Case study on the effect of word repetition method supported by neurological affecting model on fluent reading.
Reading difficulty is a difficulty experienced by a student during reading due to failing to have gained any of the necessary reading skills or the difficulty faced in reading any text in terms of comprehending the meanings of words and idioms, analyzing the sentence structure. Reading difficulty is such difficulty experienced by an individual during reading due to falling to have gained any of the necessary reading skills including correct recognition and analysis of the vocal, fluent reading, understanding what is read, having sufficient vocabulary knowledge. Akyol (2008) and Cain (2010: 123) determined the mistakes made by students who do not have fluent reading skill as follows: They read with a noisy or soft sound and word by word, they are insufficient to emphasize, they do not take punctuation marks into consideration, they follow the words with finder while reading, they move their lips and shake head, they read syllable by syllable, they frequently request for help from the teacher while reading, they are indifferent toward the text read, they do not like reading and reading exercises, they refrain from oral reading within the class, speed of reading is rather low, they have poor writing and understanding capacities, they have difficulty in understanding the text they read, they do not follow the directives given in the class.
Fluent Reading Methods
Fluent reading is the reading performed by considering punctuation marks, emphasizes and toning, with a correct and appropriate tone of voice without turning back, repetition, syllabling and unnecessary pauses (Zutell & Rasinski, 1991). Fluency in reading is the capability of quick recognition of the word, and reading sentences and long paragraphs. Kulm & Stall (2003) define fluency in reading as appropriate speed, correctly reading and pronouncing the word. When the literature is reviewed, one finds out abundance of fluent reading methods. The principal methods among those methods may be listed as follows: Guided reading, echoing reading, Fernald, word repetition, paired reading, directed reading, neurological affecting model and repetitive reading. Since the effectiveness of the repetitive reading method supported neurological affecting model among those methods shall be looked through in this research, these two methods were explained:
Repetitive reading method is the most frequently used method for correction of reading difficulties (Kuhn & Stall, 2003). In this method, reading texts composed of 20-200 words the majority of words having a difficulty level that could be recognized by the reader. The proportion of the words which the student reads correctly and reading speed is recorded on daily basis (Lerner, 1997). In this method which can be used for readers of any age (Kasten & Yildirim, 2011:37) the students should read a short text repeatedly (averagely four times) and according to the predetermined speed, word recognition and prosodic properties (Samuels, 1979). Rashotte & Torgesen, (1985), Dowhower (1994), Hasbrouck, Ihnot, & Rogers (1999) and Bryant et. al. (2000) concluded in the studies they conducted that the repetitive reading method had significant contribution on the reading of the students.
Neurological Affecting Model
Neurological affecting model is a reading model developed for supporting poor readers (Towsend, 2007: 102). The stages of the neurological affecting method are as follows (Mercer, 1987): The teacher sits at the back of the student having reading difficulty, the voice of the teacher should be directed to the ear of the student, reading is performed loudly together. The teacher guides the student. And sometimes allows the student to be the guide, the words read are followed by finger or pencil.
The purpose of this research is determining the effect of word repetitive reading method supported with neurological affecting model on fluent reading. The implementations related to the method used during this study is hoped to be a model for the teachers and researchers who want to conduct new studies in this subject.
This research is a case study which is a qualitative study model and named as example event as well. In the case study an actual fact is researched within its own reality.
Implementation was performed with three primary education third class students. While the research is reported the student names were coded and hidden. The first Student was coded as "A", the second student as "B" and the third student as "C".
Data Collection Tools
"False Analysis Inventory", "Reading Texts" and "Student's Text Reading Sound Records" were used as data collection tools in the research.
False Analysis Inventory
In order to determine the student's oral reading skill level, "False Analysis Inventory," adapted by Akyol (2008), benefitting from Harris & Sipay (1990), Ekwall and Shanker (2003) and May (1986) was used. False Analysis Inventory is used to determine the students' reading levels. With False Analysis Inventory three types of reading level were detected:
Free Level: Refers to reading and understanding of the student the texts convenient for his/her level without needing the assistance of the teacher or any other adult.
Teaching Level: Refers to reading and understanding of the student as desired with the support of a teacher or any other adult.
