You are on page 1of 115

Evaluating the Outcomes of Read Naturally Live: An Elementary Schools Search for a

Reading Fluency Intervention

By
Jenni McCrory

B.M., University of South Dakota –1997


M.A., University of South Dakota – 2002
Ed.D., University of South Dakota - 2018

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of


the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
_______________________________________
Division of Educational Administration
Educational Administration Program
School District Superintendent
In the Graduate School
University of South Dakota
May 2018




ProQuest Number: 10746838




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 10746838

Published by ProQuest LLC (2018 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© 2018

Jenni M. McCrory

ALL RIGHTS RESERVE


ABSTRACT

Jenni M. McCrory, Ed. D., Educational Administration, The University of South Dakota

2018

EVALUATING THE OUTCOMES OF READ NATURALLY LIVE: AN ELEMENTARY

SCHOOLS SEARCH FOR A READING FLUENCY INTERVENTION

Dissertation Directed by Dr. David De Jong

Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) assessment data indicates that a

percentage of students are not at the proficient level at the end of third-grade despite

interventions being put into place to improve reading fluency rates. This study examined the

Read Naturally Live fluency program and determined if it increased fluency scores of third and

fourth-grade students identified as at–risk and persistently at-risk at this elementary school. The

study used a quantitative approach informed by a causal comparative research design that

employed pre- and post-test data to compare the gains made using Read Naturally Live as a

fluency intervention. The participants in this study included 78 students identified as needing a

reading fluency intervention. Of those students, 33 were in third grade and 45 were in fourth

grade. The overall research results show positive growth for all students based on the FAST

assessment using the Read Naturally Live program as a fluency intervention. This study

demonstrates students who struggle with reading fluency, when provided a research based

intervention, utilizing the repeated reading strategy, can improve their reading fluency.

iii
This Abstract of approximately 175 words is approved as to form and content. I

recommend its publication.

iv
DOCTORAL COMMITTEE

The Members of the committee appointed to examine the dissertation of Jenni M.

McCrory find it satisfactory and recommend that it be approved.

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“Your family believes in you mom!!” That is the sticky note I found on my computer

screen from my 12-year old son, Carter, one day after taking a quick break from “homework” as

my family calls what I do in my basement office. A letter of encouragement and pride from an

old family friend and role model hangs on a board above my computer screen along with other

positive notes and pictures of my family and friends reminding me of why I am on this journey.

Obtaining a doctorate degree had always been a goal of mine, but it was never something I saw

in my immediate future. That all changed after hearing a sermon about David and Goliath one

Sunday morning and how we need to defeat our giants. It was at that moment that I decided to

defeat my giant and tackle this goal, head on.

I want to begin by thanking my husband Ryan. Thank you is not enough for everything

you did to help me these past two years. Although I still run the house, you stepped into some

roles you had not held before I embarked on this journey. You allowed me to work on

weekends, late into the night and early in the morning so I could get assignments done and

deadlines met. You ran kids to sporting activities, church activities and anywhere else they

needed to be so I could do my homework. Without your support, this accomplishment would

still be a dream.

To my children, Alexis, Matthew, and Carter, you have been amazing supporters to me

through this entire journey. Even though I may have had to miss an activity here or there so I

can do homework and work on my dissertation, you continued to cheer me on and let me know

that it is OK. You allowed me to study on trips in the car, kindly giving me the backseat, as well

as during your activities. Although it is still hard for you to understand the full magnitude of

what I have accomplished, I am glad you were here to go through the journey with me. I love

vi
each one of you for your support and for the sacrifices you have made so I could be left alone to

do “homework”.

I was beyond blessed to work with an advisor who understood me and my drive. Thank

you is not enough for you, Dr. De Jong. When I started on this journey, you were right there to

lead me through it. You reaffirmed my confidence every time we Skyped or when you sent me

an email telling me my work was spot-on and to keep going. Thank you for setting deadlines for

me, even though at times, I did not think were attainable, but you always believed in me and

were not afraid to push me. God blessed me with an amazing cheerleader, mentor, and friend.

Thank you.

I would also like to thank my dissertation committee for all of their words of advice and

support. I started this dissertation process with you, Dr. Robinson and cried in the first

dissertation class. You sat with me and talked me through ideas until I had a topic to go with and

saw me through the first three chapters, tear free. Dr. Reed, I am grateful for the time you spent

editing my dissertation and the suggestions you offered to make it even better. Finally, I am

grateful for Dr. Earleywine who is not only a committee member but my superintendent and

friend. You have supported me from the day I decided to start this journey and you continue to

provide me with opportunities to be a better instructional leader every day. Not every

superintendent would support their building administrator the way you have supported me and

for that I am forever grateful.

A special thank you to those who supported me by reading my drafts, letting me pick

your brain and collaborate with you, allowing me to practice my presentation in front of you, and

being a Word expert. It is those little things that helped me when I was stuck and frustrated.

vii
Also, a special thank you to Dr. Amy Schweinle for walking me through my stats, more than one

time. Your time and knowledge was greatly appreciated.

Words cannot describe my amazing support system. Becky, Tami, Joanie, Kristal, Sara

and Sara…each of you supported me every step of the way with text messages, Snapchat

messages, late night chats (our version of therapy sessions) and phone calls checking up on me

and encouraging me to keep going. I am beyond blessed to have each one of you in my life.

You are my rock stars!

Mom, this is for you. I did it!

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii

Doctoral Committee ....................................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... ix

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xiii

Chapter

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................1

Theory of Automaticity............................................................................................7

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................8

Research Questions ..................................................................................................8

Significance of the Study .........................................................................................9

Definition of Terms................................................................................................10

Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................12

Assumptions...........................................................................................................13

Organization of the Study ......................................................................................13

2. Review of Related Literature .......................................................................................14

Political Perspective ...............................................................................................14

Theory of Automaticity..........................................................................................16

Importance of Reading Fluency .............................................................................17

Reading Fluency Assessments ...............................................................................19

Phonemic Awareness .............................................................................................22

ix
Fluency Strategies ..................................................................................................23

Guided Oral Reading .................................................................................24

Modeling ....................................................................................................25

Repeated Reading ......................................................................................26

Reader’s Theater ........................................................................................27

Choral Reading ..........................................................................................28

Partner Reading..........................................................................................28

Text Selection ............................................................................................29

Computer-Assisted Instruction ..............................................................................29

Read Naturally Research........................................................................................32

Conclusion .............................................................................................................36

3. Methodology ................................................................................................................38

Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................38

Research Questions ................................................................................................38

Review of Related Literature .................................................................................39

Research Design.....................................................................................................40

Population ..............................................................................................................41

Instrumentation ......................................................................................................43

Data Collection ......................................................................................................45

Data Analysis .........................................................................................................47

Summary ................................................................................................................49

4. Findings........................................................................................................................50

Research Question One ..........................................................................................50

x
Research Question Two .........................................................................................50

Research Question Three .......................................................................................53

Research Question Four .........................................................................................53

Research Question Five .........................................................................................54

Research Question Six ...........................................................................................56

References ....................................................................................................................57

5. Manuscript ...................................................................................................................64

Abstract ..................................................................................................................64

Introduction ............................................................................................................65

Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................67

Theory of Automaticity..............................................................................67

Significance of the Study ...........................................................................69

Review of Related Literature .................................................................................69

Importance of Reading Fluency .................................................................69

Reading Fluency Assessments ...................................................................71

Reading Strategies .....................................................................................72

Computer-Assisted Instruction ..................................................................73

Methodology ..........................................................................................................74

Research Design.........................................................................................74

Research Questions ....................................................................................75

Population ..................................................................................................75

Instrumentation ..........................................................................................77

Data Analysis .............................................................................................78

xi
Findings..................................................................................................................79

Limitations and Delimitations of Study .....................................................85

Assumptions...............................................................................................85

Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................86

Discussion ..............................................................................................................89

References ..............................................................................................................93

Appendices

A. Approval from Board of Education .............................................................................96

B. IRB Approval ...............................................................................................................98

xii
List of Tables

Tables in Chapters 1-4 PAGE

1. FAST CBM Benchmarks ...................................................................................................21

2. District Student Demographics ..........................................................................................41

3. Student Grade Level/Gender..............................................................................................42

4. Oral Reading Fluency FAST Benchmarks ........................................................................44

5. Mean Change in Fluency Rates on the FAST Assessment ................................................50

6. Mean Change in Fluency Rates by Gender on the FAST Assessment ..............................50

7. Variance of Growth Between Males and Females (Interaction of time by gender) ..........52

8. Variance of Scores Between Males and Females (Main effect of gender) ........................52

9. Variance of Scores Between Minority and Non-Minority Students ..................................53

10. Variance of Scores Between Students Who Qualify for Free or Reduced Lunch and

Students Who Do Not Qualify for Free or Reduced Lunch...............................................53

11. Variance of Scores Between Students with an Individualized Education Plan and

Students without an Individualized Education Plan ..........................................................54

12. Mean Change in Fluency Rates by IEP and Non-IEP on the FAST Assessment ..............55

13. Frequency of Intervention Based on Rotations in Read Live Program ..............................56

Tables in the Manuscript

1. District Student Demographics ..........................................................................................76

2. Student Grade Level/Gender..............................................................................................77

3. Oral Reading Fluency FAST Benchmarks ........................................................................78

4. Mean Change in Fluency Rates on the FAST Assessment ................................................79

5. Mean Change in Fluency Rates by Gender on the FAST Assessment ..............................80

xiii
6. Variance of Growth Between Males and Females (Interaction of time by gender) ......... 81

7. Variance of Scores Between Males and Females (Main effect of gender) ........................82

8. Variance of Scores Between Students with an Individualized Education Plan and

Students without an Individualized Education Plan ..........................................................83

9. Mean Change in Fluency Rates by IEP and Non-IEP on the FAST Assessment ..............84

10. Frequency of Intervention Based on Rotations in Read Live Program .............................84

xiv
1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Reading is the foundation for learning and the window for life. Davis (2016) wrote on

his website Learn to Read, eleven reasons why reading is important. Davis explains that reading

is a life skill needed to function in society for things like finding a job, reading a medicine bottle,

and being able to do daily activities. He also describes the brain as a muscle that must be

exercised in order to develop and grow. As learners, we are able to discover, grow an

imagination, be creative, and be better communicators. Davis (2016) ends by explaining,

“…reading is important because words – spoken and written – are the building blocks of life”

(para. 13).

To be a successful reader, students must be proficient in five areas: phonemic awareness,

decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. An easily defined characteristic of a good

reader is one who reads fluently while a poor reader lacks fluency. Hudson, Lane, and Pollen

(2005) explain, “Differences in reading fluency not only distinguish good readers from poor, but

a lack of reading fluency is also a reliable predictor of reading comprehension problems” (p.

702). Reading fluency “lays a foundation on which readers build their reading skills to become

strategic and versatile in using a variety of cognitive and metacognitive strategies of reading”

(Taguchi, Melhem, & Kawaguchi, 2016, p. 106).

Legislators in the State of Iowa recognized the importance of reading fluently and the

connection to predicting reading comprehension. They recognized a need for something to be

done in the State of Iowa to increase reading scores of elementary age students. During the 2012

legislative session, legislators passed Iowa Code section 279.68 also known as Early Literacy

Implementation (ELI) Law to ensure Iowa students meet reading proficiency goals by the end of
2

their third-grade year. The intent of this new law was to “promote effective evidence-based

programming, instruction, and assessment practices across schools” by setting high expectations

for Iowa School Districts (Iowa Department of Education, 2017b). Little attention was given to

ELI once passed due to fiscal restraints of the new law. No dollars were appropriated, and no

rules were written.

During the 2013 legislative session, the State Board of Education adopted Iowa

Administrative Code 281, Chapter 62, which put rules in place for Iowa Code 279.68 after $8

million were appropriated by the legislators to support and fund ELI. The state began their work

to develop an early warning system for districts to use to identify at-risk readers. Select schools

began piloting an early warning system during the 2014-15 school year, and the following year

schools statewide began to receive training on this new system.

The Early Literacy Initiative is a complex law that has changed the way schools approach

working with struggling readers. It has many components beginning with universal screening.

All kindergarten through third-grade students must be screened three times a year; fall, winter,

and spring, using an approved tool by the Iowa Department of Education. Once the screening is

completed it will be determined if students are showing “adequate progress,” are “at-risk”

readers or are considered “persistently at-risk” (Iowa Department of Education, 2017e, p. 1).

ELI then recommends that any student identified as at-risk be placed in a reading intervention. It

is required that students considered persistently at-risk receive a research-based intensive reading

intervention program for ninety minutes a day (Iowa Department of Education, 2017e).

During the 2014-15 school year, administrative rules were written setting the criteria for

an intensive summer reading program with plans to begin researching programs during the 2016-

17 school year to develop a comprehensive program. Also during the 2016-17 school year,
3

administrative rules were finalized outlining the details of the third-grade retention piece of the

law for students identified as persistently at-risk (Iowa Department of Education, 2017e, p. 1).

Starting in May 2018, students who are not proficient on statewide reading assessments at the

end of their third-grade year and are also identified persistently at-risk will be required to enroll

in an intensive summer reading program or be retained unless they meet one of the good-cause

exemptions defined by the Department of Education.

ELI has pushed schools to monitor reading achievement more closely and to put the focus

on universal screening, progress monitoring, and intensive instruction to ensure that non-

proficient readers are making gains. A model the State has adopted and which schools are

implementing is the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), which provides schools with an

approach that provides early intervention to at-risk students. MTSS is:

[a] framework of evidence-based practices in instruction and assessment that addresses

the needs of all students…MTSS allows educators to judge the overall health of their

educational system by examining data on the educational system as well as identifying

students who need additional supports. Those supports are provided in both small group

and individual settings, and are monitored to ensure they support all learners demonstrate

proficiency in the Iowa Core standards and leave school ready for life. (Iowa Department

of Education, 2017d)

The MTSS framework focuses not only on the students, but the system as a whole. This

framework brings educators together to collaborate on student achievement but also use data to

put structures in place to prevent students from not meeting the standards.

The MTSS model has the potential to impact all students. By aligning instruction and

assessments with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), teachers can make instructional
4

decisions to meet the needs of all learners. Students not meeting CCSS and grade-level

indicators may need more intense instruction which may or may not eventually lead them to

special education.

According to the Iowa Department of Education (2017e), the Iowa model of MTSS has

five essential components: a) curriculum and quality instruction; b) universal screening of every

student; c) instructional interventions that are evidence-based targeting those students who need

them; d) on-going progress monitoring; and e) making data-based decisions. Through this

process of MTSS, schools can use student progress monitoring data to make decisions on the

effectiveness of the intervention by determining whether additional interventions are needed or if

a student needs to move to the next step in the identification process. This framework focuses on

each student’s individual needs and guides educators to deliver instructional interventions to

meet those needs.

In 2013, the Iowa Department of Education adopted the Formative Assessment System

for Teachers (FAST) K-6 to “support implementation of MTSS” (Iowa Department of

Education, 2017e). This suite includes universal screening assessments and progress monitoring

tools for Iowa schools to use to meet the ELI law while supporting the MTSS model. The State

Department chose FAST as the statewide universal screener due to its ability to track progress on

students’ fluency which also measures “phonological awareness, sounds, words, text reading and

reading behaviors” (Iowa Reading Research Center, 2017).

During the 2013-14 school year, a school superintendent in the Midwest tasked the

building leadership team (BLT) at an elementary school in his district to take a closer look at

student achievement data due to the school being on the School In Need of Assistance (SINA)

list for reading and math. What the BLT found were achievement gaps in two subgroups: special
5

education students and English-Language Learners (ELL). Achievement gaps were also found

among students identified as at-risk. These struggling students needed intensive interventions

but based on the structure of the day, intervention time was not possible, unless it happened

during recess or before or after school. Through a yearlong planning process, the BLT

developed Whatever I Need (WIN) time.

The BLT worked with the structure of the school day by cutting passing time down

throughout the day, by eliminating one recess and by lengthening the remaining recess from

fifteen to twenty minutes. This helped to create a 30-minute intervention block called WIN time.

WIN was implemented in the fall of 2014 with all students. Identified at-risk and persistently at-

risk students received two days of intensive instruction in the area of math and two days of

intensive instruction in reading. Wednesday was an early out day, which means students were

dismissed forty-five minutes early so staff could participate in Professional Learning

Communities at the end of the school day. This shortened the WIN schedule by ten minutes so

all classes would meet prior to dismissal on Wednesdays. This shorter WIN time was used to

monitor progress of students using the Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) and

Individual Education Plan (IEP) goals. Students not identified as needing an intervention were

placed in on-level groups. These students rotated through brain games, novel studies, music

keyboarding, technology, and physical fitness activities.

