BASED, TEACHER INITIATED RESEARCH STUDY · substantial progress in both fluency and reading comprehension. ... , 2014) reading fluency has been ... The present action research study

THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 1

JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue2,2017,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights

IMPACTOFSHORT-TERMINTENSEFLUENCYINSTRUCTIONONSTUDENTS’READINGACHIEVEMENT:ACLASSROOM-BASED,TEACHER-INITIATEDRESEARCHSTUDYKristyDiSalle

DorrStreetElementarySchool,Toledo,OH

TimothyRasinski,Ph.D.

KentStateUniversity,Kent,OH

Abstract

Reading fluency continues to be a critical factor in elementary students’ reading development. Many students, who struggle in reading, manifest difficulties in some area of fluency. In the present study, a fourth grade teacher implemented the Fluency Development Lesson (FDL), an intensive fluency instructional routine, with her six lowest achieving students. In a twelve-week implementation of the FDL all students made significant and substantial progress in both fluency and reading comprehension. The authors make a call for more studies of intensive fluency interventions to demonstrate and confirm their effectiveness.

Keywords:Fluency,Comprehension,Reading,StrugglingReaders



Introduction

Recentpolicypositionsandscholarlyresearchinreadingeducationhaveidentified

readingfluencyasacriticalandessentialreadingcompetencythatisnecessaryforfull

proficiencyinreading.BoththeNationalReadingPanel(2000)andtheCommonCoreState

Standards(2016)havenotedreadingfluencyasfoundationalforreadinggrowthandshould

bemasteredintheelementarygrades.Researchhasfoundthatapproximately75%of

studentswhostruggleinhighstakestestsofreadingachievementdemonstratedifficultyin

oneormorecomponentsofreadingfluency(i.e.,wordrecognitionaccuracy,word

recognitionautomaticity,andreadingprosody)(Valencia&Buly,2004).Moreover,other

researchhasshownmanystudentsbeyondtheelementarygradescontinuetostrugglein

readingfluencyandthatmeasuresofreadingfluencycontinuetobehighlycorrelatedwith

overallreadingproficiency(Paige,Magpuri-Lavell,Rasinski,&Smith,2013;Paige,Rasinski,

&Magpuri-Lavell,2012;Rasinski,Padak,McKeon,Krug,-Wilfong,Friedauer,&Heim,2005).

Indeed,comprehensiveandscholarlyreviewsofresearchrelatedtofluencyhaveconcluded

thatitacriticalcomponentforsuccessinlearningtoread(Chard,Vaughn,&Tyler,2002;

Kuhn&Stahl,2003:Rasinski,Reutzel,Chard,&Linan-Thompson,2011).

LiteratureReview

Fluencyisimportantbecauseitisaprerequisitetomoresophisticatedlevelsofreading

comprehension(Rasinski,2012).Oncestudentsareabletoreadwordsintextsaccurately,

automaticallyandwithexpressionthatreflectsmeaning,studentsaremoreabletofocus

theircognitiveresourcesonmakingmeaning-comprehension—ratherthanonthemore

basicandfoundationalcompetenciesinreading–wordrecognition.

Despitethescholarlyworkthathasconsistentlydemonstratedtherelevanceofreading

fluencytoreadingachievement,thereseemstobeadegreeofdismissivenesstoward

fluencywithintheliteracycommunity.IntheannualWhat’sHot;What’sNotsurveyofliteracyexperts(e.g.,Cassidy,&Grote-Garcia,2014)readingfluencyhasbeenconsistently

identifiedasareadingcompetencythatisnothotandshouldnotbehot.WhiletheWhat’sHot;What’sNotsurveydoesnotspeculateastothereasonsforthisreactiontofluency,itmaybethatthenegativereactiontofluencyhasbeencausedbythewayinwhichfluency

instructionhasbeenmanifestedinmanyprogrammaticapproachestofluency.Inthese

programs,fluencyismeasuredbystudents’readingspeedasmeasuredbywordsread

correctlyperminute(WCPM).Researchacknowledgesthatthisisanappropriatemeasure

ofwordrecognitionautomaticitywhichitselfisrelatedtogeneralreadingproficiency

(Fuchs,Fuchs,Hamlett,Walz,&Germann,1993;Fuchs,Fuchs,Hosp,&Jenkins,2001).