Anxiety Level: Refers to the level at which the student understands very few of what he/she reads and/or makes many reading mistakes during reading.
Data Collection Process
Data collection process of the research is composed of four stages. Those stages are explained in sequence.
First Stage: In the first stage of the data collection process, the students whose reading skill level is at anxiety level and who do not have any problem (audial, visual, etc.) that could prevent the development of their reading skills were determined by talking to their teachers, school guide teachers and guidance research center. For the selection of the students, those students having qualities convenient for the purpose of the research were researched in the primary schools and Guidance and Research Center in the center of the province of Usak. As a result of the research, implementation was started with three third class students who were convinced to be participant and for whom the necessary permissions could be received.
Second Stage: The necessary permissions were received from the student guardians, teachers and the head master of the school they attend were received in order to perform implementation with the students and particularly to record students' readings.
Third Stage: Among the story books, the reading texts suitable for the students' level and interests were selected for the purpose of using in the implementation (Marr et. al., 2010; Therrien, Kirk, & Woods-Groves, 2011). Short texts suitable for the students' level were used in order to develop fluent reading skills (Armbruster, Lehr and Osborn, 2001:27; Gibb & Wilder, 2002; Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002); totally thirty two reading texts of story type were selected provided to be fourteen for the first class level, ten for the second class level and eight for the third class level. Later totally five understanding what is read questions were prepared about each text read provided three are simple understanding and two are deep understanding.
Fourth Stage: Student's oral reading level was determined one week before the beginning of the implementation (Rasinski, 1999). The researcher at the beginning of and during the implementation informed the three teachers who will perform the implementation on the implementation process, fluent reading program and false analysis inventory. In the implementation process each student was made by the teachers read four texts every week during eight weeks. While the students read a text each text reading was recorded in sound record device.
The implementation was performed with thirty two texts. When the field literature was reviewed different implementations are found indicating that the number of words of the texts to be used in the implementation should be 20-200 (Akyol, 2008), 50-200 (Rasinski, 2003) and 100-200 (Therrien & Kubina, 2006). In this research implementation was performed with texts of 20-200. All of the implementations were performed in comfortable and silent class environments. The student was caused to perform oral readings till reaching the reading level determined on the reading text. After the level determined was reached, a new text was made read. The progressing status of the student's reading was weekly assessed by the researcher.
At the implementation stage, the neurological affecting model supported repetitive reading method was implemented as follows:
1. The teacher sat next to the student having reading difficulty and each text was read to the ear of the student word by word.
2. While the teacher reads the sentence word by word the student was asked to follow the sentence with finger or pencil.
3. Student's readings were recorded in the audio record device.
4. The reading mistakes made by the student during reading were detected by listening to the audio record device and written on the word cards prepared according to the inventor.
5. Firstly the researcher and later the student read those words written on the cards in repetitive manner for the purpose of being a model.
6. The words read by the student correctly were recorded to be read by the student later.
7. The words read falsely or difficult to read were recorded in the word card to be read by the student later.
8. For the words continued to be read falsely, firstly the teacher whispers to the student's ear. Later the student and the researcher read orally together.
The findings obtained as a result of the analyses of the data collected during research and comments on them were presented in table format.
Prior to the implementation, duration of students' reading the texts, number of mistakes, word recognition, understanding and oral reading values were indicated in Table 1.
All of students read the text of primary education first, second and third class and their word recognition percentage was detected to be 90%- (anxiety level); understanding percentage was detected to be under 75% (anxiety level) and oral reading skill percentage was detected to be 90%- (anxiety level)
When the data in Table 1 were considered, it was suggested that the students were at the anxiety level when considered for each student in all three class levels according to word recognition, understanding and oral reading skill levels and that it was compulsory to start implementations with first class texts.
The oral reading mistakes made by the student prior to implementation were indicated in Table 2.
Word recognition, understanding and oral reading values of the student during implementation were indicated in Table 3.
