THE EFFECT OF REPEATED READING EXERCISES WITH PERFORMANCE-BASED FEEDBACK ON FLUENT READING SKILLS.
An analysis of the literature reveals that there are a lot of studies on handling reading difficulties or development of low-level reading skills (Alber-Morgan, Ramp, Anderson, & Martin, 2007; Begeny & Martens, 2006; Eckert, Ardoin, Daly, & Martens, 2002; Hitchcock, Prater, & Dowrick, 2004; Homan, Klesius, & Hite, 1993; O'Connor, White, & Swanson, 2007; Rasinski, 1990); the topic has been addressed in various scientific meetings, some policies have been developed and reading experts have been raised to serve in this field (Eckert, Dunn, & Ardoin, 2006; EURYDICE, 2011; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, [NICHHD], 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Uyar, Yildinm, & Ates, 2011). The majority of these studies focus on reading fluency and significant progress has been made in terms of handling the problems of students with reading difficulty. On the other hand, an analysis of the reading policies in Turkey reveals that a national policy which addresses 'improvement of reading skills, handling reading problems, training students with reading difficulty' has not been developed to date. EURYDICE (2011) reports also highlight the fact that good practices for children with reading difficulties are lacking in Turkey. It could be argued that many factors are responsible for the formation of such a negative situation in Turkey. First of all, in line with the academic studies worldwide, there is a lack of research and practice in the handling of reading difficulties and problems in Turkey. In the recent years, there is an increase in the magnitude of research in this line, yet it has not reached the critical point to attract people's attention (Akyol & Yildiz, 2010; Ates, Yildinm, & Yildiz, 2010; Cayci & Demir, 2006; Dag, 2010; Duran, 2013; Sidekli & Yangin, 2005; Yildiz, Yildinm, Ates, & Rasinski, 2012; Yilmaz, 2008; Yuksel, 2010). On the other hand, elementary school teachers have considerable difficulty in diagnosing and remediation of students with reading difficulty and feel incompetent (Ates, et al., 2010; Yildiz et al., 2012). Thus, inability to find solutions to students with reading difficulty indicates the loss of many students (Uyar et al., 2011). This situation highlights the need for further research on the issue.
When students fall behind the generally expected level in reading skills, some educational interventions are done in order to remove this reading failure. It is possible to categorize these interventions aiming to develop fluent reading skills or remove reading problems into two: skills-based and performance-based interventions (Eckert, Dunn, & Ardoin, 2006). The literature reports that initially, the effectiveness of skills or performance-based single practices are tested, later skills-based or performance-based practices are unified or utilized in a way that the two are incorporated (e.g., Alber-Morgan, Ramp, et al., 2007; Schunk & Rice, 1990; Therrien, Wickstrom, & Jones, 2006). Reading problems stem from inefficient skills, as well as students' failure to exhibit their performance (as cited in Eckert et al., 2006). Research has demonstrated that providing information or feedback to students in relation to their performance is effective in terms of academic or behavioral development (Eckert et al., 2006; Conte & Hintze, 2000; Eckert et al., 2002; Eckert, Ardoin, Daisey, & Scarola, 2000; Bonfiglio, Daly, Martens, Lin, & Corsaut, 2004). In the present study, the co-utilization of skills-based and performance-based practices is investigated. The repeated reading techniques are skills-based while computer and graphics-aided feedback practices are performance based.
This study employed single case study method. In this kind of research, it is aimed to figure out subject' situation, implement an intervention, and review the implementation process to see whether the intervention is effective on outcomes (Creswell, 2005; Fraenkel & Wallen, 1996). In the present study, it was aimed to explore effects of repeated reading fluency intervention with performance based feedback on a student with reading difficulty.
