Content uploaded by Chase Young
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Chase Young on Nov 29, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi]
On: 11 November 2014, At: 13:06
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Literacy Research and Instruction
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri20
Reading Together: A Successful Reading
Fluency Intervention
Chase Young
a
, Kathleen A. J. Mohr
b
& Timothy Rasinski
c
a
Texas A&M University—Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas
b
Utah State University, Logan, Utah
c
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio
Published online: 07 Nov 2014.
To cite this article: Chase Young, Kathleen A. J. Mohr & Timothy Rasinski (2014): Reading
Together: A Successful Reading Fluency Intervention, Literacy Research and Instruction, DOI:
10.1080/19388071.2014.976678
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2014.976678
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Literacy Research and Instruction, 00: 1–15, 2014
Copyright © Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers
ISSN: 1938-8071 print / 1938-8063 online
DOI: 10.1080/19388071.2014.976678
Reading Together: A Successful Reading
Fluency Intervention
CHASE YOUNG
Texas A&M University—Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas
KATHLEEN A. J. MOHR
Utah State University, Logan, Utah
TIMOTHY RASINSKI
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio
The article describes a reading fluency intervention called Reading Together that combines the
method of repeated readings (Samuels, 1979) and the Neurological Impress Method (Heckelman,
1969). Sixteen volunteers from various backgrounds were recruited and trained to deliver the Reading
Together intervention to struggling readers in third through fifth grade. The differences on the out-
come measures between the treatment (n = 29) and comparison (n = 23) were statistically significant.
Thus, students in the treatment demonstrated increased reading expression, reading rate, and overall
reading scores. Results suggest that Reading Together is a feasible method of increasing students’
reading proficiency and can be delivered by trained volunteers.
Keywords fluency, struggling readers, elementary
Research on the scientific teaching of reading includes fluency as an integral part of reading
instruction (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Snowling
& Hume, 2005). For years, reading fluency has been a leading topic among educators
and the expectation that students read accurately at a sufficient rate has been a class-
room priority (Paige, Rasinski, & Magpuri-Lavell, 2012). While the Common Core State
Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief
State School Officers [NGA & CCSSO], 2010) focus more on close reading and com-
prehension of challenging texts, reading fluency is an important reading competency that
lays the foundation or allows for close reading and further growth in reading. In essence,
reading fluency is a necessary, but insufficient condition, for proficient reading and com-
prehension. In their research with elementary students who perform poorly on high-stakes,
silent reading achievement tests, Valencia and Buly (2004) found that a large percentage
of the students exhibited difficulties in some form of reading fluency. Similarly, Rasinski
and Padak (1998) reported that reading fluency difficulties were the most common and
more profound characteristics exhibited by elementary students who were referred for
Address correspondence to Chase Young, College of Education, Department of Educational Leadership,
Curriculum and Instruction, Texas A&M University—Corpus Christi, 6300 Ocean Drive, Unit 5834, Corpus
Christi, TX 78412-5834. Email: chase.young@tamucc.edu
1
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] at 13:06 11 November 2014
2 C. Young et al.
intervention reading services. This study supports teachers and students by offering an
additional reading fluency intervention called Reading Together.
Despite its recent recognition, research on reading fluency has been ongoing for years.
Smith and colleagues (1952) recognized reading fluency as an area in need of research.
Farrell (1966) reported on the timeless strategy for increasing reading fluency: reading
aloud. Samuels’s (1979) method of repeated readings is a common component in ele-
mentary classrooms. In fact, many methods for increasing students’ reading fluency from
years past remain popular and effective, but there is always a need for additional methods
(Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger, 2010). However, some research-based practices are
underutilized in contemporary classrooms and could benefit students and support teachers.
Heckelman (1966) first described one of these lesser known methods for developing read-
ing fluency, an assisted reading strategy called the Neurological Impress Method (NIM).
In NIM, the teacher and student sit side by side, each with a copy of the same text. The
teacher and student engage in a form of choral reading with the teacher reading slightly
ahead of the student, essentially having the student “chase” the teacher’s reading. The
teacher reads with appropriate expression and intonation into the ear of the student, literally
leading the reader to smoother, faster oral reading. The goal of NIM is to provide a model of
prosodic oral reading for students who struggle to read with appropriate phrasing that can
contribute to comprehension. Heckelman’s first report omitted the results, but indicated
that the method was helpful when tutoring an adolescent child who struggled with read-
ing. Later, Heckelman (1969) posited that the NIM method actually “etched” the teacher’s
words and expression (prosody) into the student’s brain. He reported a mean grade level
gain score in reading of 1.9. In one case, a student’s reading level increased by 5.9 grade
levels. The method’s early success with learning disabled students was followed by var-
ious iterations documented by other researchers over subsequent decades (Arnold, 1972;
Cook, Nolan & Zanotti, 1980; Eldredge, 1990; Eldredge & Butterfield, 1986; Eldredge &
Quinn, 1988; Henk, 1981; Hollingsworth, 1970, 1978; Topping, 1987). What seemed to
be a promising technique, however, has not always produced significant results (Langford,
Slade, & Barnett, 1974; Lorenz & Vockrell, 1979).