After evaluating the effectiveness of year one, the BLT saw that students who were able

to stay in an intervention group all four days focusing on only reading or math made greater

gains than those in the two-day rotations. During year two, the leadership team decided to focus

on one intervention area at a time for six weeks. Teachers used STAR Reading and STAR Math

reports along with FAST scores to determine which intervention a student received
6

(Renaissance, 2016). Students who showed deficiencies in reading would be placed in a reading

intervention group that included instruction in phonics, vocabulary, fluency, or comprehension.

Students who were deficient in math were placed in a math group and those students meeting

grade level expectations would be in an on-level rotation cycle. At the end of the WIN rotation,

students were assessed using the STAR Reading and STAR Math assessments to look for growth

and further deficiencies. Students could continue in the same WIN group or move to a new

group based on the highest need of the student.

At the end of year two, the BLT once again looked at the effectiveness of WIN time and

made small changes with the start of the 2016-17 school year. The structure remained the same,

four days a week, thirty minutes a day for six weeks, devoted to working on one intervention.

However, the focus shifted from effectively identifying students, as the staff had become

proficient in that area, to the interventions being used and to their effectiveness.

One intervention that has been used since WIN time was implemented is the Read

Naturally Live fluency intervention program (Read Naturally, 2017a). This program

incorporates the repeated reading strategy, which addresses students’ fluency deficiencies.

Select students identified as persistently at-risk or at-risk on the FAST reading assessment were

placed in the Read Naturally Live program as an intervention during WIN time. These students

met four days a week for 30 minutes for a duration of six to seven weeks, depending on the

length of the WIN rotation.

Read Naturally Live is a web-based intervention program that utilizes the Read Naturally

Strategy. This strategy combines teacher modeling with repeated reading and progress

monitoring while engaging students with non-fiction informational texts to practice reading

fluently. The program works on reading fluency skills while also practicing vocabulary, phonics,
7

and comprehension skills. When students are able to recognize words their fluency increases so

they can turn their focus to understanding and gaining meaning from the text.

Theory of Automaticity

The idea of fluency dates back as far as the late19th century with researchers like

William MacKeen Cattell (1886) and Edmund Burke Huey (1908) studying and beginning the

discussion on reading fluency. In 1974, David LaBerge and Jay Samuels further defined fluency

through automaticity. They explain how readers are able to “attend to one thing at a time” while

being “able to process many things at a time so long as no more than one requires attention”

(LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, p. 295). They go on to explain that words are processed through

stages while working toward comprehension. Each of these stages are “processed automatically”

and each stage “must be automatic as well” (p. 295). In order to be a fluent reader, the reader

needs “microlevel subskills,” meaning they need to know letter sounds and combinations along

with the meaning of the words (Wolf, 2017).

LaBerge and Samuels found that there are two tasks that readers use energy for when

reading; word recognition and comprehension (Rasinski, 2014). The theory was “based on the

assumption that the transformation of written stimuli into meanings involves a sequence of

stages of information processing” (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, p. 296). It explained that when

one task is at work, cognitive energy is being used and is no longer available for the other task.

Therefore, “when readers have to use excessive amount(s) of their cognitive energy for word

recognition, they have reduced the amount of cognitive energy available for comprehension”

(Rasinski, 2014, p. 4).

The Theory of Automaticity demonstrates how “visual information is transformed and

processed…from visual, phonological, and episodic memory until it finally reaches semantic
8

memory” (Schrauben, 2010, p. 84) and is comprehended. Over the course of several grade levels

and with reading practice, decoding and word recognition becomes more automatic. When word

recognition becomes automatic, cognitive energy can be used to comprehend what is being read

and the reader gains understanding of the text (Rasinski, Blachowicz, & Lems, 2012).

As readers are repeatedly exposed to print, they will begin to recognize words with more

accuracy and automaticity (Schrauben, 2010, p. 84). Read Naturally Live exposes students to

words using the repeated reading strategy to increase automatic word recognition shifting the

attention from reading words to comprehending the text. Samuels (1997) explains, “as less

attention is required for decoding, more attention becomes available for comprehension” (p.

378).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Read Naturally Live as a

fluency intervention with at-risk and persistently at-risk third and fourth-grade students in an

elementary school during the 2016-17 school year. Pre- and post-intervention data were

compared to evaluate the computer-based fluency program using the Iowa Department of

Education approved universal screening tool. The study set out to determine the effect of a

reading intervention program on student achievement as measured by words correct per minute

using the Curriculum Based Measurement for Reading (CBM-R) assessment.

Research Questions

This study was guided by the following questions:

1. How has the Read Naturally Live fluency program impacted the oral reading fluency

achievement as measured by the Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST)

assessment?
9

2. What differences exists between oral reading fluency rates of males and oral reading

fluency rates of females as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read

Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?

3. What differences exist between oral reading fluency rates of students of minority and

non-minority students as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read

Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?

4. What differences exists between oral reading fluency rates of students qualified for free

or reduced lunch and oral reading fluency rates of students not qualified for free and

reduced lunch as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read Naturally

Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?

5. What differences exist in oral reading fluency rates between students identified as having

an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and students not identified as having an

Individualized Education Plan (non-IEP) as measured by the FAST assessment after

utilizing the Read Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?

6. What is the relationship between the amount of time spent in Read Naturally Live and the

growth of oral reading fluency rates?

Significance of the Study

FAST assessment data indicated that a percentage of students at an elementary school

were not at the proficient level at the end of third-grade despite interventions being put into

place. This study examined the Read Naturally Live fluency program and determined if the

program increased fluency scores of third and fourth-grade students identified as at–risk and

persistently at-risk at this elementary school. The results of this study offer schools the

opportunity to see results of fluency scores to determine if the program may be a possible
10

solution in their own districts. Evidence has shown that “students who read with automaticity

and have appropriate speed, accuracy, and proper expression are more likely to comprehend

material because they are able to focus on the meaning of the text” (Rasplica & Cummings,

2013). Reading fluency can thus be used as a predictor for student performance on state reading

assessments.

The State of Iowa has put reading fluency at the forefront of the Early Literacy

Implementation statute and therefore, schools must put interventions in place to close the gap of

readers identified persistently at-risk. This study set out to determine the effect of Read

Naturally Live on oral reading fluency scores using pre- and post-data from the 2016-17 school

year.

Definition of Terms

The following definitions are provided to ensure uniformity and understanding of these

terms throughout the study.

Adequately progressing. “The student is meeting screening benchmarks and is on track

to meet grade-level reading proficiency” (Iowa Department of Education, 2017a, p. 2).

At-risk. “The student is below benchmark for the first time, or was previously

‘persistently at-risk’ and met the benchmark once” (Iowa Department of Education,

2017a, p. 2).

Common Core State Standards. A set of academic standards that lay out what students

should know at the end of each grade level in mathematics and English language arts

(Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2017).

Early Literacy Implementation (ELI). “Promotes effective evidence-based

programming, instruction, and assessment practices across schools to support all students
11

to become proficient readers by the end of third grade” (Iowa Department of Education,

2017b).

Effective intervention. When growth is shown from pre- to post- intervention data.

Intervention. “Explicit and systematic instruction tailored to meet the identified needs

of struggling readers” (Florida Center for Reading Research, 2007).

Multi-Tiered System of Supports. A decision-making framework of evidence-based

practices in instruction and assessment that addresses the needs of all students (Iowa

Department of Education, 2017d).

Persistently at-risk. “The student has had difficulty meeting benchmarks over time. The

parents must be notified, research-based interventions must be provided, and the school

must monitor the child’s progress” (Iowa Department of Education, 2017a, p. 2).

Phonemic awareness. Reader can identify and manipulate the smallest units of sounds,

phonemes, to properly read words (Begin to Read, 2015).

Progress monitoring. Assesses a student’s progress of an intervention being

implemented so instruction can be adjusted to meet the student’s needs and to evaluate

the effectiveness of the intervention (National Center on Response to Intervention, 2016).

Reading fluency. Reader reads with speed, accuracy, and expression (Reading Rockets,

2016b).

Struggling readers. Readers read one or more years below their current grade level but

do not have an identified learning disability of any kind. Perceived as lacking the skills

other students possess (Hall, 2014).


12

Substantially deficient. Student’s performance is below a standard set on an approved

assessment and whose progress monitoring is minimal (Iowa Department of Education,

2015).

Universal screening. Brief assessment given to all students, three times a year, to

identify students who are at-risk on the targeted skill being assessed (RTI Action

Network, 2017).

Limitations and Delimitations

The following limitations and delimitations were present in this study:

1. Due to the small sample available for the study, results may not be generalizable beyond

the specific population from which the sample was drawn.

2. The data is limited to only one year. Additional years or different years may produce

different results.

3. The study does not look at the effectiveness of Read Naturally Live at kindergarten

through second grade.

4. During some WIN rotations, the group sizes were either more or less than the target

number. These fluctuations were beyond the control of the researcher.

5. Only students who were assessed on the fall universal screener in September were

included in this study.

6. The overall student population was limited to third and fourth-grade students who

attended the elementary school for a full academic year.

7. The FAST fluency assessment was administered to all third and fourth-grade students in

September, January, and May.

8. The strategies used in this study were beyond the control of the researcher.
13

Assumptions

The following assumptions were present in this study:

1. The building principal had a knowledge base of the Iowa Multi-Tiered System of

Supports model including the five components making the model effective.

2. Trained personnel implemented Read Naturally Live with fidelity and efficacy.

3. Certified teachers gave FAST Assessments and completed the progress monitoring.

4. FAST data were manually entered into the data system correctly.

Organization of the Study

Chapter 1 presented the introduction, Theory of Automaticity, purpose of the study,

research questions, significance of the study, definition of terms, limitations of the study,

delimitations of the study, and assumptions made during the research. Chapter 2 contains a

review of literature and research related to the implementation of the Early Literacy Initiative. It

includes the political perspectives of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Every Student Succeeds

Act (ESSA), Early Literacy Initiative (ELI), and Multi-Tier System of Support (MTSS). It looks

into the importance of oral reading fluency (ORF) and how the research supports this concept.

Chapter 2 will also further define reading fluency assessments including universal screeners,

benchmarks, and progress monitoring. It will also review current trends, strategies and

interventions to support oral reading fluency goals. The methodology and procedures used to

gather data for this study, including participants, data gathering procedures, and data analysis are

described in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 will display the pre and post fluency results for students who

were engaged in Read Naturally Live during the 2016-17 school year. A summary of the study

and its conclusions drawn from the findings, a discussion, and recommendations for practice and

further study will be presented in Chapter 5.


14

CHAPTER 2

Review of Related Literature

Reading is the foundation for learning and being able to read fluently allows readers to

focus on understanding the text and comprehending what is being read. Chapter 2 provides a

comprehensive review of literature related to oral reading fluency how it supports

comprehension. The chapter also presents a description of a variety of fluency strategies

including computer-assisted interventions. This chapter is divided into the following sections:

Political Perspective, Theory of Automaticity, Importance of Oral Reading Fluency, Reading

Fluency Assessments, Phonemic Awareness, Fluency Strategies, Computer-Assisted Instruction

and Read Naturally Research.

Political Perspective

On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Act into law. When this was enacted, the Federal Government updated the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which held all public school districts and states accountable.

This new law focused on accountability and success for every student by setting expectations of

having all students achieve proficiency by the 2013-14 school year.

Students were assessed in grade three through eight in reading and math, and adequate

yearly progress was reported at the state level. Federal funds were directly tied to the progress

schools made (Klein, 2015). No Child Left Behind ensured districts hired highly qualified

teachers and parents were given school choice options if their child’s school was not making

adequate yearly progress.

NCLB expired in 2007, but until something new was written, it was still the law that

governed all public school districts in the United States. The law stated that all students will be
15

proficient at grade level by 2014, and if schools were underperforming, tight sanctions were

enforced. On December 10, 2015, President Obama signed into law Every Student Succeeds Act

(ESSA), which replaced No Child Left Behind and updated ESEA.

ESSA pulls back the Federal Government’s involvement and gives the decision-making

power back to the states and local school districts. ESSA will go into effect during the 2017-18

school year with states submitting an accountability plan “that addresses academic standards,

assessments, school and district accountability, funding and support for struggling schools” in

which the Department of Education will review and approve (Iowa Department of Education,

2017c). The State of Iowa released the state accountability plan for public review on January 6,

2017. The State will maintain annual assessments to measure Common Core and state standards

while monitoring student and district progress towards the standards. The new law will give

districts flexibility in supporting low achieving students through interventions.

During the 2012 legislative session, the State of Iowa saw a need for change within the

State so, legislators passed Iowa Code section 279.68 which is known as the Early Literacy

Implementation (ELI) Law to ensure Iowa students meet reading proficiency goals by the end of

their third-grade year (Iowa Department of Education, 2017e, p. 1). During the 2013 legislative

session, the State Board of Education adopted Iowa Administrative Code 281, Chapter 62, which

put rules in place for Iowa Code 279 or ELI. Eight million dollars were appropriated by the

legislators to support and fund ELI at this time (Iowa Department of Education, 2017e, p. 1).

The Early Literacy Initiative contains many components to ensure students are reading

fluently at grade level by the end of their third-grade year. These components include universal

screening, progress monitoring, reading instruction and interventions, parent communication,

summer reading program and third-grade retention. Through ELI, all K-3 students must be
16

assessed three times a year using a State approved universal screener. Students are placed into

three categories: adequately progress, at-risk or persistently at-risk. Those students identified as

persistently at-risk must receive additional reading interventions and be progress monitored

weekly to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. This is also recommended for students

considered at-risk, yet it is not a requirement.

As a way to identify interventions and best practices, the State of Iowa has adopted a

framework for districts to follow called Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). MTSS has

five key components according to the Iowa Department of Education webpage (2017d). First is

evidence-based curriculum and instruction provided at the universal level. Next is universal

screening of all students. The third component is evidence-based, instructional interventions at

the targeted and intensive levels for students who need them. Fourth is progress monitoring for

learners below benchmark expectations and finally, data-based decision making needs to be done

throughout the system. At the time of the study, Iowa PK-12 schools used the MTSS framework

to implement ELI, which includes universal screening, progress monitoring, and interventions.

Theory of Automaticity

The idea of fluency dates back as far as the late19th century with researchers like

William MacKeen Cattell (1886) and Edmund Burke Huey (1908) studying and beginning the

discussion on reading fluency. In 1974, David LaBerge and Jay Samuels further defined fluency

through automaticity. They explain how readers are able to “attend to one thing at a time” while

being “able to process many things at a time so long as no more than one requires attention”

(LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, p. 295). They go on to explain that words are processed through

stages while working toward comprehension. Each of these stages are “processed automatically”

and each stage “must be automatic as well” (p. 295). In order to be a fluent reader, the reader
17

needs “microlevel subskills,” meaning they need to know letter sounds and combinations along

with the meaning of the words (Wolf, 2017).

LaBerge and Samuels found that there are two tasks that readers use energy for when

reading; word recognition and comprehension (Rasinski, 2014, p. 4). The theory was “based on

the assumption that the transformation of written stimuli into meanings involves a sequence of

stages of information processing” (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, p. 296). It explained that when

one task is at work, cognitive energy is being used and is no longer available for the other task.

Therefore, “when readers have to use excessive amount(s) of their cognitive energy for word

recognition, they have reduced the amount of cognitive energy available for comprehension”

(Rasinski, 2014, p. 4).

The Theory of Automaticity demonstrates how “visual information is transformed and

processed…from visual, phonological, and episodic memory until it finally reaches semantic

memory” (Schrauben, 2010, p. 84) and is comprehended. Over the course of several grade levels

and with reading practice, decoding and word recognition becomes more automatic. When word

recognition becomes automatic, cognitive energy can be used to comprehend what is being read

and the reader gains understanding of the text (Rasinski et al., 2012).

Importance of Reading Fluency

Reading fluency is a fundamental component of reading. The National Reading Panel

(NRP) dedicated an entire chapter to fluency in its 2000 report on teaching students to read. One

reason the panel included fluency in its review is due to students inability to read fluently

(National Reading Panel, 2000). Prior to the NRP report, the National Assessment of

Educational Progress looked at fluency achievement among fourth-grade students in America


18

and found “44% of students to be disfluent” (p. 189) on grade appropriate passages with testing

support.

Three key components define reading fluency and play an important role developing a

fluent reader. Fluency is defined as having the ability to read with speed, accuracy, and

expression (Schrauben, 2010, p. 85). Speed is the rate at which a person reads while accuracy is

how many words a reader reads correctly on a given passage. Expression, also known as

prosody, is the use of feelings and emotions while reading. When these components work

together, a reader is able to demonstrate fluency.

