read naturally rationale and research

&Read Naturally

Rationale Research

®

Read Naturally, Inc.Saint Paul, Minnesota

Phone: 800.788.4085/651.452.4085Website: www.readnaturally.comE-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2005–2009 Read Naturally, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2009 Read Naturally, Inc. 1 Rationale & ResearchTable of Contents

Table of ContentsRead Naturally Rationale...................................................................3

Struggling Readers Often Have Fluency Problems ....................................................3

Struggling Readers Do Not Read Enough .................................................................3

What Struggling Readers Need to Become Fluent ....................................................3

Who Needs Fluency Training? ...................................................................................4

Tools for Comparison: Oral Reading Fluency Norms................................................4

Read Naturally Steps .........................................................................6Select a Story ..............................................................................................................6

Key Words ..................................................................................................................6

Prediction....................................................................................................................6

Cold Timing ...............................................................................................................6

Graph the Cold Timing Score....................................................................................6

Read Along .................................................................................................................7

Practice........................................................................................................................7

Answer the Quiz Questions........................................................................................7

Pass .............................................................................................................................7

Graph the Hot Timing Score .....................................................................................7

Retell ...........................................................................................................................8

Word List....................................................................................................................8

Select a Story ..............................................................................................................8

Control Group Studies ......................................................................9Case 1: Original Study, Minneapolis, Minn. ............................................................10

Case 2: University of Minnesota Study, Minneapolis, Minn. ...................................11

Case 3: Third-Grade Students, Minneapolis, Minn. ................................................13

Case 4: Special Education Students, Huron County, Mich......................................16

Case 5: First-Grade Students, South Forsyth County, Ga. ......................................18

Case 6: Two-School Study, Minneapolis, Minn........................................................20

Case 7: Four-School Study, Minneapolis, Minn.......................................................22

Case 8: Third Graders, Southern California .............................................................25

Case 9: Second-Grade Students, Elk River, Minn. ..................................................27

Other Benefits of the Read Naturally Stategy ...................................28

Bibliography....................................................................................29

Copyright © 2009 Read Naturally, Inc. 3 Rationale & ResearchRead Naturally Rationale

Read Naturally RationaleThe Read Naturally® program provides a method to improve readingfluency. Most struggling readers have fluency problems and spend littletime reading. The Read Naturally program combines three powerfulstrategies for improving fluency: teacher modeling, repeated reading, andprogress monitoring.

Picture in your mind one of your struggling readers. Turn on the audioportion of your brain and listen to that student read. You would probablydescribe that student’s reading as word-by-word, halting, slow, andlaborious. Students with these characteristics associated with their readinghave a fluency problem. Educators often describe reading problems interms of fluency, indicating that teachers know fluency is an importantcomponent of good reading. Research demonstrates a strong correlationbetween fluency and reading comprehension (Armstrong, 1983; Breznitz,1987; Knupp, 1988; Lesgold, 1985). Consequently, teachers need todevelop the fluency of their students.

Students become fluent readers by reading (Allington, 1983). Yet in ourelementary schools, students read an average of only seven to eightminutes a day (U.S. Department of Education). Struggling readers readeven less—hardly enough time to become proficient at something asdifficult as learning to read. Struggling readers cannot or will notindependently read the books in classroom libraries. When asked to readquietly, they sometimes pretend to read. Often these students cannot readthe basals and anthologies in use in their classroom. Also, poor fluency isa self-perpetuating problem. Struggling readers read so few words duringtheir instructional and independent reading time that the gap betweenthem and their peers continually widens.

Struggling readers need a safe, structured, and highly motivatingopportunity to engage in reading on a daily basis. Research supportsteacher modeling, repeated reading, and progress monitoring as ways toinvolve struggling readers in the act of reading in order to improve theirfluency and accelerate their reading achievement.

Teacher modeling improves the reading fluency of students (Eldredge &Quinn, 1988; Heckelman, 1969; McAllister, 1989; Reitsma, 1988).Teacher modeling consists of a proficient reader modeling good, correctreading for a less able reader. Examples of this strategy are dyad reading,echoic reading, NIM (neurological impress method), and choral reading.

What StrugglingReaders Need toBecome Fluent

Struggling ReadersDo Not Read Enough

Struggling ReadersOften Have FluencyProblems

Rationale & Research 4 Copyright © 2009 Read Naturally, Inc.Read Naturally Rationale

Repeated reading also improves fluency (Dowhower, 1987; Knupp, 1988;Koskinen & Blum, 1984; Larking, 1988; O’Shea, Sindelar, & O’Shea,1985; Rashotte & Torgeson, 1985; Richek & McTague, 1988). With thisstrategy, the student reads a story of 100 to 200 words many times untilable to read it fluently.

Finally, daily monitoring of student progress improves studentachievement (Schunk, 1982). The student becomes more involved in thelearning process, and the teacher remains aware of each student’s progress.

Combining teacher modeling, repeated reading, and progress monitoringcreates a powerful tool to improve the reading fluency of strugglingreaders (figure 1).

