Content uploaded by Macid A. Melekoglu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Macid A. Melekoglu on Feb 04, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences
ISSN: 2046-9578, Vol.8 No.II (2012)
©BritishJournal Publishing, Inc. 2012
http://www.bjournal.co.uk/BJASS.aspx
127
The Use of Repeated Reading in Afterschool Programs:
Improving Outcomes for Struggling Elementary Students
with Reading Difficulties
Macid Ayhan Melekoglu
Department of Special Education, Eskisehir Osmangazi University
Meselik Campus, Eskisehir, Turkey
E-mail: macidayhan@gmail.com
Tel: +90-222-239 3750 (ext.1662); Fax: +90-222-229 3124
Kimber L. Wilkerson
Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education, University of Wisconsin-
Madison, 1000 Bascom Mall, Madison, USA
E-mail: klwilkerson@wisc.edu
Tel: +1-608-263 5860; Fax: +1-608-262 8108
Abstract
Reading fluency is a reliable indicator of overall reading competency, functioning as a bridge
between word identification and comprehension. According to research literature, repeated reading is
an effective intervention to enhance the reading fluency and comprehension of students with reading
difficulties. This study discusses results from a single subject study of a repeated reading intervention,
conducted in an afterschool program in the United States of America with volunteer tutors, on the oral
reading fluency of four elementary students with low reading ability. Findings suggest that repeated
reading intervention helps struggling readers improve their reading fluency and consequently reading
comprehension skills. Additionally, this study showed that an evidence-based reading intervention can
be implemented in afterschool programs with volunteer tutors and results in reading gains for students
with reading difficulties in afterschool settings.
Keywords: Reading Fluency, Repeated Reading, Afterschool Program, Students with Reading
Difficulties, Multiple Baseline Design
British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences
ISSN: 2046-9578,
128
1. Introduction
The first academic goal that children are expected to accomplish when they start school is
learning how to read. Having strong reading skills is important because good readers tend to succeed
in other subject areas including mathematics, social studies, and science (Strommen & Mates, 2004;
Valleley & Shriver, 2003). The importance of reading in elementary grades has been frequently
emphasized, and being successful in reading in primary grades can predict a student’s future
education, including college career. In fact, being a competent reader is fundamentally important for
being successful in school as well as in adult life (Fuchs, Fuchs & Kazdan, 1999; McShane, 2005).
Although reading skills are recognized as crucial to survive in schools and daily life, 71% of eight
grade students (Lee, Grigg, & Donahue, 2007) and 60% of twelfth grade students (Grigg, Donahue, &
Dion, 2007) in schools of the United States of America (USA) do not exhibit grade level reading
proficiency, and twenty-five percent of adults in the USA are functionally illiterate (Riley, 1996).
Reading difficulties are first witnessed in early grades, and students with significant reading
problems at younger ages lag behind their peers and continuously struggle with reading difficulties at
older ages. Consequently, struggling readers encounter more academic challenges in upper grades
compared to competent readers, and high school students with reading difficulties are more likely to
drop out of school (Valleley & Shriver, 2003). Teachers are critically important for helping struggling
students to become better readers. Initially, teachers should focus on teaching fundamental reading
skills that are highlighted in the National Reading Panel (NRP) report (National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, 2000): Phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text
comprehension. Among these skills, fluency has remained extremely challenging for students with
reading difficulties. Therefore, teachers should utilize effective fluency interventions to improve
fluency skills, and consequently, text comprehension (Chard, Vaughn & Tyler, 2002).
