ability to read a text aloud accurately and with proper speed and expression; it depends upon well-developed word recognition skills, and is a critical component of skilled reading. Furthermore, the NRP (2000) stated that fluency was often neglected in classroom instruction. Fluency is comprised of three aspects of reading: rate, accuracy and prosody. According to Pikulski and Chard (2005), fluency is the bridge between students ability to decode and their ability to comprehend the text. A fluent reader is able to read with an appropriate rate, while maintaining an accuracy of 97% correct words, and prosody which is comprised of being able to read with expression, intonation and maintaining the author s syntax (Carnine, Silbert, Kame enui, & Tarver 2010). Students who have reading difficulties often struggle with reading sight words; they have under developed skills in decoding, and often re-read decodable words and phrases without automaticity. Fluency becomes the essential skill for these and all students academic success because without oral reading fluency students are unable to be successful in all academic areas (Chard, Vaughn & Tyler, 2002). Fluency also develops from the students reading practice and depends upon the readers decoding 1

13 2 skills, but the ability to decode does not guarantee that readers will become fluent and automatic (NRP, 2000). The NRP (2000) also found that guided repeated reading helped to improve the reader s word recognition, fluency and comprehension. The use of guided repeated reading with corrective feedback showed the largest amount of student improvement in reading fluency. Without increased reading fluency, even the brightest children will read slow and laboriously without proper guidance and instruction from the teacher. Accuracy in reading was the first component of fluency because accuracy was necessary for reading success. For a student to be considered an accurate reader, the student must be able to read grade level passages with an accuracy of 97% (Carnine et al., 2010). Deeney (2010) stated, If students are to comprehend what they read, they must accurately identify the majority of words in a text. Misreading critical words, or a large percentage of words, can derail comprehension (p. 440). Appropriate speed (rate) is the second component of fluency. In the context of oral reading fluency, a reader s rate refers to the speed at which a student can read the selected text, and is expressed educationally as words read per minute (WPM) (Carnine, et al. 2010). According to Rasinski (2001), oral reading rate "is significantly correlated with other measures of proficient reading such as standardized and informal measures of comprehension and word accuracy." (p. 1) Prosody is the third component of fluency. Prosody is the readers ability to read with expressiveness observing the intonation, rhythm and emphasis given to

14 3 words and sentences. The reader should also be able to preserve the meaning and the syntax and semantics intended by the author. This study examined the impact that SRA Corrective Reading program had on accuracy and speed of read-aloud (the first two components of oral reading fluency) for special needs students in grades four through six. This thesis also investigated the use of echo reading, an evidence-based strategy designed to improve students oral reading prosody (the third component of fluency) by asking students to read through the passages multiple times after the passage had been modeled and chunked into phrases by the teacher, positively affected students reading fluency. Finally, it looked at the impact of reading fluency on student s reading comprehension. Statement of the Problem According to the National Reading Panel (2000) 44% of the fourth grade students were disfluent even with grade-level stories that the students had read under supported testing conditions (p. 3-1). Additionally, there was a close relationship identified between the students reading fluency and comprehension. If a student struggled with reading fluency then the student may also struggle with gaining meaning within the text. Chall and Jacobs (2003) argued that one reason students have reading difficulty around fourth grade is due to the vocabulary of the text becoming unfamiliar and much more complex. In grade 4, the children were about a year behind grade norms. By grade 7, they were more than two years behind norms (Chall et al., p. 1). As the curriculum becomes more challenging and abstract, students are not cognitively prepared, and if not addressed these students will

15 4 continue to struggle with their oral reading comprehension. According to Lyons (2003), we can estimate that at least 20 million school-aged children suffer from reading failure 17.7 million poor readers not meeting the eligibility requirements for the Specific Learning Disability category (p.4). According to Carnine et al. (2010), of the ten to 15 percent of children who will eventually drop out of school, over 75 percent will report difficulties learning to read (p. 11). They go on to assert, It goes without saying that failure to learn to read places children s futures and lives at risk for highly deleterious outcomes (p. 11). As students progress through their education, if they continue to struggle with reading, their self-esteem also suffered. Students who struggle fall behind in their language acquisition as well as be unable to use strategies necessary to be as successful as their reading peers (Carnine et al. 2010). These struggling readers may also not be as college or career ready as their more abled peers. Even in the vocational training programs offered, student s need to have mastered basic literacy skills. Rasinski (2004) stated to be a successful reader required that the reader was able to process the text (decode), as well as comprehend what the text said. Rasinski referred to processing the text as the students surface level of reading, and comprehending the text as the deeper meaning (p. 46). He goes on to suggest that, reading fluency refers to the reader s ability to develop control over surface-level text processing so that he or she can focus on understanding the deeper levels of meaning (p. 46).

16 5 Rasinski (2012) also argued that too many teachers now focus on oral reading rate as the equivalent to reading fluency. This is not the case, and goes on to discuss that this is the reason, fluency is reading with and for meaning, and any instruction that focuses primarily on speed with minimal regard for meaning is wrong (p. 517). If research was to primarily focus on rate alone, the study would consist of word callers, or students who can read at the word level without any understanding of the text that the words are imbedded into (Mesinger, 2010). This study looked to further investigate the effects that reading intervention with the addition of echo reading had on students oral reading prosody. Torgesen (1998) explained that it was important that preventative programs be designed to maintain students growth at roughly normal levels in elementary school. If the students fell behind their grade level peers due to lack of intervention, it would then require intensive instruction to catch them up. According to Cassidy and Ortlieb (2012), the adoption of Common Core State Standards, students will be asked to read more informational text and be able to develop a deeper meaning. The new focus is on developing literacy in students in grades four and higher because not all literacy problems children experience can be solved in the earliest years (p. 144). Students from economically deprived backgrounds have a greater chance of facing challenges when it comes to acquiring the skills needed for higher levels of reading achievement that can have long-term deleterious affects into adulthood (Stockard, 2010). Chall (2003) and Nichols, Rupley and Rasinski (2009), explained that students progress in stages; students

17 6 consistently showed the most deficits in the transition from learning to read (phase 2, developmental reading) where the students learn how to use the alphabetic principle and move to reading to learn (phase 3, functional reading) where students have to use familiar vocabulary to learn and understand concepts that were not within their everyday environment. Students within stage 3 draw upon their background knowledge as well as their ability to use strategies to help to become more fluent in their reading; if students in grades four and higher are unable to reach stage 3 functional reading, they continued to lack the skills necessary to be successful. These students could often suffer from a lack of self-esteem, which would lead to more deleterious classroom behaviors. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was threefold: to examine (1) Did SRA Corrective Reading positively increase reading rate and accuracy in students at risk for reading failure? (2) Did the use of echo reading improve the prosody of the targeted students? and (3) was there a link between students reading fluency and their literal comprehension of the text? These are important questions because according to Foorman & Torgesen (2001) children at risk for reading failure acquire reading skills more slowly than other children, but they must acquire the same set of skills to become good readers (p. 206). The students that are at risk for reading failure need additional instruction and this study hopes to verify an appropriate supplemental curriculum in SRA Corrective Reading Decoding B1 and teaching strategies that benefit these students.