Participant and Setting
This research took place at a public elementary school in Turkey's Ankara province with a student with reading difficulty. For ethical consideration, the student' name was shortened and labeled as HB. HB was 10 years old. In the selection process of the student, required information about the student was obtained from school staff (school principal, classroom teacher, and school counselor). According to feedback, it was interviewed with 10 students and had them to read a text at their grade level to observe their reading fluency skills. The study used one of the purposeful sampling methods, including criterion sampling. Through the preliminary measurements, it was seem that HB was at frustration level in terms of word recognition accuracy (% 88.8 < % 95) (Richek, Calwell, Jennings, & Lerner, 2002). The following criterions was taken account for selecting the student: studying at upper elementary grades, not having any physical (seeing, hearing etc.) and mental disabilities, having any reading fluency difficulties, and not taking any diagnosing and remediation support. After selecting the student according to predetermined criterions, the student' parents and the school was informed about intervention process and taken their informed consent letters. Following this, it was done some assessments related to the student's reading level and reading difficulties before the intervention. All the intervention period took place in the student's school.
In the intervention period, collecting the data and analyzing them, video camera and computer software was used. In determining the students' reading level before and after intervention and during the intervention, narrative passages were used. These passages were picked from the Turkish language arts textbooks published by different publishing companies and their appropriateness according to grade levels were approved by Ministry of National Education (MoNE) and the teacher portal concerned website of MoNE, including activities related to grade levels. It was not computed readability levels of the passages about whether or not they were suitable for grade levels since they were approved by MoNE. The selected passages were arranged as teacher and student forms. The teacher forms of the passages were suited to coding easily. A section was inserted into the teacher forms of the passages to record the student's word recognition automaticity and reading miscues. While the classification of reading miscues varied in the literature (Akyol, 2010; Pearson, Barr, Kamil, & Mosenthal, 1984), in the present study, the miscues such as omission, addition, reading incorrectly, hesitation, reversal were taken account and besides, there was another section in the teacher forms of the passage, showing starting and ending time of readings and corrects words read in a minute. All of the intervention period and assessments were video recorded. Following this, all records were used for providing feedback to the students and assessment process.
Measurements and Reliability
In the research, the measurements was employed to keep running records regarding the student's automatic word recognition in one minute [word correct per minute (WCPM], number of miscue, and miscue types. WCPM was computed as a total number of words read correctly in one minute. When the student read a word correctly in three seconds or made self-correction for any word read wrongly in five seconds, they were accepted as true. However, when the student read word wrongly, did omission, insertion, substitution, and reversal or did not read word in three seconds, they all were accepted as wrong. Besides this, when the student made any row omission, all word in the row were considered as reading miscue.
The passages were adapted into two different forms and reading miscues were coded during the reading process and also by watching reading video records, all assessments were confirmed. The words read correctly in one minute was computed for the student in every session and the student's reading miscues were marked on the researcher form of the passage at first and then recorded on the miscue record sheet. To provide reliability of the intervention process, 50% of recorded reading sessions related the student was watched and scored by an independent rater. Then, inter-rater reliability was computed (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The agreement between two raters ranged 95.4 % to 100%. In the implementation of the intervention period, not only the researcher implemented required activities, collected the data, analyzed and reported them but also the researcher came together with HB in certain days of week and made one on one lessons. Through these lessons, the researcher checked the fidelity of intervention process. The study was aimed to collect a detailed data. The results obtained from this study suited only HB and were limited to the people's experiences around HB and the intervention in the study. To make contribution to validity and reliability, the student's responsibility, intervention process, limitations of the study, and collecting the data were described in detail.
The research began in second week of March. This intervention duration lasted 38 hours. The intervention took place two or three days of weekday, and in a silent room provided by the student's school staff. Before the intervention, reading aloud sessions were conducted with the students to explore reading fluency level and reading miscues. At the beginning of every session, the researcher told the student that "there is a story in front of you. When I ask you to read it, you can start to read aloud. You need to read every word you meet. If you face any word you could not read, I will read it. Now, show me your best reading." If the reader could not read any word in three seconds, the researcher provided the necessary support.
The student read a total of 36 words correctly in one minute from the first passage. HB made a total of 22 reading mistakes from the passage with 198 word-long and he completed reading of the passage in 5 minutes. During the reading, the student made 7 omission miscues, 3 addition miscues, 4 unable to read, and 8 reading wrong miscues. Before the intervention, another passage was used to repeat the measurement about the student's reading fluency and reading miscues to make sure whether or not it was collected the reliable data. These measurements also showed that the student was at the frustration level in regard to reading (less than 95 %; Richek et al., 2002).
