Group Tutoring and the Effects on Reading

Fluency and Motivation to Read

Using Related Science Activities

Amy Kraft Ahern

Frustration…

No Motivation…

Improving Reading Comprehension

Phonics

Phonemic Awareness

Vocabulary

Fluency

Reading Comprehension

Problem

44% of fourth graders lack in

reading fluency

Reading motivation is low

Expository text

Adaniano & Turner, 2005Ritchey, Silverman, Montanaro, Speece, &

Schatschneider, 2012

Fluency

Why is it important?◦“Oral reading fluency is one of the strongest predictors of students’ overall reading ability.”

Bengeny, 2011Therrien, 2004

Repeated Reading

◦1979 study by S. Jay Samuel

◦Replicated in over 200 studies

How to Increase Fluency?

Children need to interact

Improve self-esteem

Improve attitude toward school

Positive attitude toward subject matter

Group Peer Tutoring

Madrid, Canas, & Ortega-Medina, 2007

“Reading is an effortful activity that often involves choice, motivation is crucial to reading engagement”

Motivation

Wigfield, Guthrie, Tonks, & Perencevich, 2004

Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction◦Science concepts◦Hands on activities◦Choice◦Collaboration

CORI

Wigfield, et al, 2004

Research QuestionsHow will peer mediated group

tutoring affect reading fluency?

How will repeated reading of nonfiction science passages affect reading fluency?

How will related hands on science activities affect reading motivation?

22 fourth grade students◦Six students labeled gifted and talented◦One student with a speech language IEP◦One student receiving ESL services◦Eight receiving Tier 2 Reading Interventions

School◦K-4 elementary school◦School of 450 students

Participants

School

Elementary School PopulationGender Asian/

Pacific Islander

Black/African

American

Hispanic Caucasian Multiracial

Male – 54%

6 43 62 103 24

Female – 46%

2 29 63 92 18

Total 2% 16% 28% 44% 10%

PlanEight weeks7 groups with three to

four students of various abilities

Monday through Wednesday - Repeated Reading

Science passages with activities

Thursday - activity day

Friday - AimsWeb Fluency check and vote for following week’s topic

11/22/2013 1/11/2014 3/2/2014 4/21/2014 6/10/201475.0

95.0

115.0

135.0

155.0

175.0

195.0

Linear Trend in WPM (Compared to AIMSWeb R-CBM National Norms)

90th %ile

75th %ile

50th %ile

25th %ile

10th %ile

Results…

Tier II ESL TEC Class Avg.0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

2.072.40

1.20

1.61

Average RoI for Special Populations

Student Group (Some students may be represented in more than one group).

RoI

(WP

M/W

eek)

Average Increase Sept-Jan Average Increase Jan-April0.95

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

Growth in Reading Levels (Fountas & Pinnell)

Time Period

Avera

ge #

of

Levels

Incre

ase

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Student Survey Score Change

Initial Student Survey Score

Change in S

tudent

Surv

ey S

core

r = -0.41

Happy Reader!

References

Abadiano, H. R. & Turner, J. (2005). Reading fluency: The road to

developing efficient and effective readers. Review of

Research in the Classroom, 41(1), 50-56.

AIMSweb National Norms Table. (2014). [Table Reading –

Curriculum Based Measurement]. Retrieved from

http://aimsweb.pearson.com

Begeny, J. C. (2011). Effects of the helping early literacy with

practice strategies (HELPS) reading fluency program with

implemented at different frequencies. School Psychology

Review 40(1), 149-157.

Dion, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2005). Differential effects of

peer- assisted learning strategies on students’ social

preference and friendship making. Behavioral Disorders, 30(4),

421-429.

Dufrene, B. A., Reisener, C. D., Olmi, D. J., Zoder-Martell, K.,

McNutt, M. R., & Horn, D. R. (2010). Peer tutoring for

reading fluency as a feasible and effective alternative in

response to intervention. Behavioral Education, 19(3), 239-

256.

Fountas, I. C. & Pinnell, G. S. (2008). Fountas & Pinnell benchmark

assessment system 2: Assessment guide. Portsmouth, NH:

Heineman.

Green, S. K., Alderman, G., & Leighty, A. (2004). Peer tutoring,

individualized intervention, and progress monitoring with at-risk

second grade readers. Preventing School Failure, 49(1), 11-17.

Gorsuch, G. & Taguchi, E. (2010). Developing reading fluency and

comprehension using repeated reading: Evidence from

longitudinal student reports. Language Teaching Research,

14(1), 27-59.

Hasbrouck, J. (2006). Understanding and assessing fluency.

Reading Rockets. Retrieved from http

://www.readingrockets.org/article/27091/?theme=print

Hasbrouck, J. & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A

valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading

Teacher, 59(7), 636-644.

Hashimoto, K., Utley, C. A., Greenwood, C. R., & Pitchlyn, C. L.

(2007). The effects of modified classwide peer tutoring

procedures on the generalization of spelling skills of urban

third-grade elementary students. Learning Disabilities: A

Contemporary Journal, 5(2), 1-29.

Madrid, L. D., Canas, M., & Ortega-Medina, M. (2007). Effects of

team competition versus team cooperation in classwide peer

tutoring. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(3) 155-160.

Menesses, K. F. & Gresham, F. M. (2009). Relative efficacy of

reciprocal and nonreciprocal peer tutoring for students at-risk for

academic failure. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(4), 266-275.

Oddo, M., Barnett, D. W., Hawkins, R. O., & Musti-Rao, S. (2010).

Reciprocal peer tutoring and repeated reading increasing

practicality using student groups. Psychology in Schools,

47(8), 842-858.

Olson, P. C. (2011). Weaker readers as experts: Preferential

instruction and the fluency improvement of lower performing

student tutors. Reading Improvement, 48(4), 157-167.

Pearson. (2012). AIMSweb rate of improvement growth norms

guide. Bloomington, MN.

Ritchey, K. D., Silverman, R. D., Speece, D. L. & Schatschneider, C.

(2012). Effects of a tier 2 supplemental reading intervention

for at-risk fourth- grade students. Exceptional Children, 78(3),

318-334.

Strickland, W. D., Boon, R. T., & Spencer, V. G. (2013) The effects of

repeated reading on the fluency and comprehension skills of

elementary-age students with learning disabilities (LD), 2001-

2011: A review of research and practice. Learning Disabilities:

A Contemporary Journal, 11(1), 1-33.

Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result

of repeated reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special

Education, 25(4), 252-261.

Therrien, W. J., Gormley, S., & Kubina, R. M. (2006). Boosting fluency and

comprehension to improve reading achievement. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 38(3), 22-26.

Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006). Effect of a combined

repeated reading and question generation intervention on reading

achievement. Learn Disabilities Research & Practices, 21(2), 89-97.

Samuels, S. J. (1997). The method of repeated reading. The Reading

Teacher, 50(5), 376-381.

Vadasy, P. F. & Sanders, E. A. (2008) Repeated reading intervention:

Outcomes and interactions with reader’s skills and classroom instruction.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 272-290.

Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Klauda, S. L.,

McRae, A., & Barbosa, P. (2008). Role of reading engagement in

mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading

outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 432-445.

Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. (2004). Children’s

motivation of reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences.

The Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 299-309.