18 7 Research Questions Research Question 1: Did SRA Corrective Reading positively increase speed and accuracy of reading fluency in students at risk for reading failure? Hypothesis: There will be a significant improvement between the students pre and post assessment scores as well as an overall increase in reading rate (correct words per minute) and students reading accuracy over the 14-week session. Research Question 2: Did the use of echo reading increase students prosody? Hypothesis: There will be a positive increase on students reading prosody through the use of echo reading. Research Question 3: Was there a positive correlation between students reading fluency and their comprehension of the text? Hypothesis: If student s scores on their oral reading fluency improve, their scores or performance on reading comprehension will improve as well. Definition of Terms Accuracy: The accuracy of a reader based on words read per minute minus the errors made within the reading, or percent of correct reading. DIBELS Next: Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literary Skills, a set of procedures and measures for assessing the acquisition of early literacy skills. DORF: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency, a student is presented a reading passage and asked to read aloud. The student is then asked to retell what he/she just read. Fluency: The ability to read with accuracy, appropriate rate and prosody.

19 8 Guided Repeated Reading (Echo Reading): Repeated reading is an evidence-based strategy designed to improve students oral reading accuracy rate and speed by asking students to read through the passages multiple times. Guided repeated reading further requires students imitating teachers reading the same passages with appropriate speed, phrasing and intonation. Teachers must model and provide students explicit and specific feedback when implementing guided repeated reading. Instructionally Naïve Learners: students who do not readily retain newly presented information, are easily confused and have difficulty attending to an instructional presentation. Macmillan/McGraw-Hill California Treasures English Language Arts Curriculum: Core English Language Arts curriculum being used in the Kindergarten through sixth grade classrooms. Prosody: In reading, prosody refers to the expressiveness with which a reader reads aloud the connected text. It includes the intonation, rhythm (including pauses) and emphases given to words and sentences. Reading Comprehension: The ability of the reader to decode words with automaticity so that the reader is able to understand the overall message of the passage. Reading Rate: The speed at which a reader can read, which is expressed as words per minute (WPM) and/or correct/error words per minute (CWPM & EWPM). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test- Newly Updated (WRMT-NU): Norm-referenced assessment to evaluate students reading ability based on decoding non-sense words,

20 9 whole word reading, the students ability to use synonyms, antonyms, and analogies. Additionally, students have to read passages and fill in the blank with appropriate words. Summary The beginning chapter of this study discussed the importance of reading fluency and how fluency impacts students academic success. Lack of effective oral reading fluency skills negatively impact elementary age students because they were unable to access the general education curriculum. Starting in Grade 2, the learning expectation for students extends beyond learning to read (developmental reading), and focuses more on reading to learn (functional reading) (Nichols, Rupley, & Rasinski, 2009). Students at grades 4-6 that are unable to appropriately read fluently and comprehend are unable to access the curriculum needed to be successful. This can increase frustration and disruptive behaviors within these students, which leads to higher attrition rates at the onset of secondary education. The next four chapters delineate this current research on the three components of fluency, echo reading and comprehension. Moreover, Chapter three addresses the methods used in conducting this study.

21 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Upon developing this study several important aspects of reading ability were considered, including: Direct Instruction, Three components of Fluency, Echo Reading, and Comprehension. Direct Instruction Effective and efficient reading instruction is important to all students, especially those who have difficulty with reading (Lingo, Slaton, & Jolivette, 2006). According to Taylor, Peterson, Pearson, and Rodriguez (2002), we learned that effective teachers maintained an academic focus (p. 270) they go on to state that, effective direct instruction included making learning goals clear, asking students question to monitor understanding of content or skills covered, and providing feedback to students (p. 270). Direct instruction, developed by Siegfried Engelmann in 1964, consisted of highly structured reading programs that required the instructor to systematically and explicitly teach students lessons through modeling and guided practice; the instructor then assessed students learning outcomes during both the independent practice as well as throughout each lesson. The DI curricula are specifically designed to accelerate students learning by teaching more than traditional programs in the same amount of time (Stockard, 2010, p. 219). Stockard explained, DI programs are extensively field-tested before dissemination to ensure that they produce the greatest learning in the most efficient manner (p. 220). Mastery within the Direct Instruction program was vital; often skills need to be taught 10

22 11 more than once because students were unable to accurately attempt the independent practice without attaining the necessary accuracy to move on (Cooper, et al., 1988). Direct Instruction programs are designed with the instructionally naïve learner in mind. The instructionally naïve learner was the student who was unable to hold onto to newly introduced concepts. These students struggled to attend during instruction, and often did not know what information was the most important and ended up missing the objective of the lesson. This confusion often distracted the student from learning and led the student to more inappropriate behaviors (Carnine et al, 2010). The Direct Instruction program contained objectives that were observable and measurable for the instructor. It also utilized strategies that make the curriculum more effective for the instructionally naïve learner. Direct Instruction limited the cognitive demand by having the skill levels of the material sequenced, allowing for the less difficult tasks to be learned before moving on to more complex tasks; this allowed the naïve learner to attend to the important aspects of the lessons while limiting the cognitive demand placed on the student. The programs also allowed for review and practice of all skills throughout the lesson as well as across multiple lessons. This was a vital part of the program s success because it helps to create and retain the students oral reading accuracy as well as rate at the word level as well as in the connected text (Carnine et al. 2010). This allowed the naïve learner to have additional practice at newly introduced concepts that provided the student with more attempts at learning.

23 12 Within the Direct Instruction program, all skills built upon each other and if a student was not at mastery of one of the earlier required skills then the students did not proceed in the program. The students remained at the current lesson until such time that mastery has been demonstrated. Direct instruction mandated the necessary error correction procedures that monitors students errors within decoding of sounds, whole word reading, or additionally, within story reading. Direct and explicit instruction is essential in helping struggling readers to improve their reading skills (Rupley, 2009). Direct Instruction incorporated the steps for direct/explicit instruction identified by Rupley (2009). The DI programs reviewed previous lessons, introduced new material through modeling and guided practice, the instructor provided feedback as well as immediate corrections, independent practice is mandated, and student progress is reviewed. Within the Direct Instruction reading curriculum, students began by initially segmenting and blending sounds in isolation to make words and then moved to segmenting or chunking words within sentences. Students used interactive games in the Direct Instruction programs like hit and miss, an exit exercise that required students to re-read the word attack rows of words individually, earning points for the group. In this exercise, the first-time correctness is emphasized. If the stude3nts do not meet the criteria set forth by the curriculum, the instructor needed to reteach that part of the lesson. The Hit and miss game is a criterion-based informative assessment that ensured that students were learning at mastery level. Another similar example was the reading check-out exercises that were embedded in the curriculum.