Rasinski (2004), a leading educator on fluency explains, “Reading fluency refers to the

reader’s ability to develop control over surface-level text processing so that he or she can focus

on understanding the deeper levels of meaning embedded in the text” (p. 46). Over the last forty

years, researchers have been linking reading fluency to reading comprehension thus creating a

need to better understand fluency and its components.

Reading comprehension difficulties can be detected early when poor fluency skills are

identified (Hudson et al., 2005, p. 702). Educators can therefore, use reading fluency as a

predictor of comprehension. When students no longer have to think about the words being read,

they can focus on the meaning of the text.

Kulich (2009) explains, “Students who read word by word and thus lack automaticity are

less likely to comprehend the meaning of the whole text” (p. 26). Kulich continues writing,

“comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading, and when any one component of fluency is

jeopardized, the reader is less likely to derive meaning from the text” (p. 26). When a reader

incorrectly reads a word or group of words, they are unable to comprehend the intended message
19

which leads to a lack of comprehension and understanding of the text (Hudson et al., 2005, p.

703).

A good reader is described as one who can read fluently while comprehending the text

being read (Rasinski et al., 2012). They are able to read at an appropriate rate, with a high level

of accuracy while being expressive to gain a deeper understanding of the text. A poor reader

who lacks fluency exerts their energy decoding words. They are often slow and labored making

comprehension difficult (Hudson et al., 2005, p. 702).

Fluent readers are able to maintain focus and generalize skills across texts while poor

readers are often characterized as being unable to complete work, remain focused and can lose

interest in school (Hudson et al., 2005, p. 704). For these reasons, Rasinski and Young (2014)

explains, “classroom-based research has shown that increases in fluency led to increases in

comprehension as readers’ attention can be focused away from the task of word recognition and

directed toward meaning making” (p. 1).

Reading Fluency Assessments

Fluency assessments are an important tool for educators as a way to identify struggling

readers and provide them with the support and interventions needed to be successful (Rasinski,

2014). Listening to students read aloud helps teachers make judgments of their reading rate,

accuracy, and prosody (Hudson et al., 2005, p. 705). When listening to a student read, three

components are evaluated. The first component is rate or speed to which the text is read.

Reading rate tells the number of words read correctly in a predetermined amount of time,

typically one minute. The next component assessed is accuracy. Accuracy is the number of

errors made while a student is reading aloud. The third component is prosody or expression.

The educator observes the student’s expression, phrasing, and voice emphasis to assess their
20

prosody. When these three components are evaluated on an unfamiliar passage, information is

collected to make educational based decisions.

Curriculum-based measurements (CBM) are the most common form of fluency

assessment. CBMs can be used as both a universal screener and progress-monitoring tool.

“CBM provides teachers with reliable and valid indicators of academic competence. With these

indicators of performance, teachers can gauge individual student standing at a given point in time

or can index student progress over time” (L. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 2007, p. 553).

L. S. Fuchs (2017) illustrated how CBM is considered a “simple indicator of academic

progress” (p. 5). It is simple because the assessment is quick and easy to administer. A CBM

can be used as an indicator of progress and “overall academic competence” (p. 5). In essence,

“CBM provides the tool by which teachers and schools can model students’ trajectories of

learning in a time frame that permits practitioners to use the data to tailor instructional programs,

with the goal-optimizing student outcomes” (p. 6).

A CBM is typically administered as a one-minute assessment given to students to assess

fluency and accuracy. It is given as a “cold” read to measure the student's initial reading rate

without practice. Students can read grade level or instructional level passages depending on the

purpose of the measure. The teacher is able to track a student’s errors, which show the accuracy

of the reader and subtract those errors from the words read correct. This will give a score of the

words read correct per minute (WCPM). Teachers can compare students’ scores against

benchmark or norms to determine academic progress towards a goal. Students whose scores fall

below the benchmark or norm may be considered at-risk and in need of further interventions

(Rasinski, 2014, p. 6).


21

With the passing of Iowa’s Early Literacy Initiative Iowa school districts were

introduced to the Formative Reading Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) suite. The FAST

suite houses a curriculum-based measurement for reading (CBM-R) system, which is now used

to assess students reading fluency across the state. FAST originated at the University of

Minnesota in 2010 through the work of Dr. Theodore Christ and colleagues and was funded by

the United States Department of Education (University of Minnesota, 2016).

FAST was created as a suite of assessment tools to assist educators in analyzing reading

skills by screening and monitoring the progress of elementary age students (Iowa Reading

Research Center, 2017). The CBM-R assessment tool in the FAST suite is an oral assessment

used to measure students’ fluency. The teacher listens to the student read three-grade level

passages for one-minute each, and the FAST system takes an average of the students WCPM and

accuracy from the three passages. The FAST system also has a progress-monitoring component

where students read one passage for one-minute weekly to monitor their progress toward the

determined fluency benchmark score.

Table 1 shows the FAST CBM-R fluency benchmarks for third and fourth-grade students

in the State of Iowa.

Table 1

FAST CBMreading Benchmarks

Grade Fall Winter Spring

Third 90 116 131

Fourth 116 136 150

Note. This information was retrieved from Iowa Tier, 2017.


22

A universal screener is administered three times a year to all students using the FAST

suite through the Iowa Tier. Students are identified as making adequate progress, at-risk, or

persistently at-risk after each universal screening is completed (Iowa Department of Education,

2017e, p. 1) Students identified as persistently at-risk are required to be provided intensive

intervention and be progress monitored weekly through the tier system. ELI requires school

districts to notify parents after each universal testing window of their child’s progress toward the

grade level benchmark score.

Phonemic Awareness

Before students can become fluent readers and have automatic word recognition, there

must be an understanding that letters make sounds. This understanding is known as phonemic

awareness which “is recognized for its importance as a precursor for reading development”

(Reading & Van Deuren, 2007, p. 267). Phonemic awareness is the ability to match sounds or

phonemes to letters and letter patterns (p. 268). Snider (1995) explained that “phonemic

awareness requires the ability to attend to one sound in the context of other sounds in the word”

(p. 444).

Young learners go through a process of reading development prior to having reading

automaticity. Snider (1995) explains five levels that readers move through when learning

phonemic awareness:

First is the appreciation of sounds in spoken language as evidenced by recitation of

nursery rhymes. Second is the ability to compare and contrast sounds in words by

grouping words with similar or dissimilar sounds at the beginning, middle, or end of a

word. Third is the ability to blend and split syllables. Fourth is phonemic segmentation
23

or the ability to isolate individual sounds in syllables. Fifth is the ability to manipulate

phonemes by omitting and deleting phonemes to make new words. (Snider, 1995, p. 444)

As readers go through the stages, they are able to store word segments so when they

encounter a new word, they can recall these segments to put the word together. As they continue

to have exposure through practice, segments become whole words and readers are able to

increase reading fluency through automatic recall. When readers have automatic recall, they

“unconsciously apply multiple strategies to decode and confirm unfamiliar words, resulting in

accurate, fluent reading” (Rasinski et al., 2012, p. 96).

Reading failure can be due to a lack of phonemic awareness skills (Reading & Van

Deuren, 2007, p. 269). Students need to be able to see patterns when reading, connect the

patterns to sounds and the sounds to words to understand phonemic awareness. When readers

are able to decode words, their word recognition increases and they can then turn their attention

to fluency and comprehension leading to a better chance of being a successful reader. Beginning

readers only have “so much attention and memory capacity” so if reading is inefficient then they

are unable to connect what they read to background knowledge and unable to comprehend the

text (Lyon, 1998).

Fluency Strategies

Successful readers need to have a good foundation of phonics so they can easily decode

words. This leads to word recognition and word attack, which will make the reader fluent and

once fluent able to comprehend the text being read. When a student does not have to think about

the word itself and how to read it and reading comes automatically, they can begin to focus on

the meaning of the text.


24

Samuels (1979) began studying and researching the reading process including improving

word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. In 1979, he introduced repeated reading as a

way for readers to practice word recognition and recall. When doing repeated reading, readers

repeatedly read a passage at their instructional level until they reach their desired fluency rate

while improving their decoding s5kills, reading rate, prosody, and comprehension.

Samuels (1979) claimed that readers go through three stages when practicing repeated

reading (p. 379). First is the ‘non-accurate’ stage where the reader has difficulty recognizing

words. Next is the ‘accurate’ stage when the reader is decoding slowly, without fluency or

comprehension. And finally, the ‘automatic’ stage when the reader is reading with automaticity

and expression and is able to comprehend what they are reading.

In 1979, Samuels built on his Theory of Automaticity (1974) by offering a practical

approach to help students gain automaticity and therefore learn to read fluently. He worked with

mentally challenged beginning readers by having them practice reading and rereading passages

from a story until they reached a predetermined rate. Over time, and through practice, these

mentally challenged students were able to gain fluency and automaticity by using the repeated

reading method (Rasinski et al., 2012, p. 11). Samuels proved through repeated exposure to

words, readers “should be able to recognize words with increasing accuracy and automaticity”

(Schrauben, 2010, p. 84).

Guided oral reading. Guided oral reading is an instructional strategy that can be

implemented at any reading level to improve fluency. It encompasses a variety or reading

strategies, including reading aloud, repeated reading, assistance with decoding and appropriate

text selection (Hoffman & Isaacs, 1991). Teachers meet with small groups of students who are
25

working at the same reading level while prompting students, modeling appropriate fluency and

providing encouragement to read with the goal of leading to improved comprehension.

A teacher begins the lesson by reading an appropriately leveled passage to a small group

of students at the same reading level. The students then read the passage silently to themselves.

When done, the teacher listens to each student read the passage aloud. This provides the teacher

the opportunity to monitor and assist each student with any words that may affect their fluency.

Guided oral reading allows the teacher to work with a small group in a structure that allows for

immediate feedback and monitoring of progress (Reading Rockets, 2016c).

According to the National Reading Panel (2000) using the strategy of guided oral reading

is an effective approach to improving overall reading fluency. The Panel wrote the procedures of

guided oral reading “had a consistent, and positive impact on word recognition, fluency, and

comprehension as measured by a variety of test instruments and at a range of grade levels” (p.

141). The Panel completed a meta-analysis and “found a weighted effect size average of 0.41,

suggesting that guided oral reading has a moderate impact upon reading achievement” (p. 141)

supporting the guided oral reading strategy.

Modeling. Children learn from watching and hearing others and reading is no exception.

Rasinski (2014) writes, “reading to children increases children’s motivation for reading, enlarges

their vocabulary, and also improves their comprehension” (p. 7). Through modeling, students

can hear appropriate fluency, including reading rate, prosody and accuracy while developing a

positive attitude toward reading. Modeling through read-alouds provides students the

opportunity to “hear what a fluent reader sounds like in order to internalize correct

pronunciation, syllabication, tone, and rhythm” (Kulich, 2009, p. 27).


26

Modeling can take place in a small, guided reading group where the teacher reads the text

to the students before beginning repeated reading strategies. It can also be used as a whole class

read-aloud which offers opportunities to expand students’ reading experiences by reading aloud a

story they would not have selected on their own. The teacher may also select text that is above

students’ reading level to motivate the reluctant reader to want to read. Throughout the modeling

process, the teacher can be engaging the students in discussions to build understanding and make

connections from text to comprehension.

Repeated reading. To develop fluency, students must practice reading. Samuels (1997)

explains in “The Method of Repeated Readings,” that “the method consists of rereading a short,

meaningful passage several times until a satisfactory level of fluency is reached” (p. 377).

Studies have continued to support the effectiveness of the repeated reading approach. Repeated

reading improves fluency by also improving decoding skills, rate, and prosody which leads to

improved comprehension (Guerin & Murphy, 2015; Hawkins, Marsicano, Schmitt, McCallum,

& Musti-Rao, 2015; Rasinski, 2004, p. 48).

Best practice is having students practice text at their instructional level to keep from

getting frustrated. If text is above the students’ instructional reading level, then support needs to

be offered by the teacher to keep the students from becoming frustrated. With the right amount

of support, struggling readers can read text above their independent reading level. Supporting it

is necessary to keep students engaged in the reading process.

Kuhn and Stahl (2003) evaluated 58 studies dealing with repeated reading and assisted

reading to see if one has a larger effect on reading fluency than the other. Assisted reading

provides the struggling reader an opportunity to listen to a fluent reader who models what the

text should sound like. Kuhn and Stahl’s findings supported the work of Samuels and Dahl’s in
27

that repeated reading does increase reading rate and accuracy and therefore is a successful

strategy.

Kuhn and Stahl (2003) found assisted reading to be successful with the only drawback

being the time constraints needed to have an adult work with a student one-on-one (p. 9). Based

on their study, they also concluded that both strategies enabled readers to read more difficult

passages and found that students’ comprehension increased when practicing repeated reading,

unassisted or assisted (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003).

Practicing repeated reading offers readers the opportunity to rehearse the text they are

reading. This more authentic approach helps the readers develop prosody while gaining meaning

of the text. Students who engage in authentic repeated reading opportunities through

performance experiences “make exceptional gains on various dimensions of reading, including

measures of reading fluency” (Rasinski, 2014, p. 10). There are many variations of the repeated

reading strategy that provide readers with an authentic performance experience.

Reader’s theater. Reader’s theater is a strategy that has been shown through studies to

help students improve their fluency as well as their attitude toward reading (Kulich, 2009, p. 28).

Within a group, students read scripts or stories, practicing their assigned parts to present to an

audience. Through practicing they learn the vocabulary and are able to incorporate phrasing and

expression into their performance.

Reader’s theater gives students a purpose to read. Lower, reluctant readers can practice

fluency while fluent readers can explore characterization through expressive reading. Reader’s

theater is often performed without props so students must use their voice through expression to

portray their characters.


28

Choral reading. Another repeated reading strategy is choral reading. When students are

engaged in choral reading, the teacher is leading the reading, providing a model of fluent

reading, and the students join in to orally read the text in unison. This process is repeated until

they reach the desired fluency rate with good accuracy and expression. This strategy helps to

build self-confidence with students who may struggle to read fluently by providing them support

before they are expected to read on their own (Reading Rockets, 2016a). By reading aloud as a

group, students can feel successful and not be self-conscious about reading aloud (Paige, 2011).

Choral reading can help students not only increase fluency, but also build sight words and

improve decoding skills (Kulich, 2009). While choral reading, students are using repeated

reading, reading the same text several times to improve automaticity and fluency.

Partner reading. Partner reading is another strategy where students are paired up and

take turns reading to one another (Reading Rockets, 2016d). This strategy works best when a

strong reader is paired up with an emerging reader so the strong reader can model fluent reading.

The strong reader then listens to the emerging reader reading while giving assistance, feedback,

and encouragement. If a strong reader is not available, two readers of the same level can be

paired up to reread a passage that has been read to them or they have received instruction on

from their teacher (Katz & Bohman, 2007)

Kuhn and Stahl (2003) concluded in their study that fluency increases based on the

amount of time spent reading. An increase of reading practice, not necessarily the repetition of

reading, but the time spent reading, effects reading fluency. The National Reading Panel (2000)

agreed that “fluency develops from reading practice” (pp. 3-1). Since the repeated reading

strategy increases time spent reading through repeated practice, the Panel concluded that there
29

was a “positive impact on word recognition, fluency, and comprehension…at a range of grade

levels” (National Reading Panel, 2000, pp. 3-3).

Text selection. When choosing an appropriate text to use with readers there are several

considerations teachers must keep in mind. First is type of text being utilized. Informational text

is the most common type of text; however, these types of text can be lengthy and do not provide

the reader opportunities to practice reading with prosody. Rasinski (2014) promotes the use of

texts that students can practice and perform such as poetry, scripts and song lyrics which allow

students to show prosody and are an appropriate length that students will not get frustrated or

bored using the repeated reading strategies (p. 10). By choosing passages from a variety of

genres, students will find texts that motivate them so they do not get bored with only one type of

text.

Next is the difficulty level of the text. Students who practice reading fluency with little

support should have text at their independent reading level. If support is being given in a small

group or one-on-one setting, then frustration level text can be used. It has been shown “when

text levels of text difficulty increase, most students’ reading rates decrease” (Rasinski et al.,

2012, p. 120). However, Rasinski (2014) sited research by Kuhn and Stahl (2003) which found

in multiple studies that with the appropriate support, students fluency rates increased when the

texts were above students’ instructional level (p. 11).

