Abstract: This study compared the effects of sustained silent readings and repeated readings on oral reading fluency and comprehension of at-risk students from a 2nd grade class in an urban school with low performance on WJ-III subtests and DIBELS fall benchmark assessments. A multiple baseline across subjects experimental design was used. Intervention was conducted over a 4-16 week period consisting of Repeated Reading. Variables measured were reading fluency: number of correct words read per minute and reading comprehension: number of comprehension items answered correctly. During baseline condition (sustained silent reading) students read grade level passages independently and silently for 10 minutes. They were tested in fluency and comprehension during one minute timings. During the interventions condition (paired repeated reading) students worked in pairs, taking turns reading the passage orally for 10 minutes. They were also tested in fluency and comprehension during one minute timings. The dependent variables in this study were number of words read per minute and the number of comprehension questions answered correctly. Results indicate that students' oral reading fluency and comprehension skills stayed consistent with sustained silent readings, but improved with repeated readings.

This experimental study was conducted to examine the relative effectiveness of a Repeated Reading (RR) and Wide Reading (WR) intervention when compared to typical instruction on secondary struggling readers' comprehension, fluency, and word reading. The sample consisted of a total of 96 students (9th through 12th grade) ranging in age from 13-17 in special education reading and English classrooms. Participants included students with learning disabilities (LD), dyslexia, or students selected as students with significant reading difficulties. The investigator paired students on variables of interest (i.e., reading level) within classes and then randomly assigned pairs to one of three groups: repeated reading (N=33), wide reading (N=34), or typical instruction (N=29). Tutors, trained by the investigator, monitored students as they worked in pairs in each treatment condition. Intervention was provided daily for approximately 15-20 minutes for 10 weeks. Treatment effects for each outcome measure were estimated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Results indicate no overall statistically significant differences for any condition. Effects ranged from -.81 to .28 usually hovering around no effect or favoring the C condition over the treatment conditions or favoring the RR condition over the WR condition. Five separate ANCOVAs were conducted using the following dependent variables with each pretest score used as a covariate: (1) Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement III (WJIII) Passage Comprehension subtest (RR vs. C = -.10; WR vs. C = -.20; RR vs. WR= .10); (2) Test of Silent Reading Fluency (TOSRE) (RR vs. C =.-31; WR vs. C = -.81; RR vs. WR= .10); (3) Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement III (WJIII) Letter-Word Identification subtest (RR vs. C = -.05; WR vs. C = -.11; RR vs. WR = .06); (4) AIMSWeb Oral Reading Fluency System (RR vs. C = -.08; WR vs. C = -.26; RR vs. WR= .18); and (5) Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (RR vs. C =.28; WR vs. C = -.01; RR vs. WR= .28). Results indicate that neither RR nor WR should be implemented for secondary readers with significant reading difficulties and more research into ways to make fluency instruction more explicit and instructional for these students is warranted.

The purpose of this study was to determine if repeated readings with error correction would increase a child’s reading fluency and comprehension for middle school students with disabilities. Three middle school students with reading deficits participated in the study. This study used AB designs across three students. Results indicated that repeated readings with error correction increased the average correct words per minute for each student, decreased the average number of errors per minute for each student, and increased the average number of reading comprehension questions students answered correctly.