24 13 During the reading checkout, students read to partners and had their errors monitored, and also read the previous lessons passage to the instructor to monitor errors as well as track students oral reading fluency. This is an important part of a Direct Instruction program because an early emphasis on accuracy will enable students to develop the concentration to read the word list as well as the connected text with high accuracy and appropriate speed (Carnine et al., 2010). This progression continued until students were able to read words within stories, and answer comprehension questions. Emphasis on the application of the component skills in word attack helped students improve their accuracy and automaticity in sight word reading. Students must master all pre-skills before moving on to sight word reading within sentences and stories. The use of echo reading allowed for students to have the teacher model appropriate reading while also allowing students additional practice of the reading passages. This additional practice allowed for students to identify unknown words as well as observe appropriate pacing and intonation. There have been several studies that have documented the effects of the Corrective Reading Program developed by Siegfried Engelmann. Vitale, Medland, Romance, Parke Weaver (1993) found that students in grades 4-6 who participated in the Correct Reading program had highly accelerated rates of progress on both the decoding skills commonly present in remedial reading programs and on advanced thinking skills (p. 30). Thompson (1992) compared the Corrective Reading to Whole Language, the students that were scored in the lower cognitive ability as well as students that came from lower socioeconomic conditions. Students in the

25 14 Corrective Reading group averaged a gain of 21 words per minute in reading fluency compared to 13 words per minute in the whole language group (p. 13). Stockard s study indicated that students who had the DI curriculum through their elementary grades had significantly greater gains than students in other curricula (p. 233). The Corrective Reading program developed by Engelmann consisted of instruction that was aimed at the instructionally naïve learner; the students that had yet to be successful in their reading abilities from the general education curriculum being presented to them on a daily basis. The delivery of instruction identified by Carnine et al. (2010) listed the aspects of a direct instruction design that were associated with student success: high levels of student engagement, academic focus, teacher directed, sequenced and structured materials, clearly identified goals, sufficient time allowed for lessons, extensive amounts of content in each lesson, teachers ability to monitor for students understanding and mastery, immediate feedback on errors, and highly structured (scripted) teacher student interactions. The Direct Instruction programs required an instructor to model and monitor appropriate reading behaviors with the students while tracking their success. Fluency Students at risk of reading failure view the process of word identification and decoding a text at the word level as a daunting task because the students are only able to transfer between the two skills, they are unable to simultaneously do both together. Fluency is comprised of three aspects of reading: rate, accuracy, and

26 15 prosody. A reader s rate refers to the speed at which a student can read the selected text, and is expressed educationally as (correct) words read per minute (WPM or CWPM) (Good & Kaminski, 2011). Reading rate comprises both word-level automaticity and the speed and fluidity with which a reader moves through connected text (Hudson, Lane & Pullen, 2005 p. 704). Students identified as poor readers often exhibited slow and laborious word calling, unable to read the text correctly and effortlessly. Students who are able to read with appropriate speed, A reader s accuracy referred to the criteria set for student s reading accuracy. Carnine et al. (2010) recommended an accuracy of 97% to consider the student at mastery and if a student was unable to reach this accuracy then they would require additional instruction dependent on the students individual error patterns. Accuracy is important an important aspect of fluency because it allowed the student to develop concentration that will be needed without having to exert a vast amount of effort. Prosody referred to the expressiveness with which a reader could read the connected text aloud. It included the intonation, rhythm (including pauses) and emphases given to words and sentences. For prosody to be learned, the student must observe an effective model of how the intonation, rhythm, stress patterns of words, duration as well as the emphasis on punctuation should be incorporated to preserve the meaning and the syntax and semantic intent of the authors. The instructor should present the text, modeling appropriate expression, while observing the natural pauses within the sentences. The use of an echo read was beneficial to students because it

27 16 allowed the student to practice the appropriate prosody without needing to decode the words. Because prosody and reading comprehension seem to have a reciprocal relationship, prosody is an important area of focus for fluency instruction Hudson et al p.704). Despite the obvious connection there was still limited research on whether a positive increase in prosody caused comprehension to increase or if the students increased comprehension was what developed the prosody. Many struggling readers do not gain reading fluency incidentally or automatically. In contrast to skilled readers, they often need direct instruction to read fluently (Hudson et al. 2005, p. 702). Fluency was key in building students decoding skills as well as automaticity within their reading ability. According to Wilson (2012), a fluency lesson will engage both ends of the bridge-word knowledge and passage meaning. Just as you pre-teach words for guided-reading lesson, so do you pre-teach words for fluency lessons (p. 154). The research showed that reading was a fundamental skill that is necessary for students to be successful within their academic careers (Chard, Ketterlin-Geller, Baker, Doabler, & Apichatabutra, 2009). According to LaBerge and Samuels (1974) there was a connection between reading fluency and comprehension. If readers were not fluent in decoding and in automaticity then the reader would be unable to comprehend the text effectively. As the student became more fluent in decoding and no longer had to attend to every letter sound correspondent (rate and accuracy increase), it is then that the student was able to free up the needed mental capacity to improve comprehension. Students who continued to struggle with reading fluency throughout their education

28 17 would continue to read with a struggle constantly interfering with their ability to comprehend the text. This study looked to examine how the three aspects of oral reading fluency, including rate (the speed at which a student reads), accuracy (the criteria set for the students accuracy) and prosody (i.e., the aspect of fluency that looked at how students observes the punctuation and intonation of the text) effect students reading comprehension. Echo Reading Echo Reading, also known as Guided Repeated Reading allowed students the opportunity to read text on more than one occasion through the guidance of their instructor s modeling (Chard, et al., 2009). The purpose of echo reading (guided repeated reading) was to teach students how to read with appropriate speed and expression. It required students to read a phrase or sentence, after the instructor modeled the same phrase or sentence. Echo Reading allowed the student to observe how teachers (i.e., proficient readers) read with proper phrasing and intonation. From the perspective of instructionally naïve learners, the concept of good prosody is abstract and cannot be observed by looking at the prints on the pages. Teacher modeling is necessary scaffolding for instructionally naïve learners to understand what reading with good prosody or with appropriate speed and expression means. When implementing guided reading, the instructor would break a selection of connected text into small chunks so that the pauses and breaks were natural and the information delivered via audible cues made sense to a novice reader (Cooper et al.,

29 ). Guided repeated reading is intended as a supplement in a developmental reading program is particularly suitable for students with learning problems, it is useful for normal children as well (Samuels, 1979, p. 377). Furthermore, Robertson (2009) stated that echo reading does not require children to actually decode the words, they are free to concentrate on how fluent reading feels and sounds (p. 11). Therrien and Kubina (2006) stated that repeated reading benefited students primarily in grades first through third, but could also provide support to students in the intermediate grades who struggled with their automaticity. Guided repeated reading allowed for the teacher to take on the role as coach, and document areas of concern while praising for accuracy as well as effort (Rasinksi, 2005). Also, the teacher should instruct the student through the use of modeling the appropriate phrasing, and intonation necessary to show the emotion or intended emphasis the authors strive to convey. Additionally, the teacher should pose a question or set of questions after each section to monitor the student s comprehension, and throughout the passage. These questions allowed the instructor to assure that the students were using all of the necessary reading skills as well as building their understanding. Additionally, when instructing the naïve learner, before the teacher could proceed in the lesson, mastery on all previous sections must have been established. If the student could not correctly identify the answer to the question asked, it was imperative that the teacher helped the student identify the correct answer and then repeat the reading and re-ask the same questions. According to the National Reading