Typically, students who struggle in reading fluency receive interventions in word
recognition accuracy and automaticity (as measured by rate). Automaticity Theory is
often used to explain the benefits of reading fluency instruction. When readers automat-
ically recognize words, cognition is allocated for higher level processes, such as reading
comprehension. Further, research has confirmed the link between reading fluency and com-
prehension (Perfetti, 1985; Stanovich, 1986). Conversely, research (Lefly & Pennington,
1991; Levy, Abello, & Lysynchuk, 1997; O’Shea & Sindelar, 1983) also indicates that
disfluent reading negatively affects students’ reading comprehension. Therefore, students
who read disfluently require effective reading fluency interventions that lead to better
comprehension (Allington, 1983).
Prosody, the other recognized component of reading fluency, is sometimes neglected
(Dowhower, 1991; Paige et al., 2012). Schreiber (1980) theorized that, despite being able
to decode individual words, some disfluency is caused by the lack of attention to prosody,
reading written language in a way that it would be spoken orally. Teachers using NIM
scaffold accurate and automatic reading, as well as prosodic reading (Rasinski & Padak,
2008).
As initially intended, NIM’s potential to support reading fluency (accuracy,
automaticity, and prosody) and comprehension relates to the linguistic modeling the
teacher provides. Viewing the NIM version of assisted reading from a social constructivist
perspective, however, affords a different view of its potential. A sociocultural perspective
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] at 13:06 11 November 2014
Reading Together 3
suggests that the role of teacher-reader is more than providing a model for a student-reader
to mimic. Rather, the teacher provides experiences that “stretch” the student to a perfor-
mance that the student is not yet able to achieve independently. Vygotsky (1978) described
the zone of proximal development (ZPD) as the space in which a child can achieve suc-
cess in learning when aided by a knowledgeable other. In the case of NIM, the teacher
selects text beyond the instructional level of the student (Heckelman, 1969), provides a
model for fluent reading that the student practices, and thus works at the outer limits of the
student’s ZPD. Without the assistance of the proficient reader, the student may not experi-
ence success when reading difficult material or choose to read material that is linguistically
challenging. This sociocultural view of NIM offsets common notions that students develop
fluency from reading texts at their instructional level and suggests that some practice with
more challenging texts beckons the reader to greater fluency and phrasing that supports
comprehension. Ideally, NIM tutoring should serve as a high level scaffold and model for
developing students’ reading fluency using authentic reading material.
Interestingly, despite its conceptual base and research that supports NIM, few teach-
ers or interventionists actually use NIM as an instructional tool for struggling readers.
However, Flood, Lapp, and Fisher (2005) reintroduced this potentially forgotten method
to the research arena with their own version of NIM called NIM Plus. Flood et al.’s ver-
sion of NIM includes a comprehension component. The below-level third through sixth
grade students in their study received 200 minutes of NIM Plus tutoring in a 5-week period
(a serious decrease from the 720 minutes in Heckelman’s [1969] earlier study). Results
of the two separate studies in Flood et al.’s article indicated that the 40 students receiv-
ing the treatment significantly and substantially outperformed control groups. The method
clearly worked effectively in these cases, and could perhaps be strengthened by adding an
independent practice component.
Samuels (1979) introduced the instructional fluency protocol called the method
of repeated readings, which evolved from LaBerge and Samuels’s (1974) theory of
automaticity in information processing. He reported that the method effectively increased
word recognition automaticity (words read correctly per minute) and word recognition
accuracy (a decrease in the number of word recognition errors).
Therrien (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of repeating readings research. Of the
extensive literature on repeated readings since Samuels’s 1970s research, only 18 arti-
cles met the criteria for meta-analysis, and the results indicated that the method effectively
increased reading fluency and the ability for students to understand text. Thus, research
supports using repeated readings and NIM to support fluency development. From a socio-
cultural perspective, combining these techniques could provide less fluent students with a
model and supported practice with texts that extend students’ prosodic reading in authentic
texts.
In previous research (Mohr, Dixon, & Young, 2012), Young, then a reading coach, uti-
lized Reading Together with a few a struggling readers. Essentially, he executed NIM and
then asked the students to read back the text previously read together. The coach informally
reported that his students’ subsequent rereadings sounded much like the coach’s render-
ing, as if the students had somehow adopted the tutor’s prosody. Therefore, he conducted
formal case studies with two students. In one of the case studies, the coach utilized the
NIM/Repeated Readings method and observed the student increase from a late first grade
to a third grade reading level in 10 weeks. In their discussion of that investigation, Mohr
et al. noted that teachers need to be effective and efficient and that sometimes this can be
achieved by stacking or integrating instruction. Combining NIM with the repeated reading
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] at 13:06 11 November 2014
4 C. Young et al.
is an example of research-recommended component stacking, or the strategic combining of
research-based practices with the goal of synergistically improving instruction.
Integrating NIM and repeated readings works well because the interventions com-
plement one another. During NIM, the teacher provides stronger support of the student
with word recognition, pacing, and prosody. Typically, according to NIM, this one read-
ing of a text would be the end of the intervention; students would move on to a new text.
