“This is Station 1. We read poems, mostly funny poems. Then we vote for the poem that we like best. We can record it for Seesaw. But the important part is that we have to read it without laughing but with expression so our audience can tell we like it.”
“And this is Station 2. Here we practice reading information. Today we are reading about sharks. When we finish, we tell our partner two things we learned about sharks and if we have any questions that we would still like answered about sharks.”
“And this is Station 3 and here we practice tongue twisters. We try to read them as fast as we can but we have to make sure that we say each word exactly the way it is written. Sometimes it’s hard. We try to beat our personal highest number of reading any one in a row”
“And this is Station 4 where you can read anything you want. We use this station last because it’s the most fun and if you are not causing trouble, you can stay here as long as you want because it’s important to build your stamina.”
What did you see and hear on this mini-tour of 4 Reading Stations?
What did you learn about reading through the words of the student explanations?
What were they working on?
Can you see and hear these kiddos?
Where was I?
In a bookstore
Eavesdropping on two boys who were book shopping for real,
But also “playing school” . . .
There were so many questions I wanted to ask,
but I listened and watched as I sat reading my own book, hoping I was holding it right side up as I was also scribbling down notes as fast as I could write. The joy and the seriousness juxtaposed in their words as they read.
What routines would students take from your classroom to play school?
What would they tell an observer about your beliefs and practices?
If . . .
I were to engage in Repeated Reading for whole class Tier 1 instruction, what would that look like?
Which of these would signal the beginning of quality instruction?
A. “Read the passage. Record your time. Reread the passage. Record your time. Read a third time. Record your time. Turn in your passage and your scores.”
B. “Listen as I read this poem that I have put on the screen. Watch and listen especially for the ‘goal’ for my reading. Class, today I am sharing one of my favorite poems because I want you to listen for both the rhyme and rhythm in this poem because – it’s almost like a song! . . .”
C. “Today, I am going to demonstrate one way that readers read fluently and with prosody. Remember we have been talking about prosody which means sounding like ‘talk’ and your goals may be: volume, expression, accuracy, or phrasing. Listen carefully to be ready to tell your partner which you think is my goal focus as I read the first stanza . . .”
What are you thinking?
Which one is the best choice?
Of course, it depends . . .
It’s hard to tell from just a few sentences, BUT:
A. Telling. No instruction. NO!
B. Rhyme and rhythm are important, but what is the driving WHY?
C. Student goals sound like they are individualized and the talk about fluency and prosody sounds connected to student goals.
Continue to Study
Study the Students
What do they need?
What’s your purpose?
(In case you missed it, Part 1 Here)
What do you see? Half full? Half empty?
We’ve been using repeated readings in instruction and intervention for awhile. Do we remember why? Do we remember the purpose?
A Standard, Trusted Source: What Works Clearinghouse
“Repeated reading was found to have potentially positive effects on reading comprehension and no discernible effects on alphabetics, reading fluency, and general reading achievement for students with learning disabilities.” Repeated reading was found to have potentially positive effects on reading comprehension and no discernible effects on alphabetics, reading fluency, and general reading achievement for students with learning disabilities.
What did I miss? The title was
Students with a Specific Learning Disability” (color emphasis is mine)
But nothing for K-4 . . . just noting that detail.
So with a re-check . . . I find:
“Repeated reading is an academic practice that aims to increase oral reading fluency. Repeated reading can be used with students who have developed initial word reading skills but demonstrate inadequate reading fluency for their grade level. During repeated reading, a student sits in a quiet location with a teacher and reads a passage aloud at least three times. Typically, the teacher selects a passage of about 50 to 200 words in length. If the student misreads a word or hesitates for longer than 5 seconds, the teacher reads the word aloud, and the student repeats the word correctly. If the student requests help with a word, the teacher reads the word aloud or provides the definition. The student rereads the passage until he or she achieves a satisfactory fluency level.”
Checking the results . . . again for comprehension . . . two studies . . . grades 5-12.
Note: NO Effectiveness Rating for Reading Fluency
(Note video available: Using the WWC to Find Strong or Moderate Evidence – link)
209 Resources listed that are clickable to tell you what the results are. Link
A Second Source: Visible Learning in Literacy by Fisher, Frey and Hattie
An effect size of 0.67 is an important one. It has a strong potential to lead to accelerated growth for students matching those in the studies. Further digging into the actual studies to determine procedures, grade levels, instructional routines, etc. are warranted.
And yet . . . Cautionary Tale . . . . Surface Learning – Constrained Skills (Chapter 2 Link)
So how can TWO different reputable sources have different results?