30 19 Panel (2000), repeated reading procedures have a clear impact on the reading ability of non-impaired readers through at least grade 4, as well as on students with various kinds of reading problems throughout high school. Furthermore, instructional practices such as guided repeated reading that included feedback helps to develop all readers and encourage all readers (NRP, 2000). Homan, Klesius, and Hite (1993) indicate, repeated readings using overlapping words were more effective for improving speed. According to Dowhower (1987), more successful readers were able to observe the pauses within the text by chunking whereas students that were struggling tended to piece information together word by word. Most of the research identified used peer modeling, or a recorded model for the students to learn from. Furthermore, a majority of research also focused on the repeated reading aspect rather than guided repeated reading. The use of echo reading with a trained instructor, which focused on teaching the students how to observe the natural breaks within the text as well as varying intonation and punctuation, was an area that needed further investigation. Comprehension According to Torgesen (1998), adequate reading comprehension is the most important ultimate outcome of effective instruction in reading (p. 33). For students to be successful with comprehending the text, they must learn the skills necessary for knowing how to decode as well as use the context clues when unsure of a word. The use of context clues allowed the reader to use familiar words within a sentence to decode an unfamiliar word. This process allowed for the reader to learn a

31 20 new word as well as keep the meaning within the text, allowing for comprehension (Cooper, et al., 1988). Comprehension is the process of constructing meaning from the clues in the text. Comprehension requires the reader to be able to understand and answer literal, inferential and evaluative questions at the same time as the student decodes the text in order to fully understand what is being said. If students are unable to read with accuracy then they will be unable to create a clear picture of what the author is trying to depict, their mistakes would cause confusion and inaccuracies. If students are unable to read with appropriate speed (word callers) then these students are unable to have a deeper understanding of the text because they are consumed by decoding the words within the text. Furthermore, if students are unable to read with appropriate prosody, then they are unable to decipher the authors voice and may miss important cues within the text. If students have skill deficiencies in any of these key components of fluency, then their comprehension will be hindered. According to Samuels (1987), poor readers are constantly forced to switch attention back and forth from decoding to comprehension in order to read and get meaning (p. 19). Summary In this chapter the four key areas of fluency, echo reading, Direct Instruction, and comprehension were explained. Additionally, important research was provided to further illustrate the necessity of these areas within the reading intervention in this study. The next three chapters will discuss the methods and findings of this study.

32 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter outlines the participants, methods and data analysis used to carry out this study. The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of a specially designed reading intervention on students oral reading fluency. The study examined fourth through sixth grade students from an elementary school in the Central Valley of California. A pre and post-test as well as progress monitoring were administered to examine and monitor the students reading fluency. Additionally, the students prosody was closely monitored within their reading to examine if their prosody increased with respect to their reading fluency through the use of direct instruction and repeated echoic reading. This research was approved by the University Institutional Review Board protocol # on February Participants The participants in this study included eight students: one fourth grade student, five fifth grade students, and two sixth grade students, from an elementary school in the Central Valley of California. According to the School Accountability Report Card (2011), the school was composed of 532 students of which 10.3% were identified as English Learners and 68.2% were classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. Of the 207 fourth through sixth grade students on the campus, 39 were identified as Basic and 12 were identified as Below Basic on the California Standards Tests (CST) in English Language Arts. Eight of the 51 students were recruited to participate in this study as a convenient sample because the fourth 21

33 22 through sixth grade general education teachers identified them based on their CST scores. All of the targeted students had their parents give consent to further testing and agreed to participate in this study. The students who participated in the study all received the curriculum-based assessment Diagnostic Oral Reading Fluency assessment Macmillan/McGraw-Hill. In addition, the students received the Woodcock Reading Mastery (Form G) norm-referenced pre-test assessment. The group was comprised of three male and five female students. The ethnicity of the students was: four Caucasian students, two African American students, and two Hispanic students. Of the eight students identified, six were identified as receiving free or reduced lunches. One of the students was identified as an English Language Learner, four students were in the pre-referral process of IEP eligibility determination, and the other four students currently have individualized education programs (IEP) (See Table 1). All students and their parents received and signed consent forms to participate in the study. (Appendix E)

34 23 Table 1 Participants Demographic Information Student Chronological Grade Level Race Gender EL Celdt Score IEP Disability Category CST Score 1 6 African American F No No Basic 2 5 African American M No Yes SLD Below Basic 3 6 White F No Yes SLD Below Basic 4 4 Hispanic M Yes 436 Early Intermediate Yes SLD Below Basic 5 5 White F No No Basic 6 5 Hispanic F No No SLD Below Basic 7 5 White F No No Basic 8 5 White M No No Below Basic

35 24 Table 2 Assessment Used for Intervention CST CBA: MMH Grade Level Oral Reading Fluency DIBELS NEXT as CBM WRMT Pre-Test X X X X Ongoing Progress Monitoring X Post-Test X X X Assessment Plan In this study, CST was used to select the appropriate students. In addition to CST, the CBA embedded in the district-approved curriculum, DIBELS Next DORF (DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency) and Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Newly Updated/Revised (WRMT-NU) were the tools selected to identify the students and determine their present performance levels. These three assessments were later used as posttest to measure the improvement or lack of improvement on students learning outcomes. DIBELS Next DORF was also used as on-going progress monitoring in this study. Table 2 illustrated the overall assessment plan employed in this study. The following sections describe the proposed pre-tests (including qualifiers for selecting the appropriate participants), intervention, the measures used during the intervention and the post-tests.

36 25 Summary of Pretest Four tests were used as the pre-tests to select students and determine their present level of performance. The first qualifier was the California Standards Test (CST). Within this assessment there are five levels that students are identified into: Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic, and Far Below Basic. This study chose to exclude students who were in the Advanced and Proficient levels because those students met grade-level standards set by the State of California and needed no additional intervention. Instead, this study chose to target students in the Basic and Below Basic levels because they were in need of additional instruction and intervention below their current grade level. Students who score in the Far Below Basic level need more targeted and more purposeful intervention based on alternative curriculum, which is beyond the scope of this study. Although this study was conducted on a population of convenience, all students in grades fourth through sixth had their CST scores used as a qualifier for participation in this study. The students identified as proficient or advanced were not identified as needing further assessments, and were excluded from the study. After parent permission was received, the participating eight student s received the second qualifier which was the chronological grade equivalent of the Curriculum Based Assessment (CBA) Diagnostic Fluency Assessment within the Macmillan/McGraw- Hill California Treasures Core English Language Arts Curriculum. If the student s oral reading fluency rate was below the 50 th percentile identified by Hasbrouck and Tindal (2005) (Appendix A) then the student moved to the next qualifier and received

37 26 the DIBELS Next DORF grade level passages for progress monitoring as well as the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised. If a student read above the 50 th percentile, then those students were excluded from the study. All of the eight participating students were given the chosen Curriculum- Based Assessment (CBA), a standardized reading assessment, and curriculum based measurement (CBM) prior to the intervention. The initial CBA given to the students was the Oral Reading Fluency Diagnostic Assessment within the Macmillan/McGraw-Hill California Treasures Core English Language Arts Curriculum. This assessment included the students being asked to do a one minute timed read of a selected grade level passage that had not been previously read by the student; the administrator of the test took into account any errors made such as omission of words, substitutions of words and misidentification of words. Additionally, hesitations of three or more seconds were also considered as an error. Students who monitored and self-corrected an error or re-read a word or group of words within the passage would not be penalized. The scores of this CBA assessment were then measured against the Curriculum-Based Oral Reading Fluency Norms identified by Hasbrouck & Tindal (2005) (Appendix A). Based on Hasbrouck and Tindal (2006), teachers use the 50 th percentile as a reasonable gauge of proficiency for students (p. 642). If the student fell below the 50 th percentile for the Fall words correct per minute, the student then received the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test- Revised (WRMT, Form G), a standardized reading assessment.