However, by adding an element of repeated readings, the students are given an opportunity
for more independent practice without the support of the teacher. The practice component
is important, and because of the previous assistance, the students are more able to experi-
ence success and independence. This practice process exemplifies the highly recommended
gradual release model of instruction (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). Children are often moti-
vated by success and independence, and Reading Together may produce sustained results
because of the added practice and the successful reading of complex texts.
The present study extends the research on the NIM and repeated readings by com-
bining the two in an instructional protocol referred to as Reading Together. Our study
examines the effects of Reading Together on students’ reading fluency as measured by
words read correctly per minute and a prosody rubric with overall reading scores measured
by a computer-based reading assessment. Testing the effectiveness of Reading Together
extends the research base by assessing fluency and prosody on several measures. The
study also considers the viability of Reading Together, an important factor when consider-
ing large-scale implementation of one-on-one interventions. The current investigation was
guided by the following research question: Can implementation of the Reading Together
intervention significantly increase elementary students’ reading fluency and overall reading
performance?
Method
Context
Island Elementary (all names of places and people are pseudonyms) is a Title 1 school in
the southern United States. The school has a large Hispanic population (89%), and remain-
ing demographics include 8% white, 2% black, and 1% American Indian/Alaska Native.
The previous year’s state testing results for Island Elementary indicated that only 46%
of the students met or exceeded the standard in reading according to the mandatory state
examination.
Because the school was not meeting the minimum state requirements, the princi-
pal, a graduate from the researcher’s institution, contacted the university for support. The
researcher agreed to meet with the school’s administration and instructional coach to deter-
mine an appropriate intervention. Per the diagnostician, many students were struggling with
automaticity of basic word recognition. As research suggests, students who struggle with
fluency also struggle with comprehension (Lefly & Pennington, 1991; Levy et al., 1997;
O’Shea & Sindelar, 1983). Yet, automaticity should be the focus of instruction for such
students in hopes that increased automaticity would lead to better reading comprehension
(LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Stanovich, 1986). Therefore, one of the researchers proposed
the Reading Together intervention.
Participants
Participants were purposefully chosen by the school’s principal and an instructional spe-
cialist. These administrators selected students in grades three through five who did not pass
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] at 13:06 11 November 2014
Reading Together 5
the reading benchmark test administered in the second quarter of the school year. The test
is a silent reading proficiency exam aligned with the state standardized test. The researcher
sent information about the intervention and consent forms home with the students who met
the criteria for inclusion in the study with an option to consent or abstain. Regardless of the
parents’ decision, students who brought back the signed form by the end of the week were
rewarded with permission to wear personal clothes to school for a day rather than school
uniforms.
Although more students met the inclusion criteria for the Reading Together interven-
tion, only 30 students were chosen to participate because tutoring personnel were limited.
Thus, the research team chose the 30 students that demonstrated the greatest need. Students
in the control group were selected based on demographics and reading scores that were sim-
ilar to the participants in the treatment group. Eventually, 8 students were excluded from
the study due to transiency and truancy, and thus a total of 52 students participated in the
study. Both the treatment group (n = 29) and control group (n = 23) consisted of 52% male
and 48% female participants. In the treatment group, students were 90% Hispanic and 10%
white; in the control, students were 87% Hispanic and 13% white. The treatment group
consisted of 31% third graders, 38% fourth graders, and 31% fifth graders. The control
group was made up of 43% third graders, 43% fourth graders, and 14% fifth graders.
Overview of Reading Together
Reading Together is a hybrid of the NIM and repeated readings. The teacher and student
read aloud together, each with a copy of the text. The teacher reads slightly ahead of the
student with appropriate prosody. After reading a page or paragraph together (depending
on the length of the page), the student then rereads the section aloud once independently.
The student and tutor continue this process for approximately 20 minutes. Although the
main focus was on reading fluency, the tutor and students typically engaged in a s hort
conversation about the text after the tutoring was complete. Finally, the volunteers took
several minutes to complete an intervention log that recorded the time spent on the inter-
vention (always 20 minutes), name of the volunteer, and any notes to the researcher (see
Appendix). The timeline of the study is shown in Table 1.
The Tutors
The university faculty member and Island Elementary administrators led the effort to recruit
tutors. Because the intervention requires a substantial commitment (one-on-one tutoring
for one month for 20 minutes per day), the recruiters extended invitations to undergraduate
Table 1
Timeline of the Study
Date(s) Activity
January 8 Recruitment Meeting and Method Training
January 9–10 Pre-Test Data Collection
January 13 Intervention Begins
February 7 Intervention Ends/Data Collection
February 10 Complete Data Collection
February 11–Spring Break Continuation for those who responded to the intervention
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] at 13:06 11 November 2014
6 C. Young et al.
and graduate students at the local university, as well as teachers, staff, parents, and existing
tutors at Island Elementary. In the end, the list of volunteers included three undergraduate
students in education, three tutors who worked for the district, a second grade teacher,
two special education teachers, two Read-to-Succeed volunteers, the assistant principal,
the instructional specialist, the library media specialist, a parent, and a university faculty
member for a total of 16 volunteers. Some tutors only committed to working with one
student, the majority with two, and some tutors dedicated their time to three students.