Figure 1. Combining Three Powerful Strategies forImproving Fluency

Students who read slowly and laboriously need to improve their fluency. Ifa student’s average words-correct-per-minute score from two or threeunpracticed readings of grade-level material places the studentsignificantly below the 50th percentile of fluency norms, you should add afluency-building program to his or her regular instructional program. Youcan use the table on the next page (figure 2) to determine which studentsneed to work on fluency.

Dr. Jan Hasbrouck and Dr. Gerald Tindal published the results of anextensive study of oral reading fluency in 2005. The results of their studyare published in a technical report entitled “Oral Reading Fluency: 90Years of Measurement,” which is available on the University of Oregon’swebsite, www.brtprojects.org/tech_reports.php.

Tools for Comparison: Oral Reading FluencyNorms

Who Needs FluencyTraining?

TeacherModeling

RepeatedReading

ProgressMonitoring

Students read alongwhile listening to arecording of a high-interest story.

Students practicereading the storyuntil they can read itat a predeterminedgoal rate.

Students draw or view a graph ofthe number of words read correctlybefore practicing and then againafter practicing. The graph providesproof of the student’s progress.

Copyright © 2009 Read Naturally, Inc. 5 Rationale & ResearchRead Naturally Rationale

The table below (figure 2) provides the oral reading fluency rates forstudents in grades 1 through 8 as determined by the data. You can use this information to draw conclusions and make decisions about the oralreading fluency of your students. Students scoring significantly below the50th percentile using the average score from two or three unpracticedreadings from grade-level materials need a fluency-building program.

Figure 2. Hasbrouck-Tindal OralReading Fluency Norms(2005)

*WCPM = words correct perminute

**AWI = average weeklyimprovement

AWI is the average words per weekgrowth you can expect from astudent. It was calculated bysubtracting the fall score from thespring score and dividing thedifference by 32, the typical numberof weeks between the fall andspring assessments.

Because there is no fall assessmentin grade 1, the AWI for grade 1 wascalculated by subtracting the winterscore from the spring score anddividing the difference by 16, thetypical number of weeks betweenthe winter and spring assessments.

Grade Percentile FallWCPM*

WinterWCPM*

SpringWCPM*

AWI**(words growth per

week)

1

9075502510

814723126

11182532815

1.92.21.91.00.6

2

9075502510

10679512511

125100724218

142117896131

1.11.21.21.1

0.6

3

9075502510

12899714421

146120926236

1621371077848

1.11.21.11.1

0.8

4

9075502510

145119946845

1661391128761

1801521239872

1.11.00.90.90.8

5

9075502510

1661391108561

1821561279974

19416813910983

0.90.90.90.80.7

6

9075502510

1771531279868

19516714011182

20417715012293

0.80.80.70.80.8

7

9075502510

18015612810279

19216513610988

20217715012398

0.70.70.70.70.6

8

9075502510

18516113310677

19917314611584

19917715112497

0.40.50.60.60.6

Rationale & Research 6 Copyright © 2009 Read Naturally, Inc.Read Naturally Steps

Read Naturally StepsThe student selects a story at the assigned reading level.

Most Read Naturally® levels include 24 high-interest, nonfiction stories.Selecting the correct Read Naturally level for each student ensures thateach student can work with material that is appropriate for his or herreading ability. Letting students select which stories to read puts them incharge of their learning. Since the stories are all at the same reading level,the order in which the students complete the stories is unimportant.

The student reads the key words and their definitions, tracking andsubvocalizing with the recording.

This is a vocabulary step that teaches students some of the importantwords that are used in the story. They learn how to pronounce the wordsand what they mean.

The student writes a sentence using the title, picture, and key words topredict what the story will say about the topic.

This activity prepares the students to read the story by thinking brieflyabout the topic before beginning to read. They should spend only aminute or two on this activity.

The student times him- or herself for one minute, orally reading theselected story for the first time and marking unknown words.

This step establishes a baseline for measuring the student’s improvement.Marking unknown words makes the student aware of words and phrasesto pay particular attention to during the read along step.

The student or computer graphs the number of words read correctly inthe one-minute timing.

Cold-timing scores are typically marked in blue, and hot-timing scores aretypically marked in red. Using a consistent color for the cold- and hot-timing scores helps students and teachers to quickly see the line ofprogress on a graph.

Graph the Cold-Timing Score

Cold Timing

Prediction

Key Words

Select a Story

Copyright © 2009 Read Naturally, Inc. 7 Rationale & ResearchRead Naturally Steps

The student reads along while listening to a recording of the story, usuallythree times. The students should quietly subvocalize as they read.

This is the teacher modeling step, which helps students build wordrecognition and accuracy and encourages proper pronunciation,expression, and phrasing. The Read Naturally stories are read at a pace that allows students to actually read along.

The student practices reading the story without audio support severaltimes until able to read at the predetermined goal rate. Students time each practice.

The practice step is the fluency-building step. Reading the passage overand over allows the student to master the story. Timing each practicekeeps the student motivated.