2. Previous Research
2.1. An Effective Fluency Intervention: Repeated Reading
Existing literature on fluency instruction proves that repeated reading is an evidence-based
intervention to enhance reading fluency (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; Therrien, Gormley & Kubina, 2006;
Valleley & Shriver, 2003) and comprehension skills (Therrien, 2004) of struggling readers. Samuels
(1979) and Dahl (1979) were the two researchers who developed the fundamental methods of repeated
reading while implementing the automaticity theory of LaBerge and Samuel (1974). The automaticity
theory claimed that comprehension difficulties among struggling readers could be accounted for by the
large amount of reader attention required for decoding words in reading passages. Since the attention
capacity of the brain is limited, people need to have automatic and accurate decoding abilities to
effectively comprehend the material they are reading (Homan, Klesius & Hite, 1993). Samuels and
Dahl’s research on automaticity showed that students who struggle with reading can improve their
reading accuracy and fluency skills when exposed to repeated practices on a particular passage (Kuhn
& Stahl, 2003).
Repeated reading was developed as a supplemental reading program, and offers one-on-one
practice opportunity for students with reading difficulties. During repeated reading, in order to
improve fluency skills, students reread the same passage out loud for an appropriate number of times
(generally, 3-4 times) until a predetermined performance level is achieved. Meanwhile, teachers
provide corrective feedback when students make mistakes while reading passages (Therrien et al.,
2006). In each intervention session, students read different but level-appropriate reading passages.
Students read the passage as a whole, and teachers closely monitor how they read (Kuhn & Stahl,
2003) using as little interruption as possible while reading. Teachers provide corrective feedback at the
end of each reading after the student is completely done reading the passage (Allington, 2006).
British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences
ISSN: 2046-9578,
129
In order to track students’ progress, teachers need to time each reading, and note words read
correctly per minute (wpm). Research on reading suggests performance criteria for each grade level in
terms of wpm: 53 wpm for first grade, 89 wpm for second grade, 107 wpm for third grade, and 123
wpm for fourth grade (Therrien et. al., 2006). Although teachers observe how students read, and
determine whether or not students attain the desired reading performance by noting wpm, teachers can
employ self-monitoring techniques by having students chart their reading progress (Welsch, 2006).
When a student achieves a preset performance level, the intervention continues with a new passage.
Repeated reading intervention is more effective if students are allowed to read as many passages as
possible with adequate performance criteria (Valleley & Shriver, 2003).
A crucial issue that teachers need to take into account for repeated reading intervention is how
to choose appropriate reading passages. In order to properly enhance students’ reading skills, teachers
should be very careful while selecting reading materials for the intervention. Teachers need to keep
the passages short and ensure that each passage has a concrete idea. The length of passages should be
53-66 words for first grade, 89-111 words for second grade, 107-133 words for third grade, and 123-
153 words for fourth grade (Therrien et. al., 2006). Moreover, teachers should select passages
containing overlapping words because studies showed that if students practice with such passages,
they can improve their reading rate and accuracy faster compared to students who are exposed to
reading passages with less overlapping words (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). Teachers may witness lower
outcomes in reading comprehension at the beginning of intervention, but once students start to decode
rapidly, their reading fluency and comprehension skills improve significantly (Chafouleas, Martens,
Dobson, Weinstein & Gardner, 2004).
2.2. Extending Learning: Afterschool Programs
An alternative educational opportunity for struggling students to work on their fluency skills is
afterschool programs. Starting 1990s, educators have supported the concept of extending the regular
school day by offering afterschool programs for students. Since there is a great potential to boost a
child’s various academic as well as non-academic skills during this extended time period, afterschool
programs have become a crucial mean for opportunities to enhance basic academic skills and get
involved in enrichment activities that are designed with respect to children’s interests (Miller, 2003).
Afterschool programs also provide invaluable quality time for children of working parents because the
alternative to those programs is usually unstructured and unsupervised time that is spent in front of
television or with delinquent acts. Additionally, struggling students can benefit from afterschool
program the best due to the potential of those programs to offer an opportunity to catch up their non-
struggling counterparts. Therefore, afterschool programs without academic components can be
harmful for children who academically lag behind (Fashola, 2002).
