|
Strategy #2: Repeated Reading Cycle
Method
Data Source “A” – Student Observations
Observation
notes on 2/26/07 (day 1. text #1). I chose a 1st
grade level text for this cycle. During the first day
using the repeated reading cycle with Matt I wrote:
Chunk 1A: “…We went over the words, and I
modeled the text for him. We read it together once. Then
he read again, and I noticed his rate improved.”
Chunk 2A: “After just a few readings I
could hear his rate improving.”
Observation notes on 2/27/07 (day 2, text
#2), the second day Matt and I worked together by
reading text #1 I wrote:
Chunk 3A: “We read 3 times together today
then Matt read the text alone. He miscued only 2 times.
He is still reading somewhat slowly, but his accuracy is
improving.”
Observation notes on 3/6/07 (day 2, text
#2). On the second day with the second text I wrote:
Chunk 4A: “Matt is getting more and more
accurate with his words in this section. Just yesterday
I worried it was too hard, but today he miscued still
for stand and self-corrected it’s and
she. Those were his only miscues.”
Observation notes on 2/28/07 (day 3, text
#1. The third day Matt and I worked together, reading
the text at the same time. I wrote:
Chunk 5A: “We read through the story
twice together today. Then I took a running record to
see how he was doing. I timed him at 114 words per
minute, so I need to adjust the goal, or do I switch
stories more often?”
|
CHUNKS 1A – 5A:
From the beginning of this project, I
wanted to know if repeated reading really increased a
student’s ability to more fluently. I chose a student in
class to work with for whom reading is a difficult
process. Matt struggles with reading quickly and
recognizing grade level words quickly. I thought he was
the perfect candidate for this procedure because he’s
the student I worry about most in terms of reading, and
I think he has the most to gain by increasing his
fluency.
I found as I worked with Matt that
repeated reading increased his rate. His rate improved
dramatically on the text we read together. He often went
from less than 50 WPM (on his first read) to over 100
WPM on his second read after we read the text together
2-3 times. While I was impressed that his rate improved
so much in one day, I was concerned that there wouldn’t
be any carryover. As it turned out, Matt was able to
maintain his rate over the course of several days
reading the same text.
In addition, I wanted to know if repeated
reading would increase Matt’s accuracy, and I have mixed
results on this. His miscues certainly decreased as we
read together, but we went over the difficult words
before beginning our reading session each day. The
flashcards helped him focus on those words before
reading them in connected text, and he rarely miscued
with those words.
These observations tell me that repeated
reading does work to increase rate and accuracy on one
text practiced several times. Based on my observations,
I think it may be better to change the text more often,
perhaps using the repeated reading cycle with one text
per day.
. |
|
Strategy #2:
Repeated Reading Cycle Method
Data Source “B” –
DIBELS Data ( accuracy and rate scores for the DIBELS
Oral Reading Fluency “ORF” assessment):
Noted from Matt’s
ORF (Oral Reading Fluency) scores from 2/26/07 to
4/07/07. All of the texts for ORF are at 3rd
grade level. The WPM goal for 3rd grade is
110 by the end of the year.
|
Date/Text |
WPM |
Accuracy |
|
2/26/07
Clouds and Weather |
47 |
89% |
|
3/7/07
Firefighters |
26 |
74% |
|
3/14/07
A Present from Me |
36 |
86% |
|
3/20/07
The Olympic Games |
27 |
79% |
|
4/2/07
Mother’s Day |
38 |
95% |
|
4/9/07
Surprise Party |
52 |
93% |
Chunk 1B: Throughout
the project, Matt’s WPM didn’t increase on first
readings of grade level texts.
Chunk 2B: When
Matt’s WPM scores increase his accuracy rate also
increases.
Chunk 3B: Matt’s
most current accuracy scores are 95% and 93%. His scores
are usually in the 70’s and 80’s.
Data gleaned from
probing Matt’s ORF assessments from 3/07/07 to 4/09/07.
The probe identifies Matt’s miscues.
Chunk 4B: ORF Probe
#1 (2/26/07). This assessment was taken the day our
program began and before the repeated reading cycle
method was used with Matt. His miscues: that, look,
from, when, float, though, droplets, and crystals.
Chunk 5B: ORF Probe
#2 (3/07/07). Matt’s miscues: even, when, to, also,
clean, hoses, busy, firefighters, and inspect.
Chunk 6B: ORF Probe
#3 (3/14/07). Matt’s miscues: her, own, from, wanted,
and stepmother. He read “our,” a word he missed on this
week’s repeated reading cycle text.
Chunk 7B: ORF Probe
#4 (3/20/07). Matt’s miscues: our, didn’t, whole, held,
every, travel and anywhere.
Chunk 8B: ORF Probe
# 5 (4/02/07). This week Matt only missed the word
“surprise,” and he skipped the word “and.”
Chunk 9B: ORF Probe
#6 (4/09/07). Matt’s miscues: had, assist, and that (2
times).
|
CHUNKS 1B-3B:
Matt’s ORF scores suggest a couple of
things:
1. Initially the repeated reading method
increased the student’s rate and accuracy on the
practiced text, but there wasn’t necessarily carryover
to new texts. The transfer I was hoping for wasn’t
there. His scores went up and down over the course of
the project.
2. After several weeks, Matt’s rate
didn’t improve much, but his accuracy did. When he paid
attention to the context of the story, he increased his
accuracy because he went back and self-corrected for
meaning. This is really a breakthrough for him, and it
is an important benefit of the project. Because Matt is
reading more for meaning, his background knowledge plays
an important role in how well he reads.
CHUNKS 4B-9B:
When I studied Matt’s ORF probes, I
looked at his miscues to help determine if the words we
had focused on together and the miscued words shared
common patterns.
What I found was Matt’s miscue patterns
are typical of struggling readers. He still errs on
common sight words; he errs on words that don’t follow
typical phonics patterns; and some multi-syllabic words
are difficult for him.
There was only one time when he correctly
read a word we had worked on earlier in our repeated
reading sessions.
What the entire data set tells me is that
the repeated reading cycle may not always be an
effective way for students to learn common sight words,
even though I had hoped it would be. What I found most
informative, based on Matt’s data, is that the process
made the student aware of reading for meaning and using
context to make self-corrections. |