38 27 The WRMT consisted of four subtest sections: word identification, word attack, word comprehension: antonyms, word comprehension: synonyms, word comprehension: analogies, and passage comprehension. The word identification test (subtest 3) required that the students identify words in isolation. Word attack (subtest 4) required the subject to read nonsense words, measuring the student s ability to apply phonics skills to produce unknown words. Word comprehension: antonyms and synonyms, (subtests 5a and 5b) measured the student s ability to read words that got progressively more complex and then responded with the opposite meaning for antonyms and similar meaning for synonyms. Word comprehension: analogies (subtest 5c) consisted of a pair of words that had a relationship (1 is to 2, as 3 is to ) and then the subject was required to complete the next word. This test measured comprehension because it required the subject to identify the context embedded into the relationship of the words. Passage Comprehension (subtest 6) measured the student s ability to identify the missing word within a passage by using the context clues. A reading CBM DIBELS Next DORF was also used in this study. Unlike the CBA embedded in the core curriculum, the CMB measured the development of more global skills, using text that the students have never read before. DIBELS Next DORF was administered at the student s chronological grade level. In this study, the researcher used two types of DIBELS Next DORF measures: benchmark assessment was used, as well as a progress-monitoring assessment that was administered biweekly for the duration of the intervention. The DIBELS Next DORF benchmark

39 28 assessment required that the student read three separate passages, while all scores were recorded as the student s baseline, the median score assumed to be the true baseline and was used as the starting point for tracking progress (Good & Kaminski, 2011) (Appendix B). The students were then asked to retell as much as they could about the passage, and the test administrator would tally the number of words used correctly in reference to the passage. This was the students Retell score and monitored the students understanding of the passage meaning (Appendix B). Unlike the DIBELS Next DORF benchmark assessment, the subsequent progress monitoring measures only required students to read and retell one passage. The researcher used the benchmark-cut score standards set forth by the DIBELS test developers (see Appendix B) as the guide to interpret students DIBELS Next DORF scores. In this study, the DIBELS Next DORF CBM was chosen over the DIBELS Daze CBM because the students identified for this study were all identified as struggling in their fluency ability, and because the focus of the study was to investigate fluency growth (i.e. rate and accuracy of student s reading) DIBELS Next DORF was chosen as the most cumulative measure. Furthermore, the student s prosody was assessed using Pinnell, Pikulski, Wixson, Campbell, Gough, and Beatty s (1995) Oral Reading Fluency Scale (Appendix C). The scoring was rated on a scale of 1-4, and students were scored based upon their ability to chunk words, phrases and their use of expression and intonation. This score was also recorded as the student s initial prosody baseline. Using all these aforementioned pretest data, the students were then homogenously

40 29 grouped using the SRA Corrective Reading program s Placement Test. This allowed for reading intervention to be effectively administered at the groups instructional level. Intervention and Ongoing Progress Monitoring During the 14-week intervention, students received three 50-minutes sessions a week of pullout reading intervention in addition to their core Macmillan/McGraw- Hill California Treasures English Language Arts Curriculum, provided in the Resource classroom. The sessions took place during the regular school day, and each session was comprised of SRA Direct Instruction Decoding B-1, which was 65 lessons of scripted reading instruction for students identified as currently reading at approximately a late first grade level. According to Silbert (2005), Decoding B-1 was designed for students who have a serious confusion between letters and sounds and who over use context (p. 22). The scripted intervention allowed for systematic and explicit instruction of the material, and through the use of the script it allowed for the instruction to be delivered consistently at every session. Students were expected to finish one lesson per session. The intervention focused on group choral word reading, as well as word reading in isolation to monitor accuracy. Errors in both the choral and isolation readings were immediately corrected. Correction procedures were consistent throughout the program and always required that the students had to repeat the word after the teacher stated it correctly, as well as spell the word and then return to the beginning of the word list. The purpose of utilizing the proposed error correction

41 30 procedure was to quickly re-teach the students the word correctly, being able to monitor the student who made the error. Additionally, these words would have been added to the Good-Bye List a list consisting of the words that student s error on word attack and sentence reading. To help develop each student s prosody, the students participated in echo reading with the instructor at each session. Echo Reading was not explicitly mentioned in the SRA Corrective Reading program. It was added to this intervention because all of the students were identified as either reading slow and laboriously, or reading with excessive speed that did not observe the punctuation with the text. The instructor modeled appropriate pacing, intonation and phrasing of the reading passage through chunking of phrases and observing the natural pauses in the sentences. The instructor monitored the students correct use of prosody by listening to student responses, and if any of the students struggled with echoing the model, then the chunk was repeated until all students reached mastery of the section. During each intervention session, students took turns reading portions of a passage within the group setting. Errors were immediately corrected; the student would have the word told to him and then be required to start back at the beginning of the sentence. If the students went over the programs allowable errors for each section, the instructor directed the students to reread the part until the criterion of errors was met. Next, the students took turns reading the initial section of the passage with a partner. Each student would read the section while their partner recorded the number of errors that were made during the read.

42 31 The final one-minute timed read, in which the student read the previous intervention session s passage with the instructor, required that the student read the passage to the intervention instructor who monitored errors, and then calculated the student s correct word per minute fluency score. This score was recorded and compared to the Corrective Reading minimum reading rate scores. The students graphed their errors as well as correct words per minute in their workbooks so that they could observe their progress as well. If the students were unable to meet the minimum rate requirements, they were monitored closely. If only one student was struggling to meet the minimum reading rate requirements then the assumption would be that the student maybe misplaced in the wrong program. If more than three students were struggling then it may mean that the students needed additional practice of the reading. Before finishing the lesson, the instructor presented a list of words that the students had errors on: the Goodbye List. This list was made up of errors that students made in the word attack section as well as the passage reading section. The words were not removed from the list until the students were able to read accurately and chorally, on three different occasions. After the third occasion, the instructor would assume that the group has reached mastery; if any additional errors were made on the word then it would remain on the list until it had received three accurate readings. Students reviewed the Good-Bye List at the end of each lesson and at the beginning of the next lesson. The purpose of this list was to allow the students additional practice on words that had been problematic in previous lessons.