For most of the struggling students with reading difficulties, improving fluency skills is
critically important in the process of becoming competent readers, and afterschool programs can offer
extensive reading practice opportunities for struggling readers. Since repeated reading is an evidence-
based fluency intervention, educators in afterschool programs can utilize repeated reading with their
students with reading difficulties. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of repeated
reading intervention on reading fluency and comprehension skills of struggling elementary students
with reading difficulties attending an afterschool program in the USA. A multiple baseline across
participants design was used to examine the effect of a repeated reading intervention on the oral
reading fluency of four elementary students with reading difficulties. Additionally, pre-and post-tests
(Gray Oral Reading Test, 4th edition; GORT-4) were administered one-on-one by a graduate student
in the beginning and at the end of the study.
British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences
ISSN: 2046-9578,
130
3. Method
3.1. Participants and Setting
The participants included 2 fourth-grade and 2 fifth-grade students (1 girl and 1 boy from each
grade level) who attended an ethnically diverse afterschool program with an approximately 25
students attending in a mid-sized metropolitan school district in the Midwest region of the USA. This
particular afterschool program was selected because of its proximity to the university. Three of the
four participants were English language learners (ELLs), who came from different cultural
backgrounds (i.e., Spanish, Chinese, and Turkish), and the fourth student was an African American
girl. Their ages at the onset of the study ranged from 9.4 to 10.9 years, with a mean age of 10.3 (SD =
0.63). All participating students were experiencing reading difficulties and had reading fluency
performance that was at least one grade level below their current grade (ranged from 1.4 to 2.4 grade
level, with a mean grade level of 2.1), as measured by the GORT-4 (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001),
which is a standardized test of reading achievement with internal consistency reliabilities of .90 or
above, in the beginning of the study.
Alex was a Spanish speaking student in 4th grade with a reading fluency performance of 2.4
grade level measured by GORT-4. To establish baseline for Alex, total of 5 wpm scores were
obtained, and he received total of 30 intervention sessions. Sara was an African American girl in 4th
grade, and her reading fluency performance was at 2.0 grade level according to her pre-test score on
GORT-4. During the baseline, 11 wpm scores were obtained for Sara, and she was exposed to 28
intervention sessions. Eric was a 5th grader speaking Turkish, and his pre-test reading fluency
performance was at 1.4 grade level on GORT-4. Total of 16 wpcm scores were obtained for Eric
during the baseline, and he received 21 intervention sessions. The last student was Jan who was a
Chinese speaking 5th grader, and her reading fluency performance was at 2.4 grade level according to
her pre-test score on GORT-4. During the baseline, 6 wpm scores were obtained for Jan, and she
received 25 intervention sessions.
The afterschool program that participants were attending was located in a community center,
and the program was run by the director of the center independent of the school district. Students were
usually present around 3:00pm in the center every weekday, and volunteers including college students
and individuals from the community were matched with students to oversee daily enrichment
activities as well as academic tasks. The study took place during a 1-hour time period allocated for
completing school related homework. Trained university students worked with each participant one-
on-one for 15-20 minutes three days in a week. Student participants were exposed to an average of 26
intervention sessions (range, 21 to 30) over a four month period. The study took place in a quiet room
that has two long tables and a couple of chairs, and was normally used as the art room in the
afterschool program. Study related materials (e.g., reading passages, stopwatches, and a digital voice
recorder) were kept in a box in the director’s room at the afterschool program during the entire study.
3.2. Participant Selection Criteria
After obtaining approval from the University’s institutional review board, the study was
announced with fliers as a reading tutor opportunity for students in the afterschool program, and the
coordinator of the program distributed consent forms to interested parents. Eight parental consent
forms were returned, and verbal assent was obtained from each student whose parents provided
consent to participate in the study. As a trained test administrator, a graduate student administered the
GORT-4 to students one-on-one as the pre-test, and five students scored at least one grade level below
their current grade on the fluency section met the eligibility criteria for the intervention. Out of five
students, only one dropped the afterschool program in the beginning of the study. Before starting the
intervention, baseline data were obtained by having students read passages that were within their
readability level in one minute.