Computer-Assisted Instruction

Teacher guided oral reading incorporating repeated reading strategies “confers benefits,

but human guidance incurs costs” (Mostow, Nelson-Taylor, & Beck, 2013, p. 250). Limited

time in the school day restrict teachers’ ability to work one-on-one or in small groups with
30

students to improve reading skills. Computer-assisted instruction provides students with the

opportunity to engage in their learning while offering the following:

…immediate (and corrective) feedback, reinforcement and modeling. Students are often

able to work at their own pace, engage in interesting and motivating activities, receive

many opportunities to repeatedly practice skills to build fluency, and develop master in

an environment that is not threatening or embarrassing. (Keyes, Cartledge, Gibson Jr, &

Robinson-Ervin, 2016, p. 143)

When computer-assisted instruction is available, it allows more students to receive

individualized lessons at their instructional level. Students can have repeated practice on reading

skills for an extended period of time without requiring one-on-one teacher attention. Computer-

assisted instruction supports “student access to targeted, systematic, and explicit reading

instruction” (Fenty, Mulcahy, & Washburn, 2015, p. 141) while providing them the opportunity

to engage with a variety of texts.

One such computer-assisted instructional program that provides students the opportunity

to work on reading fluency skills while also practicing vocabulary, phonics, and comprehension

is Read Naturally Live. Read Naturally Live (Read Naturally, 2017a) is a web-based

intervention program, which models the Read Naturally print program, focused on improving

reading fluency. The program utilizes the Read Naturally Strategy, which “combines the three

powerful, research-proven reading intervention strategies to create an effective tool that

individualizes instruction and improves reading proficiency” (Read Naturally, 2017a). The Read

Naturally Strategy combines teacher modeling with repeated reading and progress monitoring

while engaging students with non-fiction, informational texts to practice reading fluency.
31

The first strategy, teacher modeling, incorporates audio support by reading the passages

to the students during the lesson. By listening to a model reader the student is able to hear words

they may not know pronounced correctly (Read Naturally, 2017a). They can also hear

appropriate prosody (expression and phrasing) while listening to the text being read aloud.

The Read Naturally program embraces the repeated reading strategy to improve reading

fluency by having students reread the story three to ten times until they reach the desired rate.

While doing this, students are able to “master difficult words, increase accuracy, and improve

expression” (Read Naturally, 2017a).

Progress monitoring is the third strategy of the Read Naturally Strategy that tracks

student’s progress on each lesson. Through graphs and visuals, students are able to track their

progress from a cold to hot read, which serves as a motivator to increase their fluency reading

rate.

Students are given a benchmark reading assessment to place them at their instructional

reading level before beginning the program. Once placed, a reading rate goal is set and the

student then begins their first lesson. They select a nonfiction, instructional story and keywords

are identified for them. Students then make a prediction of the story. A one-minute cold timing

is completed with the adult supervisor listening and marking any errors. When an error is made,

the program reads the correct word for the student.

The student then listens to the story encompassing the teacher modeling strategy.

Students listen to the whole story three times, each time getting a little faster. They then practice

reading the story independently using the repeated reading strategy. Once the student feels they

have reached their desired rate, they complete a comprehension quiz and write a retell of the

story.
32

Students finish the lesson with a hot timing with the adult supervisor listening and

counting errors. The adult supervisor then enters the number of words read correct in one minute

and the program shows the student with a chart if they met their goal and how much growth they

made from the cold read to the hot read bringing in the third strategy, progress monitoring.

Students need to meet their hot timing goal and pass the comprehension questions and retell

which are evaluated by the adult monitoring the program before moving to their next lesson.

The report, “Read Naturally Rationale and Research” (Read Naturally, 2017b) shares

other benefits to the Read Naturally Strategy. Students are able to work independently

increasing time on task and active engagement. While students are waiting to complete a cold or

hot read, they are able to practice target vocabulary words, instead of sitting and waiting for the

adult supervisor.

Students are taught how to select stories of high interest to them and at their instructional

level (Read Naturally, 2017b). The immediate feedback is motivating for some students. It

encourages them to “beat their previous score” (p. 35) and the graphs provide a visual, which

motivates some students to want to improve.

Finally, the report explains how “students develop greater confidence,” “exhibit fewer

behavior problems,” and “get excited about reading” (Read Naturally, 2017b, p. 35). Students

are able to see and feel success working with the Read Naturally program through improved

fluency skills using the Read Naturally Strategies.

Read Naturally Research

The research has mixed results when determining if the Read Naturally program impacts

student’s fluency rates, comprehension, vocabulary, and ability to generalize to non-familiar text.

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) from the U.S. Department of Education issued an updated
33

summary of the Read Naturally program in July 2013. Five studies met the WWC requirements

and standards to be considered for its evaluation of the program.

When evaluating reading fluency, “one study showed a statistically significant positive

effect, three studies showed an indeterminate effect, and no studies showed a statistically

significant or substantively important negative effect” (What Works Clearninghouse, 2007, pp.

5-6). The fifth study did not meet the standards to be considered for reading fluency results. For

comprehension, four of the five studies met the standards with all four studies “showing an

indeterminate effect, with no studies showing a statistically significant or substantively important

positive…or negative effect” (p. 7).

Keyes et al. (2016) examined the Read Naturally Software Edition (RNSE) with a

population of six second-grade students. Demographics included one male/five female; one

Asian/five African American; one IEP(speech)/five non-IEP; and one English-Language

Learning/five non-ELLs. The study lasted 16 weeks. found that “all participants made gains in

ORF on the RNSE and AIMSweb generalization probes” (Keyes et al., 2016, p. 164). The

participants’ also showed improvements in their comprehension based on their oral retelling of

the stories.

When interviewed, teachers reported that all six participants showed improvement in

reading fluency and enjoyed working with the RNSE program. It was also reported that students

showed improved confidence in the classroom after working with the program. Based on the

results, this study supported the Read Naturally Strategy and promoted repeated reading as a

fluency intervention using a computer-assisted instructional program (Keyes et al., 2016).

In 2004, Denton, Anthony, Parker and Hasbrouck studied the effects of the Read

Naturally program with students identified as English Language Learners in a bilingual school.
34

29 students participated in the Read Naturally treatment group and 25 students were in the

comparison group. Students ranged from second grade through fifth grade and participated in

the reading intervention meeting three times a week for 10 weeks (Denton, Anthony, Parker, &

Hasbrouck, 2004). ELL students in the intervention group did show gains in their ability to

decode words in English and therefore increase their fluency (Denton et al., 2004). (Denton et

al., 2004) explains “such findings reinforce the importance of explicit instruction in English

phonology (and) require more systematic vocabulary instruction” (p. 302).

Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, and Frances (2006) looked at the effectiveness of Read

Naturally with 27 first, second and third-grade students “with severe reading difficulties and

disabilities” (p. 446) including 15 girls and 12 boys (p. 454). Denton et al. (2006) engaged

students in the Read Naturally program for 8 weeks, following an 8-week intervention with a

phonics program.

This “study indicated that an intensive 8-week oral reading fluency intervention

emphasizing repeated reading can have significant effects on the abilities of students with severe

reading impairments to fluently and accurately read words in lists and connected text” (Denton et

al., 2006, p. 462). The researchers explained that students who had made minimal growth with

previous interventions at Tier 1 or Tier 2 levels showed significant gains following this 8-week

intervention. However, the researchers were unable to find gains when evaluating reading

comprehension from the students involved in the study (p. 463).

Erickson, Derby, McLaughlin, and Fuehrer (2015) examined the Read Naturally program

to find the effectiveness of the program with three special education students (p. 6). The

researchers conducted the Read Naturally intervention daily over a 6-week period in the special

education classroom. Erickson et al. (2015) found the program to be “somewhat successful” (p.
35

15) as a reading fluency intervention. Fluency rates increased for all three students and each

gained confidence in the area of reading. The authors noted that Read Naturally is “a flexible

program that can be modified for any classroom setting, ability level, and instructional area. It

requires minimal time per session to set up and implement (and) results in increased performance

in reading fluency” (Erickson et al., 2015, p. 15).

The following year, Morgan, McLaughlin, Webe, and Bolich (2016) replicated the study

Erickson et al. (2015) had completed with two third-grade special education students (p. 40).

The results supported the findings from Erickson et al. (2015) with both students showing gains

in the number of words per minute from cold reads to hot reads. However, the researchers did

not see growth in cold reads. It would be assumed that words read correctly per minute would

increase during cold reads due to familiarization with words and generalization from one passage

to the next (Morgan et al., 2016, p. 47).

Camarata and Woodcok (2006) compared the cognitive abilities of males and females

using the Woodcock Johnson achievement assessments. The results indicated females have a

higher processing speed than males. The researchers define processing speed as “the ability to

automatically perform cognitive tasks when under pressure to maintain attention and

concentration” (Camarata & Woodcock, 2006, p. 249). Furthermore, the researches explain that

males display and manipulate knowledge different than females when doing routine tasks (p.

250).

Gutman (2012) looked at the effectiveness of the Read Naturally program with students

identified as low socioeconomic status (SES). The researcher used an experimental group (n =

89) and a control group (n = 89) with the experimental group participating in the Read Naturally

program for 12 weeks. The results “lead the researcher to conclude that the weekly use of Read
36

Naturally did not have a statistically significant difference on low SES students’ reading

fluency” (Gutman, 2012, p. 96). Research repeats itself that children from poverty have a higher

risk of having academic failure than those not from poverty (Borman, Rachuba, & Center for

Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, 2001). Teale, Paciga, and Hoffman

(2007) explain “children from poverty backgrounds score significantly lower in reading and

writing than children from middle and high income backgrounds” (p. 344).

Conclusion

In 2012 the State of Iowa passed the Early Literacy Implementation (ELI) law with the

adoption of Iowa Administrative Code 281, Chapter 62 the following year, which puts reading

fluency proficiency at the forefront of Iowa schools. Components of ELI include universal

screening, progress monitoring, reading instruction and interventions, parent communication, a

summer reading program and third-grade retention. ELI assesses all K-3 students three times a

year using the Formative Reading Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) suite, which

includes a curriculum-based measure for reading (CBM-R). Students are identified as

adequately progressing, at-risk, or persistently at-risk. Those at-risk and persistently at-risk must

be progress monitored weekly and receive additional reading interventions.

Reading fluency takes on a variety of definitions. However, three components are

constant when referring to fluency: rate, accuracy, and prosody. The rate is the speed at which a

student reads, accuracy is words correct minus errors made, and prosody is expression and

phrasing. Rasinski (2006) further explains these “three key elements of reading fluency:

accuracy in word decoding, automaticity in recognizing words, and appropriate use of prosody or

meaningful oral expression while reading” (p. 704).


37

Fluency is an important component of reading in that it connects word recognition to

comprehension (Morgan et al., 2016, p. 38). When students are able to recognize words their

fluency increases so they can turn their focus to understanding and gaining meaning from the

text. LaBerge and Samuels’ Theory of Automaticity (1974) explained that when one task is at

work, cognitive energy is being used and is no longer available for the other task (Rasinski,

2014, p. 4).

Students need to have opportunities to practice reading fluently. A widely used strategy

is repeated reading, where students reread a passage until they reach the desired fluency rate.

Through repeated reading students are able to become familiar with words when rereading texts

until they become automatic (Erickson et al., 2015, p. 5). Repeated reading and its variety of

strategies must be meaningful to the reader and include opportunities for expressive

interpretation through performance to demonstrate not only fluency but also prosody.

Read Naturally Live is a computer-assisted instructional program that develops fluency

and phonics skills while supporting comprehension and vocabulary (Read Naturally, 2017a). It

incorporates modeling with audio support that reads the passages to the students three times

during the lesson at three varying rates. Next, it utilizes repeated reading by having the students

practice reading the story to self, three to ten times while timing each practice to develop the

fluency, accuracy, and prosody needed to pass the lesson. Finally, it incorporates progress

monitoring by having the student complete a cold read for one minute to get a baseline on their

reading rate. At the end of the lesson, the student completes a hot read to show growth from

beginning to end of the lesson.


38

CHAPTER 3

Methodology

This chapter contains the methods and procedures that guided this research study.

Chapter 3 includes the following sections: a) the purpose of the study, b) research questions, c)

brief review of related literature and research, d) research design, e) population, f)

instrumentation, g) data collection, h) data analysis, and i) a summary.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Read Naturally Live as

a fluency intervention with at-risk and persistently at-risk third and fourth-grade students in an

elementary school during the 2016-17 school year. Pre- and post-intervention data were

compared to evaluate the computer-based fluency program using the Iowa Department of

Education approved universal screening tool. The study set out to determine the effect of a

reading intervention program on student achievement as measured by words correct per minute

using the Curriculum Based Measurement for Reading (CBM-R) assessment.

Research Questions

This study was guided by the following questions:

1. How has the Read Naturally Live fluency program affected the oral reading fluency

achievement as measured by the Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST)

assessment?

2. What differences exists between oral reading fluency rates of males and oral reading

fluency rates of females as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read

Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?


39

3. What differences exist between oral reading fluency rates of students of minority and

non-minority students as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read

Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?

4. What differences exists between oral reading fluency rates of students qualified for free

or reduced lunch and oral reading fluency rates of students not qualified for free and

reduced lunch as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read Naturally

Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?

5. What differences exist in oral reading fluency rates between students identified as having

an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and students not identified as having an

Individualized Education Plan (non-IEP) as measured by the FAST assessment after

utilizing the Read Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?

6. What is the relationship between the amount of time spent in Read Naturally Live and the

growth of oral reading fluency rates?

Review of Related Literature

A review of literature was conducted to examine relevant data and research related to

reading fluency, the effectiveness of the Read Naturally Live fluency program and components

of a fluency program using the I.D. Weeks library, which was accessed through the University of

South Dakota website. Literature, case studies, and dissertations were reviewed using

EBSCOhost that included Education Research Complete (ERIC), PsycINFO, Web of Science and

ProQuest Dissertations. Google Scholar was also used as an online research source.

The researcher used ENDNOTE and The Publication Manual of the American

Psychological Association (6th edition, 2010) for formatting purposes as well as Dr. Mark

Baron’s Guidelines for Writing Research Proposals and Dissertations. Key words used in this
40

search for relevant literature included: oral reading fluency, repeated reading, Read Naturally

Live, Read Naturally, curriculum based measurement, multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS),

and response to intervention (RTI).

Research Design

This study used a quantitative approach informed by a causal comparative research

design that employed pre- and post-test data to compare the gains made using Read Naturally

Live as a fluency intervention. The causal comparative design was selected due to the study

being a nonexperimental study. SPSS calculated the relationship between the variables based on

pre- and post- FAST scores (Creswell, 2014, p. 12). This design used ex post facto data

comparing pre- (beginning of the school year) and post- (end of the school year) fluency scores

of students who utilized the computer-based fluency program Read Naturally Live. This study

adds to the current literature by determining if the Read Naturally Live program was an effective

oral reading fluency program on one elementary school in one district in rural Iowa. The

outcome of this study could help administrators and other school personnel make informed

decisions when using the Read Naturally Live program in their schools.

A limitation to this study was that it only used one elementary school to look at the

effectiveness of the Read Naturally Live program as an intervention with third and fourth grade

students. However, because only one school was used, outside variables were controlled since

the researcher worked directly with the third and fourth grade staff that implemented the

intervention and assessed the reading fluency of students included in this study.

Students included in this study may have had the opportunity to participate in other

interventions that could have impacted their fluency scores. Since ex post facto data was used,
41

the researcher did not have control of what intervention the students were placed in thus creating

a second limitation to this study.

Grade level teachers placed students in Read Naturally Live for WIN intervention

rotations based on FAST fluency scores and other interventions needed therefore not all

populations may be represented. Finally, this study was not designed to include random

sampling therefore it cannot be inferred to larger populations creating a final limitation.

Population

This study took place in a school district in the Midwest with approximately 1600

students. Ex-post facto data came from students enrolled in grades three and four during the

2016-17 school year. At the time of this study, the elementary school enrollment included 380

students in grades three through five. The school population included 29 percent of the students

eligible for free and reduced lunch with 85 percent identified as Caucasian, 5 percent Hispanic,

5 percent identified as two or more races, 2 percent identified as African American, 2 percent as

Asian American, and 1 percent as American Indian.

Two percent of students were identified as ELL at the elementary school, and 16 percent

of students in this school received special education services. Table 2 displays students who

qualify for free or reduced lunch, ethnicities, ELL and special education populations.

Table 2

District Student Demographics

Demographics N % of Population

Qualify for free or 112 29%

reduced lunch

Caucasian 324 85%


42

Hispanic 19 5%

2 or more races 19 5%

African American 6 2%

Asian American 9 2%

American Indian 3 1%

ELL 7 2%

Special Education 61 16%

Note. Information from the 2016-17 school year.