43 32 Every two weeks the students participated in on-going progress monitoring that used the DIBELS Next DORF at chronological grade level. The students would read a passage for one minute, having their errors tallied as they read. After the timed read, the students were then asked to retell as much as they could about the story they had just read. This retell was also administered for one minute and the student received a point for every correct word associated to the story. So as not to have scoring biases, another instructor trained in DIBELS Next administration monitored and recorded the CWPM as well as retell scores on weeks 4, 8 and 12, while the author administered the DORF on weeks 2, 6 and 10. Summary of the Posttest After the 14-week intervention all of the students received the same-shared characteristic of post-tests. The students received the DIBELS Next DORF (CBM) chronological grade level one-minute timed reading passage, with retell, as well as the (CBA) Diagnostic Fluency Assessment within the Macmillan/McGraw-Hill California Treasures Core English Language Arts Curriculum. Additionally, while scoring this passage, the instructor would monitor the students phrase chunking and intonation to record the prosody score on Pinnell s et al. (2005) Oral Reading Fluency Scale. The students then received the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (Form H) for their final standardized assessment to monitor fluency growth as well as comprehension. In this study, the researcher compared student s pre and post-test data in their DIBELS Next grade level DORF (CBM) as well as the Woodcock Reading Master Test (Form G vs. Form H).

44 33 Summary This study looked at a convenience sample made up of eight fourth through sixth grade students at an elementary school in the Central Valley of California. The students all received the same style of intervention, 14-weeks of intervention that used the direct instruction from SRA Decoding B-1, and received the instruction from the same instructor. The data consisted of a pre- and post-test, as well as progress monitoring assessments. The next chapter provides the analysis and findings of the study.

45 CHAPTER IV RESULTS The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a specifically designed reading intervention using SRA Corrective Reading B1, a Direct Instruction reading program that focused on developing fluency and comprehension in naïve learners. This study further examined participating student s oral reading fluency as compared to their grade level peers. The Direct Instruction program and the addition of Echo Reading were used in tandem to increase oral reading fluency, decoding skills, and reading comprehension. Student s data were taken in the form of both preand post-tests well as on-going progress monitoring. The intervention group consisted of 8 students (N=8). This convenient sample group was given the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised as both the pre (Form G) and post-test (Form H), (Table 2) to identify the students growth in the areas of: word identification, word attack, word comprehension and passage comprehension. The data was then compared to measure the oral reading fluency and comprehension growth attained by using the SRA Direct Instruction B1 reading curriculum over the 14-week intervention. The corrective reading program provided reading instruction at the student s instructional level, while their ongoing progress monitoring with the DIBELS Next DORF was monitored at grade level passages based on students chronological grade level to compare the student s growth to their same age peers. 34

46 35 Research Questions and Findings Research Question 1: Did SRA Corrective Reading positively increase reading fluency in students at risk for reading failure? H 1 : There was an increase in students grade equivalents on the pre and post Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised standardized assessment scores. According to the data shown in Table 3 and 4, there was an increase of 1.29 school years growth between the mean pre-test and post-test composite scores. Figure 1 illustrates the individual students pre-test, post-test as well as actual chronological grade level. All of the students showed academic growth, moving them all closer to their chronological grade level. Grade Equivalents Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised/NU Pre-Test Post-Test Chronological Grade Level Students Figure 1. Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised/NU displayed student progress from pre-test to post-test and compared students to their chronological grade level.

47 36 Table 3 Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (Form G vs. Form H) Data Student Sub Test 3 Word Identification Sub Test 4 Word Attack Sub Test 5 Word Comprehension Sub Test 6 Passage Comprehension Pre Post Gain Pre Post Gain Pre Post Gain Pre Post Gain Table 4 Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised Student Cluster Scores Student Basic Skills Cluster Reading Comprehension Cluster Total Reading Cluster Pre Post Gain Pre Post Gain Pre Post Gain Table 3 displays the data recorded from the pre and posttest results of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised Form G vs. Form H, as well as the gains made in each subtest.

48 37 When evaluating the test data, word identification (subtest 3) had an overall mean gain of 1.025, illustrating that the students on average gained a full school year of learning in their ability to identify words in isolation resulting from the 14-week intervention. For word attack (subtest 4), the students within the intervention gained an overall mean of 1.1 school years growth. The data indicated that the overall ability of the students to use decoding skills and demonstrate greater understanding of structural analysis of words had increased. In word comprehension (subtests 5a, 5b, 5c), the students all made a mean gain of 8.5 months of growth, in the antonyms, synonyms, and analogy portion of the assessment. These results proved that the students were all able to make at least a nominal growth in word comprehension, a skill needed to help build students vocabulary ability within reading. Passage comprehension (subtest 6) had an overall mean gain of 7.4 months, showing that seven out of eight students were able to improve their post-test scores by identifying the missing word in a passage, using the context clues. With the overall improvement of subtest 6 scores, it is apparent that the use of the 14-week intervention had a positive effect on the students passage comprehension. The basic skills cluster (Table 4) took into account the students word identification and word attack scores showed a mean gain of 1.1 school years. The reading comprehension cluster, which took into account the word comprehension subtests, and passage comprehension subtest, had a mean gain of 8.8 school months. The results of the data inconclusively dictates that the 14-week intervention was effective at improving students overall reading accuracy.

49 38 Table 5 contains the descriptive statistics of the students who participated in the SRA Decoding B1 Corrective Reading intervention. The grade level mean of the pre-test group was (third year second month grade equivalent), and the SD was.48. The grade level mean of the post-test group was (fourth year fifth month grade equivalent), and the SD was.50. The average grade level increase for all students was 1.3 (one year and three months), and there were no reading losses recorded on any student. Table 5 Student Decoding B1 Descriptive Statistics for the Treatment Group Pre-Test Post-Test Mean SD The third assessment data utilized were the DIBELS Next Benchmark and Progress monitoring measures. The students participated in on-going progress monitoring; bi-weekly measures were obtained using DIBELS Next DORF at the student s chronological grade level. So as not to have any scoring biases, another instructor trained in DIBELS Next administration monitored and recorded the CWPM as well as retell scores on weeks 4, 8 and 12. DIBELS Next (CBM) instructors utilized aim lines on the progress monitoring graphs, which allowed the instructor to evaluate whether the students were making

50 39 adequate progress at a glance. The line began at the current performance level of the students and was then aimed at the goal performance level of the students chronological grade level. All of the students in this study had their progress monitored using the students current oral reading (CWPM) performance level and used the mid-year benchmark goal at each chronological grade level as the students reading goal. In Figures 2-9, the DIBELS aimlines were established for each student using the median scores of Baseline data as the starting point, and the mid-year benchmark for the goal. If the student s progress monitoring scores were mostly at or above the aim line, there was a good chance that the student could meet the grade level benchmark in DORF assessment. 120 Student 1 DIBELS Next DORF Scores Correct Words Per Minute Errors Per Minute Figure 2. Student 1 Correct words and errors per minute reported on the DIBELS Next DORF grade 6 passages.