British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences
ISSN: 2046-9578,
131
3.3. Dependent Measures
3.3.1. Reading Rate
Participating students’ reading rates were measured daily on leveled passages to establish
baseline and monitor progress during the intervention. Based on one-minute reading performance,
interventionists documented the wpm for each student as the daily outcome measure. Students read
randomly selected and previously unread passages for one-minute during the baseline and at the end of
each repeated reading intervention session, and students did not receive any corrective feedback for
their one-minute reading. Interventionists calculated wpm by subtracting number of words errors from
total number of words read by the student in one-minute. Wpm allows teachers to evaluate students’
fluency performance, and track students’ progress. Research on reading fluency suggests performance
criteria for each grade level in terms of wpm: 53 wpm for first grade, 89 wpm for second grade, 107
wpm for third grade, and 123 wpm for fourth grade (Therrien et. al., 2006).
3.3.2. Gray Oral Reading Test 4 (GORT-4)
A graduate student administered Gray Oral Reading Test, 4th edition (GORT-4) to
participating students as pre- and posttest measures to determine their instructional reading level.
GORT-4 is a standardized test of reading achievement, and measures current level and growth in oral
reading and specific reading skills including fluency and comprehension of students between the ages
of 6 and 18. Prior to administration, the graduate student participated in a two-hour training about
conducting the GORT-4 from her advisor, and has already administered the test in previous reading
studies.
The GORT-4 was administered one-on-one and took approximately 20 to 30 minutes per
student to administer. To assess students’ growth in oral reading proficiency, the two parallel forms of
the test was used; Form A was used for pre-test and Form B for post-test at the end of the study. Each
form contained 14 developmentally sequenced reading passages with five comprehension questions
following each passage. Studies have shown that the validity of the test is extensive. GORT-4 is an
effective assessment tool to measure change in oral reading over time. GORT-4 was normed on a
sample of more than 1,600 students aged 6 through 18. All average internal consistency reliabilities
are .90 or above (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001).
3.4. Experimental Design and Procedures
A multiple baseline across participants design was used to examine the effect of a repeated
reading intervention on the oral reading fluency of four elementary students with reading difficulties.
Additionally, pre- and post-tests (GORT-4) were administered one-on-one by a graduate student in the
beginning and at the end of the study.
3.5. Intervention: Repeated Reading with Corrective Feedback
The first author created and leveled reading passages for the intervention according to Flesch-
Kincaid grade level formula on the computer through Microsoft Word 2003 software. Each student
had a particular passage set accumulated by random selection of leveled passages according to
students’ fluency grade levels measured by GORT-4. Passages that were within the range of 0.3 below
or above the measured grade level (e.g., a student with 2.0 fluency grade level read passages between
1.7 and 2.3 grade levels) constituted the reading set for the participating students.
As the first step of the repeated reading intervention, tutors modeled the passage and had
students follow along while they were reading. Secondly, tutors had students reread the same passage
aloud for three times. At the same time, tutors provided constructive feedback (e.g., sharing opinions
about the student’s reading performance, and providing suggestions about how to read better) when
students made word errors at the end of each repeated reading. In addition, corrective feedback (e.g.,
pronouncing words for the student, having the student read a word/sentence correctly, indicating
British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences
ISSN: 2046-9578,
132
words that the student omitted while reading) was provided at the end of each reading after the student
is completely done reading the passage. After each intervention session, students read a new passage
aloud for one-minute timing. The one-minute timings were used to evaluate the impact of the
intervention on the oral reading fluency and accuracy of the participating students. To readily monitor
students’ progress, each reading passage was timed and recorded, and correct words per minute were
tracked.
3.6. Interventionists
The intervention was carried out by two college students affiliated with the Undergraduate
Research Scholars Program, which assists first- and second-year undergraduates to acquire hands-on
experience in research studies or other original endeavors by working closely with university faculty
and research staff, and one graduate student. All the interventionists were native English speakers, and
they were exposed to a two-hour training regarding the implementation of the repeated reading
intervention before the study began. During the training, the importance of reading fluency skills for
struggling readers was briefly mentioned, and the second author showed how to use intervention
materials and carry out the intervention as well as the outcome measure, one-minute reading.