The participants in this study included 78 students identified as needing a reading fluency

intervention. Of those students, 33 were in third grade and 45 were in fourth grade. Table 3

depicts the composition of the participants used in this study. This population of students was

selected because the third and fourth grade teachers consistently used the Read Naturally Live

program as an intervention throughout the entire 2016-17 school year.

Table 3

Student Grade Level/Gender

Grade 3rd 4th Total

Boys 22 28 50

Girls 11 17 28

Low SES 12 16 28

Minority 4 9 13

Special Education 3 10 13

Note. Data was retrieved from District Infinite Campus System.

Students were placed in Read Naturally Live fluency intervention based on their FAST

fluency scores. Those considered persistently at-risk and not reading fluently at grade level were
43

placed in the Read Naturally Live intervention for a period of six to seven weeks. At the end of

that time, students’ fluency scores were reassessed and students either (a) continued in the

intervention; (b) moved to another intervention, based on need; or (c) moved into the on-level

rotation cycle. The intervention schedule allowed for movement in and out of an intervention

based on each student’s greatest need at that time.

It was assumed that students might need multiple interventions during WIN time and not

remain in the Read Naturally Live intervention the entire school year. It was also assumed that

students would make adequate progress and reach the grade level fluency benchmark moving

them out of the Read Naturally Live program. Students had the opportunity to be in the Read

Naturally Live intervention rotation from one cycle up to all five cycles. Finally, it was assumed

a student not showing adequate growth would be moved into a Tier 3 intervention.

Instrumentation

This study employed the Curriculum Based Measurement for Reading (CBM-R)

assessment of the Formative Assessment for Teachers (FAST) suite as the data collection

instrument to support its correlational research design. The FAST assessment originated at the

University of Minnesota and is described as the following:

The first assessment tool that FAST provides is Curriculum Based Measurement for

Reading (CBM-Reading). This is an oral reading assessment that allows educators to

monitor their students’ progresses and evaluate the level and rate of a student’s oral

reading fluency. It is a simple and efficient procedure whereby teachers listen and

evaluate student performance while they read aloud from grade level passages.

(University of Minnesota, 2016)


44

This universal screener was given to all third and fourth grade students three times during

2016-17 the school year; early September, mid-January and early May. Table 4 displays the oral

reading fluency FAST benchmarks for third grade and fourth grade during the 2016-17 school

year (Iowa Department of Education, 2016, p. 4). The ELI statute required districts to assess

students using a universal screener three times a year. The elementary school used in this study

chose to use the FAST suite utilizing the CBM-R fluency assessment to meet state requirements.

Completing a set of assessments within the online program certified all teachers who

administered the CBM-R fluency assessment. Students identified as persistently at-risk or at-risk

may have been placed in the Read Naturally Live fluency intervention depending on the

student’s greatest need.

Table 4

Oral Reading Fluency FAST Benchmarks

Grade Fall Winter Spring

3rd 90 116 131

4th 116 136 150

Note. Iowa Department of Education, 2017, Updated 2016-17 FAST Benchmarks

The FAST suite also has a progress-monitoring component that teachers used to progress

monitor persistently at-risk students on a weekly basis. This allowed homeroom teachers to

track individual student’s level of progress throughout the intervention cycle as well as the

beginning and end of each intervention cycle. The progress monitoring data also helped

determine which students would remain in the Read Naturally Live intervention and which

students would move to a new rotation at the end of each WIN cycle.

During Whatever I Need (WIN) time, students logged onto a Chromebook to access the

online Read Naturally Live program. All students had secure usernames and passwords they
45

used for their login. Students were given the placement assessment prior to beginning the

program to be placed at the appropriate instructional level. Goals were set by adding 40 words to

their placement assessment timing. The staff who monitored Read Naturally Live during WIN

time participated in training with the district’s instructional coach. Process and procedures were

discussed using the Read Naturally Live fidelity check.

Students began their lesson by choosing a nonfiction story to read from the titles within

their level. They started the lesson with a “cold” timing in order to determine their words correct

per minute (WCPM), which is the total number of words read minus errors. The adult monitor

marked the errors in the passage as the student was reading it aloud. After the “cold” timing, the

students listened to the story three times and practiced reading it along with the computer as well

as independently. They answered retell questions about the passage and practiced vocabulary

words within each lesson. When the students felt they would meet their fluency goal, they

completed a hot timing to determine their WCPM. The adult monitor listened to each student

read during the “hot” timing and tracked the number of words missed. Once complete they

checked the student’s answers to the retell questions and either passed the student on the story or

had them continue practicing the passage until their goal was reached. When the student had

passed the story, they started the process over again by self-selecting a passage of interest to

read.

Data Collection

Demographic data was extracted from the district’s Infinite Campus database where

student information is stored. Written permission to use data from Infinite Campus was secured

from the superintendent of the school district (See Appendix A). The researcher worked with the

curriculum secretary to extract de-identified demographic data of third and fourth grade students
46

from the 2016-17 school year. Data extracted included gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status,

ELL and special education identification. To maintain confidentiality personal information

including names and state identification numbers were not extracted.

The primary instrument for data collection in this study was the Curriculum Based

Measurement for Reading (CBM-R) assessment of the Formative Assessment for Teachers

(FAST) suite. This pre- and post-test design utilized baseline data collected in the fall of 2016 as

the beginning of the year benchmark data. The State of Iowa requires districts to use a universal

screener to assess all students three times a school year. Using pre- and post-test data, it was

determined that the FAST suite CBM-R assessment would provide the most relevant and

accurate data to analyze the success of Read Naturally Live.

Students whose scores fell below grade level expectations and into the substantially

deficient range, determined by the Iowa Department of Education, were considered for the Read

Naturally Live fluency program. Students who were placed in the intervention received thirty

minutes, four times a week, of additional reading instruction, outside the reading class. Students

were leveled using the placement test within the Read Naturally Live program and placed in

appropriate texts at their instructional reading level. Students were able to work independently

through the program and self-monitor their progress.

Students’ oral reading fluency was assessed three times during the 2016-17 school year

per State of Iowa requirements using the Iowa Tier website. The FAST assessment was given to

every student in third and fourth grade using the Curriculum Based Measurement – Reading

(CBM-R) fluency passages in September. Students read three one-minute passages per test

session. Teachers marked the errors in the program and the computer system took the average of

the three scores to determine their WCPM. The CBM-R was given again in January and the final
47

screening was given in May. Students whose scores fell into the substantially deficient range

and were identified as persistently at-risk were recommended for the Read Naturally Live

fluency intervention. Students who fell in the substantially deficient range and were identified as

persistently at-risk were also progress monitored weekly within the FAST program. This gave

the researcher pre- and post-fluency scores for each intervention cycle.

Fluency scores (WCPM) were recorded in a spreadsheet by grade level; fall, winter and

spring scores were recorded separately. Students were assigned a number for anonymity.

Students’ fluency growth was calculated by subtracting the spring score from the fall score,

which was recorded in the spreadsheet. Statistical analysis was ran using SPSS for windows.

Ethical considerations were made to maintain the confidentiality of the students since ex-

post facto data was used. Human Subject Protocol was completed and signed and then submitted

to the Human Subjects Review Committee before data collection began. The school district’s

instructional coach and district curriculum secretary deidentified the data before it was given to

the researcher. Names were replaced with randomized identification numbers so students’

names were not associated with the data and the researcher was unable to identify students based

on the data.

Data Analysis

The process of data analysis in this study was guided by a pre-test, treatment, and post-

test process to determine the effectiveness of the Read Naturally Live fluency program using ex

post facto data from the 2016-17 school year. Data was initially collected, organized and stored

in a Microsoft EXCEL 2013 spreadsheet and then was analyzed using the Statistical Package for

the Social Sciences (SPSS) program to find results in fluency scores. This quantitative approach
48

utilized descriptive statistics to answer the research questions by looking at students’ scores to

see if fluency rates had increased after completing the Read Naturally Live fluency program.

The following reported statistics may be included in the results; means, standard

deviations, and ranges associated with the effectiveness of the Read Naturally Live fluency

intervention program.

For research question one, a paired sample t-test was used to determine the effectiveness

of the Read Naturally Live fluency program had on students’ oral reading fluency as measured

by the FAST assessment. This test was appropriate as the pretest and posttest represent two

different times so the paired sample t-test showed if there was evidence that the mean difference

was significantly different.

For research question number two, a two-way mixed model ANOVA was used to

determine if there was a difference of oral reading fluency rates between male and female

students after utilizing the Read Naturally Live fluency program. Students’ pretest and posttest

FAST scores were used in this evaluation.

For the third research question, a two-way mixed model ANOVA test was used to

determine if there was a difference of oral reading fluency rates between students of minority

and non-minority students as measured by the FAST assessment after completing the Read

Naturally Live fluency intervention program.

For the fourth research question, a two-way mixed model ANOVA was used to determine

if there was a difference of oral reading fluency rates between students who qualify for free or

reduced lunch and students who do not qualify for free or reduced lunch as measured by the

FAST assessment using pretest and posttest data.


49

For the fifth research question, a two-way mixed method ANOVA was used to determine

if there was a difference of oral reading fluency rates between IEP and non-IEP students using

pretest and posttest FAST data.

For the final research question, a Pearson correlation was used to determine the if the

amount of time spent in Read Naturally Live affected oral reading fluency rates.

Summary

The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine the effectiveness of the Read

Naturally Live fluency program as an intervention in a Midwest elementary school. The pre- and

post CBM-R scores were analyzed for the students who were involved in the Read Naturally

Live fluency program as an intervention to improve their oral reading fluency. Students in

grades three and four were identified for this study as using the intervention. Chapter 3

described the research design and methodology used for this study. In chapter 4, the study’s

overall findings will be shared.


50

Chapter 4

Research Question One. How has the Read Naturally Live fluency program impacted the oral

reading fluency achievement as measured by the Formative Assessment System for Teachers

(FAST) assessment?

Table 5

Mean Change in Fluency Rates on the FAST Assessment

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Mean Mean

Fall Spring Mean Cohen's

Students N Scores Scores Change Lower Upper t df p d

All 78 88.45 133.76 45.31 41.293 49.322 22.47 77 .000 2.54

Note. Mean scores are reported as words correct per minute (WCPM). A paired t-test is associated with this table.

Students who were in the Read Naturally Live reading intervention showed growth from

the fall FAST assessment to the spring FAST assessment with a mean change of 45.31 words

correct per minute (WCPM). The probability of seeing data that varies by at least 45.31 WCPM

from fall to spring when no real difference exists are .05. The researcher can be 95% confident

that the true difference lies between 29.42 and 41.29.

Research Question Two. What differences exists between oral reading fluency rates of males

and oral reading fluency rates of females as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the

Read Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?

Table 6
51

Mean Change in Fluency Rates by Gender on the FAST Assessment

95% Confidence

Interval of

Difference

Mean Mean

Fall Spring Mean Cohen’s

Gender N Scores Scores Change Lower Upper t df p d

Gr. 3

Female 11 69.00 126.45 57.45 43.656 71.253 9.27 10 .000 2.80

Gr. 3

Male 22 72.00 121.82 49.82 44.734 54.902 20.38 21 .000 4.34

Gr. 3

All 33 71.00 123.36 52.36 46.969 57.759 19.77 32 .000 3.44

Gr. 4

Female 17 98.35 132.29 33.94 23.385 44.498 6.82 16 .000 1.65

Gr. 4

Male 28 103.00 146.89 43.98 37.939 49.846 15.13 27 .000 2.86

Gr. 4

All 45 101.24 141.38 40.14 34.744 45.522 15.01 44 .000 2.24

Note. Mean scores are reported as words correct per minute (WCPM). A paired t-test is associated with this table.

Table 6 displays results for FAST scores of male and female students. Third grade

female students showed the most growth with a mean change of 57.45 WCPM with fourth grade-

female students showing the least growth with a mean change of 33.84 WCPM. Overall, third
52

grade students showed more growth, M = 52.36 WCPM compared to fourth grade students, M =

40.14 WCPM.

Table 7

Variance of Growth Between Males and Females (Interaction of time by

gender)

Measure N F p η2

Grade 3 Growth 33 1.89 .18 .003

Grade 4 Growth 45 3.44 .07 .013

All Growth 78 .62 .43 .001

Note. A 2-way ANOVA test is associated with this table.

Table 8

Variance of Scores Between Males and Females (Main effect of gender)

Measure N F p η2

Grade 3 Scores 33 .02 .91 .000

Grade 4 Scores 45 3.01 .09 .049

All Scores 78 .67 .42 .004

Note. A 2-way ANOVA test is associates with this table.

Table 7 displays the variance of growth between male and female students based on the

interaction of time by gender. For third-grade, there was not a significant difference between

male and female growth, F (1,31) = 1.9, p = .18. There was also not a significant difference

between male growth and female growth in fourth grade, F (1, 42) = 3.44, p = .07.

Table 8 displays the variance of scores between male and female students based on FAST

fluency scores. Results did not show a statistical significance between male and female scores

for students in third grade, F (1,31) = .02, p = .91. A statistical significance was not found
53

between male and female students in fourth grade, although there was a trend toward a

difference, F = (1,42) = 3.01, p = .09.

Research Question Three. What differences exist between oral reading fluency rates of

students of minority and non-minority students as measured by the FAST assessment after

utilizing the Read Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?

Table 9

Variance of Scores Between Minority and Non-Minority Students

Measure N F p η2

Growth 78 .67 .42 .001

(Interaction of

time by race)

Main effect of race 78 .02 .88 .000

Note. A 2-way ANOVA test is associated with this table.

Table 9 displays results for variance of scores between minority and non-minority third

and fourth grade students. There was not a statistical significance between the growth of the two

subgroups, F (1,76) = .67, p = .42. There was also not a significant difference between scores of

minority and non-minority students, F (1, 76) = .02, p = .88.

Research Question Four: What differences exist between oral reading fluency rates of students

qualified for free or reduced lunch and oral reading fluency rates of students not qualified for

free and reduced lunch as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read Naturally

Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?

Table 10
54

Variance of Scores Between Students Who Qualify for Free or Reduced

Lunch and Students Who Do Not Qualify for Free or Reduced Lunch

Measure N F p η2

Growth 78 1.36 .25 .001

(Interaction of

time by FRL

status)

FRL Status 78 2.66 .11 .016

Note. A 2-way ANOVA test is associated with this table.

Table 10 compares FAST scores of students who qualify for free or reduced lunch and

students who do not qualify for free or reduced lunch. There was not a significant difference

between growth of those student who facility for free or reduced lunch to those who do not

qualify for free or reduced lunch, F (1,76) = 1.36, p = .25. There was also not a significant

difference between scores, F (1,76) = 2.66, p = .11 for the two subgroups.

Research Question Five. What differences exist in oral reading fluency rates between students

identified as having an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and students not identified as having

an Individualized Education Plan (non-IEP) as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing

the Read Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?

Table 11

Variance of Scores Between Students with an Individualized Education Plan

and Students without an Individualized Education Plan (Interaction of time

by IEP)

Measure N F p η2
55

Growth 78 5.99 .02* .007

(Interaction of

time by IEP)

Main effect of IEP 78 3.77 .06 .028

status

Note: *Significant Correlation at p<.05. A 2-way ANOVA is associated with this table.

Table 12

Mean Change in Fluency Rates by IEP and Non-IEP on the FAST Assessment

95% Confidence

Interval of

Difference

Mean Mean

Fall Spring Mean Cohen’s

N Scores Scores Change Lower Upper t df p d

IEP 13 83.31 117.92 34.615 25.380 43.851 8.166 12 .000 2.26

Non- 65 89.48 136.92 47.446 43.085 51.807 21.733 64 .000 2.70

IEP

Note. Mean scores are reported as words correct per minute (WCPM). A paired t-test is associated with this table.

Table 11 displays the variance of scores between students with an Individualized

Education Plan (IEP) and students without a plan. Results showed a statistically significant

difference in growth between students with an IEP and those without an IEP, F (1,76) = 5.99, p =

.02. Table 12 illustrates that students not on an IEP had a mean growth score of M = 47.45 while

students identified as having an IEP showed a mean growth score of M = 34.62.


56

Research Question Six. What is the relationship between the amount of time spent in Read

Naturally Live and the growth of oral reading fluency rates?

Table 13

Frequency of Intervention Based on Number of Rotations in Read Live Program

Number of Rotations Number of Students Mean Growth

1 37 46.51

2 22 48.95

3 13 36.23

4 3 49.33

5 3 39.00

Note. A Pearson Correlation test is associated with this table.