Giventhecorrelationbetweenreadingspeedandwordrecognitionautomaticity,many

fluencyinstructionalprogramsaswellasmanywell-meaningteachershaveimplicitly

reversedthelogicandmadeinstructionthatfocusesonincreasingreadingrateasthe

primarymethodforimprovingfluency.Weseethismanifestedintheregularuseoftimedreadingsinwhichstudentsareaskedtoreadandrereadrelativelyshortpassagesatanever



quickerpace.Thistypeofspeed-orientedreadingisinoppositiontotheauthenticmeaningfulreadingthatmostreadingscholarsfeeliskeytoreadinggrowth.Moreover,thereisnocompellingresearchthathasdemonstratedthatexplicitinstructioninincreasingstudents’readingspeedresultsinimprovedoverallreading.

Literacyscholarssuggestthatreadingfluencyisbestdevelopedthroughsomeverybasicreadingactivities.Theseincludewordrecognitioninstruction,listeningtofluentreadingsoftexts,widereading,repeatedreading,andassistedreadinginwhichstudentsreadatextwhilesimultaneouslyhearingthetextreadtotheminafluentmanner(Rasinski,1989,2010).Individuallythereisagoodbodyofresearchthatsupportswidereading,repeatedreading,andassistedreading(Rasinski,Reutzel,Chard,&Linan-Thompson,2011).However,evengreatereffectscanbeanticipatedwhentheseindividualinstructionalapproachesarecombinedinasynergisticandauthenticmanner.

TheFluencyDevelopmentLesson.TheFluencyDevelopmentLesson(FDL)(Rasinski,Padak,Linek,&Sturtevant,1994)wasdevelopedasafluencyinterventionthatcanbeappliedtolargegroupsoftypicallydevelopingelementarygradestudentormoreintensivelytosmallergroupsofstudentswhohaveyettoachieveproficiencyinfluencyandwhoalsostruggleinoverallreadingachievement.TheFDLisadailylessoninwhichstudentsaregiventhetaskofmasteringtothepointoffluencyanewrelativelyshort(100-200words)texteachday.Thelessontakesapproximately20minutesandcanbeimplementedwithclassroomgroups,smallgroups,orindividualstudents.ThroughoutanypartoftheFDLthereisneveranexplicitorimplicitfocusonincreasingreadingrate.ThegeneraldailyprotocolfortheFDLinvolvesthefollowingsteps:

1. Inpreparationforthelessontheteacherselectsatextfortheday.Thetextcanbeapassagefromastory,aninformationalpiece,apoem,orasong.Thetextsshouldbeatorslightlyabovethestudents’instructionalreadinglevelandshouldbeareadingwithgoodphrasingandexpression.Theteachermakestwocopiesofthetextforeverystudent,andalsomakesalargerdisplaycopyforgroupreading.

2. ModelingFluentReading.Theteacherintroducesthedisplaycopyofthetexttostudentsandreadsittothestudentstwotothreetimeswhilestudentsfollowalongsilently.Theteachercanreadthetextwithvariousformsofexpressionorlackofexpression.

3. Followingtheteacher’sreading,studentsareledinabriefdiscussionofthetextandthenatureoftheteacher’soralreading.

4. AssistedReading.Next,theteacherandstudentsreadthedisplaycopyofthetexttwotothreetimeschorally.Thechoralreadingscanchangefromthewholegroupreadingthetexttohavingdifferentsubgroupsreadthepassage.

5. AssistedandRepeatedReading.Followingthechoralreading,studentsaredividedintogroupsoftwoorthree,giventheirindividualcopiesofthetext,andaregivenaboutfiveminutestopracticethetextintheirgroups.Onestudentreadsthepassagewhilehisorherpartner(s)followalongsilently,providehelpasneeded,and



givepositivefeedback.Eachstudentisgiventheopportunitytopracticeinthis

manner.

6. Atthispointstudentsareabletoreadthetextwithsomedegreeoffluency.Inorder

tomaketheFDLanauthenticactivity,studentsareinvitedtoperformtheirtextfor

anaudience.Theaudiencecansimplybeotherclassmates,butitcanalsobemade

upofvolunteeradultsstationedoutsidetheclassroom,orevenotherclassroomsof

students.