The student answers questions about the story—five questions inSequenced levels 1.0 through 5.0 and nine questions in Sequenced levels 5.6 through 8.0.

Answering questions encourages students to read for comprehension andhelps ensure that they understand what they read. Because most of thequestions in each series follow a particular pattern, over time teachers cansee which types of questions are difficult for the student.

The teacher times the student reading the story for one minute, countingerrors. To pass, the student must read the story at the goal rate, makethree or fewer errors, read with good expression, and answer all of thequestions correctly.

The student or computer graphs the number of words read correctly inthe one-minute pass timing.

The hot-timing score is marked as a red bar above the blue bar for thecold-timing score. Seeing their progress motivates students to continueimproving and increases their self-esteem.

Graph the Hot-Timing Score

Pass

Answer the QuizQuestions

Practice

Read Along

Rationale & Research 8 Copyright © 2009 Read Naturally, Inc.Read Naturally Steps

The student writes a retell by writing a specific number of ideas learnedfrom a story, writing for a specific amount of time, or writing a summary.

This is another way to encourage students to think about the ideas in thestory, not just the words. If you allow students a specific amount of timeto write retells, you can have them graph how many words they wroteduring the allotted time to show their progress.

In the Phonics Series, instead of the retell step, the student practices theword list until he or she can read a predetermined number of words inone minute. The student then tries to pass the word list by reading it forhis or her teacher.

The student selects a new story and completes the steps again.

Note: The Read Naturally steps differ slightly when using Read NaturallySoftware Edition (SE). For example, students do not need to color intheir own graphs, since the program does the graphing for them.

After the student completes 12 stories in a level, the teacher and studentdecide whether the student should continue in the same level with thesame goal, adjust the reading-rate goal, or move to more difficult readingmaterial.

Select a Story

Word List

Retell

Copyright © 2009 Read Naturally, Inc. 9 Rationale & ResearchControl Group Studies

Control Group StudiesStudents from diverse backgrounds and from many different geographicareas have made significant improvements in reading fluency and incomprehension scores. This section describes some of the control groupstudies that provide evidence of Read Naturally®’s effectiveness.

The following control group studies are included in this section:

� Case 1: Original Study, Minneapolis, Minn.The original study that launched the Read Naturally strategy.

� Case 2: University of Minnesota Study, Minneapolis, Minn.A 10-week study of low-performing third graders, conducted byresearchers at the University of Minnesota.

� Case 3: Third-Grade Students, Minneapolis, Minn.A nine-month study comparing demographically matched thirdgraders where one group received Read Naturally instruction and onegroup did not.

� Case 4: Special Education Students, Huron County, Mich.A study comparing special education students receiving Read Naturallyinstruction with other special education students and with generaleducation students.

� Case 5: First-Grade Students, South Forsyth County, Ga.A three-week study comparing first graders using Read NaturallySoftware Edition (SE) with a control group.

� Case 6: Two-School Study, Minneapolis, Minn.A year-long study comparing demographically matched students intwo schools, where one group received Read Naturally instruction andone group did not.

� Case 7: Four-School Study, Minneapolis, Minn.A year-long study comparing demographically matched students infour schools, where one group received Read Naturally instruction andone group did not.

� Case 8: Third-Grade Students, Southern CaliforniaA 10-week study comparing six third graders who receivedintervention instruction using Read Naturally SE with six matched students who did not.

� Case 9: Second-Grade Students, Elk River, Minn.A 12-week study comparing students who received Read Naturallyinstruction with a control group.

Rationale & Research 10 Copyright © 2009 Read Naturally, Inc.Control Group Studies

During the 1989–1990 school year, Candyce Ihnot combined teachermodeling, repeated reading, and progress monitoring into the ReadNaturally strategy in a third-grade classroom at a large Minneapolispublic school. The classroom consisted of seven third-grade specialeducation students and 18 Title I students. Because the school used acollaborative model for delivering instruction to students with specialneeds, a classroom teacher, a special education teacher, and a Title Iteacher (Candyce Ihnot) worked together to provide instruction to thestudents.

During her time with the seven special education students, Candyce usedthe Read Naturally strategy to supplement instruction in the basal.During her time with the Title I students, Candyce provided instructionin phonics to supplement instruction in the basal. At the end of sevenweeks the special education students (using the Read Naturally strategy)improved their reading fluency by an average of 2.35 words per week. TheTitle I students made an average gain of 1.23 words per week.

After seeing the results from the previous seven weeks, Candyce then usedthe Read Naturally strategy with the Title I students over 13 weeks.During the 13 weeks, these students gained an average of 2.15 words perweek. The instruction they received from the classroom teacher and thespecial education teacher remained constant between the two periods.

*Without Read Naturally**With Read Naturally

Figure 3. Average Gains in Fluency forSpecial Education and Title IStudents

Special Educationwith Read Naturally Title I

OctoberMean 34.0 50.2

Standard Deviation 8.7 11.9

NovemberMean 50.7 58.7

Standard Deviation 9.0 13.2

MarchMean – 86.7

Standard Deviation – 16.2

Average WeeklyGain

Over 7 Weeks 2.35 1.23*

Over 13 Weeks – 2.15**

Case 1: Original Study,Minneapolis, Minn.