Of course, the researchers knew the varying prior experiences of the volunteers might
present a challenge. Therefore, the researchers carefully constructed a presentation and
training sessions for the volunteers, making sure to explain the method in simple terms,
avoiding educational jargon. In addition, the training consisted of demonstrations and
opportunities to practice Reading Together.
The Training
The primary researcher and trainer invited the volunteers to Island Elementary for a training
session one day after school in the library in early December. The training began with intro-
ductions and moved into the history behind the intervention. Then, volunteers learned the
step-by-step method as the trainer modeled Reading Together with a participating volunteer.
The tutors were instructed to use the NIM and repeated readings for each intervention
session. They were told to instruct their respective students to read along aloud, noting that
they would be reading slightly ahead of their students. The students would try to “chase” or
“catch up” to the tutors. After reading the text or selected paragraphs, the tutors could then
ask their students to reread each selection aloud independently, thus executing a repeated
reading of the more challenging texts (Samuels, 1979).
Special attention was paid to the guidelines for “chunking” the selected texts. No rigid
procedure was in place for determining where to stop the assisted reading and begin the
repeated reading, so the trainer discussed the process as a type of trial and error. If the
students could fluently reread the text, then size of the selection was appropriate; perhaps
the assisted reading could cover more text before stopping. Conversely, if the student strug-
gled with lengthier sections of text, the tutor was asked to reduce the amount of text in the
section. However, a fine line existed between reducing the “chunks” of text, and reducing
the difficulty of the text. If selection were reduced to mere sentences, the more appropriate
action was to select a lower level text.
Tutors were trained to select texts on each of the students’ designated intervention
levels. If students struggled when rereading the text, tutors lowered the level and the tutor
exchanged the books in the leveled-text library. The tutors were instructed to base the deci-
sion on their perceptions of their students’ oral reading fluency. If the students read slowly
and struggled with word recognition accuracy during the intervention, then the tutors were
to select a lower-level book; however, this only occurred in one case. More commonly, the
initially selected texts did not challenge the student while engaged in Reading Together;
therefore, the tutor increased the level. If students could read the text fluently without assis-
tance, the text was deemed too easy for the intervention. Tutors indicated changed levels on
the student intervention logs. Because the texts varied in length, some sessions allowed stu-
dents to read more than one book, while other times the students read the text over several
sessions. When one book was complete, the tutors and students chose a new one; therefore,
the texts were not used more than once.
During the training session, researchers also elaborated on the research behind the
methods, the purpose for the combination, and the expected outcomes. The volunteer tutors
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] at 13:06 11 November 2014
Reading Together 7
were told that NIM is a good way to model fluent reading, while simultaneously assisting
the students in reading texts that the students might have trouble with if reading alone.
In addition, the method supports prosodic reading in that students adopt the proficient
readers’ expressive prosody. The researcher explained further that the purpose of adding
a repeated reading component was to provide students with immediate, more independent
practice, opportunities for success, and so tutors could listen for expressive and accurate
readings from their students rather than merely record a reading rate, which is a common
assessment measure. Thus, in a sense, the Reading Together sessions were designed to
provide a more advanced model of fluent, expressive reading in a reader-coach situation.
Finally, the volunteers completed availability forms and asked questions. The trainers
responded to questions to clear up any misconceptions before adjourning the training. The
researchers also provided handouts with information regarding the method, dates of the
project, and student intervention logs (see Appendix), which also listed the following steps
as a reminder for tutors:
Make sure you and the student have a copy of the text.
Read a page or paragraph aloud together.
Read slightly ahead of the student.
Read with good expression that matches the meaning of the text.
Have the student reread the page/paragraph aloud.
Continue with subsequent page/paragraphs for 20 minutes.
Complete the intervention log.
The Texts
The texts were chosen from the school’s leveled-text library. Tutors were asked to choose a
mix of fiction and nonfiction throughout the duration of Reading Together. The researcher
asked tutors to allow the students to choose within the designated intervention text level.
Informal observation indicated that this method was effective. Some tutors reported that
students became interested in particular genres or a text series, evidenced by the students
continuing to choose books in a certain genre or from a particular series.
The researcher assigned each student an intervention level that was eight levels
above the students’ independent reading level. The researchers r ecommended this prac-
tice because in the primary researcher’s experience with Reading Together (Mohr et al.,
2012), students were typically capable of reading and comprehending text approximately
eight levels higher because of the assisted reading component. Previous research by Stahl
and Heubach (2005) recommended that text for assisted readings be on the students’ frus-
trational level. However, with the assistance provided and the selection of text segments,
students do not actually become frustrated. Therefore, the more advanced texts challenged
students in a supportive way; they were being used as instructional, even at the extreme
end of a student’s ZPD. This expectation aligns with the emphases of Common Core
State Standards (NGA & CCSSO, 2010) that students should be reading more challenging
materials, but with the modeling and support of an adult reader.
