A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Framework for Math - Western Washington University$

VOLUME 35, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2002 401If the three criteria were not met in7 days, the reader received drill andpractice on the difficult words andphrases in the text. The researchers reportedthat all participating studentsimproved in reading fluency duringthe performance-based advancementcondition by 10 words correct perminute and answered almost 12%more comprehension questions accurately.These results were maintainedat follow-up.Word Practice InterventionsNine single-subject samples were studiedto examine the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> decodinginterventions on improvingreading fluency (see Table 5). O’Shea,Munson, and O’Shea (1984) applied analternating treatment design to comparethe relative effectiveness <strong>of</strong> aword drill procedure and a phrase drillprocedure. Each procedure was basedon words missed during an initial oralreading baseline phase. Words missedafter oral reading were placed on flashcards, and students were given the opportunityto practice on half <strong>of</strong> thewords in isolation (word drill). Alternatively,in the phrase drill condition,the error words were practiced in contextualphrases. There were negligibledifferences between alternating treatmentconditions for isolated wordreading and reading fluency. Significantdifferences between conditionswere demonstrated only on a measure<strong>of</strong> passage reading accuracy, favoringthe phrase drill condition.Employing a multi-element design,Daly and Martens (1994) comparedtaped previewing <strong>of</strong> words read in alist to participating students to repeatedreading conditions. Studentsdemonstrated greater word readingaccuracy in this taped words conditionthan in the baseline or repeated readingconditions. However, on measures<strong>of</strong> passage reading fluency and accuracy,the repeated reading conditionwas consistently more effective.DiscussionFluency has been identified as an essentiallink between word analysis andcomprehension <strong>of</strong> text and is considereda necessary tool for learning fromTABLE 5Studies Examining Fluency Practice at the Word LevelNumber <strong>of</strong> students/Author/participanttreatment description/age/design length and duration Dependent measures ResultsDaly & Martens, 19948 years 10 months–11 years11 monthsMulti-element designN = 4* All conditions followed a model, drill,and train to criterion lesson structure.* Subject Passage Preview (SP): Readpassage silently and reread for assessment.* Listening Passage Preview (LP): Listenedto audiotaped (130 wpm) passage,read list <strong>of</strong> unknown words, andreread passage for assessment.* Taped Words (TW): Read aloud alongwith audiotaped word list (80 wpm).Reread list and read passage for assessment.Length and duration: Session length notspecified. Treatments lasted 21 days.Passage reading accuracy * LP > SP > TW onPassage reading fluencyaccuracy and fluencyWord reading accuracy<strong>of</strong> passage reading.Word reading fluency * TW condition outperformedSP and LPon measures <strong>of</strong> wordreading accuracyand fluency.O’Shea, Munson, & O’Shea,19847–11 yearsAlternating treatmentdesignN = 5* Baseline (Word supply): When an errorwas made during oral reading, theteacher supplied the word.* Word drill: Words were supplied byteacher during oral reading. After reading,students were drilled on half <strong>of</strong>error words using 5" ´ 8" flash cards.* Phrase drill: Same procedure as control.After reading, words were drilledusing phrases in which they occurredin text.Length and duration: 30 min. sessions/day for 10 days; 300 min.No significant differ-ences between drillconditions andcontrol.Significant effects favor-ing phrase drill.Negligible differencesbetween conditions.Error words read correctlyin isolationError words read correctlyin passage contextWords read correctly per minutein daily reading passage
402JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIESreading (Chall, 1983). The relationship<strong>of</strong> fluent oral reading and overall readingability is supported by both empiricaland clinical evidence (Meyer &Felton, 1999; Rasinski, Padak, Linek, &Sturtevant, 1994; Reutzel & Hollingsworth,1993). Despite the importance<strong>of</strong> fluency, its essential role in buildingoverall reading ability has only recentlybeen highlighted (NRP, 2000).Fluency appears to be particularlyimportant for students with significantreading problems, because they <strong>of</strong>tenhave labored reading with manypauses, which results in slow and disconnectedoral reading. This effortfulreading is problematic because it focusesreading at the decoding andword level, which makes comprehensionvirtually impossible. Chall (1979)described these readers as “glued toprint” (p. 41) and unable to delight inthe reading <strong>of</strong> text. The students withLD who were the target group for thissynthesis represent a large subgroup <strong>of</strong>dysfluent readers.The National Reading Panel (2000)summarized findings about guided repeatedoral reading as a means to improvefluency and indicated that theoverall weighted effect size produced amoderate effect for repeated oral reading.The NRP presented the case thatinstruction in guided oral reading is animportant