A study by researchers at the University of Minnesota found that studentsusing Read Naturally SE had 39 percent greater gains in fluency thanstudents in a control group. The study was lead by Theodore Christ,Ph.D., an associate professor in the University’s Department ofEducational Psychology. Read Naturally SE is a computer-basedintervention designed to improve reading accuracy and fluency.

The study was a randomized control trial that was conducted in late 2008and early 2009 across six schools with 109 low-performing students inthird grade. Those students assigned to the Read Naturally group receivedintervention instruction for 30 minutes per day, five days a week, for 10weeks. Students in the control group received normal classroom readinginstruction with no supplemental fluency instruction.

Multiple standardized measures of reading accuracy and fluency indicatedthat students in the Read Naturally group outperformed students in thecontrol group on all measures of accuracy and fluency.

The study examined the students’ fluency gains using results fromDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessments.The Read Naturally students gained, on average, 1.53 words correct perminute (WCPM) per week compared to 1.10 WCPM per week forstudents in the control group—39 percent greater gains for students inthe Read Naturally group.

Figure 4 illustrates that the DIBELS average for the Read Naturallygroup was below that of the control group at pre-test, and after 10 weeksof intervention, the Read Naturally students outperformed those in thecontrol group.

Figure 4. Chart Comparing AverageDIBELS Scores Over theCourse of the 10-WeekStudy

Case 2: University ofMinnesota Study,Minneapolis, Minn.


Students in the Read Naturally group gained, on average, .40 WCPMmore than students in the control group. The magnitude of improvementshould be compared to typical growth and expected levels of achievementamong third-grade students. Published estimates of typical growth inthird grade approximate 1.2 WCPM among students in general educationand .58 WCPM among students in special education. Students areexpected to exceed 100 WCPM by the end of the third grade if they areto be successful on large-scale, state-wide assessments. A sustainedadditional improvement of .40 WCPM across the academic year issubstantial. Assuming a typical growth rate of approximately 1.20WCPM per week, a 39 percent improvement would result in improvedgrowth to 1.68 WCPM per week, which is a cumulative gain of 14.4more words read correct across 36 weeks.

These results were not specific to DIBELS measures. After accountingfor pre-test levels of performance, the students in the Read Naturallygroup scored one to two standard score units better on most standardizedmeasures of fluency and accuracy after 10 weeks of intervention. Ifextrapolated across the school year, those gains would translate toapproximately three to seven standard score units of improvedperformance for those students within the Read Naturally groupcompared to the control group. Such improvements would be substantial.

The observed gains for the experimental group were obtained withminimal resources. Teacher and personnel time is one of the most valuableresources in schools. The Read Naturally intervention was implementedwith minimal support. Teachers received the recommended training in theRead Naturally strategy and completed the Read Naturally SE Self-Studycourse to supplement them in the software implementation. Individualteachers were able to supervise their groups of students while the studentsreceived individualized instruction from Read Naturally SE.

The complete results for this study are available on the Read Naturallywebsite: www.readnaturally.com/pdf/UofMnReadNaturallyStudy.pdf


A study of third-grade students in the Minneapolis Public Schoolsshowed that students using Read Naturally had greater reading gains thancomparable students who did not use Read Naturally. The study wasbased on data collected during the 2003–2004 school year. Throughoutthe school year, one group of students used Read Naturally MastersEdition (ME) and Read Naturally SE, while one group did not.

A total of 44 third-graders from three Minneapolis schools were includedin the study. Each Read Naturally student was matched with a studentwho was not in a Read Naturally program but had comparable baselinetest scores and demographics. The demographic criteria were grade,English language learner status, special education status, free or reducedprice lunch status, racial/ethnic category, home language, and gender.

The students were evaluated using three assessments—the NorthwestAchievement Levels Test (NALT), the Minnesota ComprehensiveAssessments (MCA), and Read Naturally’s Reading Fluency Monitor.* The test results are shown in figures 5 through 8. The NALT and RFMresults are deemed to be statistically significant, but the MCA results arenot, due to the small sample size.

Figure 5. Average Scores on ThreeReading Assessments

ControlGroup

ReadNaturally

NorthwestAchievementLevels Test

Baseline (Spring 2003) 178.5 178.4

Final (Spring 2004) 187.7 192.3

Increase 9.2 13.9

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments 1331.4 1363.2

Reading FluencyMonitorAssessments

Fall 2003 49.3 48.7

Winter 2004 64.5 71.5

Spring 2004 76.3 85.1

Increase 27.0 36.4

Case 3: Third-GradeStudents,Minneapolis, Minn.

*Reading Fluency Monitor has been replaced by Reading FluencyBenchmark Assessor.