Interventionists practiced the necessary intervention steps with previously recorded student readings.
To get familiar with the intervention, interventionists were also required to read three scholarly papers
on repeated reading intervention, which were selected by the second author, before the training
session.
3.7. Treatment Fidelity
A graduate student outlined the fidelity checklist based on the intervention training that all
interventionists received in the beginning the study. To evaluate treatment fidelity, randomly selected
25% of the intervention sessions were recorded with a digital voice recorder, and two graduate
students re-listened to those sessions to check the fidelity of implementation. The results yielded that
the average percentage of following intervention steps was 96% (range, 91% to 100%).
Interventionists received feedback about their implementation of the intervention after each treatment
fidelity evaluation.
4. Results
Prior to baseline data collection, all students were administered GORT-4 to determine their
oral reading fluency, reading comprehension, and overall reading achievement. Pre-test results yielded
that the overall fluency standard score and percentile across participants were 4 (range, 2 to 6) and 3
(range, <1%ile to 9%ile) respectively, and the overall comprehension standard score and percentile
were 7.5 (range, 3 to 9) and 28 (range, 1%ile to 37%ile) respectively. As the indicator of the overall
reading achievement, the average Oral Reading Quotient (ORQ) score and percentile were 75 (range,
55 to 85) and 8 (range, <1%ile to 16%ile) respectively (see Table 1 for details), and students’ overall
fluency grade equivalency score was 2.1 (range, 1.4 to 2.4). Reading fluency outcomes, which was
measured as students’ daily wpm scores, during the baseline and intervention are displayed in Figure
1. An average of 10 baseline scores (range, 5 to 16) collected and the mean baseline wpm score across
all participants was 88.4 (range, 54 to 139; SD= 19.8).
Participating students received an average of 26 intervention sessions (range, 21 to 30) over the
course of the study, and the overall mean intervention wpm score was 94 (range, 48 to 154; SD=
20.8). The overall percentage of non-overlapping data points (PND) across participants was 17.5%
(range, 0% to 52%). After the intervention sessions ended, students were administered GORT-4 to
detect the impact of repeated reading intervention on oral reading fluency, comprehension, and overall
reading achievement. Post-test results indicated that across all participants, the mean fluency standard
score and percentile were 7 (range, 5 to 9) and 19 (range, 5%ile to 37%ile) respectively, and the
overall increase in fluency scores were 3 standard score and 16%ile, and students’ average fluency
British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences
ISSN: 2046-9578,
133
gain based on grade equivalency scores was 1.4 grade level (range, 1.3 to 1.7). Post-test
comprehension standard score and percentile were 8.3 (range, 7 to 10) and 29 (range, 16%ile to
50%ile) respectively, and the overall increase in comprehension scores were .8 standard score and
1%ile, and students’ average comprehension gain based on grade equivalency scores was 1.0 grade
level (range, 0 to 2.4). The overall mean ORQ score and percentile were 86 (range, 76 to 97) and 20
(range, 5%ile to 42%ile), and post-test results yielded that there were 11 ORQ score and 12%ile
increase after the intervention.
Alex’s pre-test results showed that his reading fluency performance was at 2.4 grade level with
a standard score of 6 and percentile score of 9, and his mean wpm score during the baseline was 90
(range, 81 wpm to 102 wpm). During the intervention period, his mean wpm score dropped to 85
(range, 65 wpm to 117 wpm), and his overall PND was 7%. Although his mean wpm dropped during
the intervention period and the PND was very low, the post-test results on GORT-4 yielded that
Alex’s reading fluency performance escalated to 3.7 grade level with a 28%ile increase. Additionally,
his reading comprehension performance increased from 3.2 grade level to 4.4 grade level with a
13%ile increase on GORT-4. Results also indicated that his ORQ standard score rose from 85 to 97
with a 26%ile increase.