7. WordWork.Attheendoftheperformancetheteacherandstudentsselect5-10

wordsfromthepassageandengageinquickwordstudyactivities.Thesecaninclude

findingotherwordsthatcontainaselectedrhymeorwordfamilyfromthepassage

(e.g.FromthepoemRainRainGoAway,other–aywordssuchasday,play,stay,andstraycanbediscoveredanddisplayedforstudentstoread),sortingthecorpusofwordsinvariousways,examiningthemorphologicalnatureofcertainwords(e.g.

tractisamorphemeintractormeanstopull;otherwordsthatcontainthetract

morphemeandthatmeantopullincludedistract,attract,extract,andcontract),andplayingwordgames(e.g.wordladdersusingwordsfromthepassage).The

formalFDLendswiththewordstudy.

8. RepeatedReading.TheFDLcontinuesathome.Studentstaketheirsecondcopyof

thepassageandareencouragedtoreadthepassagetofamilymembersathomea

selectnumberoftimes,usuallyfiveormore.

9. RepeatedReading.AnewFluencyDevelopmentLessonisimplementedthe

followingdaywithanewtext.However,beforebeginningtoreadthenewtext,the

teacherleadsstudentsinreadingandcelebratingtheirmasteryoftextsfrom

previousdays.

TeachersemployingtheFDLareencouragedtovarytheprotocoltomeettheirownstyleof

instructionandneedsofthestudents.ThekeyelementsrequiredinanyFDLaremodeling

fluentreading,assistedreading,repeatedreading,andwordwork.Thekeygoalforany

FDLisforstudentstomasteranewtext(poem)witheachlessontothepointofreadingthe

textwithgoodfluency--wordrecognitionaccuracy,automaticity,andexpression.

ThepresentactionresearchstudyattemptedtodeterminetheeffectsoftheFluency

DevelopmentLessonwhenemployedinaregularclassroomsettingwithstudentsidentified

asstrugglinginreading.Thefollowingresearchquestionguidedthestudy:Whatarethe

effectsofaregularclassroomimplementationoftheFluencyDevelopmentLessononthe

readingachievementoffourthgradestrugglingreaders?

Methodology

ImplementingtheFDLinaRealClassroomSetting.KristyDiSalleisafourthgradeteacherwhoattendedaseriesofprofessionaldevelopmentworkshopsbyTimothyRasinski.During

hisworkshopRasinskiarguedfortheneedforintensivefluencyinstructionforstruggling

readers(studentswhoarereadingatleastonegradelevelbelowtheirassignedgrade

level).HedescribedtheFDLindepthandprovidedasimulationactivityforteachers

attendingtheworkshop.Havingsixstudentsinherclasswhowerestrugglinginreading,



DiSalledecidedtoimplementtheFDLwiththemdailyinadditiontotheirregularreading

curriculum.Theregularreadingcurriculumincludedguidedreadingactivitiesinwhich

groupsofstudentsread,discuss,andrespondtostoriesandinformationaltexts,word

study,andwriting.

DiSallehad6studentswhowerereadingata2ndgradelevel,accordingtothereading

assessmentusedbytheschool(RenaissanceLearning,2016).KristybeganusingtheFDL

withher6strugglingstudents(3girlsand3boys)for4to5daysaweekforapproximately

20minutesperlessonforathree-monthperiod.Shealsoaddedreciprocalteaching

comprehensionactivities(Oczkus,2010)totheFDLtocreateamoreintensefocuson

comprehension.Fiveofthesixstudents(Students1through5inTable1)alsoreceived

Title1readingservices4-5daysperweekfor20minutes.Upuntiltheimplementationof

theFDL,Kristy’ssixstrugglingreadershadnotbeenmakingadequateprogress(their

readingachievementhadremainedstagnantfromthebeginningoftheschoolyearuntilthe

beginningofschooluntiltheimplementationoftheFDLprotocol)inreadingdespiteregular

classroomreadinginstructionandTitleIinterventionfor5students.TheFDLwaschosen

andimplementedforit’spotentialtoacceleratestudents’growthinreading.

OverthecourseoftheimplementationperiodtheFDLwasadministeredapproximately50

timestothegroupofstudents(becauseofabsencesnotallstudentsparticipatedinall

lessons).TheFDLinterventionwasimplementedatatableinthebackoftheclassroom.