A comparison of the students’ NALT pre-test scores with their final testscores in Spring 2004 showed that, on average, the Read Naturallystudents had gains of 13.9 points compared to gains of only 9.2 bystudents not in a Read Naturally program (see figure 6).

A comparison of 22 matched pairs of students with MCA scores in grade3 showed that students in the Read Naturally program scored higher thanthe control group. Specifically, the average score for the Read Naturallystudents was 1363.2 compared to an average score of 1331.4 for thecontrol group (see figure 7).

Figure 7. Average Scores on the MinnesotaComprehensive Assessments

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

Read Naturally Control Group

Figure 6. Average Scores on theNorthwest AchievementLevels Test

175

180

185

190

195

20042003


A comparison of the Reading Fluency Monitor scores for 20 third-gradestudents receiving Read Naturally instruction were compared with 20matched students from RFM third-grade growth norms. The resultsshowed that the Read Naturally students increased their scores onbenchmark passages by an average of 36.4 points compared to an averageincrease of 27.0 points for the control group (see figure 8).

Figure 8. Average Reading FluencyMonitor Scores

45

55

65

75

85

SpringWinterFall


Students’ assessments in Huron County, Michigan, showed a substantialdiscrepancy in oral reading fluency between general education studentsand special education students (see figure 9). To try to narrow this gap,the Huron Intermediate School District implemented the Read Naturallyprogram targeted at special education students.

School psychologists Gloria Johnson and Jim Weaver collected andanalyzed data to compare the test results of special education studentswho received Read Naturally instruction with the test results of specialeducation students without Read Naturally instruction and with generaleducation students.

As indicated by the slope of the Read Naturally graph lines (in blue) in figure 9 and the data in the table in figure 10, the special educationstudents who received Read Naturally instruction had greater gains influency than the special education students without Read Naturallyinstruction.

Figure 9. Comparison of Grade-LevelReading Performance (inWords Correct Per Minute)

0

50

100

150

200

Case 4: Special EducationStudents, HuronCounty, Mich.


The school district used reading mazes to evaluate comprehension. In thetimed reading maze task, the student is given a grade-level paragraph inwhich every seventh word is deleted. The student is presented with threechoices and is asked to select the best word to fill in the blank, based onthe context of the story. The results from the reading mazes indicated thatspecial education students receiving Read Naturally instruction hadgreater gains in comprehension than the general education students (seefigure 11).

Figure 11. Gains in ComprehensionBased on Reading MazeResults

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

GeneralEducation 6 4 4 4 0 2

Special Ed.With ReadNaturally

7.2 5.7 6.2 3.5 3.4 3.0

Figure 10. Gains in Fluency (in WordsCorrect Per Minute)

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

Special Ed.Without ReadNaturally

2.61 17.62 16.69 20.12 1.79 2.11

Special Ed.With ReadNaturally

19.83 19.1 17.63 20.95 18.13 15.8


A study in South Forsyth County, Georgia, by Christy Mesa of PiedmontCollege showed that first graders using Read Naturally SE improvedsignificantly more than their fellow students who did not use theprogram.

Read Naturally SE had been a successful reading component in the thirdthrough fifth grades at the school. As a result, a study was designed to seeif this program could be implemented successfully at the first grade level.

The subjects for the study were 12 students in a first grade class atCumming Elementary School. Six of the students used Read NaturallySE for 45 minutes a day, four days a week. Another six students (thecontrol group) remained in the classroom and continued normal readingactivities.

Mesa first established a baseline for the students by using their STAR,Comprehension Reading Test (CRT), and Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)test scores. After three weeks in their respective reading programs, thestudents were then re-tested using the same tests.

The results indicated that the Read Naturally group increased theirfluency and comprehension scores considerably more than the controlgroup (see figures 12 through 15).

Figure 12. Average Scores on ThreeReading Tests

ControlGroup

ReadNaturally

STAR Test

Baseline (10/20/03) .77 .77

Final (11/18/03) 1.02 1.22

Increase .25 .45

ComprehensionReading Test

Baseline (10/20/03) 3.67 4.33

Final (11/18/03) 4.33 6.00

Increase .67 1.67

Oral Reading FluencyTest

Baseline (10/20/03) 52.2 55.2

Final (11/18/03) 74.3 83.0

Increase 22.2 27.8

Case 5: First-Grade Students,South Forsyth County,Ga.


Figure 15. Average Scores on the OralReading Fluency Test

40

60

80

100

Final (11/18/03)Baseline (10/20/03)

Figure 14. Average Scores on theComprehension Reading Test

3

4

5

6

Final (11/18/03)Baseline (10/20/03)

Figure 13. Average Scores on the STARTest

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Final (11/18/03)Baseline (10/20/03)


A study of students in two Minneapolis schools showed that studentsusing Read Naturally had greater reading gains than comparable studentswho did not use Read Naturally. The study was based on data collected inSpring 2003 through Spring 2004. Throughout the 2003–2004 schoolyear, one group of students used Read Naturally ME and SE, while onegroup did not.