Sara obtained a fluency standard score of 4 and percentile score of 2 on the pre-test, and her
fluency performance was at 2.0 grade level. During the baseline, her mean wpm score was 71 (range,
54 wpm to 101 wpm). Sara increased her mean wpm score to 83 (range, 48 wpm to 125 wpm) during
the intervention period, and her PND was 11%. The post-test results yielded that Sara’s fluency
performance improved to 3.7 grade level with a 23%ile increase. Even though her comprehension
percentile score decrease 12 points, Sara’s comprehension performance increased from 3.7 grade level
to 4.0 grade level after the intervention. Additionally, Sara’s ORQ score escalated from 79 to 88 with
a 13%ile increase over the course of the study.
British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences
ISSN: 2046-9578,
134
Figure 1. Reading fluency performances for Alex, Sara, Eric, and Jan.
Pre-test scores indicated that Eric’s reading fluency performance was at the 1.4 grade level
with a standard score of 2 and percentile score of <1, and his mean wpm score during the baseline was
89 (range, 65 wpm to 116 wpm). During the intervention period, his mean wpm score increased to 114
(range, 72 wpm to 154 wpm), and his overall PND was 52%. The post-test results on GORT-4 yielded
British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences
ISSN: 2046-9578,
135
that Eric’s reading fluency performance improved to 3.0 grade level and 5%ile. Additionally, his
reading comprehension performance increased from <1.0 grade level to 3.4 grade level with a 15%ile
increase. The pre-test scores also showed that Eric’s ORQ standard score increased from 55 to 76 and
from <1%ile to 5%ile.
Since the parental consent form for Jan was received late, administrating the pre-test and
starting to collect baseline data were delayed. The pre-test results yielded that Jan’s reading fluency
performance was at 2.4 grade level with a standard score of 4 and percentile score of 2, and her mean
wpm score during the baseline was 116 (range, 100 wpm to 139 wpm). During the intervention period,
her mean wpm score dropped to 100 wpm (range, 77 wpm to 136 wpm), and her overall PND was 0%.
Although Jan’s mean wpm score dropped 16 points and her PND was 0%, the post-test results on
GORT-4 indicated that her reading fluency performance escalated to 3.7 grade level with a 7%ile
increase. There was no difference from pre-test to post-test in terms of reading comprehension
performance, which was at 4.4 grade level, but the percentile score decreased 12 points. As the
indicator of overall reading performance, Jan’s ORQ score improved from 79 to 82 with a 4%ile
increase.
Table 1: Students’ Reading Performance
Alex
Sara
Eric
Jan
Average
Grade
4
4
5
5
Sessions
30
28
21
25
26
WPM
(mean score)
Baseline
90
Intervention
85
Baseline
71
Intervention
83
Baseline
89
Intervention
114
Baseline
116
Intervention
100
Baseline
88
Intervention
94
Fluency
Percentile/GE
Pre-test
9%/2.4
Post-test
37%/3.7
Pre-test
2%/2.0
Post-test
25%/3.7
Pre-test
<1%/1.4
Post-test
5%/3.0
Pre-test
2%/2.4
Post-test
9%/3.7
Pre-test
3%/2.1
Post-test
19%/3.5
Comprehension
Percentile/GE
Pre-test
37%/3.2
Post-test
50%/4.4
Pre-test
37%/3.7
Post-test
25%/4.0
Pre-test
1%/<1.0
Post-test
16%/3.4
Pre-test
37%/4.4
Post-test
25%/4.4
Pre-test
28%/3.0
Post-test
29%/4.0
ORQ
Percentile/Score
Pre-test
16%/85
Post-test
42%/97
Pre-test
8%/79
Post-test
21%/88
Pre-test
<1%/55
Post-test
5%/76
Pre-test
8%/79
Post-test
12%/82
Pre-test
8%/75
Post-test
20%/86
PND
7%
11%
52%
0%
17.5%
Note. WPM = words correct per minute; GE = grade equivalent score; ORQ = oral reading
quotient; PND = non-overlapping data points.