51 40 Student 1, a sixth grade student, had an initial median oral reading fluency score of 79 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 6 benchmark passages. The grade 6 mid-year benchmark goal for oral reading fluency was 109 (see Appendix B). After the 14-week intervention, student 1 had an ending score of 104 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 6 benchmark passage. This increase showed a gain of 25 words per minute over 14-weeks. Furthermore, when comparing student 1 to same grade level peers, one can see the growth as illustrated on the aim line showing the benchmark goal for the DIBELS Next DORF reading fluency word correct goal (See figure 2). Student 1 had a discrepancy of 28 (79 actual cwpm vs. 107 beginning grade 6 ORF Benchmark) words at the onset of intervention, ensuing the intervention was only five words away from the recommended oral reading fluency mid-year benchmark of 109. According to Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Walz (1993), students in grade 6 can make realistic oral reading fluency growth of.3 words per week, and ambitious growth of.65 words per week. Student 1 made an average weekly growth of 1.8 words per minute illustrating that the intervention was an effective tool for increasing oral reading fluency in student 1. His progress monitoring scores were at or above the aim line, which indicated that there is a reasonable chance that student 1could meet the benchmark goal at the end of the school year. On week 10, student 1 saw a spike in CWPM on week 10 and a dip in week 12. This could be attributed to the week 10 passage was an informational and that the student may have already had background knowledge of the information. Week 12

52 41 was an expository passage with a scientific context and may have been more challenging due to the vocabulary and nature of the information. Student 2 DIBELS Next DORF Scores Correct Words Per Minute Errors Per Minute Figure 3. Student 2 Correct words per minute and errors per minute as reported on the DIBELS Next DORF grade 5 passages. Student 2, a fifth grade student, had an initial mean oral reading fluency score of 89 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 5 benchmark passages. After the 14-week intervention, student 2 had an ending score of 111 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 5 benchmark passage. This increase showed a gain of 24 words per minute over 14-weeks. Furthermore, when comparing student 2 to same grade level peers, one can see the growth as illustrated on the aim line showing the benchmark goal for the DIBELS Next DORF reading fluency word correct goal (see Figure 3). Student 2 had a discrepancy of 22 (89 actual cwpm vs. 111 beginning

53 42 grade 5 ORF Benchmark) words at the onset of intervention, and ensuing intervention was now only nine words away from the recommended oral reading fluency. According to Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Walz (1993), students in grade 5 can make realistic oral reading fluency growth of.5 words per week, and ambitious growth of.8 words per week. Student 2 made an average weekly growth of 1.7 words per minute illustrating that the intervention was an effective tool for increasing oral reading fluency in student 2. Even though student 2 had progress monitoring scores below the aim line, there was evidence suggesting that the student was making progress. However, the progress might not be enough for the student to meet the grade-level benchmark at the end of the school year. Student 2 saw a spike in correct words per minute on week 12, this week again consisted of a narrative passage and may have consisted of easier vocabulary, or the student may have had background knowledge to build upon.

54 43 Student 3 DIBELS Next DORF Scores Correct Words Per Minute Errors Per Minute Figure 4. Student 3 Correct words and errors per minute and errors per minute reported on the DIBELS Next DORF grade 6 passages. Student 3, a sixth grade student, had an initial mean oral reading fluency score of 56 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 6 benchmark passages. After the 14-week intervention, student 3 had an ending score of 69 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 6 benchmark passage. This increase showed a gain of 13 words per minute over 14-weeks. Furthermore, when comparing student 3 to her same chronological grade level peers, one can observe the growth as demonstrated on the aim line showing the benchmark goal for the DIBELS Next DORF reading fluency word correct goal (see Figure 4). Student 3 had a discrepancy of 51 (56 actual cwpm vs. 107 beginning grade 6 ORF Benchmark) words at the onset of intervention, and ensuing intervention was 40 words away from the recommended

55 44 oral reading fluency. Student 3 has an IEP and was identified under the category of specific learning disability. According to Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Walz (1993), students in grade 6 can make realistic oral reading fluency growth of.3 words per week, and ambitious growth of.65 words per week. Student 3 made an average weekly growth of.9 words per minute illustrating that the intervention was an effective tool for increasing oral reading fluency in student 3. Even though student 3 had progress monitoring scores below the aim line, there was evidence suggesting that the student was making progress. However, the progress might not be enough for the student to meet the grade-level benchmark at the end of the school year Student 4 DIBELS Next DORF Scores Correct words per minute Errors Per Minute Figure 5. Student 4 Correct words and errors per minute reported on the DIBELS Next DORF grade 4 passages.

56 45 Student 4, a fourth grade EL student, had an initial mean oral reading fluency score of 83 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 4 benchmark passages. After the 14-week intervention, student 4 had an ending score of 111 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 4 benchmark passage. This increase showed a gain of 28 words per minute over 14-weeks. Furthermore, when comparing student 4 to same grade level peers, one can see the growth as illustrated on the aim line showing the benchmark goal for the DIBELS Next DORF reading fluency word correct goal. Student 4 had a discrepancy of 7 (83 actual cwpm vs. 90 beginning grade 4 ORF Benchmark) words at the onset of intervention, and ensuing intervention student 4 was over the middle of the year benchmark score of 103 with an actual correct words per minute score of 111. According to Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Walz (1993), students in grade 4 can make realistic oral reading fluency growth of.85 words per week, and ambitious growth of 1.1 words per week. Student 4 made an average weekly growth of 2.0 words per minute illustrating that the intervention was an effective tool for increasing oral reading fluency in student 4. His progress monitoring scores were at or above the aim line, which indicated that there is a reasonable chance that student 4 could meet the benchmark goal at the end of the school year. Student 4 saw a spike in reading ability on week 8, again this passage a narrative passage and the student may have had additional background knowledge to aid in the reading ease.

57 46 Correct words per minute Student 5 DIBELS Next DORF Scores Errors Per Minute Figure 6. Student 5 Correct words and errors per minute reported on the DIBELS Next DORF grade 6 passages. Student 5, a sixth grade student, had an initial mean oral reading fluency score of 83 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 6 benchmark passages. After the 14-week intervention, student 5 had an ending score of 86 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 6 benchmark passage. This increase showed a gain of 3 words per minute over 14-weeks. Furthermore, when comparing student 5 to same grade level peers, one can see the growth as illustrated on the aim line showing the benchmark goal for the DIBELS Next DORF reading fluency word correct goal. Student 5 had a discrepancy of 24 (83 actual cwpm vs. 107 beginning grade 6 ORF Benchmark) words at the onset intervention, and ensuing intervention was 23 words away from the recommended oral reading fluency.

58 47 According to Fuchs et al. (1993), students in grade 6 can make realistic oral reading fluency growth of.3 words per week, and ambitious growth of.65 words per week. Student 5 made an average weekly growth of.21 words per minute illustrating that the intervention was an ineffective tool for increasing oral reading fluency in student 5. Even though student 5 had progress monitoring scores below the aim line, there was evidence suggesting that the student was making progress. However, the progress might not be enough for the student to meet the grade-level benchmark at the end of the school year. Student 5 saw a spike in reading ability on week 8, again this passage was narrative passage and the student may have had additional background knowledge to aid in the reading. Student 6 DIBELS Next DORF Scores Correct words per minute Errors Per Minute Figure 7. Student 6 Correct words and errors per minute reported on the DIBELS Next DORF grade 6 passages.