Duration
The goal was to tutor each student for approximately 400 minutes of Reading Together
tutoring in one month. The students received Reading Together tutoring every school day
for 20 minutes. The primary researcher assigned Reading Together tutors to individual
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] at 13:06 11 November 2014
8 C. Young et al.
students based on the tutors’ and students’ availability. Although there were a few conflicts,
such as assemblies and student absences, all of the students received at least 380 minutes
with the majority of students receiving 400 minutes. The actual mean was 399 minutes per
student.
Implementing the Program
For the first two days of implementation, the primary researcher remained at the school to
monitor and support the tutors. The researcher instructed the tutors to call his cell phone
in the event of any problems during tutoring. The most frequent question was whether
students’ levels should be increased. After discussing the ability of the individual stu-
dent during the intervention, the researcher and tutor made an informed decision to either
increase, decrease, or maintain the book level. To ensure fidelity, the researcher moni-
tored all of the tutoring sessions to make certain that every student received the treatment.
If students did not receive the treatment due to a scheduling error or absent volunteer,
the researcher stepped in as the tutor. The schedule was then adjusted and problems were
resolved. After the first two days, the researcher visited daily for an hour and a half, long
enough to tutor his assigned three students and to clear up any program concerns.
Both the treatment and control groups continued to receive their regular reading
instruction. The school utilized a balanced literacy program that included teacher read-
alouds, shared reading, guided reading, independent reading, and word study. Students in
the treatment group were pulled out of class for 20 minutes of their classroom reading
instruction, receiving only 40 minutes of the regularly scheduled 60 minutes. The majority
of the Reading Together students were pulled from either independent reading or cen-
ter time. A small percentage of students, however, were pulled from class during teacher
read-alouds.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data were collected prior to the intervention and directly following the intervention. The
university researcher chose to measure several components of reading fluency, as well
as use of the school’s existing iStation reading assessment, a computer adaptive test that
reports an overall reading score. The iStation assessment has several subtests that measure
the following: Phonemic Awareness, Letter Knowledge, Alphabetic Decoding, Vocabulary,
Spelling, and Comprehension. The students take the test monthly as required by the dis-
trict for progress monitoring (Mathes, 2014). The overall reading score was based on two
subtests that measure students’ abilities in silent reading comprehension and vocabulary
knowledge. The researcher administered students’ iStation tests the week before and the
week after the Reading Together treatment.
For the pre- and post-intervention fluency measures, the primary researcher utilized
nonfiction grade level passages from the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills—Oral Reading Fluency (DIBELS-ORF; Good & Kaminski, 2002). The students read
the first half of the passages for the pretest and the second half for the posttest. During the
reading, the researcher recorded the number of words the student read correctly in one
minute. In addition, the researcher scored the students on the Multidimensional Fluency
Scale (MFS) (Zutell & Rasinski, 1991). This prosody rubric was used to calculate a MFS
score in each of four categories: volume and expression, phrasing, smoothness, and pace.
Each of the categories were scored on a four-point scale, one being the lowest demonstra-
tion of fluent reading and four being the highest (possible total scores ranged from 4 to 16).
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] at 13:06 11 November 2014
Reading Together 9
Previous research has shown the MFS to be a reliable and valid measure of prosodic read-
ing (Paige et al., 2012; Rasinski et al., 2009). In order to validate the primary researcher’s
ratings on the MFS, the researcher and creator of the MFS independently scored sample
recordings of students’ readings. An interrater reliability analysis using the Kappa statis-
tic was performed to determine consistency among raters. The interrater reliability for the
raters was a Kappa = 0.77 (p < .001), which is considered substantial agreement among
raters.
The pre- and post-data from iStation, DIBELS-ORF, and MFS were analyzed in three
separate paired-samples t-tests to compare individual student scores. The treatment group
was then compared to the control group for each measure. To maintain the reliability of the
comparison, pretest equivalency was also performed.
Results
Three paired-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the overall reading and fluency
scores in the treatment and control conditions. There were no statistically significant dif-
ferences among the two groups on the basis of the pretest measures of DIBELS-ORF
and the MFS; thus, pre-experimental equivalence was assumed for these measures. The
first paired-samples t-test measured increase in oral reading fluency (words read correctly
per minute/WCPM) (see Table 2). In the treatment group, the pretest (M = 70.14, SD =
23.48) to posttest (M = 90.79, SD = 26.47) increase on words read correctly per minute
was statistically significant. There was no significant difference in words read correctly per
minute in the control group from pretest (M = 82.00, SD = 23.24) to posttest (M = 86.43,
SD = 26.74). The standard deviation scores are large because of the differing grade level
norms for words read correctly per minute.
There was also a significant difference in the measure of prosody (Multidimensional
Fluency Scale scores) for the treatment group from pretest (M = 8.59, SD = 2.57) to
posttest (M = 11.38, SD = 1.78) and no significant results for the control group from pretest
(M = 9.48, SD = 2.59) to posttest (M = 9.70, SD = 2.65). These results are summarized
in Table 3.