Theremainderoftheclassworkedindependentlyattheirseatsonvocabularybuilding

activitiesduringtheFDL.Kristychoseanewpoemforeachlesson.Sheusedseasonal

themesanddifficultyofthepoemaschiefcriteriaforpoemselection.Poemswereselected

fromavarietyofauthenticsources(e.g.,Liatsos,1995;Scholastic,2004).

DiSallebegantheFDLbyhavingstudentsskimandscanthedailypoemtomakepredictions

aboutthecontentandstructureofthepoem.ThenasstudentsprogressedthroughtheFDL,

theyworkedtoclarifywordsorphrasestheydidn’tunderstand,formedquestionsabout

contentintheselection,andcreatedasummaryofthepoem.Withthepoemprojectedon

theSmartboard,studentsreadandperformedthepoemtotherestofclassusingmusic

standsdonatedbythemiddleschoolbandteacher.Kristy’swordstudyactivitiesincluded

identifyingcommonwordfamiliesinpoemsandplayingwordgamesusingwordsfromthe

selectedeachpoem.ThehomeportionoftheFDLinvolvedthestudentsreadingthepoem

threetimestofamilymembers.Oneparentcommented,“Thepoemsareagreattooltouse

athome,asweenjoyreadingtogether.Weappreciatethereadingfluencylesson,asJayis

benefitinggreatly.Thankyou!”

AssessmentMethod.TheSTARReadingassessment(RenaissanceLearning,2016),the

readingassessmentthatwaschosenbetheschooltomeasurestudents’reading

achievementandprogress,wasusedtomeasurestudents’growthinreading.Itisa

computer-adaptiveassessmentofgeneralreadingachievementandcomprehensionof

studentsingrades1through12.Theassessmentprovidesinformationonstudents’general

performanceinreadingcomprehension.Thedifficultyofitemsisadjustedautomaticallyto

reflecttheskilllevelofallstudents,includingstudentswithspecialneeds.Studentsreada



seriesofselections,withthelengthanddifficultydependentonthestudent’sleveland

progressduringtheassessment,andanswermultiple-choicecomprehensionquestions.

TheSTARReadingassessmentgeneratesaGradeEquivalent(GE)scoretomeasure

proficiencylevelincomprehension.TheNationalCenterforResponsetoIntervention’s

analysesoftheSTARReadingassessmentreportsvaliditycoefficientsrangingfrom.68to

.92andreliabilitycoefficientsfrom.81to.92(NationalCenterforResponsetoIntervention,

2016).

TheEstimatedOralReadingFluency(Est.ORF)ispartoftheSTARReadingassessmentandis

ameasureofproficiencyinfluency(wordrecognitionaccuracyandautomaticity),

foundationalreadingcompetenciesthatmanystudentswhostruggleinreadingarenot

proficient(Valencia&Buly,2004).TheEst.ORFwasdevelopedbylinkingSTARassessment

datawithknownoralreadingfluencyassessmentsofover12,000studentsingrades1

through4.TheEst.ORFisreportedinwordsreadcorrectlyperminuteongradelevel

material.

Results

StudentsGaininComprehensionandFluency.StudentsweretestedonNovember30,2015,

andMarch9,2016,todetermineprogress.TestingincludedtheSTARReadingtestto

determineastudent’sgrowthinreadingcomprehensionandanestimatedoralreading

fluency.TheresultsofbothassessmentscanbeseeninTables1and2.

Thetablesprovideasummaryoftheassessmentsofstudents.Table1detailstheresultsfor

eachstudentwhileTable2summarizesresultsforall6students.Inapproximately12weeks

ofusingtheFDL,thestudentsmadeonaverageslightlyoverayear’sgrowthinreading

comprehension.Oralreadingfluencyincreasedfrom69.2to96.8wordreadcorrectlyper

minute(WCPM),againof27.6WCPMduringtheimplementationoftheFDL.