According to the data in Table 3, first student (A) was made read a text at first class level at the end of the first week of the implementation; after the reading his word recognition percentage was detected to be 90%- (anxiety level), his understanding percentage was detected to be 42% (anxiety level) and his oral reading skill percentage was detected to be 90%- (anxiety level). At the end of the eighth week, after text reading, the student's word recognition percentage was detected to be 96% (teaching level), his understanding percentage was detected to be 79% (teaching level) and his oral reading skill percentage was detected to be 95%+ (teaching level) and the implementation was ended.
The second student (B) was made read a text at first class level at the end of the first week of the implementation; after the reading his word recognition percentage was detected to be 90%- (anxiety level), his understanding percentage was detected to be 31% (anxiety level) and his oral reading skill percentage was detected to be 90%- (anxiety level). At the end of the eighth week, after text reading, the student's word recognition percentage was detected to be 95% (teaching level), his understanding percentage was detected to be 76% (teaching level) and his oral reading skill percentage was detected to be 95%+ (teaching level) and the implementation was ended.
Third student (C), was made read a text at first class level at the end of the first week of the implementation; after the reading his word recognition percentage was detected to be 90%- (anxiety level), his understanding percentage was detected to be 37% (anxiety level) and his oral reading skill percentage was detected to be 90%- (anxiety level). At the end of the eighth week, after text reading, the student's word recognition percentage was detected to be 96% (teaching level), his understanding percentage was detected to be 77% (teaching level) and his oral reading skill percentage was detected to be 95%+ (teaching level) and the implementation was ended.
The data on post and pre-implementation third class text reading duration, number of mistakes, word recognition, understanding and oral reading values of the students were indicated in Table 4.
The data in Table 4 indicate students' post and pre-implementation development. It is found that after implementation the student read a text of 124 words at third class level in 3 minutes 8 seconds; made 13 mistakes during reading; his word recognition percentage increased to 96%, understanding percentage to 79% and oral reading skill percentage to 95%+ (teaching level); the student read a text of 124 words at third class level in 3 minutes 21 seconds; made 17 mistakes during reading; his word recognition percentage increased to 95%, understanding percentage to 76% (teaching level) and oral reading skill percentage to 95%+ (teaching level); the student read a text of 124 words at third class level in 3 minutes 13 seconds; made 17 mistakes during reading; his word recognition percentage increased to 96% (teaching level), understanding percentage to 77% (teaching level) and oral reading skill percentage to 95%+ (teaching level).
Fluent reading is one of the keys of understanding what is read. For this reason, fluent reading and fluent reading developing studies are found frequently (Dudley & Mather, 2005; Hudson, Lane & Pullon, 2005; Ardoin, Eckert & Cole, 2008). Researchers (For example, Schilling, Carlisle, Scott, & Zeng, 2007; Klauda & Guthrie, 2008) determine that there is a positive relation between fluent reading and understanding what is read.
When the literature is reviewed, implementations where the methods supporting one another are combined are encountered as well. For instance, Oddo, Barnett, Hawkins & Musti-Rao (2010) researched in their researches the effect of paired reading supported repetitive reading on fourth class students', oral reading and understanding skills. The research was performed in small groups under the surveillance of class teacher. Seventeen students participated in the research. The teacher performing the implementation was a teacher having a teaching experience of 4-7 years. It was performed three times a week within a period of ten minutes. In data analysis, the data were analyzed using dual level, percentage, tendency criteria of non-overlapping data. In the results of the analysis repetitive reading method became effective on the increase of reading performance of the targeted four students at class level in addition to reading fluencies and understanding skills.
In this research, two different fluent reading methods supposed to support each other were combined and a reading program was created and implemented. One may say that the program prepared with the combination of those two methods which are effective alone made significant contribution to the development of fluent reading skills of students having reading difficulty. For this reason one may say that the effectiveness of fluent reading methods supposed to support each other on eliminating the students' reading difficulties.
Reading which provides the person's information, development and entertaining is one on the skills which makes the highest contribution on mental development of the student (Alber-Morgan, Ramp, Anderson, Martin, 2007: 29; Ministry of National Education, 2009:16). Insufficiency in the development of this skill shall affect the student's academic and social life negatively. This difficulty with the reading skills is a problem frequently faced particularly by Turkish students with low socioeconomic level. The researchers studying on Turkish language education, primary school class teachers and secondary school Turkish language teachers should research and discuss the reasons for students' reading difficulties and how these difficulties could be overcome.