British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences
ISSN: 2046-9578,
136
5. Discussion and Limitations
Although the overall PND is relatively low (%17.5) across participants, the difference between
pre-test and post-test results revealed an average fluency gain of 1.4 grade levels on GORT-4 grade
equivalency scores over a four month period. These findings suggest that during the study, students’
daily progress monitoring might not exactly reflect the grade level increase that was observed in
GORT-4 scores. Since the passages that were used for repeated readings and progress monitoring were
0.3 grade level above and below of students’ actual fluency level detected by GORT-4 in the pre-test,
some readings might not be appropriate for students’ reading levels, and therefore, the overall PND
might have been lower that it was expected based on GORT-4 post-test results. However, GORT-4
results exhibit that repeated reading intervention made an average of 1.4 grade level improvement in
fluency skills of participating students with below grade level fluency performance over a four month
period in an afterschool program. More than one grade level increase over a relatively short period of
time manifests that the repeated reading intervention worked well for reading fluency skills of those
participating students.
Additionally, there was an average comprehension gain of 1.0 grade level on GORT-4 grade
equivalency scores even though the aim of the repeated reading intervention was improving fluency
skills. This increase in comprehension scores supports previous research (Therrien, 2004) on the effect
of repeated reading intervention on reading comprehension, and shows that working on fluency skills
help students improve their comprehension skills as well. Furthermore, participating students’ oral
reading quotient standard scores, which indicate overall reading gains, increased an average of 11
points. This overall increase in reading skills manifests that repeated reading is an effective
intervention and results in relatively good reading gains over a short period of time, which was an
average of 26 sessions and four month period in our study.
Since most of the activities are run by volunteers in afterschool programs, volunteers can
certainly be advantageous for afterschool programs. However, in this study, volunteer tutors without
teaching background sometimes experienced problems implementing intervention steps accurately.
Therefore, afterschool programs planning to offer reading intervention to their students should provide
extensive training for their volunteers before implementing it with students. In this way, the
intervention can be used effectively in the afterschool program and students can make the highest gain
out of the intervention. Similar issues on the quality of tutors for reading instruction in afterschool
programs were highlighted in previous research (Lauer, Akiba, Wilkerson, Apthorp, Snow, & Martin-
Glenn, 2004), and findings suggest that the effectiveness of reading interventions in afterschool
programs is strongly correlated with the quality of volunteers in terms of knowledge about reading
process and experience in teaching.
Afterschool programs are often eager for assistance, and the manager of the particular
afterschool program that we conducted our study was welcoming and made all resources of the
program available for our volunteer tutors. However, we experienced additional difficulties carrying
out the study due to limited physical resources in the afterschool program. All the rooms of the
afterschool program were usually reserved for various activities for attending students of the
afterschool program, and sometimes we had hard times to find an available room to work one-on-one
with our participating students. Additionally, inconsistent attendance of participating students created
problems. That is why not all students received the same number of intervention sessions during the
study. Besides, participating students’ motivation was usually not as desired because students expect
to spend more time in play at the afterschool program.
6. Implications for Practice
Overall findings of the study indicated that when an evidence-based reading intervention,
repeated reading, was adequately utilized with struggling readers in afterschool setting, students make
gains in reading fluency and comprehension skills. In addition to previous research on repeated
British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences
ISSN: 2046-9578,
137
reading intervention in school settings, this study indicated that repeated reading also works with
students with reading difficulties in afterschool settings. Since afterschool programs need well planned
reading instruction to be able to aid their struggling students efficiently, repeated reading intervention
could be one of the good options that afterschool programs can implement in their settings. Educators
and volunteers working with struggling readers worldwide should always keep in their minds that
repeated reading intervention is an effective intervention to improve reading fluency skills of their
students, and utilize repeated reading with their pupils as necessary.
