Interventions to Fluency - Success

Combined reading fluency interventions work for small groups of students with learning disabilities! 

In February and March, I conducted an action research project at my school. The problem investigated was that the students with learning disabilities in grades 1 through 3 were not showing progress toward end of year fluency benchmarks as measured by district assessments. I designed a study using combined interventions that included repeated reading, choral reading, listening passage preview, and error correction. The intervention package resulted in fluency gains for all five students in my study.  The study involved 18 intervention sessions over an eight-week period and fortunately, ended just in time to avoid the scheduling disruptions of the PARCC testing window. Importantly, three of the five students appear to be on track to attaining end of year grade level fluency benchmarks. The other two students increased their reading fluency over the course of the study, but will not reach the end of year benchmarks at this point. 

The study findings are limited by several factors. First, the study was conducted over a short window in the middle of the school year. More fluency progress may have been possible with a longer intervention period. Second, the participant sample was small with only five students and two types of learning disabilities. The results may be different with more students from a variety of school settings and with different types of learning disabilities. 

I concluded that the study left questions open for further research. There is a need for studies that validate repeated reading as an evidence-based practice for students with learning disabilities. Repeated reading does not have a standard set of protocols and procedures for conducting the intervention. Additionally, there is the problem that with a combined intervention it was impossible to determine which of the components were effective. There is a need for more research so ineffective components can be eliminated. Moreover, there is a need to study the benefit of combined fluency interventions on different types of disabilities, including speech/language, intellectual disabilities, emotional/behavioral disorders, and autism spectrum disorders. 

In concluding the research, I felt I made progress on determining an effective and efficient fluency intervention combination to aid the students with learning disabilities at my school. The study has finished, but I am continuing to use the interventions with success through the end of the school year.

Does Fluency Depend on Practice or Attention?

Are medications used to treat attention disorders (ADD, ADHD) the answer for dyslexia? Shaywitz and Shaywitz (2008) explore in their article the studies in recent years that suggest that medications used to treat attention disorders may be effective to improving reading in dyslexic students.

This information evolved from neurological research of dyslexia. The findings showed that becoming skilled and automatic readers was difficult for children with dyslexia and that it was challenging to break through the fluency barrier. As researchers explored the cognitive processes involved in reading, they began to consider that disruption of attention mechanisms may play a role in reading difficulties. Studies showed that dyslexia and ADHD are frequently observed in the same individuals. 

The long-held view is that fluency comes from practice and is not dependent on attention. Now, the research shows that attention may be necessary for phonology and reading words aloud. Going a step further, preliminary studies indicate stimulants may be beneficial on reading for children with both ADHD and dyslexia. This acknowledgement opens the potential for additional study on the neurochemical mechanisms of reading, dyslexia and the relationship to ADHD.

Citation for article: 

Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2008). Paying attention to reading: The neurobiology of reading and  

        dyslexia. Development and Psychpathology, 20, 1329-1349.

A Multi-Component Approach: Repeat Readings, Error Correction, and Performance Feedback

     Researchers have found that repeated reading combined with systematic error correction results in higher reading rates with lower error rates. (Nelson, Alber, & Gordy, 2004; Alber-Morgan, Ramp, Anderson, & Martin, 2007).  Studying the effects of repeated readings with systematic error correction and performance feedback, Alber-Morgan et al. (2007) found that the combined effects of these interventions resulted in increased reading fluency. This study followed middle school students with emotional behavior disorders in a day treatment facility. During repeated readings of a passage, when a student made an error, the data collector re-read the word correctly, then the student was prompted to repeat the correct work, and this was followed by praise if the student was correct.
     In addition to gains in fluency, the number of errors decreased and comprehension improved. The researchers recommended that repeated readings be used to supplement an evidence-based program, and that repeated readings be accompanied by systematic error correction and performance feedback. One limitation of the study was that it used one to one instruction.  The researchers suggested involving parents, paraprofessionals, volunteers, or peer tutors to oversee the one on one repeated readings and error correction.  Although effective, it was a labor-intensive intervention requiring many people to run it.
     In my practice, I find repeated readings effective and incorporate error correction with the readings. I see positive progress from immediate error correction that is provided when the error is made instead of going back at the end of a reading and reviewing errors. I naturally use performance feedback without a conscious effort to do so.  It helps struggling students to have reinforcement and encouragement when they read correctly.

Citation to the article:

Alber-Morgan, S. R., Matheson Ramp, E., Anderson, L. L., & Martin, C. M. (2007). Effects of repeated readings, error correction, and performance feedback on the fluency and comprehension of middle school students with behavioral problems. The Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 17-30.

Research in Real Life

       Beginning in mid-January, I have been studying a combination of fluency interventions with five students at my school.  The students range in age from 8 to 10 years old.  All five are on IEPs and are on READ Plans or had well below benchmark DIBELS Next scores at the beginning of the school year. Three students have a diagnosis of ADHD which impacts their attention to reading.  Two students have specific learning disabilities in basic reading skills.
        My study was proceeding on schedule with each student receiving the interventions in a small group 3 times per week.  The nice tidy schedule worked for one week and then the reality of the second semester hit. I am at the half way point and wishing I had built an extra week into my study to complete the planned 18 intervention sessions. Due to a variety of factors, I am challenged to see the students an average of 3 times per week as stated in my research proposal. First, there are the 4 day school weeks due to holidays.  Combined with the short weeks are class field trips, school assemblies, and now Acuity testing has started. One student missed all last week due to illness and another student went to Disneyland for 5 days. In three weeks, PARCC testing begins and, although some of my students are too young for state assessments, I will be tied up with proctoring tests for older students.
        I am learning that research studies have factors impacting the results beyond my control.  I see progress with my students, but I suspect it would be greater without all of the typical school year distractions.  Then again, this experience teaches me that there can be success and I have to make the most of every instructional minute available.

