Background Information Reading Difficulties in the United States

1. Ronald Julia Daniel Alex The Differential Effects of Four Group-based Reading Fluency Intervention PackagesJohn Begeny (Munroe-Meyer Institute at the University of Nebraska Medical Center) and Jen Silber (Syracuse University) Students’ Average Immediate and Retained Gains in Words Read Correctly Per Minute (WCPM) Across Conditions • Background Information • Reading Difficulties in the United States • 37% of fourth graders read below the basic level (NCES, 2004). • Over 2 million children receive special education services due to reading difficulties (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). • Students with early reading deficits typically maintain those deficits (e.g., Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; NCES, 2004). • Estimates suggest that over 40 million adults are illiterate (Adult Literacy Service, 2004). • Importance of Reading Fluency • One of the critical elements involved in learning to read (e.g., NRP, 2000). • Related to comprehension (e.g., Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins 2001; Marston, 1989). • A component of the learning hierarchy (Haring, Lovitt, Eaton, & Hansen,1978). Purpose of this study: To evaluate the relative effects of 4 group-based reading fluency intervention packages. Note: Standard deviations are indicated in parentheses. WLT = Word-list Training; LPP = Listening Passage Preview; RR = Repeated Readings. Bolded values indicate largest amount of gain for that student within the specific category of gain. a Immediate Gains = Average amount of gain from initial reading of a passage (pre-test) to the reading of the same passage immediately following intervention. b Retained Gains = Average amount of gain from initial reading of a passage (pre-test) to the reading of the same passage approximately two days following intervention. • Previous Reading Fluency Intervention Research • Repeated Readings (RR) (Chard et al., 2002; NRP, 2000) • Passage Previewing (PP) (i.e., Modeling) (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; Rose, 1984) • Practicing Words in Isolation (WLT) (Levy et al., 1997; Lewandowski et al., in submission) • Phrase-Drill with Error Correction (Daly et al., 1998; O’Shea et al., 1984) Figure 1. Each participant’s average immediate and retention words read correct per minute (WCPM) gains across all conditions. • Method • Participants and Setting: • Four 3rd graders from one urban school in central NY • 75% male; 75% African American; 25% Latino/Hispanic • All qualified for free/reduced lunch • Instructional levels: 1st grade = 1; 2nd = 2; 3rd = 1 • One intervention agent needed to implement procedures • Design: Alternating Treatments Design • Instructional Packages:WLT + LPP + RR; WLT + LPP; LPP + RR; WLT + RR • DVs: Immediate and retained reading fluency gains • Implications and Limitations • Implications • Group-based interventions appear useful • Due to individual differences found in previous BEA research, a full combination of intervention components may be optimal • Limitations • Sample size • Only one dependant measure • Did not equate for duration of intervention • Procedures • Baseline: pre-post readings (no intervention). • Pre-reading (psg 1) – Intervention – Immediate gains assessment (psg 1). • Retained Gains assessment (psg 1) – Pre-reading (psg 2) – Intervention – Immediate gains assessment (psg 2). • Controlled and/or accounted for: counterbalancing; pre-post durations; readability of passages; procedural integrity; inter-scorer agreement. Supported (in full or part) by Project #8188 from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (Title V, Social Security Act), Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.