Akyol, H. (2008). Yeni programa uygun Turkce ogretim yontemleri. Ankara: Kok.
Alber-Morgan, S. R., Ramp, E. M., Anderson, L. L., & Martin, C.M. (2007). Effects of repeated readings, error correction, and performance feedback on the fluency and comprehension of middle school students with behavior problems. The Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 17-30.
Ardoin, S. P., Eckert, T. L., & Cole, C. A. S. (2008). Promoting generalization of reading: A comparison of two fluency-based interventions for improving general education student's oral reading rate. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17, 237-252.
Bryant, D., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Ugel, N., Hamff, A., & Hougen, M. (2000). Reading outcomes for students with and without reading disabilities in general education middle school content area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 238-252. DOI: 10.2307/1511347.
Cain, K. (2010). Reading development and difficulties. United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Dowhower, S. L. (1994). Repeated reading revisited: Research into practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 10(4), 343-358.
Dudley, A. M., & Mather, N. (2005). Getting up to speed on reading fluency. New England Reading Association Journal, 41(1), 22-27.
Gibb, G. S., & Wilder, L. K. (2002). Using functional analysis to improve reading instruction for students with learning disabilities and emotional/behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 46, 152-157.
Harris, A. J. & Sipay, E. R. (1990). How to increase reading ability a guide to developmental remedial methods. New York: Longman.
Hasbrouck, J. E., C. Ihnot & G. H. Rogers. (1999). Read Naturally: A strategy to increase oral reading fluency. Reading Research & Instruction, 39 (1), 27-38.
Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58, 702-714.
Jenkins, J. R. & Larson, K. (1979). Evaluating error correction procedures for oral reading. The Journal Of Special Education, 13, 145-156.
Kasten, W. C. & Yildirim, K. (2011). Turk Ogrencilerin iyi birer okuryazar olmalarina yonelik oneriler. Ankara: Maya Akademi.
Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. 100, 310-321.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3-21.
Lerner, J. W. (1997). Learning disabilities theories diagnonsis and teaching strategies. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Marr, M. B., Algozzine, B., Nicholson, K. & Dugan, K. K. (2010). Building oral reading fluency with peer coaching. Remedial and Special Education. 32(3), 256-264.
May, F. B. (1986). Reading as communication: An interactive approach. USA: Merril Publishing Company.
Mercer, C. D. (1987). Students with learning disabilities. USA: Merril Publishing.
Oddo, M., Barnett, D.W., Hawkins, R.O. & Musti-Rao, S. (2010). Reciprocal peer tutoring and repeated reading: Increasing practically using student groups. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 842-858.
Rasinski, T. V. (1999). Exploring a method for estimating independent, instructional, and frustration reading rates. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20, 61-69.
Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York: Scholastic.
Rashotte, C.A. & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 180-188.
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 50, 376-381.
Scott, T. M., & Shearer-Lingo, A. (2002). The effects of reading fluency instruction on the academic and behavioral success of middle school students in a self-contained EBD classroom. Preventing School Failure, 46, 167-174.
Schilling, S. G., Carlisle, J. F., Scott, S. E., & Zeng, J. (2007). Are fluency measures accurate predictors of reading achievement? Elementary School Journal. 107, 429-448.
Shanker, J.L. & Ekwall, E. E. (2003). Location and correction reading difficulties. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River.
Therrien, W. J. & Kubina, M. R. (2006). Developing reading fluency with repeated reading. Intervention in school and clinic. 41(3), 156-160.
Therrien, W. J., Kirk, J. F., & Woods-Groves, S. (2011). Comparison of a reading fluency intervention with and without passage repetition on reading achievement. Remedial and Special Education. 33(5), 309-319.
Towsend, R. (2007). Okuma zenginligi, (Cev. Tayfur Keskin). Istanbul: Sistem.
Zutel, J. & T.v. Rasinski, T.V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students' oral reading fluency. Theory into Practice, 30(3), 211-217.