Althoughonlyoneofthesixstudentsachievedgradelevelproficiencyincomprehension,

thegainsallsixstudentsmadeinbothcomprehensionandfluencyareremarkableinterms

oftheirmagnitude.Inapproximatelyonethirdofaschoolyear,studentsmadeslightlyover

ayear’sgrowthinreadingcomprehension.Moreover,attheinitialassessmentstudents’

readingcomprehensionwas,onaverage,ata2.8gradelevelequivalent.Thismeansthatin

roughly3.3yearsofreadinginstruction(Grades1through4)priortotheinitialassessment

thesixstudentsinthepresentstudymade,onaverage,slightlyoverahalfyear’sprogressin

comprehensionperyearofinstruction.Duringthe12weekFDLimplementationstudents

madeasmuchprogressincomprehensionashadbeenpreviouslymadeinapproximately2

years.

Similarly,allsixstudentsinthepresentstudyhavenotachievedbenchmarklevelsfororal

readingfluencyassetbytheSTARReadingassessment.Still,thegainsmadebystudentsin

fluencyareremarkable.Assuming3.3yearsofreadinginstructionpriortoimplementing

theFDL,thesixstudentsinthepresentstudymade,onaverageanincreaseof21WCPMper

year.Inthe12weekimplementationoftheFDL,studentsinthepresentcohortmadean



averagegainof27.6WCPM.Inotherwords,thestudentsinourstudyusingtheFDLmadeagreatergainina12weeksimplementationoftheFDLthanstudentshadonaveragemadeinanentireyearofreadinginstruction.

DuringtheperiodoftheFDLinterventionperiodallsixofKristy’sstrugglingreadersmadesignificantprogressinbothcomprehensionandreadingfluency.Othergainsweremeasuredbystudentfeedback.Onestudentcommented,“FDLhelpsmepresentinfrontoftheclass.ItisfunandIlikethepoemsbecausetheyaresilly.NowIreadbetter,likeIhavemoreexpression.ItalsohelpsmelearnnewwordsthatIdon’tunderstand.”Anotherstudentshared,“It(FDL)helpsmeunderstandwords.Italsohelpsmewithmyexpressionandtonotbescaredtoperforminfrontofpeople.”

Table1:StudentProgressUsingtheFluencyDevelopmentLesson

Date Student

ComprehensionGradeEquivalent

ExpectedGradePlacement

ORFScores(WCPM)

ExpectedGrade4ORF

11/12/15 1(boy) 2.8 4.23 73 125

3/9/16 3.4 4.62 93 139

GGain +0.6 +0.39 +20 +14

Date Student ComprehensionGradeEquivalent


ORFScores(WCPM)

ExpectedGrade4ORF

11/12/15 2(boy) 2.4 4.25 63 125

3/9/16 4.1 4.62 105 139

Gain +1.7 +0.37 +42 +14



ORFScores(WCPM)

ExpectedGrade4ORF



11/12/15 2(boy) 2.4 4.25 63 125

3/9/16 4.1 4.62 105 139

Gain +1.7 +0.37 +42 +14



ORFScores(WCPM)

ExpectedGrade4ORF

11/12/15 3(girl) 2.4 4.23 63 125

3/9/16 3.1 4.62 82 139

Gain +0.7 +0.39 +19 +14



ORFScores(WCPM)

ExpectedGrade4ORF

11/12/15 4(boy) 2.4 4.23 63 125

3/9/16 3.4 4.62 91 139

Gain +1.0 +0.39 +28 +14



ORFScores(WCPM)

ExpectedGrade4ORF

11/12/15 5(girl) 2.9 4.23 79 125

3/9/16 3.4 4.62 93 139



Gain +0.5 +0.39 +14 +14



ORFScores(WCPM)

ExpectedGrade4ORF

11/12/15 6(girl) 2.8 4.23 74 125

3/9/16 4.6 4.62 117 139

Gain +1.8 +0.39 +43 +14

Table2:StudentProgressSummaryResults

Date

ComprehensionGradeEquivalent


ORFScores(WCPM)

ExpectedGrade4ORF

11/12/15 2.6 4.23 69.2 125

3/9/16 3.7 4.62 96.8 139

Gain +1.1 +0.39 27.6 +14

DiscussionandImplications

WhatDoesThisMean?Weacknowledgethatthisnon-traditionalformofresearchhas

manylimitations.Thenumberofstudentsparticipatingisquitelowandmakesitdifficultto

generalizetoothersituations.Wedidnothaveacontrolgroupagainstwhichwecould

compareresults.Giventhattheresearchwasdonewithinanactualclassroomsetting

meantthatwecouldnotcontrolotherinstructionalandothervariablesthatmayhave

impactedtheresults.Wealsonotethatprosody,animportantcomponentofreading

fluency,wasnotassessedinthepresentstudy.Althoughparentsandteacherobservations

aswellasstudentcommentsnotedimprovementsinprosody,itwasnotformallyassessed.