After determining the student's reading level and reading miscues, the literature concerned with reading difficulties was reviewed and scheduled a working plan, including repeated reading fluency intervention with performance based feedback. These activities taking place in the present study were as follows:
Performance Based Feedbacks and Repeated Readings: during the intervention three kinds of performance based feedback was provided to the student. First one was concerned with the number of words read correctly. Second one was concerned with reading miscues. Third one was concerned with feedback including correcting reading miscues. All these feedback was related to the student's performance (Eckert et al., 2006; Konold, Miller, & Konold, 2004). Following the student's readings, it was given breaks changing from 10 to 15 minutes. During the breaks given, the researcher computed the number of word the student read in one minute and coded the student's reading miscues on coding sheet. During these breaks, the student also read trade book while the researcher assessed the student's readings. Before the second session, the student was informed about first session performance, including the number of words read in one minute and reading miscues. Besides this, after every session, voice analysis technique toward determining the words read wrong. In this technique, it is asked a student to pronounce word read wrong. This process continues till the student read the word correctly (Konold et al., 2004). The repeated reading activities followed feedback process and then HB was involved in second reading session. The all activities in the first second were repeated in the second session as well. Before the second session started, the student' previous reading results were presented as comparatively and the student was informed about the number of words read correctly and reading miscues in every session. In the every other day, the video records related to the student's reading performance were watched to the student and the charts related to the student' performance were showed to the student.
Prior to the intervention, the student's reading level and reading miscues were determined by asking the student to read aloud. After the 20-hour practice, interim measurements were made and following the 38-hour practice, post-measurements were made in order to identify the student's reading level and reading errors. In line with the collected data, HB's development in terms of reading skills was monitored and the related findings are presented comparatively in Table 1 and Table 2.
The first practice data presented in Table 1 reveal that the student's error rate is high while the word recognition rate is low. While a significant decrease is observed regarding HB's error rates during and at the end of the process, a significant increase is observed in terms of words accurately read per minute. The student has shown progress from frustration level to the instruction level in terms of word recognition. It could be argued that giving feedback in relation to correctly read words and the reading errors after each performance and the accompanying repeated readings may have influenced HB's reading skills positively.
As regards reading errors, HB made the highest number of errors in omission and inaccurate reading. These errors were usually made in long words with 3-5 syllables. After the corrective feedback, it was observed that HB paid more attention to long words in the reading process. After the practice, there was a decrease in omission and inaccurate reading errors while no changes were observed in terms of inability to read errors. In the evaluation of student performance, if the student cannot read within 3 seconds, the word was provided by the researcher and coded as inability to read errors. The fact that students who received feedback on their reading performance waited so as not to misread may have kept this type of error stable.
In the present study, a performance based skill development program was applied in order to remove the reading problems of a student who has fluent reading skills problems. After the intervention, a positive change was observed in HB's reading skills in terms of word recognition accuracy and word recognition automaticity. Studies on children with reading problems in Turkey point out that programs for removing reading problems and improving reading skills are effective to a certain extent in Turkey (Cayci & Demir, 2006; Dag, 2010; Duran, 2013; Sidekli & Yangin, 2005; Yilmaz, 2008; Yuksel, 2010). A distinguishing feature of this program is its performance based rather than skills based structure. It aims to improve students' reading fluency depending on the student's performance. In addition, it stands out among others since its content structure is so clear and simple that most teachers can administer it both individually and in small groups. The program incorporates giving feedback to the child about his/her performance and repeated reading practices. The literature demonstrates that both repeated and performance based feedback techniques are influential in terms of improving reading skills (Conte & Hintze, 2000; Eckert et al., 2000; Eckert et al., 2006; Homan et al., 1993; O'Connor et al., 2007; Rasinski, 1990; Therrien et al., 2006). However, it is necessary to carry out more research with a higher number of participants in order to associate the positive effect observed both in this study and in others with the program. It is thought that any one-to-one study on students with reading problems may lead to development of reading skills to a certain extent. Therefore, inability to associate the positive improvement observed in students with the administered approach is one of the limitations of the present study.