ASSIST. PROF. DR. EROL DURAN
Department of Primary Education
Faculty of Education, Usak University, Usak, Turkey
Table 1. Duration of Reading the Texts, Number of Mistakes, Word Recognition, Understanding and Oral Reading Values of the Student Prior to Implementation Reading Students Number of Reading Number of Values/ Words Duration Mistakes Class (Min.sec.) Third Class A 132 4.03 38 Text B 132 4.45 44 C 132 4.57 49 Second A 65 3.25 29 Class Text B 65 3.55 32 C 65 3.48 36 First Class A 45 3.04 17 Text B 45 3.15 22 C 45 3.06 26 Reading Students Word Under- Oral Reading Values/ Recognition standing Skill Class (%) (%) Third Class A 90%- 33% 90%- Text B 90%- 23% 90%- C 90%- 26% 90%- Second A 90%- 37% 90%- Class Text B 90%- 34%- 90%- C 90%- 31% 90%- First Class A 90%- %42 90%- Text B 90%- 44% 90%- C 90%- 39% 90%- Table 2. Oral Reading Mistakes Made by the Students Prior to Implementation Oral Reading Third Class Text Second Class Text Mistakes Number of Words = 132 Number of Words = 65 A B C A B C f f f f f f Omission 6 7 9 7 5 7 Adding 3 4 3 1 2 1 Repetition 4 8 7 3 3 5 Hesitation 5 4 5 2 4 3 Pronunciation 3 2 1 3 2 4 False reading 13 17 21 12 14 14 Correcting oneself 4 2 3 1 2 2 Total 38 44 49 29 32 36 Oral Reading First Class Text Mistakes Number of Words = 45 A B C f f f Omission 1 2 2 Adding 1 1 2 Repetition 1 1 1 Hesitation 2 4 4 Pronunciation 2 2 2 False reading 9 11 13 Correcting oneself 1 1 2 Total 17 22 25 Table 3. Word Recognition, Understanding and Oral Reading Values of the Student During Implementation Assessment Time / A B C Student WR U ORS (%) (%) End of the First Week 90%- 42% 90%- (First Class Text--Results of Assessment Made in the Fourth Text) End of the Fourth Week 91% 52% 90%- (Second Class Text--Results of Assessment Made in the Sixteenth Text) Last Test--End of the Eighth Week 96% 79% 95%+ (Third Class Text--Results of Assessment Made in the thirty second text) Assessment Time / WR U ORS Student (%) (%) End of the First Week 90%- 31% 90%- (First Class Text--Results of Assessment Made in the Fourth Text) End of the Fourth Week 91% 46% 90%- (Second Class Text--Results of Assessment Made in the Sixteenth Text) Last Test--End of the Eighth Week 95% 76% 95%+ (Third Class Text--Results of Assessment Made in the thirty second text) Assessment Time / WR U ORS Student (%) (%) End of the First Week 90%- 37% 90% (First Class Text--Results of Assessment Made in the Fourth Text) End of the Fourth Week 91% 45% 90% (Second Class Text--Results of Assessment Made in the Sixteenth Text) Last Test--End of the Eighth Week 96% 77% 95%+ (Third Class Text--Results of Assessment Made in the thirty second text) WR: Word Recognition U: Understanding ORSP: Oral Reading Skill Table 4. Post and Pre-implementation Third Class Text Reading Duration, Number of Mistakes, Word Recognition, Understanding and Oral Reading Values of the Student Assessment Students Number of Reading Number of Words in Duration Mistakes the Text (Min. Sec.) Preliminary A 132 4.03 38 Test (3.Class B 132 4.45 44 Text) C 132 4.57 49 Final Test A 124 3.08 13 (3.Class Text) B 124 3.21 17 C 124 3.13 19 Assessment Students Word Under- Oral Recognition standing Reading Skill Preliminary A 90%- 33% 90% Test (3.Class B 90%- 23% 90% Text) C 90%- 26% 90% Final Test A 96% 79% 95%+ (3.Class Text) B 95% 76% 95%+ C 96% 77% 95%+
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Article Type:||Case study|
|Date:||Mar 22, 2013|
|Previous Article:||Family literacy packs: preservice teachers' experiences with family-school connections.|
|Next Article:||Influence of university level direct instruction on educators' use of technology in the classroom.|