As an effective and research-based reading intervention, repeated reading can be easily
implemented with struggling readers, and as interventionists follow steps of the repeated reading
intervention correctly, students with reading difficulties can improve their fluency skills as well as
comprehension skills. Therefore, this study showed that in addition to spending some recreational
time, afterschool programs can be an important source for struggling readers for enhancements in
reading. In this process, afterschool programs need to implement research-based reading interventions
with their struggling readers. Besides, volunteers working with students with reading difficulties need
to be well trained regarding the intervention before actually utilizing it in the afterschool setting. In
this process, afterschool programs can collaborate with universities, and get their volunteers trained by
professionals in the area of reading instruction, especially for struggling readers.
British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences
ISSN: 2046-9578,
138
References
[1] Allington, R. L. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based
programs (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
[2] Chafouleas, S. M., Martens, B. K., Dobson, R. L., Weinstein, K. S., & Gardner, K. B. (2004).
Fluent reading as the improvement of stimulus control: Additive effects of performance-based
interventions to repeated reading on students’ reading and error rates. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 13, 67-81.
[3] Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for
building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 35, 386-406.
[4] Dahl, P. R. (1979). An experimental program for teaching high speed word recognition and
comprehension skills. In J. E. Button, T. C. Lovitt, & T. D. Rowland (Eds.), Communications
research in learning disabilities and mental retardation (pp. 33-65). Baltimore: University Park
Press.
[5] Fashola, O. S. (2002). Building effective afterschool programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press, Inc.
[6] Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D. & Kazdan, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies on high
school students with serious reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 309-318.
[7] Grigg, W., Donahue, P., & Dion, G. (2007). The nation’s report card: 12th-grade reading and
mathematics 2005 (NCES 2007-468). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007468
[8] 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.
[9] Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3-21.
[10] LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in
reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
[11] Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M.
(2004). Retrieved from Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) website:
http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/SchoolImprovementReform/5032RR_RSOST effectiveness. pdf
[12] Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007). The nation’s report card: Reading 2007 (NCES
2007-496). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved November 5, 2007, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007496
[13] McShane, S. (2005). Applying research in reading instruction for adults: First steps for
teachers. Washington, DC: The Partnership for Reading, National Institute for Literacy.
British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences
ISSN: 2046-9578,
139
[14] Miller, B. (2003). Critical hours: Afterschool programs and educational success. Retrieved
from Nellie Mae Educational Foundation website: http://www.nmefdn.org/uploads/Critical_
hours_Full.pdf
[15] 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 (NIH Publication No. 00-4754).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
[16] Riley, R. (1996). Improving the reading and writing skills of America’s students. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 19, 67-69.
[17] Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated reading. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403-408.
[18] Strommen, L. T., & Mates, B. F. (2004). Learning to love reading: Interviews with older
children and teens. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48, 188-200.
[19] Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A
meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252-261.
[20] Therrien, W. J., Gormley, S., & Kubina, R. M. (2006). Boosting fluency and comprehension to
improve reading achievement. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(3), 22-26.
[21] Valleley, R. J., & Shriver, M. D. (2003). An examination of the effects of repeated readings
with secondary students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 55-76.
[22] Welsch, R. G. (2006). Increase oral reading fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41,
180-183.
[23] Wiederholt, J. L, & Bryant, B. R. (2001). Gray Oral Reading Tests-4. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
BIOPROFILE
Macid Ayhan Melekoglu, PhD, is an assistant professor of special education at Eskisehir
Osmangazi University in Turkey. His current interests include assessment and instruction in reading
for students with learning disabilities and quality of teacher training and professional development
programs.
Kimber L. Wilkerson, PhD, is a professor of special education at the University of Wisconsin–
Madison in the USA. Her current interests include academic instruction for students with learning and
behavioral disorders, alternative settings, and school reform policy in special education.