Reading fluency is one of the most important reading competencies for children's reading success (Rasinski, Reutzel, Chard, & Limon-Thompson, 2011). Reading fluency refers to the ability to read text accurately, automatically, and with appropriate prosody (Hudson, Lane & Pullen, 2005). However, prosody was excluded from the scope of the present study, while the focus was directed to accurate reading and reading rate. For, researchers hold that resources can be utilized in order to improve prosody after accurate and fluent reading (Schwanenflugel, Hamilton, & Kuhn et al., 2004). Therefore, the present study aims to improve accurate reading and reading rate in the first place. Future research might investigate prosodic reading and its effects on developing comprehension.
In conclusion, students with reading inefficiency may not always show the level of success expected from them. They will reach the desired level although it may take some time. For this reason, individualized education programs addressing reading problems and reading performance should be prepared for these children and such practices should be disseminated after their effectiveness is tested. There are teachers who prepare individualized programs and teaching materials in special classes and centers in the US and in many European countries and experts have been raised for this purpose (EURYDICE, 2011; International Reading Association, [IRA], 2007). Although a decision was made regarding the implementation of such programs in Turkey in the 17th National Education Council, it has not been put into practice (MEB, 2006). It could be argued that constructing programs for training reading experts and equipping teachers in this regard is a significant and urgent need for Turkey.
Akyol, H. (2010). Yeni programa uygun Turkce ogretim yontemleri (3. baski). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Akyol, H. & Yildiz, M. (2010). Okuma bozuklugu olan bir ogrencinin okuma ve yazma becerisinin gelistir-ilmesine yonelik bir durum calismasi. e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 5, 1690-1700.
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 behaviour problems. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 17-30.
Ates, S., Yildirim, K., & Yildiz, M., (2010). Opinions of classroom teachers and prospective classroom teachers about the learning difficulties encountered in the teaching process of reading and writing. Elementary Education Online, 9, 44-51.
Begeny, J.C., & Martens, B.K. (2006). Assisting low-performing readers with a group-based reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 35, 91-107.
Bonfiglio, C.M., Daly III, E. J., Martens, B. K., Lin, L.H.R., & Corsaut, S. (2004). An experimental analysis of reading interventions: Generalization across instructional strategies, time, and passage. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 111-114.
Conte, K.C., & Hintze, J.M. (2000). The effects of performance feedback and goal setting on oral reading fluency within curriculum-based measurement. Diagnostique, 25, 85-98.
Creswell, J.W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd edition). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Cayci, B. & Demir, M.K. (2006). Okuma ve anlama sorunu olan ogrenciler uzerine karsilastirmali bir calisma. Turk Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4, 437-456.
Dag, N. (2010). Okuma guclugunun giderilmesinde 3p metodu ile bosluk tamamlama (cloze) tekniginin kullanimi uzerine bir calisma. Ankara Universitesi Egitim Bilimleri Fakultesi Ozel Egitim Dergisi, 11, 63-74
Dion, E., Morgan, P.L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2004). The promise and limitations of reading instruction in the mainstream: The need for a multilevel approach. Exceptionality, 12, 162-173.
Duran, E. (2013). Case study on the effect of word repetition method supported by neurological affecting model on fluent reading. Reading Improvement, 50, 34-41
Eckert, T.L., Ardoin, S. P., Daisey, D.M., & Scarola, M.D. (2000). Empirically evaluating the effectiveness of reading interventions: The use of brief experimental analysis and single case designs. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 463-473.
Eckert, T.L., Ardoin, S.P., Daly, E.J., III, & Martens, B.K. (2002). Improving oral reading fluency: A brief experimental analysis of combining an antecedent intervention with consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 271-181.
Eckert, T.L., Dunn, E.K., & Ardoin, S.P. (2006). The effects of alternate forms of performance feedback on elementary-aged students' oral reading fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15, 148-161.
EURYDICE (2011). Teaching reading in Europe: Contexts, policies and practices. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/130en.pdf
Fraenkel, J.R., & Wallen, N.E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hitchcock, C.H., Prater A.P., & Dowrick, P.W. (2004). Reading comprehension and fluency: Examining the effects of tutoring and video self-modeling on first-grade students with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 89-103.
