Date of Award:

2012

Document Type:

Dissertation

Degree Name:

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department:

School of Teacher Education and Leadership

Advisor/Chair:

D. Ray Reutzel, Ph.D.

Abstract

Repeated reading has been used for over 30 years. In the publication of the National Reading Panel Report, repeated reading was listed as an effective strategy for developing fluency. Yet, repeated reading’s efficacy has been recently questioned. Understanding the “how-to” of efficiently using evidence-based practices would allow teachers to deliver successful, time-sensitive instruction and intervention to students. This study was based on two research questions. First was a gain score (increase between a student’s first read and their final repeated reading), a better model and therefore a better criterion than the currently popular criterion of reaching a set words-read-correctly-perminute (WRCM) hot read, such as Samuels’ criterion of 95 WRCM. The study’s second question was exploring which demographic variables, such as age, ethnicity, gender, current reading ability, and socioeconomic status (SES), played a significant role in predicting the effectiveness of using weekly repeated reading scores as a predictor of benchmark reading measures at midyear and end-of-year outcome measures. The study used a unique theoretical multilevel path model to explore repeated reading.

A complex model was developed to study (a) the growth of a student’s ability to read words with speed and accuracy and (b) how student demographic features affect growth rates. It was found that a hot read advancement criterion provided a better model fit than the hypothesized advancement criterion of a student’s increase or gain between cold and hot reads. Student growth during repeated reading was found to be constant once a minimum WRCM criterion was reached. While repeated reading was shown to be a strategy that worked equally well for all students, the strategy was shown to be highlyeffective for English-language learners and showed promise in helping to closing the achievement gap. Limitations were discussed and recommendations provided.

Comments

This work made publicly available electronically on April 12, 2012.

Share

COinS