- Their metrics are different.
- Their requirements for inclusion as studies are different.
- The years are different (2009, 2014)
- Maybe the grade levels are different?
- Maybe the students/classrooms are different?
I headed to Google Scholar, not The Google, and found “2,560,000 results”. And here was the first page of results with 2,850 citations used from these 4 sources.
Rasinski, Torgeson, Samuels, Dowhower . . . No surprises in the authors. All credible.
Publications: Journal of Educational Research, Reading Research Quarterly (2) and The Reading Teacher . . . All credible.
1990, 1985, 1979, 1987 . . . hmmm . . . 30 years and more . . .
What is your response at this time? Stop for a second and reflect.
By changing the search parameters to 2015, the number of studies dropped to 133,000 results. Less than 5 years. Out of curiosity, I tried 2019 where there were still 18,400 results.
No known authors.
No known journals.
And . . .
Article 1 – Executive Functioning.
I did a search in the article. “Repeated reading” was NOT in the article (note the bolded words in the entry above). It was about testing kids and following them in Reading, Math, and Science to predict how they would do in school. (over-generalized, over-simplified summary)
Article 2 – location of study not listed in the abstract but principal author from Granada
Article 3 – study funded by German and Austria sources (location not listed in abstract)
Article 4 – location of study was Malaysia
My current summary: Changes include different researchers, different countries where the research is taking place so it isn’t all in English (linguistic and orthographic implications) and it isn’t being published in the standard literacy journals.
Puzzled, confused . . . and a wee bit frustrated.
Previous posts that are applicable include:
Thinking Teachers are required. There is no “one size fits all” in education.
Thinking . . .
Thinking . . .
Thinking . . .
Who do we trust?
- What does your own data tell you? For which students has repeated reading been successful? For which students has it not been a success? At what grade levels? When possible can you study your own data across multiple years?
- What is the focus of your instruction? Is it similar across multiple classrooms? Multiple grades?
- What is the focus of your intervention? How well is it aligned with core instruction?
- What is the student actually “doing” during this repeated reading? Is the “work” actually capitalizing on the amount of words the student reads daily? Or is the student actually reading “less” than peers?
- What are your sources of information? Is there an over reliance on one data source? Do you have data from multiple sources that informs decisions and supports the work that you are doing?
- Is it time for diagnosis? Is some intensive assessment in a specific area warranted?
- When it (whatever you are reading) sounds too good to be true, apply Nell Duke’s ideas. Ask yourself: “What is the goal of an author for those sources? Knowledge base? What is the type of information presented?” Is it just an opinion?
- And as I write this, I am reminded of our studies of the SBRR – Scientifically Based Reading Research – for Reading First. It was not uncommon for the research to be conducted at grade levels “other than” those recommended for use.
More Research Needed!
Life-long learners required!
Problem Solving: How to improve reading fluency?
- Increase amount of time for eyes on print
- Provide practice with a variety of text
- Increase all phases of fluency: accuracy, expression, phrasing, smoothness and rate
One research-based practice with data supporting it is partner reading. The routine used for short, easy texts to build automaticity, expression, phrasing, smoothness and rate looks like this.
Students will be assigned partners. They will read together twice, then take turns at 3 and 4 above and then read a final fifth time together. Each partner will read the “text” 4 times.
What will students read?
Reading texts will be set up like centers. The choices are poetry, sight word phrases, short printed stories, informational books, and narrative books.
The checklist that students will use is this:
What do the materials look like?
Instructional Focus: Reading Fluency
Goal: Increase student fluency through intensive repeated partner practice reading. Instruction: 5 minute mini-lesson with practice in phases of fluency. And then keep a research-based strategy – partner reading so the teacher can hear how students use the instructional focus in their reading with a partner. Changing up the materials will help alleviate teacher boredom and will provide a framework for students to read and reread text in an organized and yet familiar process. Teachers can then determine which students need additional practice at this level and which students need to be challenged. Increase both length and difficulty of text as students meet criteria.
Writing Process: I had to determine how best to “show” this work. I pulled photos from my phone and screen shot the student form with my snipping tool. A question / answer format seemed to be the easiest to focus on the key elements for this work. Explaining the format seemed easy. Insertion of pictures into WordPress today – extremely difficult. Some pictures flipped upside down. They took forever to load. FRUSTRATING!
What has worked for you?
How do you keep your fluency work focused but yet meaningful for students?
Thank you, Anna, Betsy, Beth, Dana, Deb, Kathleen, Stacey, and Tara. Check out the writers, readers and teachers here. It’s the March Slice of Life Challenge so be ready to read DAILY posts!