Homan, S.P., Klesius, J. P., & Hite, C. (1993). Effects of repeated readings and nonrepetitive strategies on students' fluency and comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 94-99.
Hudson, R.F., Lane H., & Pullen, P. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58, 702-714.
International Reading Association. (2007). Teaching reading well: A synthesis of the international reading association's research on teacher preparation for reading instruction. Newark, DE: Author.
Konold, K.E., Miller, S.P., Konold, K.B. (2004). Using teacher feedback to enhance student learning. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36, 64-69.
Miles, M. B., & A. M. Huberman. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Milli Egitim Bakanligi [MEB]. (2006). On yedinci milli egitim surasi. Retrieved from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2012_06/06021327_17_sura.pdf
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
O'Connor, R.E., White, A., & Swanson, H.L. (2007). Repeated reading versus continuous reading: Influences on reading fluency and comprehension. Exceptional Children, 74, 31-46.
Pearson, P.D., Barr, R., Kamil, M.L. & Mosenthal, P. (Ed.). (1984). Handbook of reading research. (pp. 829-864). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Publishers.
Rasinski, T.V., Reutzel, D.R., Chard, D., & Li-mon-Thompson, S. (2011). Reading fluency. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (V. IV, pp. 286-319). New York: Rutledge.
Rasinski, T.V. (1990). Effects of repeated reading and listening-while reading on reading fluency. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 147-150.
Richek, M.A., Caldwell, J.S., Jennings, J.H., & Lerner, J.W. (2002). Reading problems: Assessment and teaching strategies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Schunk, D.H., Rice, M. (1990). Goals and progress feedback during reading comprehension instruction. Retrieved from ERIC database (216852).
Schwanenflugel, P.J., Hamilton, A.M., Kuhn, M.R., Wisenbaker, J.M., & Stahl, S.A. (2004). Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the oral reading of young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 119-129.
Sidekli, S. & Yangin, S. (2005). Okuma guclugu olan ogrencilerin okuma becerilerinin gelistirilmesine yonelik bir uygulama. Kazim Karabekir Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi. 11, 393-413.
Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Therrien, W.J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006). Effect of combined repeated reading and question generation intervention on reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 21, 89-97.
Uyar, Y., Yildirim, K. & Ates, S. (2011). Okuma uzman-liginin Turkiye' deki universitelerde lisansustu bir program olarak yapilandirilmasi. Usak Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4, 132-149.
Yildiz, M., Yildirim, K., Ates, S., & Rasinsky, T. (2012). Opinions of Turkish parents with dyslexic children about the problems they and their children experience. Reading Psychology.33, 399-422.
Yilmaz, M. (2008). Kelime tekrar tekniginin akici okuma becerilerini gelistirmeye etkisi. Turk Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi. 6, 323-350.
Yuksel, A. (2010). Okuma guclugu ceken bir ogrencinin okuma becerisinin gelistirilmesine yonelik bir calis-ma. Kuramsal Egitimbilim, 3, 124-134.
Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
Table 1. HB's number of words read accurately per minute, percentage of word recognition and number of errors Assessments Texts Number of words in Number of WCPM (*) the text errors 1 198 22 37 First evaluation 2 121 15 37 Interim evaluation 3 159 9 41 4 130 4 46 Final evaluation 5 200 9 52 Assessments WRA (**) (%) 88.8 First evaluation 87.6 Interim evaluation 94.3 96.9 Final evaluation 95.5 (*) Word Correct Per Minute, (**) Word Recognition Accuracy Table 2. HB's reading errors in the reading process Assessments Omission Insertion not to read Read incorrectly 7 3 4 8 First evaluation 8 2 1 4 3 - 2 4 Interim evaluation 2 - 1 1 Final evaluation 3 - 4 2 Assessments Reversal - First evaluation - - Interim evaluation - Final evaluation -
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Date:||Mar 22, 2019|
|Previous Article:||ORAL READING FLUENCY AND MAZE SELECTION FOR PREDICTING 5TH AND 6TH GRADE STUDENTS' READING AND MATH ACHIEVEMENT ON A HIGH STAKES SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT.|
|Next Article:||"AM I A GOOD READER?" A FRIENDLY WAY TO EVALUATE STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS' OF THEMSELVES AS A READER.|