part <strong>of</strong> a reading programand is associated with gains in fluencyand comprehension. Oral reading interventionswere found to be superiorto instruction encouraging students toread silently. Furthermore, the NRPreported that good and poor readersboth benefited from the repeatedguided reading, although they maybenefit differentially from different aspects<strong>of</strong> the treatment (Faulkner &Levy, 1999). However, the NRP readingfluency synthesis did not address theextent to which individuals with LDmight benefit from fluency interventionsor the extent to which other types<strong>of</strong> fluency interventions (other thanoral repeated reading) might be associatedwith improvements in fluencyand other aspects <strong>of</strong> reading.The purpose <strong>of</strong> this study was toprovide a synthesis <strong>of</strong> the research onfluency interventions conducted withstudents with LD. Our goal was to locateall intervention studies publishedand all dissertations conducted withinthe past 25 years that evaluated the effects<strong>of</strong> fluency training on elementarystudents with LD. The comprehensivesearch yielded 24 studies: 8 multiplegroup, 5 single group, and 11 casestudies or single-subject design studies.Two <strong>of</strong> the single-group studieswere part <strong>of</strong> factorial designs that alsoincluded other samples.Before interpreting the findings <strong>of</strong>the present synthesis, it is important tonote that effect sizes can be consideredonly within the context <strong>of</strong> the comparisonswith which treatment groupswere contrasted. Because effect sizesare largely dependent on the nature <strong>of</strong>the comparison groups, it is criticalthat a synthesis include detailed informationregarding the comparisons. Forthis reason, Tables 1 through 5 includedetails <strong>of</strong> both treatment and comparisonconditions. However, comparisongroups differ considerably across samples,complicating the interpretation <strong>of</strong>the findings. The interpretations thatfollow were developed with this limitationin mind.In general, the findings from thissynthesis suggested that repeatedreading interventions for studentswith LD are associated with improvementsin reading rate, accuracy, andcomprehension. This would providesupport for the theory <strong>of</strong> automaticityproposed by LaBerge and Samuels(1974) and extended as a verbal efficiencymodel by Perfetti (1977, 1985).These studies, and the theory supportingthem, provide evidence that thefocus on developing students’ rapidprocessing <strong>of</strong> print by reading targetpassages more than once is <strong>of</strong>ten effectiveas a means to improve accuracyand speed, and ultimately leads to betterunderstanding <strong>of</strong> text.One procedure for enhancing fluencyis for teachers to model reading<strong>of</strong> text by reading aloud to students(Dowhower, 1987; H<strong>of</strong>fman, 1987;Smith, 1979). Repeated reading with amodel seems to be more effective thanrepeated reading with no model, particularlyfor students with low fluency(e.g., Rose & Beattie, 1986; Smith, 1979).Tape- or computer-modeled readingseems more effective than having nomodel but may not be as effective asteacher modeling (Daly & Martens,1994; Rose & Beattie, 1986). Furthermore,having text read initially by amodel promoted comprehension, perhapsbecause it allowed students t<strong>of</strong>ocus initially on the content <strong>of</strong> the passagebefore they read it themselves(Monda, 1989; Rose & Beattie, 1986).Asking peers, who are <strong>of</strong>ten betterreaders, to serve as the model for studentswith LD was investigated in severalstudies reported here and reviewedin separate syntheses (Elbaum,Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 1999;Mathes & Fuchs, 1994). Repeated readingwith a partner as a means to improvingfluency has yielded somewhatequivocal results (e.g., Marston, Deno,Dongil, Diment, & Rogers, 1995), althoughthere are few studies documentingits effectiveness alone (Marstonet al., 1995; Mathes & Fuchs, 1994).In a separate analysis <strong>of</strong> the effects <strong>of</strong>peer tutoring on broad reading outcomes,cross-age tutoring was associatedwith higher mean weighted effectsizes (.50) than cooperative partners(.00), and with peer tutoring, the role <strong>of</strong>the student within the pair had a significanteffect on outcomes, with reciprocaltutor–tutee roles demonstratinglow mean weighted effect sizes (.09; Elbaum,Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody,2000).Speed and accuracy have traditionallybeen considered the hallmarks ormost essential features <strong>of</strong> fluency(LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Samuels,1997). Most researchers agree that accuracyin itself is insufficient and thatstudents need to read rapidly if theyare going to understand the connectionsthat need to be made betweenideas in print (Nathan & Stanovich,1991). Variables associated with effects
Page 9 and 10: 394(Table 2 continued)Author/partic
Page 11 and 12: 396TABLE 3Studies Examining Repeate
Page 13 and 14: 398TABLE 4Studies That Examined Oth
Page 15: 400JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
Page 19 and 20: 404JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
Page 21: 406JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?