The third paired-samples t-test measured the mean differences in overall reading score
measured by iStation (Table 4). A statistically significant difference in mean scores was
found for the treatment group from pretest (M = 1323.10, SD = 756.21) to posttest (M =
1361.48, SD = 777.89). In the control group, there was no significance difference in overall
reading score from pretest (M = 1097.87, SD = 778.23) to posttest (M = 1079.57, SD =
764.68) in one month. The standard deviation scores are even larger here because the iSta-
tion raw scores in this study ranged from the third grade minimum of 203 to the fifth grade
maximum of 2116. In addition, the control group mean scores were much lower because
the treatment had fewer fifth grade students (31% in treatment and 14% in control).
Table 2
Paired-Samples T-Test of Oral Reading Fluency (Words Correct Per Minute) (N = 52)
Measure Pretest Mean Posttest Mean Tp-value (2-tailed) ES
a
Treatment (n = 29) 70.14 90.79 −5.84 <.01 1.08
Control ( n = 23) 82.00 86.43 −1.60 .12 .33
Note.
a
ES, effective size as measured by Cohen’s d,
.02 = small effect, .5 = medium effect, .8 = large effect.
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] at 13:06 11 November 2014
10 C. Young et al.
Table 3
Paired-Samples T-Test of the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (N = 52)
Measure Pretest Mean Posttest Mean tp-value (2-tailed) ES
a
Treatment (n = 29) 8.59 11.38 −7.78 <.01 1.44
Control ( n = 23) 9.48 9.70 −.84 .41 .18
Note.
a
ES, effective size as measured by Cohen’s d,
.02 = small effect, .5 = medium effect, .8 = large effect.
Table 4
Paired-Samples T-Test of iStation Overall Reading Score (N = 52)
Measure Pretest Mean Posttest Mean tp-value (2-tailed) ES
a
Treatment (n = 29) 1323.10 1361.48 −3.04 <.01 .56
Control ( n = 23) 1097.87 1079.57 1.26 .22 .26
Note.
a
ES, effective size as measured by Cohen’s d,
.02 = small effect, .5 = medium effect, .8 = large effect.
In summary, the results indicated that Reading Together had a large effect on stu-
dents’ increase in word recognition automaticity (words read correctly per minute) and their
prosodic reading as measured by their oral reading performance using the Multidimensional
Fluency Scale (MFS). The Reading Together treatment also had a more muted effect on
students’ overall reading score as measured by iStation. Overall, the Reading Together
treatment successfully increased students’ reading performance on all measures.
Discussion
The Reading Together intervention had the largest effect (1.44) on the outcomes measured
by the MFS. Therefore, students who engaged in Reading Together sessions following the
reading modeled by an adult for 20 days demonstrated significant gains in expression and
volume, smoothness, phrasing, and pace while reading aloud. The tutors’ direct modeling
of prosodic reading with challenging, authentic texts and the immediate practice carried out
by the students facilitated the more fluent reading demonstrated at the end of the month.
The mean difference effect on Oral Reading Fluency (words correct per minute)
was also large (1.08). These results reveal that the Reading Together intervention also
increased students’ reading rates, corroborating research on repeated readings as suc-
cessfully increasing reading rate (Freeland, Skinner, Jackson, McDaniel, & Smith, 2000;
Mathes & Fuchs, 1993; Mercer, Campbell, Miller, Mercer, & Lane, 2000; Rasinski, Padak,
Linek, & Sturtevant, 1994). Moreover, the mean weekly gain in oral reading fluency (words
correct per minute) for the Reading Together students was calculated to be a 5.2 words per
minute gain per week. This is substantially greater than the weekly gain of 1.5 words correct
per minute identified as an ambitious goal for struggling r eaders (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett,
Walz, & Germann, 1993).
This research expands extant reading fluency research by providing a new method
for increasing the components of reading fluency: automaticity and prosody. However, an
ad hoc pre- and posttest indicated that Reading Together also had a moderate effect on
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] at 13:06 11 November 2014
Reading Together 11
students’ overall reading as measured by a computer-based reading assessment. Thus, this
study supports the premise of automaticity theory (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). As the
students’ reading word recognition automaticity increases, cognition is freed to focus on
reading comprehension, positively impacting the overall reading scores significantly.
In addition, the intervention helped teachers meet an expectation set forth by the
Common Core State Standards (NGA & CCSSO, 2010) by exposing students to complex
text. Because the texts were several levels higher than the students’ independent levels,
students gained experiences with more complex texts. Without assistance the students may
have become frustrated, but the strong support provided by tutors and the brief, 20-minute
sessions created a context for success even with difficult reading material.
Another important finding from this study was the viability of the Reading Together
method. Reading Together is a simple intervention that can be done in minutes and with
existing materials. Moreover, training tutors in Reading Together can be done in less than
an hour. The fact that not all of the tutors were certified teachers suggests that, with train-
ing, nearly anyone who is comfortable and capable of modeling oral reading can execute
the method. Although some challenges existed, such as locating volunteers and matching
tutors’ availability and the students’ availability, the whole program was relatively easy
to manage once it was up and running. In addition, the undergraduates who participated
gained valuable experiences working with striving readers; parents learned a new strategy
to help their own children at home; the administrators were afforded an opportunity to inter-
act with students in an academic and positive manner; and participating teachers were able
to work with students in another grade level. Finally, the university faculty member fostered
a mutually beneficial relationship between the university and the local elementary school.