Table 13 displays the mean growth of fluency scores based on the frequency of the

intervention. The correlation between number of rotations and their change from pre to post

assessment was negative, yet small, and non-significant, r (76) = *.13, p = .25.
57

REFERENCES for Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4

Begin to Read. (2015). What is phonemic awareness? Retrieved from

http://www.begintoread.com/articles/phonemic-awareness.html

Borman, G. D., Rachuba, L. T., & Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At

Risk, B. M. D. (2001). Academic success among poor and minority students: An analysis

of competing models of school effects. Retrieved from

https://login.ezproxy.usd.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr

ue&db=eric&AN=ED451281&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Camarata, S., & Woodcock, R. (2006). Sex differences in processing speed: Developmental

effects in males and females. Intelligence, 34(3), 231-252.

doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.12.001

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2017). About the standards. Retrieved from

http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Davis, G. (2016). Why reading is important. Learn to Read. Retrieved from http://www.learn-

to-read-prince-george.com/why-is-reading-important.html

Denton, C. A., Anthony, J. L., Parker, R., & Hasbrouck, J. E. (2004). Effects of two tutoring

programs on the english reading development of spanish-english bilingual students.

Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 289-305.

Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., & Frances, D. J. (2006). An evaluation of

intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 447-466.


58

Erickson, J., Derby, K. M., McLaughlin, T. F., & Fuehrer, K. (2015). An evaluation of read

naturally® on increasing reading fluency for three primary students with learning

disabilities. Educational Research Quarterly, 39(1), 3-20.

Fenty, N., Mulcahy, C., & Washburn, E. (2015). Effects of computer-assisted and teacher-led

fluency instruction on students at risk for reading failure. Learning Disabilities -- A

Contemporary Journal, 13(2), 141-156.

Florida Center for Reading Research. (2007). 4/5 teacher resource guide part 2. Retrieved from

http://www.fcrr.org/documents/sca/G4-5/45TRGPartTwo.pdf

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. (2007). Using curriculum-based measurement to inform

reading instruction. Reading & Writing, 20(6), 553-567. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9051-4

Fuchs, L. S. (2017). Curriculum-based measurement as the emerging alternative: Three decades

later. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Wiley-Blackwell), 32(1), 5-7.

doi:10.1111/ldrp.12127

Guerin, A., & Murphy, B. (2015). Repeated reading as a method to improve reading fluency for

struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(7), 551-560.

doi:10.1002/jaal.395

Gutman, T. E. (2012). The effects of read naturally on reading fluency and comprehension for

students of low socioeconomic status. (73), ProQuest Information & Learning, US.

Retrieved from

https://login.ezproxy.usd.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr

ue&db=psyh&AN=2012-99151-120&site=ehost-live&scope=site Available from

EBSCOhost psyh database.


59

Hall, L. (2014). What is a struggling reading? Retrieved from

https://leighahall.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/what-is-a-struggling-reader/

Hawkins, R. O., Marsicano, R., Schmitt, A. J., McCallum, E., & Musti-Rao, S. (2015).

Comparing the efficiency of repeated reading and listening-while-reading to improve

fluency and comprehension. Education & Treatment of Children, 38(1), 49-70.

Hoffman, J. V., & Isaacs, M. E. (1991). Developing fluency through restructuring the task of

guided oral reading. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 185.

Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction:

What, why, and how? Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702-714. doi:10.1598/RT.58.8.1

Iowa Department of Education. (2015). Identification of students with substantial deficiency.

Retrieved from

https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/ELI%20ID%20of%20Students%2

0as%20Substantially%20Deficient.pdf

Iowa Department of Education. (2016). Early literacy technical assistance appendices. Retrieved

from

https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/EarlyLiteracyTechnicalAssistance

Appendices-Revised08-31-2016.pdf

Iowa Department of Education. (2017a). Common questions from parents. Retrieved from

https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/CommonQuestionsFromParents.p

df

Iowa Department of Education. (2017b). Early literacy implementation. Retrieved from

https://www.educateiowa.gov/early-literacy-implementation

Iowa Department of Education. (2017c). Every student succeeds act.


60

Iowa Department of Education. (2017d). Iowa's multi-tiered system of supports. Retrieved from

https://www.educateiowa.gov/pk-12/learner-supports/iowas-multi-tiered-system-

supports-mtss

Iowa Department of Education. (2017e). Iowa early literacy law facts sheet.

Iowa Reading Research Center. (2017). Formative assessment system for teachers (fast) k-6.

Retrieved from http://www.iowareadingresearch.org/reading-in-iowa/literacy-warning-

system/

Katz, C. A., & Bohman, S. (2007). Partner reading. Book Links, 16(6), 38-40.

Keyes, S. E., Cartledge, G., Gibson Jr, L., & Robinson-Ervin, P. (2016). Programming for

generalization of oral reading fluency using computer-assisted instruction and changing

fluency criteria. Education & Treatment of Children, 39(2), 141-172.

Klein, A. (2015). No child left behind: An overview. Retrieved from

http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-overview-definition-

summary.html

Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. a. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3.

Kulich, L. S. (2009). Making the batter better: Using the fluency development lesson as a recipe

for success. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 37(4), 26-36.

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in

reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293-323. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2

Lyon, G. R. (1998). Why reading is not a natural process. Educational Leadership, 55(6), 14-18.
61

Morgan, S. V., McLaughlin, T. F., Webe, K. P., & Bolich, B. (2016). Increasing reading fluency

using read naturally® with two third grade students with specific learning disabilities: A

replication of erickson et al., 2015. Educational Research Quarterly, 40(1), 37-50.

Mostow, J., Nelson-Taylor, J., & Beck, J. E. (2013). Computer-guided oral reading versus

independent practice: Comparison of sustained silent reading to an automated reading

tutor that listens. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(2), 249-276.

doi:10.2190/EC.49.2.g

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2016). Rti glossary of terms. Retrieved from

http://www.rti4success.org/resources/rti-glossary-terms

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the

scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.

Washington , DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Paige, D. D. (2011). “That sounded good!”: Using whole-class choral reading to improve

fluency. The Reading Teacher, 64(6), 435-438. doi:10.1598/rt.64.6.5

Rasinski, T. (2004). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 46-51.

Rasinski, T. (2006). Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy, automaticity, and

prosody. Reading Teacher, 59(7), 704-706. doi:10.1598/RT.59.7.10

Rasinski, T. (2014). Fluency matters. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education,

7(1), 3-12.

Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C., & Lems, K. (2012). Fluency instruction: Research-based best

practices (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Rasinski, T., & Young, C. (2014). Assisted reading-a bridge from fluency to comprehension.

New England Reading Association Journal, 50(1), 1-4.


62

Rasplica, C., & Cummings, K. D. (2013). Oral reading fluency. Retrieved from

http://www.council-for-learning-disabilities.org/what-is-oral-reading-fluency-verbal-

reading-proficiency

Read Naturally. (2017a). Read naturally live. Retrieved from

https://www.readnaturally.com/product/read-naturally-live

Read Naturally. (2017b). Read naturally rationale and research. Retrieved from

https://www.readnaturally.com/knowledgebase/documents-and-resources/31/19

Reading Rockets. (2016a). Choral reading. Retrieved from

http://www.readingrockets.org/strategies/choral_reading

Reading Rockets. (2016b). Fluency. Retrieved from

http://www.readingrockets.org/helping/target/fluency

Reading Rockets. (2016c). Guided oral reading.

Reading Rockets. (2016d). Partner reading.

Reading, S., & Van Deuren, D. (2007). Phonemic awareness: When and how much to teach?

Reading Research & Instruction, 46(3), 267-286.

Renaissance. (2016). Star reading. Retrieved from

http://www.renaissance.com/products/assessment/star-360/star-reading-skills/

RTI Action Network. (2017). Universal screening within a response-to-intervention model.

Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/research/universal-screening-within-a-

rti-model

Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. Reading Teacher.

Samuels, S. J. (1997). The method of repeated readings. Reading Teacher, 50(5), 376.
63

Schrauben, J. E. (2010). Prosody's contribution to fluency: An examination of the theory of

automatic information processing. Reading Psychology, 31(1), 82-92.

doi:10.1080/02702710902753996

Snider, V. A. (1995). A primer on phonemic awareness: What it is, why it's important, and how

to teach it. School Psychology Review, 24(3), 443.

Taguchi, E., Melhem, L., & Kawaguchi, T. (2016). Assisted reading: A flexible approach to l2

reading fluency building. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 16(1), 106-

118.

Teale, W. H., Paciga, K. A., & Hoffman, J. L. (2007). Beginning reading instruction in urban

schools: The curriculum gap ensures a continuing achievement gap. Reading Teacher,

61(4), 344-348. doi:10.1598/RT.61.4.8

University of Minnesota. (2016). Formative reading assessment system for teachers (fast).

Retrieved from http://license.umn.edu/technologies/fast20100205_formative-reading-

assessment-system-for-teachers-fast

What Works Clearninghouse. (2007). Read naturally. Revised. What works clearinghouse

intervention report. Retrieved from

https://login.ezproxy.usd.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr

ue&db=eric&AN=ED499298&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Wolf, M. (2017). New research on an old problem: A brief history of fluency. Retrieved from

https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/new-research-old-problem-

brief-history-fluency/
64

Chapter 5

Evaluating the Outcomes of Read Naturally Live: An Elementary Schools Search for a

Reading Fluency Intervention

By

Jenni M. McCrory

Abstract:

Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) assessment data indicates that a

percentage of students are not at the proficient level at the end of third-grade despite

interventions being put into place to improve reading fluency rates. This study examined the

Read Naturally Live fluency program to determine if it increased fluency scores of third and

fourth-grade students identified as at–risk and persistently at-risk at this elementary school. The

study used a quantitative approach informed by a causal comparative research design that

employed pre- and post-test data to compare the gains made using Read Naturally Live as a

fluency intervention. The participants in this study included 78 students identified as needing a

reading fluency intervention. Of those students, 33 were in third grade and 45 were in fourth

grade. The overall research results showed positive growth for all students based on the FAST

assessment using the Read Naturally Live program as a fluency intervention. This study

demonstrated students who struggle with reading fluency, when provided a research based

intervention, utilizing the repeated reading strategy, can improve their reading fluency.
65

Introduction

Reading is the foundation for learning and the window for life. To be a successful reader,

students must be proficient in five areas: phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, vocabulary,

and comprehension. An easily defined characteristic of a good reader is one who reads fluently

while a poor reader lacks fluency. Reading fluency “lays a foundation on which readers build

their reading skills to become strategic and versatile in using a variety of cognitive and

metacognitive strategies of reading” (Taguchi, Melhem, & Kawaguchi, 2016, p. 106).

Legislators in the State of Iowa recognized the importance of reading fluently and the

connection to predicting reading comprehension. They recognized a need for something to be

done in the State of Iowa to increase reading scores of elementary age students. During the 2012

legislative session, legislators passed Iowa Code section 279.68 also known as Early Literacy

Implementation (ELI) Law to ensure Iowa students meet reading proficiency goals by the end of

their third-grade year. The intent of this new law was to “promote effective evidence-based

programming, instruction, and assessment practices across schools” by setting high expectations

for Iowa School Districts (Iowa Department of Education, 2017a).

ELI has pushed schools to monitor reading achievement more closely and to put the focus

on universal screening, progress monitoring, and intensive instruction to ensure that non-

proficient readers are making gains. A model the State has adopted and which schools are

implementing is the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), which provides schools with an

approach that provides early intervention to at-risk students. The MTSS framework focuses not

only on the students but the system as a whole. This framework brings educators together to

collaborate on student achievement but also use data to put structures in place to prevent students

from not meeting the standards.


66

In 2013, the Iowa Department of Education adopted the Formative Assessment System

for Teachers (FAST) K-6 to “support implementation of MTSS” (Iowa Department of

Education, 2017b). This suite includes universal screening assessments and progress monitoring

tools for Iowa schools to use to meet the ELI law while supporting the MTSS model. The State

Department chose FAST as the statewide universal screener due to its ability to track progress on

students’ fluency which also measures “phonological awareness, sounds, words, text reading and

reading behaviors” (Iowa Reading Research Center, 2017).

During the 2013-14 school year, a school superintendent in the Midwest tasked the

building leadership team (BLT) at an elementary school in his district to take a closer look at

student achievement data due to the school being on the School in Need of Assistance (SINA)

list for reading and math. What the BLT found were achievement gaps in two subgroups: special

education students and English-Language Learners (ELL) as well as among students identified as

at-risk. These struggling students needed intensive interventions but based on the structure of

the day, intervention time was not possible, unless it happened during recess or before or after

school. Through a yearlong planning process, the BLT developed Whatever I Need (WIN) time,

a 30-minute intervention block.

Teachers used STAR Reading and STAR Math reports along with FAST scores to

determine which intervention a student received (Renaissance, 2016). Students who showed

deficiencies in reading were placed in a reading intervention group that included instruction in

phonics, vocabulary, fluency, or comprehension. Students who were deficient in math were

placed in a math group and those students meeting grade level expectations were placed in an on-

level rotation cycle. At the end of the WIN rotation, students were assessed using the STAR

Reading, STAR Math, and FAST assessments to look for growth and further deficiencies. Based
67

on the assessment results, students could either continue in the same WIN group or move to a

new group based on the highest need of the student.

One intervention that has been used since WIN time was implemented is the Read

Naturally Live fluency intervention program (Read Naturally, 2017). This program incorporates

the repeated reading strategy, which addresses students’ fluency deficiencies. Select students

identified as persistently at-risk or at-risk on the FAST reading assessment were placed in the

Read Naturally Live program as an intervention during WIN time. These students met four days

a week for 30 minutes for a duration of six to seven weeks, depending on the length of the WIN

rotation.

Read Naturally Live is a web-based intervention program that utilizes the Read Naturally

Strategy. This strategy combines teacher modeling with repeated reading and progress

monitoring while engaging students with non-fiction informational texts to practice reading

fluently. When students are able to recognize words their fluency increases so they can turn their

focus to understanding and gaining meaning from the text.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Read Naturally Live as a

fluency intervention with at-risk and persistently at-risk third and fourth-grade students in an

elementary school during the 2016-17 school year. Pre- and post-intervention data were

compared to evaluate the computer-based fluency program using the Iowa Department of

Education approved universal screening tool. The study set out to determine the effect of a

reading intervention program on student achievement as measured by words correct per minute

using the Curriculum Based Measurement for Reading (CBM-R) assessment.

Theory of Automaticity
68

The idea of fluency dates back as far as the late19th century with researchers like

William MacKeen Cattell (1886) and Edmund Burke Huey (1908) studying and beginning the

discussion on reading fluency. In 1974, David LaBerge and Jay Samuels further defined fluency

through automaticity. They explain how readers are able to “attend to one thing at a time” while

being “able to process many things at a time so long as no more than one requires attention”

(LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, p. 295). They go on to explain that words are processed through

stages while working toward comprehension. Each of these stages are “processed automatically”

and each stage “must be automatic as well” (p. 295). In order to be a fluent reader, the reader

needs “microlevel subskills,” meaning they need to know letter sounds and combinations along

with the meaning of the words (Wolf, 2017).

LaBerge and Samuels found that there are two tasks that readers use energy for when

reading; word recognition and comprehension (Rasinski, 2014). The theory was “based on the

assumption that the transformation of written stimuli into meanings involves a sequence of

stages of information processing” (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, p. 296). It explained that when

one task is at work, cognitive energy is being used and is no longer available for the other task.

Therefore, “when readers have to use excessive amount(s) of their cognitive energy for word

recognition, they have reduced the amount of cognitive energy available for comprehension”

(Rasinski, 2014, p. 4).

The Theory of Automaticity demonstrates how “visual information is transformed and

processed…from visual, phonological, and episodic memory until it finally reaches semantic

memory” (Schrauben, 2010, p. 84) and is comprehended. Over the course of several grade levels

and with reading practice, decoding and word recognition becomes more automatic. When word
69

recognition becomes automatic, cognitive energy can be used to comprehend what is being read

and the reader gains understanding of the text (Rasinski, Blachowicz, & Lems, 2012).

As readers are repeatedly exposed to print, they will begin to recognize words with more

accuracy and automaticity (Schrauben, 2010, p. 84). Read Naturally Live exposes students to

words using the repeated reading strategy to increase automatic word recognition shifting the

attention from reading words to comprehending the text. Samuels (1997) explains, “as less

attention is required for decoding, more attention becomes available for comprehension” (p.

378).