A total of 102 students from two Minneapolis schools were included inthe study. Each Read Naturally student was matched with a student whowas not in a Read Naturally program but had comparable baseline testscores and demographics. The demographic criteria were grade, Englishlanguage learner status, special education status, free or reduced pricelunch status, racial/ethnic category, home language, and gender.

The students were evaluated using three assessments—the NorthwestAchievement Levels Test (NALT), the Minnesota ComprehensiveAssessments (MCA), and Read Naturally’s Reading Fluency Monitor.The test results are shown in figures 16 through 19.


ControlGroup

ReadNaturally



Final (Spring 2004) 193.4 195.8

Increase 6.2 8.5



Fall 2003 68.1 67.7

Winter 2004 76.4 89.2

Spring 2004 87.8 100.0

Increase 19.7 32.3

Case 6: Two-School Study,Minneapolis, Minn.


A comparison of the students’ NALT pre-test scores in Spring 2003 withtheir test scores in Spring 2004 showed that, on average, the ReadNaturally students had gains of 8.5 points compared to gains of only 6.2by students not in a Read Naturally program (see figure 17). Thisrepresents approximately one-third of a year of additional reading growthfor the Read Naturally students.

A comparison of 44 matched pairs of students with MCA scores ingrades 3 and 5 showed that students in the Read Naturally programscored significantly higher than the control group. Specifically, the average score for the Read Naturally students was 1380.9 compared to an averagescore of 1327.6 for the control group (see figure 18).


1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

Read Naturally Control Group


180

185

190

195

200

Spring 2004 Spring 2003


A comparison of the Reading Fluency Monitor scores for 48 matched pairsof students from both schools (grades 3, 4, and 5) showed that the ReadNaturally students increased their scores on benchmark passages by anaverage of 27.5 points compared to an average increase of 23.2 points forthe control group (see figure 19).

A study of four Minneapolis schools showed that students in ReadNaturally programs had significantly greater reading gains than their peerswho did not use Read Naturally. The study was based on data collected inSpring 2003 through Spring 2004. Throughout the 2003–2004 schoolyear, one group of students used Read Naturally ME and SE, while onegroup did not.

A total of 156 students from four Minneapolis schools were included inthe study. Each Read Naturally student was matched with a student whowas not in a Read Naturally program but had comparable baseline testscores and demographics. The demographic criteria were grade, Englishlanguage learner status, special education status, free or reduced pricelunch status, racial/ethnic category, home language, and gender.

The students were evaluated using three assessments—the NorthwestAchievement Levels Test (NALT), the Minnesota ComprehensiveAssessments (MCA), and Read Naturally’s Reading Fluency Monitor. The test results are shown in figures 20 through 23.

Case 7: Four-School Study,Minneapolis, Minn.


60

70

80

90

100

Spring Winter Fall


A comparison of the students’ NALT pre-test scores in Spring 2003 with their test scores in Spring 2004 showed that, on average, the ReadNaturally students had gains of 10.8 compared to gains of only 8.3 bystudents not in a Read Naturally program (see figure 21).


ControlGroup

ReadNaturally



Final (Spring 2004) 192.9 195.4

Increase 8.3 10.8



Fall 2003 63.7 63.1

Winter 2004 73.9 82.0

Spring 2004 86.9 90.6

Increase 23.2 27.5


180

185

190

195

200

Spring 2004Spring 2003


A comparison of 44 matched pairs of students with MCA scores ingrades 3 and 5 showed that students in the Read Naturally program hadan average score of 1366.4 compared to an average score of 1307.3 for thecontrol group (see figure 22).

A comparison of the Reading Fluency Monitor scores for 78 matched pairsof students from all four schools (grades 3, 4, and 5) showed that theRead Naturally students increased their scores on benchmark passages byan average of 27.5 points compared to an average increase of 23.2 points for the control group (see figure 23).

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

Read NaturallyControl Group



60

70

80

90

100

SpringWinterFall


A study by Stacy Wright, a Masters in Education student at CaliforniaState University San Marcos, found that students using Read NaturallySE had greater gains in fluency and comprehension than students whodid not receive intervention instruction.

The study involved 12 third-grade students in southern California whowere identified by their teachers as “at risk.” The students were paired upbased on similarities in their learning and academic profiles. One studentfrom each pair was randomly assigned to an experimental group, and theother student was assigned to a control group.

All students were given a pretest to determine their baseline readingfluency and comprehension levels.

The students in the experimental group used Read Naturally SE for 30minutes a day, three times a week, for 10 weeks. The students in thecontrol group remained in the general education classroom and did notreceive any reading intervention instruction.

After 10 weeks, all of the students were given a posttest to determinetheir growth in reading fluency and comprehension. The results aresummarized in figures 24 through 26.

Case 8: Third Graders,Southern California


ControlGroup

ReadNaturally

Oral Reading FluencyWords Read Per Minute

Pretest 117 106

Posttest 118 128

Increase 1 22

ComprehensionPercentage of Comprehension QuestionsAnswered Correctly

Pretest 62% 63%

Posttest 62% 68%

Increase 0% 5%


A comparison of the students’ pretest and posttest scores for oral readingfluency showed that, on average, the Read Naturally students had gains of22 words per minute compared to average gains of only one word perminute by students in the control group (see figure 25).