In fact, because of the success and easy implementation of Reading Together, the principal
invited the researcher back to the school for curriculum night. The researcher taught the
parents how to conduct the method at home. The parents and teachers were appreciative;
some teachers mentioned that they had begun using the method with students not included
in the study.
Reading Together, as a possible large-scale, multi-grade intervention, was a success in
this particular setting. The students in the treatment group grew significantly on multiple
measures of reading over students in the control group. After the intervention, the primary
researcher met with school administrators to look at individual student gains. Students who
made substantial gains continued with the Reading Together intervention, and those who
did not demonstrate similar success were targeted for a new intervention. The committee
decided that 5 of the 29 students needed an alternate intervention because the students’
reading fluency measures did not increase substantially (e.g., Fuchs et al., 1993), and the
remaining students continued the intervention (83%). While the statistics indicated strong
success in general, the expectation is that 100% of the students make growth, and teachers
know that no single one-size-fits-all intervention exists.
Upon informal examination of the data, there did not appear to be a particular grade
level or demographic that predicted the success of the method, but the relatively small sam-
ple size did not allow for a statistical comparison of sub-groups. Logically, it holds that if
a lack of fluency is the concern manifested in students who struggle in reading, instruction
in fluency should yield positive results. Because the method utilized volunteers and yielded
positive results in a fairly short period of time (4 weeks), implementation is relatively easy
and success of the method can be determined quickly. Thus, if students are struggling
with reading fluency, perhaps assembling volunteers and implementing Reading Together
could support the students’ reading fluency achievement while maintaining regular reading
instruction in elementary schools.
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] at 13:06 11 November 2014
12 C. Young et al.
Limitations and Further Research
At this point it is difficult to say whether NIM or repeating readings had a larger influence
on students’ reading fluency development, and how much that influence is increased by
stacking them and conducting Reading Together. The relatively small number of students
did not allow for analysis of sub-group comparisons. Because the author of the MFS mea-
surement and Reading Together intervention was heavily involved, it might be difficult to
implement Reading Together in other situations without a strong and knowledgeable leader.
In addition, this research did not measure if the effect of Reading Together was sustained
over time. The study would be strengthened by retesting the students at a later date to
examine the effect of Reading Together months after the intervention was delivered.
We need and encourage further research into Reading Together that would reveal
its effectiveness with various grade levels or types of students (e.g., male and female,
motivated and reluctant). It would be important to determine if the fluency gains are
maintained over time and if reading rates of Reading Together students continue simi-
larly to that of stronger readers and in various genres of text. It would also be valuable to
add a measure of student motivation as part of a Reading Together intervention to better
understand the influence of the social interaction between adult and student and students’
perception of the challenging texts. Adding a follow-up element to see if treatment stu-
dents choose more challenging texts for independent reading and/or if their volume of
reading increased following Reading Together success would be powerful. This study
dedicated 400 minutes to Reading Together, which was in between NIM’s previously
researched allocations of 720 (Heckelman, 1969) and 200 minutes (Flood et al., 2005).
Therefore, to increase the efficiency of Reading Together, future research should determine
an optimum number of minutes required to increase students’ oral reading fluency that plat-
forms more proficient reading and how the intervention supports comprehension. It would
also be worth comparing the different effects of repeated readings, NIM, and Reading
Together.
Given its initial success, we invite and encourage teachers and reading intervention-
ists to consider using Reading Together as a strategy for improving the reading fluency
and overall reading outcomes for their students, especially those shown to struggle with
prosodic reading at an appropriate pace. Clearly, reading fluency is a key for general read-
ing success. Moreover, research has demonstrated that substantial numbers of students who
struggle in reading manifest difficulties in reading fluency. Our study suggests an interven-
tion option that is practical, time efficient, and effective. If we can help students establish
a strong foundation in oral reading and fluency, we are setting the stage for future reading
proficiency.
References
Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected goal of the reading program. The Reading Teacher,
36, 556–561.
Arnold, R. D. (1972). A comparison of the neurological impress method: The Language Experience
Approach, and classroom teaching for children with reading disabilities. Final Report. Lafayette,
IN: Purdue Research Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 073428).
Cook, J. E., Nolan, G., & Zanotti, R. J. (1980). Training auditory perceptions problems: The NIM
helps. Academic Therapy, 15, 473–481.
Dowhower, S. L. (1991). Speaking of prosody: Fluency’s unattended bedfellow. Theory Into Practice,
30, 165–176.
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] at 13:06 11 November 2014
Reading Together 13
Eldredge, J. L. (1990). Increasing reading performance of poor readers in the third grade by using a
group assisted strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 69–77.
Eldredge, J. L., & B utterfield, D. D. (1986). Alternatives to traditional reading instruction. The
Reading Teacher, 40, 32–37.
Eldredge, J. L., & Quinn, W. (1988). Increasing reading performance of low-achieving second graders
by using dyad reading groups. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 40–46.
Farrell, E. (1966). Listen, my children, and you shall read. English Journal, 55, 39–45.
Flood, J., Lapp. D., & Fisher, D. (2005). Neurological impress method plus. Reading Psychology, 26,
147–160.