Significance of the Study

FAST assessment data indicated that a percentage of students from a Midwestern

elementary school were not at the proficient level at the end of third-grade despite interventions

being put into place. This study examined the Read Naturally Live fluency program to determine

if the program increased fluency scores of third and fourth-grade students identified as at–risk

and persistently at-risk at this elementary school. The results of this study offer schools the

opportunity to see results of fluency scores to determine if Read Naturally Live may be a

possible solution in their own districts. Evidence has shown that “students who read with

automaticity and have appropriate speed, accuracy, and proper expression are more likely to

comprehend material because they are able to focus on the meaning of the text” (Rasplica &

Cummings, 2013). Reading fluency can thus be used as a predictor of student performance on

state reading assessments.

Review of Related Literature

Importance of Reading Fluency


70

Reading fluency is a fundamental component of reading. The National Reading Panel

(NRP) dedicated an entire chapter to fluency in its 2000 report on teaching students to read. One

reason the panel included fluency in its review is due to students’ inability to read fluently

(National Reading Panel, 2000). Prior to the NRP report, the National Assessment of

Educational Progress looked at fluency achievement among fourth-grade students in America

and found “44% of students to be disfluent” (p. 189) on grade appropriate passages with testing

support.

Three key components define reading fluency and play an important role developing a

fluent reader. Fluency is defined as having the ability to read with speed, accuracy, and

expression (Schrauben, 2010, p. 85). Speed is the rate at which a person reads while accuracy is

how many words a reader reads correctly on a given passage. Expression, also known as

prosody, is the use of feelings and emotions while reading. When these components work

together, a reader is able to demonstrate fluency.

Reading comprehension difficulties can be detected early when poor fluency skills are

identified (Hudson, Lane, & Pollen, 2005, p. 702). Educators can therefore, use reading fluency

as a predictor of comprehension. When students no longer have to think about the words being

read, they can focus on the meaning of the text. Kulich (2009) explains, “Students who read

word by word and thus lack automaticity are less likely to comprehend the meaning of the whole

text” (p. 26). When a reader incorrectly reads a word or group of words, they are unable to

comprehend the intended message which leads to a lack of comprehension and understanding of

the text (Hudson et al., 2005, p. 703).

A good reader is described as one who can read fluently while comprehending the text

being read (Rasinski et al., 2012). They are able to read at an appropriate rate, with a high level
71

of accuracy while being expressive to gain a deeper understanding of the text. A poor reader

who lacks fluency exerts their energy decoding words. They are often slow and labored making

comprehension difficult (Hudson et al., 2005, p. 702).

Reading Fluency Assessments

Fluency assessments are an important tool for educators as a way to identify struggling

readers and provide them with the support and interventions needed to be successful (Rasinski,

2014). Listening to students read aloud helps teachers make judgments of their reading rate,

accuracy, and prosody (Hudson et al., 2005, p. 705). Curriculum-based measurements (CBM)

are the most common form of fluency assessment. CBMs can be used as both a universal

screener and progress-monitoring tool.

A CBM is typically administered as a one-minute assessment given to students to assess

fluency and accuracy. It is given as a “cold” read to measure the student's initial reading rate

without practice. Students can read grade level or instructional level passages depending on the

purpose of the measure. The teacher is able to track a student’s errors, which shows the accuracy

of the reader and subtract those errors from the words read correctly. This will give a score of

the words read correctly per minute (WCPM). Teachers can compare students’ scores against

benchmark or norms to determine academic progress towards a goal.

With the passing of Iowa’s Early Literacy Initiative Iowa school districts were

introduced to the Formative Reading Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) suite. The FAST

suite houses a curriculum-based measurement for reading (CBM-R) system, which is now used

to assess students reading fluency across the state three times a year. Students are identified as

making adequate progress, at-risk, or persistently at-risk after each universal screening is

completed (Iowa Department of Education, 2017b, p. 1) Students identified as persistently at-risk


72

are required to be provided intensive intervention and be progress monitored weekly through the

tier system.

Reading Strategies

Successful readers need to have a good foundation of phonics so they can easily decode

words. This leads to word recognition and word attack, which will make the reader fluent and

once fluent able to comprehend the text being read. When a student does not have to think about

the word itself and how to read it and reading comes automatically, they can begin to focus on

the meaning of the text.

Samuels (1979) began studying and researching the reading process including improving

word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. In 1979, he introduced repeated reading as a

way for readers to practice word recognition and recall. When doing repeated reading, readers

repeatedly read a passage at their instructional level until they reach their desired fluency rate

while improving their decoding skills, reading rate, prosody, and comprehension.

Children learn from watching and hearing others and reading is no exception. Through

modeling, students can hear appropriate fluency, including reading rate, prosody and accuracy

while developing a positive attitude toward reading. Modeling through read-alouds provides

students the opportunity to “hear what a fluent reader sounds like in order to internalize correct

pronunciation, syllabication, tone, and rhythm” (Kulich, 2009, p. 27).

Modeling can take place in a small, guided reading group where the teacher reads the text

to the students before beginning repeated reading strategies. It can also be used as a whole class

read-aloud which offers opportunities to expand students’ reading experiences by reading aloud a

story they would not have selected on their own. The teacher may also select a text that is above

students’ reading level to motivate the reluctant reader to want to read. Throughout the modeling
73

process, the teacher can be engaging the students in discussions to build understanding and make

connections from text to comprehension.

To develop fluency, students must practice reading. Samuels (1997) explains in “The

Method of Repeated Readings,” that “the method consists of rereading a short, meaningful

passage several times until a satisfactory level of fluency is reached” (p. 377). Studies have

continued to support the effectiveness of the repeated reading approach. Repeated reading

improves fluency by also improving decoding skills, rate, and prosody which leads to improved

comprehension (Guerin & Murphy, 2015; Hawkins, Marsicano, Schmitt, McCallum, & Musti-

Rao, 2015; Rasinski, 2004, p. 48).

Best practice is having students practice text at their instructional level to keep from

getting frustrated. If the text is above the students’ instructional reading level, then support

needs to be offered by the teacher to keep the students from becoming frustrated. With the right

amount of support, struggling readers can read text above their independent reading level.

Supporting it is necessary to keep students engaged in the reading process.

Computer-assisted instruction

Limited time in the school day restrict teachers’ ability to work one-on-one or in small

groups with students to improve reading skills. Computer-assisted instruction provides students

with the opportunity to engage in their learning while offering “immediate (and corrective)

feedback, reinforcement and modeling” (Keyes, Cartledge, Gibson Jr, & Robinson-Ervin, 2016,

p. 143). When computer-assisted instruction is available, it allows more students to receive

individualized lessons at their instructional level. Students can have repeated practice on reading

skills for an extended period of time without requiring one-on-one teacher attention.
74

One such computer-assisted instructional program that provides students the opportunity

to work on reading fluency skills while also practicing vocabulary, phonics and comprehension

is Read Naturally Live. Read Naturally Live (Read Naturally, 2017) is a web-based intervention

program, which models the Read Naturally print program, focused on improving reading

fluency. The program utilizes the Read Naturally Strategy, which combines teacher modeling

with repeated reading and progress monitoring while engaging students with non-fiction,

informational texts to practice reading fluency.

The first strategy, teacher modeling, incorporates audio support by reading the passages

to the students during the lesson. The Read Naturally program embraces the repeated reading

strategy to improve reading fluency by having students reread the story three to ten times until

they reach the desired rate. Progress monitoring is the third strategy of the Read Naturally

Strategy that tracks student’s progress on each lesson. Through graphs and visuals, students are

able to track their progress from a cold to hot read, which serves as a motivator to increase their

fluency reading rate.

Methodology

Research Design

This study used a quantitative approach informed by a causal comparative research

design that employed pre- and post-test data to compare the gains made using Read Naturally

Live as a fluency intervention. The causal comparative design was selected due to the study

being a nonexperimental study. SPSS calculated the relationship between the variables based on

pre- and post- FAST scores (Creswell, 2014, p. 12). This design used ex-post facto data

comparing pre- (beginning of the school year) and post- (end of the school year) fluency scores

of students who utilized the computer-based fluency program Read Naturally Live.
75

Research Questions

This study was guided by the following questions:

1. How has the Read Naturally Live fluency program impacted the oral reading fluency

achievement as measured by the Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST)

assessment?

2. What differences exists between oral reading fluency rates of males and oral reading

fluency rates of females as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read

Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?

3. What differences exist between oral reading fluency rates of students of minority and

non-minority students as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read

Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?

4. What differences exists between oral reading fluency rates of students qualified for free

or reduced lunch and oral reading fluency rates of students not qualified for free or

reduced lunch as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read Naturally

Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?

5. What differences exist in oral reading fluency rates between students identified as having

an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and students not identified as having an

Individualized Education Plan (non-IEP) as measured by the FAST assessment after

utilizing the Read Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?

6. What is the relationship between the amount of time spent in Read Naturally Live and the

growth of oral reading fluency rates?

Population
76

This study took place in a school district in the Midwest with approximately 1600

students. Ex-post facto data came from students enrolled in grades three and four during the

2016-17 school year. At the time of this study, the elementary school enrollment included 380

students in grades three through five. The school population included 29 percent of the students

eligible for free and reduced lunch with 85 percent identified as Caucasian, 5 percent Hispanic,

5 percent identified as two or more races, 2 percent identified as African American, 2 percent

as Asian American, and 1 percent as American Indian. Two percent of students were identified

as ELL at the elementary school, and 16 percent of students in this school received special

education services. Table 1 displays students who qualify for free or reduced lunch, ethnicities,

ELL and special education populations.

Table 1

District Student Demographics

Demographics # of Students % of Population

Qualify for free or 112 29%

reduced lunches

Caucasian 324 85%

Hispanic 19 5%

2 or more races 19 5%

African American 6 2%

Asian American 9 2%

American Indian 3 1%

ELL 7 2%

Special Education 61 16%

Note: Information retrieved from the 2016-17 school year.


77

The participants in this study included 78 students identified as needing a reading fluency

intervention. Of those students, 33 were in third grade and 45 were in fourth grade. Table 2

depicts the composition of the participants used in this study. This population of students was

selected because the third and fourth-grade teachers consistently used the Read Naturally Live

program as an intervention throughout the entire 2016-17 school year.

Table 2

Student Grade Level/Gender

Grade 3rd 4th Total

Boys 22 28 50

Girls 11 17 28

Low SES 12 16 28

Minority 4 9 13

Special Education 3 10 13

Note: Information retrieved from the 2016-17 school year.

Instrumentation

This study employed the Curriculum Based Measurement for Reading (CBM-R)

assessment of the Formative Assessment for Teachers (FAST) suite as the data collection

instrument to support its causal comparative research design. The FAST assessment was given

to every student in third and fourth grade in September. Students read three one-minute grade

level passages per test session. Teachers marked the errors in the program and the computer

system took the average of the three scores to determine their WCPM. The CBM-R was given

again in January with the final screening in May. This universal screener was given to all third

and fourth grade students three times during 2016-17 the school year; early September, mid-

January and early May. Additional assessment data included STAR reading scores and Iowa
78

Assessment reading comprehension scores. Table 3 displays the oral reading fluency FAST

benchmarks for third grade and fourth grade during the 2016-17 school year (Iowa Department

of Education, 2016, p. 4).

Table 3

Oral Reading Fluency FAST Benchmarks

Grade Fall Winter Spring

3rd 90 116 131

4th 116 136 150

Note: Iowa Department of Education, 2017, Updated 2016-17 FAST Benchmarks

The FAST suite also has a progress-monitoring component that teachers used to progress

monitor persistently at-risk students on a weekly basis. This allowed homeroom teachers to

track individual student’s level of progress throughout the intervention cycle as well as the

beginning and end of each intervention cycle. The progress monitoring data also helped

determine which students would remain in the Read Naturally Live intervention and which

students would move to a new rotation at the end of each WIN cycle.

Data Analysis

The process of data analysis in this study was guided by a pre-test, treatment, and post-

test process to determine the effectiveness of the Read Naturally Live fluency program using

fluency scores from the 2016-17 school year. Data was initially collected, organized and stored

in a Microsoft EXCEL 2013 spreadsheet and then were analyzed using the Statistical Package

for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program to find results in fluency scores using a paired sample t-

test, 2 way mixed ANOVA and Pearson Correlation. This quantitative approach utilized

descriptive statistics to answer the research questions by looking at students’ scores to see if

fluency rates had increased after completing the Read Naturally Live fluency program. An F
79

statistic is associated to results from the 2 way mixed ANOVA tests. This value reports whether

the means between two populations are significantly different.

Findings

In addressing the first research question, students who were in the Read Naturally Live

reading intervention did show growth from the fall FAST assessment to the spring FAST

assessment. Students who participated in Read Naturally Live (n = 78) during the 2016-17

school year grew a mean of 45.31 words correct per minute (WCPM). The researcher

determined that the probability of seeing data that varies by at least 45.31 WCPM from fall to

spring when no real difference exits are .05. There is a 95% chance of seeing data less

discrepant than this if no real difference exists in the population. The researcher can be 95%

confident that the true difference lies between 49.42 and 41.29. Using a paired t-test, Table 4

displays the results from fall reading fluency scores to spring reading fluency scores for all

students.

Table 4

Mean Change in Fluency Rates on the FAST Assessment

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Mean Mean

Fall Spring Mean Cohen's

Students N Scores Scores Change Lower Upper t df p D

All 78 88.45 133.76 45.31 41.293 49.322 22.47 77 .000 2.54

Note: Mean scores are reported as words correct per minutes (WCPM). A paired t-test is associated with this table.
80

Research question two looked at the difference between males and females in third and

fourth-grade who participated in the Read Naturally Live intervention. Third-grade female

students showed the most growth with a mean change of 57.45 WCPM with fourth-grade female

students showing the least growth with a mean change of 33.94 WCPM. None of the

populations assessed met the FAST benchmarks set by the Iowa Department of Education

(2016). Third-grade spring benchmark is 131 WCPM and the fourth-grade benchmark is 150

WCPM for the spring testing period. However, all subgroups showed growth toward the

benchmark as demonstrated in Table 5. There was a smaller difference from fall to spring in

fourth-grade females, M = 33.94, then fourth-grade males, M = 43.89.

Table 5

Mean Change in Fluency Rates by Gender on the FAST Assessment

95% Confidence

Interval of

Difference

Mean Mean

Fall Spring Mean Cohen’s

Gender N Scores Scores Change Lower Upper t df p d

Gr. 3

Female 11 69.00 126.45 57.45 43.656 71.253 9.27 10 .000 2.80

Gr. 3

Male 22 72.00 121.82 49.82 44.734 54.902 20.38 21 .000 4.34

Gr. 3

All 33 71.00 123.36 52.36 46.969 57.759 19.77 32 .000 3.44


81

Gr. 4

Female 17 98.35 132.29 33.94 23.385 44.498 6.82 16 .000 1.65

Gr. 4

Male 28 103.00 146.89 43.98 37.939 49.846 15.13 27 .000 2.86

Gr. 4

All 45 101.24 141.38 40.14 34.744 45.522 15.01 44 .000 2.24

Note: Mean scores are reported as words correct per minutes (WCPM). A paired t-test is associated with this table.

As Table 5 demonstrates, there is a probability of seeing data that vary by at least 52.36

WCPM from fall to spring for third-grade when no real difference exists is .05. The researcher

can be 95% confident that the true difference for third-grade fluency scores lies between 46.97

and 57.76 if no real difference exists in the population. For fourth-grade, the probability of

seeing data that vary by at least 40.14 WCPM from fall to spring when no real difference exists

is .05. There is a 95% chance of seeing data less discrepant than this if no real difference exists

in the population. The research can be 95% confident that the true difference lies between 34.74

and 45.52.

Table 6 displays the variance of growth between male and female students based on the

interaction of time by gender. For third-grade, there was not a significant difference between

male and female growth, F (1,31) = 1.9, p =.18. There was also not a significant difference

between male growth and female growth in fourth-grade, F (1,43) = 3.44, p = .07. However,

there is a trend toward a difference but it is not statistically significant. For all students who

participated in the Read Naturally Live intervention, there was not a significant difference

between male growth and female growth, F (1,76) = .62, p = .43.

Table 6
82

Variance of Growth Between Males and Females (Interaction of time by gender)

Measure N F p η2

Grade 3 Growth 33 1.89 .18 .003

Grade 4 Growth 45 3.44 .07 .013

All Growth 78 .62 .43 .001

Note. A 2-way ANOVA test is associated with this table.

Table 7 displays the variance of scores between male and female students based on FAST

fluency scores during the 2016-17 school year. Once again, there was not a significant

difference between male scores and female scores for students in third grade, F (1,31) = .02, p =

.91. There was not a significant difference between male and female scores in fourth-grade,

however, there was a trend toward a difference but it was not statistically significant, F (1,42) =

3.01, p =.09. When looking at third and fourth-grade students combined, there was not a

significant difference between male scores and female scores, F (1,76) = .67, p = .42.

