Evaluating the effects of repeated reading and continuous reading using a standardized dosage of words read

Repeated reading (RR) is a common fluency intervention, but recent studies comparing RR to continuous reading (CR; i.e., wide reading) found no significant differences in effects. This prompts the question of whether the mechanism that improves skills is repeatedly reading portions of connected text...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychology in the schools 2019-05, Vol.56 (5), p.635-651
Main Authors: Hammerschmidt‐Snidarich, Stephanie M., Maki, Kathrin E., Adams, Sarah R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Comparative Analysis
Comprehension
Dosage
Elementary School Students
Fluency
Grade 2
Grade 3
Instructional Effectiveness
Intervention
Oral Reading
Pretests Posttests
Reading
Reading Comprehension
Reading Fluency
Reading Instruction
reading motivation
Reading Rate
repeated reading
Repetition
Students
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Repeated reading (RR) is a common fluency intervention, but recent studies comparing RR to continuous reading (CR; i.e., wide reading) found no significant differences in effects. This prompts the question of whether the mechanism that improves skills is repeatedly reading portions of connected text, or simply reading connected text. The current study examined the differential effectiveness of RR and CR for increasing oral reading fluency rate (ORF) and comprehension of 40 students in second and third grades, randomly assigned to receive the RR or CR intervention. Students in both conditions received a standardized amount of practice (dosage) in the form of number of words read during each intervention session. All but two participants increased their ORF and there were no significant differences between groups on posttest ORF or broad comprehension. Moreover, students with the highest pretest scores made slightly more growth regardless of condition. Students in the RR group demonstrated significantly higher comprehension of practiced passages and students in the CR condition reported significantly higher levels of intervention acceptability. Implications for reading fluency intervention research and practice are discussed.
ISSN:0033-3085
1520-6807
DOI:10.1002/pits.22241