Freeland, J. T., Skinner, C. H., Jackson, B., McDaniel, C. E., & Smith, S. (2000). Measuring and
increasing silent reading comprehension rates via repeated readings. Psychology in the Schools,
37, 415–429.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evalua-
tion of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22,
27–48.
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills
(6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for Development of Educational Achievement.
Heckelman, R. G. (1966). Using the neurological impress remedial reading method. Academic
Therapy, 1, 235–239.
Heckelman, R. G. (1969). A neurological-impress method of remedial-reading instruction. Academic
Therapy, 4, 277–282.
Henk, W. A. (1981). Neurological impress and reading: How? And why? Pittsburgh, PA: The
Thirteenth Annual Three Rivers Reading Conference Proceedings. (ERIC Document Reproduction
No. ED 220815)
Hollingsworth, P. M. (1970). An experiment with the impress method of teaching reading. The
Reading Teacher, 24, 112–114.
Hollingsworth, P. M. (1978). An experimental approach to the impress method of teaching reading.
The Reading Teacher, 31, 624–626.
Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of
reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Invited review of the literature.
Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 232–253.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in
reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
Langford, K., Slade, K., & Barnett, A. (1974). An examination of impress techniques in remedial
reading. Academic Therapy, 9, 309–319.
Lefly, D. L., & Pennington, B. F. (1991). Spelling errors and reading fluency in compensated adult
dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 143–163.
Levy, B. A., Abello, B., & Lysynchuk, L. (1997). Transfer from word training to reading in context:
Gains in reading fluency and comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(3), 181–188.
Lorenz, L. & Vockrell, E. (1979). Using the neurological impress method with learning disabled
readers. J
ournal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 420–422.
Mathes, P. (2014). Istation’s indicators of progress (ISIP) advanced reading. Dallas, TX: Istation.
Retrieved from http://www3.istation.com/Content/downloads/studies/ar_technical_report.pdf
Mathes, P. G., & Fuchs, L. S. (1993). Peer-mediated reading instruction in special education resource
rooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8(4), 233–243.
Mercer, C. D., Campbell, K. U., Miller, M. D., Mercer, K. D., & Lane, H. B. (2000). Effects of
a reading fluency intervention for middle schoolers with specific learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 179–189.
Mohr, K. A. J., Dixon, K., & Young, C. J. (2012). Effective and efficient: Maximizing literacy assess-
ment and instruction. In E. T. Ortlieb & E. H. Cheek, Jr. (Eds.). Literacy research, practice, and
evaluation: Vol. 1. Using informative assessments for effective literacy practices (pp. 293–324).
Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] at 13:06 11 November 2014
14 C. Young et al.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers.
(2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social
studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
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. 00-4769). Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
O’Shea, L. J., & Sindelar, P. T. (1983). The effects of segmenting written discourse on the Reading
comprehension of low- and high-performance readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 458–465.
Paige, D. D., Rasinski, T. V., & Magpuri-Lavell, T. (2012). Is fluent, expressive reading important for
high school readers? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(1), 67–76.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rasinski, T., Rikli, A., & Johnston, S. (2009). Reading fluency: More than automaticity? More than
a concern for the primary grades? Literacy Research and Instruction, 48, 350–361.
Rasinski, T. V., & Padak, N. (2008). From phonics to fluency: Effective teaching of decoding and
reading fluency in the elementary school (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Addison, Wesley, Longman.
Rasinski, T. V., & Padak, N. D. (1998). How elementary students referred for compensatory reading
instruction perform on school-based measures of word recognition, fluency, and comprehension.
Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 19, 185–216.
Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., Linek, W. L., & Sturtevant, E. (1994). Effects of fluency development
on urban second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 158–165.
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 41, 756–760.
Smith, N., Grany, L., Bray, W., Wood, K., & Anderson, H. (1952). Areas of research interest in the
language arts. Elementary English, 3–36.
Snowling, M. J., & Hume, C. (2005). The science of reading: A handbook. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Stahl, S. A., & Heubach, K. M. (2005). Fluency-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Literacy
Research, 37, 25–60.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in
the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 360–407.
Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-
analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 252–261.
Topping, K. (1987). Paired reading: A powerful technique for parent use. Reading Teacher, 40,
608–614.
Valencia, S. W., & B uly, M. R. (2004). Behind test scores: What struggling readers really need. The
Reading Teacher, 57, 520–531.
Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral reading fluency.
Theory into Practice,
30,
211–217.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] at 13:06 11 November 2014
Reading Together 15
Appendix
Intervention Log
Student Name: _______________________________________________________________
Grade Level: _____ Availability: _________________________________________________
IRL: ___________ Intervention Level Start: _________ Interventional Level End: _________
setoNemaNreetnuloVsetuniM31naJ
41
51
61
71
02
12
22
32
42
72
82
92
03
13
3beF
4
5
6
7
Total
1. Make sure you and the student have a copy of the text
2. Read a page or paragraph aloud together
a. Read slightly ahead of the student
b. Read with good expression that matches meaning of
text
3. Have the student reread the page/paragraph aloud
4. Continue for 20 minutes
5. Complete the intervention lo
g
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] at 13:06 11 November 2014