Table 7

Variance of Scores Between Males and Females (Main effect of gender)

Measure N F p η2

Grade 3 Scores 33 .02 .91 .000

Grade 4 Scores 45 3.01 .09 .049

All Scores 78 .67 .42 .004

Note. A 2-way ANOVA test is associated with this table.

Research question three examined the differences that exist between students of minority

and non-minority students in third and fourth-grade that participated in the Read Naturally Live

program. When looking at growth between minority and non-minority students, there was not a
83

significant difference, F (1,76) = .67, p = .42. There was also not a significant difference

between scores of minority and non-minority students, F (1,76) =.02, p = .88.

Research question four compared FAST scores of students who qualify for free or

reduced lunch and students who did not qualify for free or reduced lunch. There was not a

significant difference between growth of those students who qualify for free or reduced lunch

and those students who do not qualify for free or reduced lunch, F (1,76) = 1.36, p = .25. There

was also not a significant difference between scores, F (1,76) = 2.66, p =.11 for the two

subgroups.

Research question five evaluated what differences existed between students identified as

having an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) with those students not on an IEP using the FAST

assessment. There was a statistically significant difference in growth between students with an

IEP and students without an IEP, F (1,76) = 5.99, p =.02 as referenced in Table 8. As illustrated

in Table 9, students not on an IEP had a mean growth score of M = 47.45 while students

identified as having an IEP showed a mean growth score of M = 34.62.

Table 8

Variance of Scores Between Students with an Individualized Education Plan and Students

without an Individualized Education Plan (Interaction of time by IEP)

Measure N F p η2

Growth 78 5.99 .02* .007

(Interaction of

time by IEP)

Main effect of IEP 78 3.77 .06 .028

status
84

Note: *Significant Correlation at p<.05. A 2-way ANOVA is associated with this table.

Table 9

Mean Change in Fluency Rates by IEP and Non-IEP on the FAST Assessment

95% Confidence

Interval of

Difference

Mean Mean

Fall Spring Mean Cohen’s

N Scores Scores Change Lower Upper t df p d

IEP 13 83.31 117.92 34.615 25.380 43.851 8.166 12 .000 2.26

Non- 65 89.48 136.92 47.446 43.085 51.807 21.733 64 .000 2.70

IEP

Note. Mean scores are reported as words correct per minutes (WCPM). A paired t-test is associated with this table.

Finally, question six analyzed the relationship between the amount of time spent in Read

Naturally Live and the growth of oral reading fluency rates. The correlation between a number

of rotations and their change from pre to post assessment was negative, yet small, and non-

significant, r (76) = *.13, p = .25. Each rotation was six to seven weeks giving students between

24 and 28 days in the fluency intervention. The majority of students (n = 59) participated in one

or two rotations of Read Naturally Live. These students had a mean growth score of M = 47.73

while 7.7 percent of the population (n = 6) participated in four or five total rotations and had a

mean growth score of M = 44.17. This analysis indicated that the number of times students

participated in a rotation was insignificant to demonstrate fluency growth.

Table 10
85

Frequency of Intervention Based on Number of Rotations in Read Live Program

Number of Rotations Number of Students Mean Growth

1 37 46.51

2 22 48.95

3 13 36.23

4 3 49.33

5 3 39.00

Note. A Pearson Correlation test is associated with this table.

Limitations and Delimitations of the Study

The results of the research were based on the reading fluency scores of one school’s

participation in Read Naturally Live as a reading fluency intervention during the 2016-17 school

year. The researcher did not use random sampling and therefore the results cannot be

generalized to a larger population. Due to a small number of students in some subgroups, not all

populations were represented, i.e. ELL students, ethnicities. The researcher did not have a

control group to measure normal reading fluency growth over the course of a school year to

compare with growth of students in the reading intervention. Finally, the researcher did not track

other interventions students may have received to work on improving reading fluency.

As the State of Iowa continues to improve and refine the requirements of the Early

Literacy Initiative, changes continue to be made. During the 2017-18 school year the State

ended the use of Iowa Tier and moved to the FASTBridge online assessment system. This

system gives teachers diagnostic data that can be used to determine reading interventions. At

this time, the state has not prescribed any reading fluency interventions and continues to leave it

up to local districts to decide.

Assumptions
86

In this study it is assumed that trained personnel implemented Read Naturally Live with

fidelity and efficacy. The researcher will assume that certified teachers gave the FAST

assessment and completed the weekly required progress monitoring. The researcher will also

assume that students gave their best effort on the FAST assessments. Finally, the researcher will

assume that FAST data was manually entered into the data system correctly.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Research has shown that there is a correlation between reading fluency rate and

identifying reading comprehension problems (Hudson et al., 2005). The Theory of Automaticity

explains how improved reading fluency sores will increase comprehension scores “as less

attention is required for decoding, more attention becomes available for comprehension”

(Samuels, 1997, p. 378). This study set out to evaluate the effectiveness of the Read Naturally

Live reading fluency program for third and fourth-grade students based on the FAST reading

assessment. The researcher examined growth over time and scores for gender, minority students,

students receiving free or reduced lunch, and students on an IEP to determine if there would be a

difference in growth or scores for each subgroup. Finally, the researcher examined the

relationship of time and if more exposure to Read Naturally Live impacted reading fluency

scores.

In an era of compliance, schools are constantly looking for ways to improve student

achievement to meet State and Federal mandates. Studies have shown “that increases in fluency

led to increases in comprehension as readers’ attention can be focused away from the task of

word recognition and directed toward meaning making” (Rasinski & Young, 2014, p. 1).

Rasinski (2014) explains, “good readers are so automatic…they can use their cognitive resources
87

for…comprehension. Struggling readers, on the other hand, are not automatic in their word

recognition, so they must use their cognitive resources for…word recognition” (p. 5).

Fluency can be defined as the ability to automatically recall words through word

recognition while reading. When students do not have this automatic recall it slows down their

reading and hinders their ability to comprehend what is being read. Repeated reading is a

strategy that can be used with struggling readers in an effort to improve automatic recall. The

“practice of repeated reading involved the repeated reading of the same passage of text until a

degree of fluency is attained” (Guerin & Murphy, 2015, p. 553). With continual use of the

repeated reading strategy, students initial reading rates will increase on a cold read and fewer re-

readings will be necessary as students transfer automatic word recognition across readings

(Samuels, 1979).

Read Naturally Live is a computer-assisted instructional program designed to improve

student’s reading fluency, vocabulary, phonics and comprehension. Read Naturally Live uses

the Read Naturally Strategy, which combines teacher modeling with repeated reading and

progress monitoring while engaging students with non-fiction, informational texts to practice

reading fluency.

This study investigated the effectiveness of Read Naturally Live as a reading fluency

intervention for at-risk and persistently at-risk third and fourth-grade students. Students

participated in the program for a six or seven-week rotation, four days a week. Students could

participate in all five rotations down to just one rotation. All students showed growth from fall

to spring on the FAST fluency assessment. The mean change between pretest FAST scores and

post-test FAST scores for all students who participated in the program over the course of the

school year (n = 78) was M = 45.31. Third-grade students (n = 33) had a mean change of M =
88

52.36 while fourth-grade students (n = 45) had a mean change of M = 40.14. This data analysis

led the researcher to conclude that Read Naturally Live had a positive effect on all students as no

statistically significant differences were found.

The researcher continued the study by looking at reading fluency growth between male

and female students and concluded that no statistically significant differences were found.

Third-grade female students (n = 11) showed the most growth with a mean change of M = 57.45

while fourth-grade female students (n = 17) had the least growth with a mean change of M =

33.94. There was a trend toward a difference in growth for fourth-grade female students but it

was not statistically significant enough to report. Third-grade male students (n = 22) showed

moderate growth with a mean change of M = 49.82 with fourth-grade male students (n = 28)

showing growth with a mean change of M = 43.98.

The study also looked at the comparisons between minority and non-minority students

reading fluency scores. Minority students (n = 13) showed growth with a mean change of M =

39.98 while non-minority students (n = 65) showed growth with a mean change of M = 46.05.

Although the minority students show slightly lower growth overall, there was not a statistically

significant difference in scores. These findings support studies conducted by Keyes et al. (2016)

and Denton, Anthony, Parker, & Hasbrouck, (2006) in which male and female students as well

as minority and non-minority students who participated in a Read Naturally program showed

reading fluency gains.

This study of reading fluency had positive results when looking at students who qualify

for free or reduced lunches compared to other research of low SES populations. This study

showed growth for students who qualify for free or reduced lunches and did not show a

statistically significant difference between students who qualify for free or reduced lunches (n =
89

27) with a mean change of M = 42.18 and those who do not qualify for free or reduced lunches

(n = 49) with a M = 47.06. One study by Gutman (2012) reported that “the weekly use of Read

Naturally did not have a statistically significant difference on low SES students’ reading

fluency” (p. 96).

The last subgroup the researcher evaluated for fluency growth was students identified as

having an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) compared to their counterparts without an IEP.

Students with an IEP (n = 12) did show growth with a mean change of M = 34.62 compared to

non-IEP students (n = 64) who produced a mean change of M = 47.45. There was a statistically

significant difference in growth between the two subgroups. F (1,76) = 5.99, p = .02. Erickson et

al. (2015) looked at the effectiveness of the Read Naturally program with special education

students and Morgan et al. (2016) replicated the study by Erickson et al. (2015). Both research

teams reported similar results with Read Naturally being “somewhat successful” (Erickson et al.,

2015, p. 15) for students identified as having an IEP.

The final research question, the researcher sought to investigate was to determine if the

amount of time spent using Read Naturally Live impacted reading fluency scores. 75% of the

student population (n = 59) participated in one or two rotations of Read Naturally Live. These

students had a mean growth score of M = 47.73 while 7.7% of the population (n = 6) participated

in four or five total rotations and had a mean growth score of M = 44.17. This analysis indicates

that the number of times students participate in a rotation is insignificant to demonstrate fluency

growth.

Discussions

The overall research results showed positive growth for students identified as at-risk and

persistently at-risk based on the FAST assessment using the Read Naturally Live program as a
90

fluency intervention. This program was used as a fluency intervention to target third and fourth-

grade students struggling to meet fluency benchmarks. This study supports previous research

that Read Naturally Live improves reading fluency rates for students using the repeated reading

strategy. The findings from this study demonstrate students who struggle with reading fluency,

when provided a research based intervention, utilizing the repeated reading strategy, can improve

their reading fluency. The researcher concluded that the use of Read Naturally Live with third

and fourth-grade students during a scheduled intervention time benefited students, helping to

improve their fluency rates.

Being an instructional leader, it is my job to help teachers identify effective programs to

use during intervention time to increase reading and math skills. When the Early Literacy

Initiative became law in the State of Iowa, districts were left to figure out what fluency strategies

would be effective and efficient to help increase fluency scores. As a building administrator and

researcher, I set out to determine if Read Naturally Live was an effective program and would use

the results to determine if the program would continue to be used or discontinued following this

study. Based on the results of this study, I support and encourage the continued use of Read

Naturally Live as a fluency intervention in this elementary school.

The researcher will take the results of this study to work with the instructional coach and

teachers to identify students in need of a fluency intervention to be placed in the Read Naturally

Live program. The instructional coach will work with teachers to correctly place students within

the program and then monitor their progress every four weeks to make appropriate adjustments.

The researcher believes with continued use of the program, reading scores will continue to

improve moving students closer toward grade level benchmarks.


91

This study did not find significant differences in the amount of time spent using Read

Naturally Live, therefore the researcher recommends only placing a student in the program for

the amount of time needed to improve fluency. The intervention sessions used in this study were

seven weeks long, four days a week, approximately 28 days a rotation. For some students, this

time frame was sufficient and for other students, multiple rotations were needed. The findings

did not yield different results based on the number of rotations supporting that the program is

meeting the needs of the students.

The FAST assessment used to determine fluency rates in this study was a one-time

snapshot of students’ reading fluency abilities in the fall and spring. The researcher followed the

lead of the State of Iowa and only used FAST scores for this study and did not look at other

measures to compare fluency rates, such as progress monitoring fluency scores or Read

Naturally Live fluency scores. Although the researcher does not feel that multiple measures

would have changed the outcome of the study, it is worth noting that the scores used to

determine the effectiveness of the program are pre- and post-assessment scores.

The researcher believes this study can provide school districts with a research based

fluency intervention program that can be used to improve student achievement toward meeting

fluency benchmarks. Based on the findings of this study, all subgroups included in the study

showed growth toward the benchmark and therefore the researcher supports the use of this

program for students at any fluency level.

The following are recommendations for practice based on the results of this study.

School districts need to identify a fluency assessment tool to assess reading fluency prior to

implementing Read Naturally Live. Schools need to then commit to 30 minutes of intervention

time, four to five days a week to implement the intervention with fidelity. Finally, districts need
92

to monitor student progress toward fluency benchmarks to determine the length of the

intervention. Once students meet the benchmark, the intervention may be ended.

Several recommendations for further study emerged from this study. These

recommendations include a study with a larger population, including all grade levels, across

multiple schools using Read Naturally Live to make the study more generalizable. Since data

was only collected for one school year, data should be collected and analyzed over multiple

years. Further research should also be done comparing fluency and comprehension scores to

determine as fluency scores increase if comprehension scores also increase.


93

REFERENCES

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Denton, C. A., Anthony, J. L., Parker, R., & Hasbrouck, J. E. (2004). Effects of two tutoring

programs on the english reading development of spanish-english bilingual students.

Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 289-305.

Guerin, A., & Murphy, B. (2015). Repeated reading as a method to improve reading fluency for

struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(7), 551-560.

doi:10.1002/jaal.395

Hawkins, R. O., Marsicano, R., Schmitt, A. J., McCallum, E., & Musti-Rao, S. (2015).

Comparing the efficiency of repeated reading and listening-while-reading to improve

fluency and comprehension. Education & Treatment of Children, 38(1), 49-70.

Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction:

What, why, and how? Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702-714. doi:10.1598/RT.58.8.1

Iowa Department of Education. (2016). Early literacy technical assistance appendices. Retrieved

from

https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/EarlyLiteracyTechnicalAssistance

Appendices-Revised08-31-2016.pdf

Iowa Department of Education. (2017a). Early literacy implementation. Retrieved from

https://www.educateiowa.gov/early-literacy-implementation

Iowa Department of Education. (2017b). Iowa early literacy law facts sheet.
94

Iowa Reading Research Center. (2017). Formative assessment system for teachers (fast) k-6.

Retrieved from http://www.iowareadingresearch.org/reading-in-iowa/literacy-warning-

system/

Keyes, S. E., Cartledge, G., Gibson Jr, L., & Robinson-Ervin, P. (2016). Programming for

generalization of oral reading fluency using computer-assisted instruction and changing

fluency criteria. Education & Treatment of Children, 39(2), 141-172.

Kulich, L. S. (2009). Making the batter better: Using the fluency development lesson as a recipe

for success. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 37(4), 26-36.

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in

reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293-323. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the

scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.

Washington , DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Rasinski, T. (2004). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 46-51.

Rasinski, T. (2014). Fluency matters. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education,

7(1), 3-12.

Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C., & Lems, K. (2012). Fluency instruction: Research-based best

practices (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Rasinski, T., & Young, C. (2014). Assisted reading-a bridge from fluency to comprehension.

New England Reading Association Journal, 50(1), 1-4.

Rasplica, C., & Cummings, K. D. (2013). Oral reading fluency. Retrieved from

http://www.council-for-learning-disabilities.org/what-is-oral-reading-fluency-verbal-

reading-proficiency
95

Read Naturally. (2017). Read naturally rationale and research. Retrieved from

https://www.readnaturally.com/knowledgebase/documents-and-resources/31/19

Renaissance. (2016). Star reading. Retrieved from

http://www.renaissance.com/products/assessment/star-360/star-reading-skills/

Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. Reading Teacher.

Samuels, S. J. (1997). The method of repeated readings. Reading Teacher, 50(5), 376.

Schrauben, J. E. (2010). Prosody's contribution to fluency: An examination of the theory of

automatic information processing. Reading Psychology, 31(1), 82-92.

doi:10.1080/02702710902753996

Taguchi, E., Melhem, L., & Kawaguchi, T. (2016). Assisted reading: A flexible approach to l2

reading fluency building. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 16(1), 106-

118.

Wolf, M. (2017). New research on an old problem: A brief history of fluency. Retrieved from

https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/new-research-old-problem-

brief-history-fluency/
96

Appendix A
97
98

Appendix B
99
100

You might also like