A comparison of the students’ pretest and posttest scores forcomprehension showed that, on average, the Read Naturally students had gains of five percent in the number of comprehension questionsanswered correctly compared to no gain by students in the control group(see figure 26).

Figure 26. Average ComprehensionScores

60

63

66

69

72

PosttestPretest

Figure 25. Average Oral ReadingFluency Scores

100

105

110

115

120

125

130PosttestPretest



For 12 weeks in 1997, 24 second-grade students at Lincoln ElementarySchool in Elk River, Minnesota, spent 30 minutes a day using ReadNaturally. One or two adults worked with these students in groups of six.At the end of the 12 weeks, these students increased their reading fluencyby an average of 92 percent. A control group of 10 students (who did notuse Read Naturally) made an average gain of 38 percent in readingfluency over the same 12 weeks (see figures 27 through 29).

10

20

30

40

50


Figure 29. Comparison of AveragePoint Gains

Figure 28. Growth in Fluency Over a12-Week Period

40

60

80

100

120

5/30/97 4/22/97 3/11/97

Figure 27. Average Fluency Scores inWords Per Minute

Control Group Read Naturally

3/11/97 75.60 49.08

4/22/97 94.40 85.29

5/30/97 104.50 94.25

Average Point Gain 28.60 45.17

Case 9: Second-GradeStudents, Elk River, Minn.

Rationale & Research 28 Copyright © 2009 Read Naturally, Inc.Other Benefits of the Read Naturally Strategy

Other Benefits of the Read Naturally StrategyAs demonstrated in these case studies, the Read Naturally® strategyresults in significant improvement in the reading fluency of students. Butteachers have also noted other benefits of the strategy.

Students work independently. The structure of the Read Naturallystrategy allows students to work independently most of the time.Students’ time on task is very high, and they spend most of theinstructional time engaged in the act of reading. As a result, teachers can give their time to more students, students of different levels canparticipate in the program at the same time, and, perhaps mostimportantly, students feel responsible for their own success.

Students take charge of their own reading growth. Many students enjoythe opportunity to select their own reading material. They enjoy readingthe interesting stories, learning to read them with ease, and watching theirprogress on the graphs.

Getting feedback motivates students. The students often tell teachersdirectly that the immediate and frequent feedback the strategy provides isvery valuable. This immediate feedback encourages students to beat theirprevious scores, and, as a result, many students get hooked on the strategymuch like they get hooked on a game. This motivates them to continue toimprove.

Students develop greater confidence. Students often demonstrateincreased confidence in their academic abilities, higher self-esteem, and hope for their academic future.

Students exhibit fewer behavior problems. The greatest behaviormanagement problem for the teacher is finding time to listen to the oralreading of all the students eagerly waiting to demonstrate their improvedreading rates.

Students get excited about reading. Students show an increased interestin coming to reading class. Many students report reading books at home,and parents comment on the reading and attitude improvements of theirchildren. Improving fluency makes reading easy enough for many studentsthat they choose to read for pleasure, which after all, is a goal of mostreading teachers.

Copyright © 2009 Read Naturally, Inc. 29 Rationale & ResearchBibliogrpahy

BibliographyAllington, R. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 36, 556–561.

Althoff, S. E., Linde, K. J., Mason, J. D., Nagel, N. M., & O'Reilly, K. A. (2007). Learning objectives: Posting &communicating daily learning objectives to increase student achievement and motivation. Chicago, IL: Saint XavierUniversity.

Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their timeoutside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285–303.

Armstrong, S. W. (1983). The effects of material difficulty upon learning disabled children's oral reading and readingcomprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 339–348.

Breznitz, Z. (1987). Increasing first graders' reading accuracy and comprehension by accelerating their reading rates.Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 236–242.

Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building readingfluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386–406.

Chomsky, C. (1976). After decoding: What? Language Arts, 53(3), 288–296.

Conte, K. L., & Hintze, J. M. (2000). The effects of performance feedback and goal setting on oral reading fluencywithin curriculum-based measurement. Diagnostique, 25(2), 85–98.

Daly, E. J. III, & Martens, B. K. (1994). A comparison of three interventions for increasing oral reading performance:Application of the instructional hierarchy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 823–840.

Dowhower, S. L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional readers' fluency and comprehension.Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 389–405.

Eldredge, J. L., & Quinn, D. W. (1988). Increasing reading performance of low-achieving second graders with dyadreading groups. Journal of Educational Research, 82(1), 40–46.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986a). Curriculum-based assessment of progress toward long-term and short-term goals.Journal of Special Education, (20), 69–82.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986b). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children(53), 3–14.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress:How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Whinnery, K. (1991). Effects of goal line feedback on level, slope, andstability of performance within curriculum-based measurement. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6,66–74.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of readingcompetence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256.

Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuumof fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies ofReading, 5(3), 257–288.