The Importance of Context

When it comes to repeated reading and fluency improvement, which is better: repeated word reading or repeated passage reading? Therrien and Kubina make the position that repeated practice with connected text is a critical component for increasing fluency.

The researchers conducted a study where the participants read contextual and acontextual words.  They found that when students re-read words in context, they read faster and made fewer errors.  The students’ reading speed increased and the number of word errors decreased as they re-read the connected text passage.  They concluded that their study provided support for the contextualized linguistic effect for reading fluency and word recognition.

There are several practical implications from their research:

·      Re-reading words in context of passages is more efficient for instruction than re-reading just words out of context.

·      Word recognition improves with practice.

·      When re-reading connected text, phrases and word patterns can become so familiar so as to be automatic.

As I am always looking for ways to make my limited instruction time more efficient, I introduce vocabulary and difficult words before reading a passage and point them out where they appear in the text.  I find the students rarely hesitate when they then read the word in context.  Additionally, context helps with high frequency words when students have the surrounding words to cue decoding.  Thus, when it comes to answering the initial question above, the answer appears to be that reading words in context of a passage is more effective for increasing fluency than rapid proficiency with isolated words.

APA Citation for the article:

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

Read, Repeat...

Repeated reading is an effective and well-recognized fluency intervention today.  The method’s origin was born out the research of S. Jay Samuels and David LaBerge in the mid-1970’s.  Together, they developed the theory of automatic processing in reading which holds that a fluent reader decodes text automatically without attention, leaving attention free for comprehension.  Samuels took his automatic processing theory to practical application with his article, The Method of Repeated Reading. His research on repeated reading made a significant impact on the field of reading instruction.  Samuels led the way for other researchers in decades that followed to explore more techniques examining practice and repetition.

Repeated reading consists of rereading short passages several times until a satisfactory level of fluency is reached. Using this method with study participants, Samuels found that reading speed increased and errors decreased.  He discovered that when the emphasis was on reading speed instead of reading errors, his research participants were less fearful of making mistakes.  Although comprehension was not a focus of his study, he learned that comprehension also improved with each rereading.  He concluded that as less attention was needed for decoding, more attention could be given to comprehending the passage.

While Samuel’s repeated reading method has been around for more than forty years, it continues to be a tool that educators use to increase reading fluency. As I begin my action research using repeated reading as one component of my intervention package, I can already see the gains my students are making in speed, words read correctly, and in confidence.

APA Citation for articles:

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in    reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.

Samuels, S. J. (1979/1997). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 50(5), 376-381.

Some of This, Some of That: Multiple Interventions

A combination of phonics intervention followed by fluency intervention resulted in significant improvements in decoding, fluency, and comprehension for a group of Texas students with severe reading disabilities and other disabilities.  This study by Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, and Francis (2006), showed that even students with persistent, severe reading difficulties can benefit from intensive reading interventions.

The purpose of the study was two-fold.  One purpose was to develop a reading intervention for students with reading problems who had not had adequate response to Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions.  A second purpose was to study the effectiveness of an 8 week decoding intervention followed by an 8 week fluency intervention. (Denton et al., 2006, p. 448). The participants were 27 first grade students from four schools in an urban school district.  For the first 8 weeks, they received the Phono-Graphix phonics decoding intervention.  This was followed by 8 weeks of the Read Naturally fluency intervention.  Read Naturally uses repeated reading practice with short non-fiction texts.

At the end of the study, the students showed gains in reading fluency for isolated words and connected text.  Importantly, there were large improvements in multiple areas of reading, including decoding, fluency, and comprehension.  The results fell short in that the students’ reading ability was still below average after the interventions.  While there was benefit to the students in having both interventions, the researchers reflected that it may be useful for students to first obtain a certain level of competency in decoding before attempting an intervention that focuses on reading fluency.  In sum, the implications http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/39/5/447.full.pdf+html positive.  The study showed that even students with significant reading challenges can improve after intensive reading intervention.  Moreover, these students showed strong growth in fluency after the 8 week fluency intervention with a repeated reading instructional model. (Denton et al., 2006, p. 463-464). 

I use a phonics intervention program along with repeated reading instruction to support fluency.  While I have not broken out the interventions to be able to attribute student growth to one particular intervention, my perception is that students benefit from both decoding instruction and fluency instruction.  As they demonstrate more competence in decoding, I see similar progress in fluency and comprehension.  Thus, it appears that struggling readers benefit from a multi-faceted intervention approach that includes decoding instruction, fluency practice, and comprehension strategies.

APA Citation for the article:

Denton, C., Fletcher, J., Anthony, J., & Francis, D. (2006). An evaluation of intensive intervention for

          students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 447-466.

Link to Article:

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/39/5/447.full.pdf+html