History

Students at Risk for Reading Failure...

Unfortunately, more and more schools are faced with students who are not learning to read in traditional classroom settings. This becomes a major priority when each year many students fail to acquire basic reading skills as judged by state achievement tests. Current research suggests that many at-risk students fail to acquire basic skills simply because they do not respond to traditional reading methodologies. As a consequence, they lack the instructionally appropriate academic engaged time necessary for skill acquisition. In fact, research also suggests that when provided with consistent daily instruction that is instructionally appropriate and motivating, these students often realize significant gains in reading achievement and in self-confidence.

Evidence of Links Between Research & Program Design

In recent decades, a remedial procedure referred to as Repeated Reading (RR) has been developed to improve poor readers' oral reading fluency and comprehension skills (Carver & Hoffman, 1981). The RR procedure was developed based on the underlying assumption that rapidly reading words in context is superior to learning words in isolation. Previous research also suggests that having students repeatedly read passages until a specific accuracy and speed criterion is met improves overall fluency and subsequent generalization to new passages (O'Shea & O'Shea, 1988).

The repeated reading approach to increasing overall reading skills has been extensively researched over the past three decades (e.g., Allington, 1977; Conte & Humphreys, 1989; Herman, 1985; Neil, 1979; Pany & McCoy, 1988; Rasinski, 1990; Young, Bowers, & MacKinnon, 1996) and has consistently revealed positive achievement outcomes.

A recent large scale meta-analysis study (National Reading Panel, 2000) investigated a total of 77 research articles utilizing repeated reading strategies to increase overall reading skills. Results of this investigation revealed an average weighted effect size of .41, suggesting that guided repeated reading procedures resulted in moderate effect on reading achievement. Differential results on reading outcomes were found with average effect sizes of .55 (reading accuracy), .44 (reading fluency), and .35 (reading comprehension), each indicating positive educational outcomes. In sum, this data offers strong support for the assumption that repeated reading, along with corrective guidance, is an effective method for improving both reading fluency and reading comprehension skills.

Unlike its repeated reading predecessors, the current Reading to Read intervention was developed based on the theoretical assumptions investigated by researchers at the University of Southern Mississippi (Edwards, Tingstrom, & Cottingham, 1993; Edwards, Tingstrom & Walker, 1990). They felt that an effective reading intervention should (a) utilize curriculum based instructional materials, (b) be empirically guided, (c) provide continuous assessment and measurement, and (d) yield data that could be used to empirically monitor intervention effectiveness. (Edwards et al., 1993). Thus, in an attempt to enhance the overall effectiveness of repeatedly reading contextual passages, the RTR intervention also incorporates (a) immediate correction of errors, (b) specific performance feedback after each reading trial, (c) student self-charting of progress, and (d) repeated opportunities to reach mastery before proceeding to more difficult passages (Edwards et al., 1993; Edwards et al., 1990).

Beginning in the fall of 1998, we began providing school-based consultation services for implementing the Reading to Read intervention program in south Mississippi. In 2001, we expanded the project and began working with school districts in the upper Mississippi Delta. In August, 2003, Fluency Plus, LLC was founded to provide services state wide. Since its conception, Fluency Plus, LLC has provided assessment, training, and weekly follow-up for RTR consultation for over 1300 students in both rural and semi-urban school districts.

Connection to State Academic Standards and Districts Instructional Programs

1. Program’s connection to specific benchmarks

The Reading to Read program specifically addresses the following Mississippi reading benchmarks in grades one through eight.

Grades 1 though 3 - Reads orally with fluency based on rate, intonation, phrasing, and naturalness
1) Self-corrects reading miscues
2) Recognizes many sight words (high frequency, instruction connecting)

Grades 4 though 8 - Demonstrates proficiency in the reading process
1) Reads orally with fluency based on rate, intonation, phrasing, and naturalness
2) Self-corrects reading miscues
3) Reads fluently with understanding

2. Program’s connection with the instructional program(s) of the district(s)

Reading to Read has a natural connection with the instructional reading programs used across the state such as Reading First, America’s Choice, and other reading programs such as guided reading. For example, it fits into America’s Choice concept of the “Safety Net.” The Safety Net in America’s Choice refers to providing specific programs for students who have not leaned to read proficiently in spite the use of sound teaching methods. In the state adopted three tier intervention system the use of Reading to Read fits into the supplemental (Tier II) or the extensive (Tier III) interventions to meet the needs of students who are at risk of reading failure. The Reading to Read program is designed to address reading fluency which is one of the main deficit areas that “at risk students” face. It uses the research based techniques of treatment compliance, integrity, and progress monitoring to determine if the students are making adequate reading improvement.

References

Carver, R. P., & Hoffman, J. V. (1981). The effect of practice through repeated reading on gain in reading ability using a computer-based instructional system. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 374-390.

Edwards, R. P., Tingstrom, D. H., & Cottingham, B. J. (1993). The development of Reading to Read: A behaviorally- based intervention to improve oral reading fluency. Communiqué, 21,(8), 24-26.

O’Shea, L. J., & O’Shea, D. J. (1988). Using repeated reading. Teaching Exceptional Children, 20, 26-29.

Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read. Reports of the Subgroups. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Publication No. 00-4754. April, 2000.

Shinn, M. R., Good, R., Knutson, N., Tilly, W. D., & Collins, V. L. (1993). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory factor analysis. School Psychology Review, 21, 459-479.