Ontheotherhand,thefactthatthisstudywasdonewithinthecontextofanactual

classroomalsomeantthatittookplaceinanauthenticschoolplacementinwhichthe

teacher(KristyDiSalle)hadtodealwithalltheclassroomexigenciesthatteachersdealwith

onadailybasis.Shewasunabletocontrolforwhenstudentsmayhavebeenillorcalled

outoftheclassroomforotherreasons.Moreover,shestillhadtodealwithissuesrelated

toherotherstudentsinherclassroomduringtheFDLinstruction.Inotherwords,thereal-

life-classroomnatureofthestudymeansthattheresultsthatwereobservedfromusingthe

FDLcanoccurwhenteachersintentionallyimplementthelessoninordertomeetthe

specificneedsofstudents.

Despitetheacknowledgedlimitationsnotedabove,wedothinkthereismuchtotakefrom

thepresentstudy.Previousresearchhasdemonstratedthatfluencyisacriticalvariablefor

readingachievement.Asreadingfluencyisachieved,readersareabletochanneltheir

cognitiveresourcestocomprehensionoftext,thetruegoalofreading.Moreover,research

hasalsoshownthatmanystudentsstruggletoachieveappropriatelevelsofreadingfluency.

Clearlyinstructionalinterventionstoimproveandevenacceleratestudents’fluency

developmentarecalledfor.Manycurrentcommercialapproachestofluencyimplicitlyor

explicitlytendtofocusonanextraneousvariabletofluency–speedofreading.These

programsimprovereadingspeed,ameasureoffluency,byfocusingstudents’attentionon

increasingspeed.Althoughreadingspeedmayincrease,thereislimitedevidencethatword

recognitionautomaticityandreadingcomprehensionalsoimprove.

Ratherthanfocusonincreasingreadingspeed,theFluencyDevelopmentLessoncombines

widelyacknowledgedcomponentsofexemplaryreadingfluencyinstructiontocreatean

authenticreadingactivityinwhichstudentsrehearseatextinordertoeventuallyperformit

foranaudience.ThepresentstudyfoundthatimplementationoftheFDLwithstudents

whohavedemonstrabledifficultyinreadingfluencycandramaticallyacceleratetheir

growthinbothreadingfluencyandcomprehensioninarelativelyshortperiodoftime.The

presentstudysuggeststhattheFDL,aswellasothersynergisticfluencyprotocols,canmake

arealdifferenceinhelpingstrugglingreadersmovetowardproficiencyinboththe

foundationalreadingcompetenciesandreadingcomprehension.

Onestudyofsixstudentsisclearlynotdefinitive.However,wehopethatthepresentstudy

willpromptotherteachersandschoolstafftoimplementtheFDLintheirownclassrooms

andschools.Theresultsofmanysmallscalestudiesconductedinrealclassroomscanmove

thefieldofliteracyeducationforwardtothepointwheremanystudentshavenewhopefor

gainingfullproficiencyinreading.



AbouttheAuthors

KristyDiSalle.KristyDiSalleisa4thgradeteacheratDorrStreetElementarySchoolinToledoOhio.Sheisdedicatedtocontinuingherprofessionallearninginordertoprovideherstudentswiththebestpossibleinstruction.Email:[email protected].

TimothyRasinski,Ph.D.TimothyRasinskiisaprofessorofliteracyeducationatKentStateUniversity.Hisscholarlyinterestsincludereadingfluencyandwordstudy,readerswhostruggle,andparentalinvolvement.In2010RaskinskiwaselectedtotheInternationalReadingHallofFame.Email:[email protected].



