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

Crossing the Bridge to Comprehension

Fluency is more than reading fast and accurately.  Pikulski and Chard (2005) explain how fluency is the bridge between decoding and comprehension.  A reader who is not skilled in fluency has to focus more attention on figuring out words and has less attention to give to understanding the text.  Even so, just building fluency is singularly not enough because fluency without also having comprehension is of little value.

In order to build the bridge to comprehension, Pikulski and Chard propose a 9-step instructional program:

• Build the graphophonic foundations, including phonological awareness, letter knowledge, phonics
• Build and grow vocabulary.
• Provide skilled instruction and practice in high-frequency words.
• Teach common word parts and patterns.
• Teach, model, practice decoding strategies.
•  Use the right level of texts to coach reading strategies and speed.
• Use repeated reading as an intervention approach.
• Increase growing fluency with wide reading.
• Progress-monitor with appropriate assessment tools.

(Pikulski and Chard, 2005, p. 513).

I have been working on implementing the steps with my reading groups.  I find explicit instruction in decoding skills, along with using appropriate texts in repeated reading to be effective for increasing speed, accuracy, and understanding.  It is a feeling of success for both me and the student when they cross the bridge from struggling to decode to comprehending the text without effort.

APA Article Citation:

Pikulski, J., & Chard, D. (2005). Fluency: the bridge between decoding and reading intervention. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510-519.

Link to Article:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1598/RT.58.6.2/abstractc