Hasbrouck, J. E., Ihnot, C., & Rogers, G. H. (1999). "Read Naturally:" A strategy to increase oral reading fluency.Reading Research & Instruction, 39(1), 27–38.

Hasbrouck, J. E., Woldbeck, T., Ihnot, C., & Parker, R. I. (1999). One teacher's use of curriculum-based measurement:A changed opinion. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(2), 118–126.

Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers.The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636–644.

Heckelman, R. G. (1969). A neurological-impress method of remedial-reading instruction. Academic Therapy Quarterly,5(4), 277–282.

Rationale & Research 30 Copyright © 2009 Read Naturally, Inc.

Hintze, J. M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity ofR-CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34(3), 372–386.

Honig, B. (1996). Teaching our children to read. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Knupp, R. (1988). Improving oral reading skills of educationally handicapped elementary school-aged studentsthrough repeated readings. Practicum paper, Nova University (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED297275).

Koskinen, P. S., & Blum, I. H. (1984). Repeated oral reading and the acquisition of fluency. In J. Niles & L. Harris(Eds.), Changing perspectives on research and in reading/language processing and instruction: 33rd yearbook of theNational Reading Conference (pp. 183–187). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.

Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 95(1), 3–21.

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. CognitivePsychology, 6, 292–323.

Larking, L. (1988). Repeated readings to young children. Australian Journal of Reading, 11(1), 36–41.

Lesgold, A., Resnick, L. B., & Hammond, K. (1985). Learning to read: A longitudinal study of word skill developmentin two curricula. In G. Waller & E. MacKinon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice. New York,NY: Academic Press.

McAllister, E. A. (1989). A study of peer tutors using the neurological impress method. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Savannah, GA, February 23, 1989. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 302837).

Morgan, P. L., & Sideridis, G. D. (2006). Contrasting the effectiveness of fluency interventions for students with or atrisk for learning disabilities: A multilevel random coefficient modeling metaanalysis. Learning Disabilities Research& Practice, 21(4), 191–210.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000a). Report of the National Reading Panel.Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and itsimplications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000b). Report of the National Reading Panel.Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and itsimplications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Osborn, J., Lehr, F., & Hiebert, E. H. (2003). A focus on fluency. Retrieved March 13, 2012, fromhttp://www.prel.org/products/re_/fluency-1.pdf.

O'Shea, L. J., Sindelar, P. T., & O'Shea, D. J. (1985). The effects of repeated readings and attentional cues on readingfluency and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17(2), 129–141.

Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The ReadingTeacher, 58(6), 510–518.

Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K. K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., & Beatty, A. S. (1995). Listening to childrenread aloud: Data from NAEP's integrated reading performance record (IRPR) at grade 4 (NCES Publication 95-726). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.

Rashotte, C. A., & Torgeson, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 20(2), 180–188.

Rasinski, T. V. (2004). Assessing reading fluency. Retrieved March 3, 2012, fromhttp://www.prel.org/products/re_/assessing-fluency.pdf.

Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension.New York: Scholastic Professional Books.

Copyright © 2009 Read Naturally, Inc. 31 Rationale & Research

Rasinski, T. V. (1990a). Effects of repeated reading and listening-while-reading on reading fluency. Journal ofEducational Research, 83(3), 147–150.

Rasinski, T. V. (1990b). Investigating measures of reading fluency. Educational Research Quarterly, 14(3), 37–44.

Reitsma, P. (1988). Reading practice for beginners: Effects of guided reading, reading-while-listening, and independentreading with computer-based speech feedback. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(2), 219–235.

Reutzel, D. R., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (1993). Effects of fluency training on second graders' reading comprehension.Journal of Educational Research, 86(6), 325–331.

Richek, M. A., & McTague, B. K. (1988). The "Curious George" strategy for students with reading problems. TheReading Teacher, 42(3), 220–226.

Samuels, S. J. (2002). Reading fluency: Its development and assessment. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Whatresearch has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 166–183). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Samuels, S. J. (1997). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 50(5), 376–381.

Schunk, D. H. (1982). Progress self-monitoring: Effects of children's self-efficacy and achievement. Journal ofExperimental Education, 51(2), 84–93.

Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (August, 1988). Learning goals during reading comprehension instruction. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.

Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. NewYork, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Skinner, C. H., Logan, P., Robinson, S. L., & Robinson, D. H. (1997). Demonstration as a reading intervention forexceptional learners. School Psychology Review, 26(3), 437–447.

Stage, S. A., & Jacobsen, M. D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessmentusing oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 407–419.

Torgeson, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Alexander, A. W. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationshipswith established empirical outcomes. In M. Wolfe (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 333–355). Parkton,MD: York Press.

Turpie, J., & Paratore, J. R. (1995). Using repeated reading to promote reading success in a heterogeneously groupedfirst grade. In K. A. Hinchman, D. J. Leu, & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literary research and practice: 44thyearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 255–264). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

RN1207–0712

www.readnaturally.com RN21SG-0809

read naturally rationale and research

Documents