References

Cassidy,J.,&Grote-Garcia,S.(2014).What’sHot,What’sNotsurvey.ReadingToday,32(1),8-12.Chard,D.J.,Vaughn,S.,&Tyler,B.(2002).Asynthesisofresearchoneffectiveinterventionsfor

buildingfluencywithelementarystudentswithlearningdisabilities.JournalofLearningDisabilities,35,386-406.

CommonCoreStateStandardsInitiative(2016).CommonCoreStateStandardsInitiative.

DownloadedMay12,2016from:http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/.

Fuchs,L.S.,Fuchs,D.,Hamlett,C.L.,Walz,L.,&Germann,G.(1993).Formativeevaluationofacademicprogress:Howmuchgrowthcanweexpect?SchoolPsychologyReview,22,27-48.

Fuchs,L.S.,Fuchs,D.,Hosp,M.,&Jenkins,J.(2001).Oralreadingfluencyasanindicatorofreading

competence:Atheoretical,empirical,andhistoricalanalysis.ScientificStudiesinReading,5,239-256.

Kuhn,M.R.,&Stahl,S.A.(2003).Fluency:Areviewofdevelopmentalandremedialpractices.Journal

ofEducationalPsychology,95,3-21.Liatsos,S.(1995).PoemstoCountOn:32TerrificPoemsandActivitiestoHelpTeachConcepts.New

York:ScholasticProfessional.NationalCenterforResponsetoIntervention.(2016).STARReading.Washington,DC:American

InstitutesforResearch.Accessed4/28/2016athttp://www.rti4success.org/star-reading.

NationalReadingPanel.(2000).ReportoftheNationalReadingPanel:Teachingchildrentoread.Reportofthesubgroups.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,NationalInstitutesofHealth.

Oczkus,L.(2010).ReciprocalTeachingatWork:PowerfulStrategiesandLessonsforImproving

ReadingComprehension.Newark,DE:InternationalReadingAssociation.Paige,D.D.,Magpuri-Lavell,T.,Rasinski,T.V,&Smith,G.(2013).Interpretingtherelationships

amongprosody,automaticity,accuracy,andsilentreadingcomprehensioninsecondarystudents.JournalofLiteracyResearch,46(2),123-156.

Paige,D.D.,Rasinski,T.V.,&Magpuri-Lavell,T.(2012).Isfluent,expressivereadingimportantforhighschoolreaders?JournalofAdolescent&AdultLiteracy,56(1),67–76.

Rasinski,T.V.(1989).Fluencyforeveryone:Incorporatingfluencyintheclassroom.TheReadingTeacher,42,690–693.

Rasinski,T.V.(2010).TheFluentReader:OralandSilentReadingStrategiesforBuildingWordRecognition,Fluency,andComprehension.NewYork,NY:Scholastic.



Rasinski,T.V.(2012).Whyreadingfluencyshouldbehot.TheReadingTeacher,65,516-522.

Rasinski,T.,Padak,N.,McKeon,C.,Krug,-Wilfong,L.,Friedauer,J.,&Heim,P.(2005).IsReadingFluencyaKeyforSuccessfulHighSchoolReading?JournalofAdolescentandAdultLiteracy,49,22-27.

Rasinski,T.V.,Padak,N.D.,Linek,W.L.,&Sturtevant,E.(1994).Effectsoffluencydevelopmentonurbansecond-gradereaders.JournalofEducationalResearch,87,158–165.

Rasinski,T.V.,Reutzel,C.R.,Chard,D.&Linan-Thompson,S.(2011).ReadingFluency.InM.L.Kamil,P.D.Pearson,B.Moje,&P.Afflerbach.(Eds),HandbookofReadingResearch,VolumeIV(pp.286-319).NewYork:Routledge.

RenaissanceLearning.(2016).STARReading.WisconsinRapids,WI:RenaissanceLearning.

Accessed4/28/2016athttp://www.renaissance.com/Products/Star-Assessments/Star-Reading.

Scholastic.(2004).PerfectPoemswithStrategiesforBuildingFluency:Grades3–4.NewYork,NY:

Scholastic.Valencia,S.W.,&Buly,M.R.(2004).Behindtestscores:Whatstrugglingreadersreallyneed.The

ReadingTeacher,57,520-531.

Documents

BASED, TEACHER INITIATED RESEARCH STUDY · substantial progress in both fluency and reading comprehension. ... , 2014) reading fluency has been ... The present action research study