Improving oral reading fluency in middle‐school students: A comparison of repeated reading and listening passage preview

Abstract

Oral reading fluency has been established in previous literature as a key component in becoming an effective reader. Repeated reading (RR) and listening passage preview (LPP) are both oral reading fluency interventions well‐supported in the research literature, however, most of this study explores their use with elementary‐aged children, with only a handful of studies over the last 20 years evaluating their use in middle‐school children. The overall goal of the current study was to explore the effectiveness of both of these interventions independent and relative to one another. An alternating treatment design (A/ABC), including the use of baseline, was implemented to compare RR, LPP, and a control. Three middle school‐aged struggling readers were randomly exposed to the conditions over time, with oral reading fluency acting as the primary dependent variable. Data were analyzed using visual analysis and effect size calculated using nonoverlap of all pairs (NAP). The results indicated primarily large effects for RR, with LPP effects ranging from small to large across participants. Limitations, implications, and future directions are also discussed.

Fluency Interventions for Struggling Readers in Grades 6 to 12: A Research Synthesis

“…The results of SCD studies that received meets design standards or meets design standards with reservations, but lacked evidence of effect, are presented in Table 5. Six SCD studies received does not meet design standards and were deemed ineligible for further review of evidence of an effect, according to the WWC design standards (Edwards & Lambros, 2018;Hawkins et al, 2011;Kostewicz & Kubina, 2011;Lingo, 2014;Powell & Gadke, 2018;Wu et al, 2020). We synthesize the results of the 11 studies (i.e., four group design and the seven single-case designs meeting design standards) by the predominant component of each fluency intervention: RR with a model (e.g., LPP), RR without a model, or a fluency intervention that did not use RR (e.g., multicomponent/instructional package, Readers Theater).…”

Prosodic features in production reflect reading comprehension skill in high school students.

“…For these readers, prosodic cues that mark phrase boundaries and contrastive or dependent relationships within texts may be particularly helpful for comprehension (Schwanenflugel et al, 2004). Indeed, there is accumulating evidence that classroom tasks such as repeated reading—where students repeatedly read a passage out loud, with the goal of improving fluency with each repetition—lead to improved reading comprehension performance over standard read-aloud procedures for elementary students (Dowhower, 1987; O’Connor et al, 2007), middle school-aged readers (Powell & Gadke, 2018), and high school-aged readers (Hawkins et al, 2011; Wexler et al, 2010). However, investigations of repeated reading for high school readers have thus far been limited to students who are well below grade level in reading.…”

Model Teachers or Model Students? A Comparison of Video Modelling Interventions for Improving Reading Fluency and Comprehension in Children with Autism

“…Although multiple-baseline designs are also commonly used within VM literature (Powell & Gadke, 2018 ; Wu et al, 2018 ), an ATD appeared to be more ethical for this research. As no previous literature had compared the efficacy of FFVSM with VM using a teacher model, if one intervention proved to be more successful, an ATD would ensure all participants experienced this intervention.…”