59 48 Student 6, a sixth grade student, had an initial mean oral reading fluency score of 79 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 6 benchmark passages. After the 14-week intervention, student 6 had an ending score of 87 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 6 benchmark passage. This increase showed a gain of 8 words per minute over 14-weeks. Furthermore, when comparing student 6 to her same chronological grade level peers, one can see the growth as illustrated on the aim line showing the benchmark goal for the DIBELS Next DORF reading fluency word correct goal (see Figure 7). Student 6 had a discrepancy of 28 (79 actual cwpm vs. 107 beginning grade 6 ORF Benchmark) words at the onset of intervention, and after receiving the intervention was 22 words away from the recommended oral reading fluency. Student 6 has an IEP and was identified under the category of specific learning disability, and a factor within this student s lack of growth was that she missed five of the intervention sessions, and these excessive absences caused her to always be behind and unable to make up the previous lessons. According to Fuchs et al. (1993), students in grade 6 can make realistic oral reading fluency growth of.3 words per week, and ambitious growth of.65 words per week. Student one made an average weekly growth of.57 words per minute illustrating that the intervention was an effective tool for increasing oral reading fluency in student 6. Even though student 6 had progress monitoring scores below the aim line, there was evidence suggesting that the student was making progress. However, the progress might not be enough for the student to meet the grade-level benchmark at the end of the school year.

60 49 Student 7 DIBELS Next DORF Scores Correct Words Per Minute Errors Per Minute Figure 8. Student 7 Correct words and errors per minute reported on the DIBELS Next DORF grade 5 passages. Student 7, a fifth grade student, had an initial mean oral reading fluency score of 74 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 5 benchmark passages. After the 14-week intervention, student 7 had an ending score of 90 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 5 benchmark passage. This increase showed a gain of 16 words per minute over 14-weeks. Furthermore, when comparing student 7 to same grade level peers, one can see the growth as illustrated on the aim line showing the benchmark goal for the DIBELS Next DORF reading fluency word correct goal (see Figure 8). Student 7 had a discrepancy of 37 (74 actual cwpm vs. 111 beginning

61 50 grade 5 ORF Benchmark) words at the onset of intervention, and ensuing intervention was 30 words away from the recommended oral reading fluency. According to Fuchs et al. (1993), students in grade 5 can make realistic oral reading fluency growth of.5 words per week, and ambitious growth of.8 words per week. Student 7 made an average weekly growth of 1.1 words per minute illustrating that the intervention was an effective tool for increasing oral reading fluency in student 7. Even though student 7 had progress monitoring scores below the aim line, there was evidence suggesting that the student was making progress. However, the progress might not be enough for the student to meet the grade-level benchmark at the end of the school year. Student 8 DIBELS Next DORF Scores Correct words used per minute Errors Per Minute Figure 9. Student 8 Correct words and errors per minute reported on the DIBELS Next DORF grade 5 passages.

62 51 Student 8, a fifth grade student, had an initial mean oral reading fluency score of 105 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 5 benchmark passages. After the 14-week intervention, student 8 had an ending score of 138 correct words per minute, when given the Grade 5 benchmark passage. This increase showed a gain of 33 words per minute over 14-weeks. Furthermore, when comparing student 8 to same grade level peers, one can observe the growth as demonstrated on the aim line showing the benchmark goal for the DIBELS Next DORF reading fluency word correct goal (see Figure 9). Student 8 had a discrepancy of 6 (105 actual cwpm vs. 111 beginning grade 5 ORF Benchmark) words at the onset of intervention, and ensuing intervention was over the recommended oral reading fluency by 18 correct words. According to Fuchs et al. (1993), students in grade 5 can make realistic oral reading fluency growth of.5 words per week, and ambitious growth of.8 words per week. Student 8 made an average weekly growth of 2.4 words per minute illustrating that the intervention was an effective tool for increasing oral reading fluency in student 8. Even though student 8 had progress monitoring scores below the aim line, there was evidence suggesting that the student was making progress. However, the progress might not be enough for the student to meet the grade-level benchmark at the end of the school year. After observing the aim line data, only students 4 and 7 were considered making adequate progress based on the visual inspection of aim line graph data. When considering Fuchs et al. (1993) realistic and ambitious oral reading fluency

63 52 weekly growth all of the students except student 3 were meeting or exceeding the weekly goals. This supports Research Question 1, that the use of SRA Corrective Reading did positively increase students oral reading fluency. DIBELS Progress Monitoring Errors Average Number of Errors Baseline Intervention Pre-intervention data points During Intervention data points Figure 10. Mean of student errors pre and post-intervention.

64 53 Student 1 Individual Reading Progress Decoding B1 Correct Words per Minute Lesson Figure 11. Illustration of Student 1 individual reading progress-tracking form for SRA Corrective Reading Decoding B1. Lesson Errors Figure 12. Illustration of Student 1 individual error progress-tracking form for SRA Corrective Reading Decoding B1.

65 54 As the students reading fluency increases, the students number of errors decreases as shown in Figure 10. Also, the researcher was able to show in Figure 10 that the descending trend in the baseline would not have continued without the intervention due to the need to have three data points within the baseline to set the trend. The average of the pre-intervention data points was 5.25 with the lowest point being When analyzing the pre-intervention data, one could observe that the students scores appear to be relatively stable. During the intervention, the error rate dropped from an average of 5.25 during the baseline to an average error rate of 2.75 with an error range of 1.75 to Nowhere did the researcher see an overlap in the pre-intervention or on-going intervention data, which allowed the researcher to conclude that the intervention was the direct cause in the descending trend. While receiving intervention, students monitored their own fluency by graphing their scores, using CBA passages embedded into the SRA Corrective Reading curriculum while also tracking the numbers of errors made on the hot timed read monitored by the instructor (see Figure 12). The mastery criterion for speed were included in the curriculum, and allowed the students to see how they were progressing. If the students did not meet the required correct words per minute, then they were directed to graph their time and re-read the passage until mastery was met. Students were allowed no more than three errors in each read (Figure 12), and if excessive errors occurred on more than three occasions, it was likely that the student was misplaced into an inappropriate reading group. This was not the case for any of the participants

66 55 in this study. Figures 11 and 12, are examples of how students oral reading fluency and errors were tracked by lesson while students participated in the intervention. The overall reduction of student reading errors illustrated in Figure 10 as well as each student s ability to make the realistic and/or ambitious weekly oral reading fluency rate progress provided by Fuchs et al. (1993) demonstrated that the intervention was effective at increasing students oral fluency. Moreover, the individual progress charted in Figure 11 showed all students not only exceeded the criteria of speed for each lesson, but also met the criteria of number of errors. The overall growth displayed in the CBA, by all of the students who participated cautiously provided the assumption that the 14-week intervention was an effective tool in increasing students overall reading fluency. Research Question 2: Did the use of echo reading increase students prosody? H 2 : There was a positive increase in students reading prosody through the use of echo reading. Prosody Oral Reading Fluency Scale Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Student