Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Jenni McCrory
ProQuest 10746838
Published by ProQuest LLC (2018 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© 2018
Jenni M. McCrory
Jenni M. McCrory, Ed. D., Educational Administration, The University of South Dakota
2018
Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) assessment data indicates that a
percentage of students are not at the proficient level at the end of third-grade despite
interventions being put into place to improve reading fluency rates. This study examined the
Read Naturally Live fluency program and determined if it increased fluency scores of third and
fourth-grade students identified as at–risk and persistently at-risk at this elementary school. The
study used a quantitative approach informed by a causal comparative research design that
employed pre- and post-test data to compare the gains made using Read Naturally Live as a
fluency intervention. The participants in this study included 78 students identified as needing a
reading fluency intervention. Of those students, 33 were in third grade and 45 were in fourth
grade. The overall research results show positive growth for all students based on the FAST
assessment using the Read Naturally Live program as a fluency intervention. This study
demonstrates students who struggle with reading fluency, when provided a research based
intervention, utilizing the repeated reading strategy, can improve their reading fluency.
iii
This Abstract of approximately 175 words is approved as to form and content. I
iv
DOCTORAL COMMITTEE
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
“Your family believes in you mom!!” That is the sticky note I found on my computer
screen from my 12-year old son, Carter, one day after taking a quick break from “homework” as
my family calls what I do in my basement office. A letter of encouragement and pride from an
old family friend and role model hangs on a board above my computer screen along with other
positive notes and pictures of my family and friends reminding me of why I am on this journey.
Obtaining a doctorate degree had always been a goal of mine, but it was never something I saw
in my immediate future. That all changed after hearing a sermon about David and Goliath one
Sunday morning and how we need to defeat our giants. It was at that moment that I decided to
I want to begin by thanking my husband Ryan. Thank you is not enough for everything
you did to help me these past two years. Although I still run the house, you stepped into some
roles you had not held before I embarked on this journey. You allowed me to work on
weekends, late into the night and early in the morning so I could get assignments done and
deadlines met. You ran kids to sporting activities, church activities and anywhere else they
still be a dream.
To my children, Alexis, Matthew, and Carter, you have been amazing supporters to me
through this entire journey. Even though I may have had to miss an activity here or there so I
can do homework and work on my dissertation, you continued to cheer me on and let me know
that it is OK. You allowed me to study on trips in the car, kindly giving me the backseat, as well
as during your activities. Although it is still hard for you to understand the full magnitude of
what I have accomplished, I am glad you were here to go through the journey with me. I love
vi
each one of you for your support and for the sacrifices you have made so I could be left alone to
do “homework”.
I was beyond blessed to work with an advisor who understood me and my drive. Thank
you is not enough for you, Dr. De Jong. When I started on this journey, you were right there to
lead me through it. You reaffirmed my confidence every time we Skyped or when you sent me
an email telling me my work was spot-on and to keep going. Thank you for setting deadlines for
me, even though at times, I did not think were attainable, but you always believed in me and
were not afraid to push me. God blessed me with an amazing cheerleader, mentor, and friend.
Thank you.
I would also like to thank my dissertation committee for all of their words of advice and
support. I started this dissertation process with you, Dr. Robinson and cried in the first
dissertation class. You sat with me and talked me through ideas until I had a topic to go with and
saw me through the first three chapters, tear free. Dr. Reed, I am grateful for the time you spent
editing my dissertation and the suggestions you offered to make it even better. Finally, I am
grateful for Dr. Earleywine who is not only a committee member but my superintendent and
friend. You have supported me from the day I decided to start this journey and you continue to
provide me with opportunities to be a better instructional leader every day. Not every
superintendent would support their building administrator the way you have supported me and
A special thank you to those who supported me by reading my drafts, letting me pick
your brain and collaborate with you, allowing me to practice my presentation in front of you, and
being a Word expert. It is those little things that helped me when I was stuck and frustrated.
vii
Also, a special thank you to Dr. Amy Schweinle for walking me through my stats, more than one
Words cannot describe my amazing support system. Becky, Tami, Joanie, Kristal, Sara
and Sara…each of you supported me every step of the way with text messages, Snapchat
messages, late night chats (our version of therapy sessions) and phone calls checking up on me
and encouraging me to keep going. I am beyond blessed to have each one of you in my life.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
Theory of Automaticity............................................................................................7
Definition of Terms................................................................................................10
Assumptions...........................................................................................................13
Theory of Automaticity..........................................................................................16
ix
Fluency Strategies ..................................................................................................23
Modeling ....................................................................................................25
Partner Reading..........................................................................................28
Conclusion .............................................................................................................36
3. Methodology ................................................................................................................38
Research Design.....................................................................................................40
Population ..............................................................................................................41
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................43
Summary ................................................................................................................49
4. Findings........................................................................................................................50
x
Research Question Two .........................................................................................50
References ....................................................................................................................57
5. Manuscript ...................................................................................................................64
Abstract ..................................................................................................................64
Introduction ............................................................................................................65
Theory of Automaticity..............................................................................67
Methodology ..........................................................................................................74
Research Design.........................................................................................74
Population ..................................................................................................75
Instrumentation ..........................................................................................77
xi
Findings..................................................................................................................79
Assumptions...............................................................................................85
Discussion ..............................................................................................................89
References ..............................................................................................................93
Appendices
xii
List of Tables
7. Variance of Growth Between Males and Females (Interaction of time by gender) ..........52
8. Variance of Scores Between Males and Females (Main effect of gender) ........................52
10. Variance of Scores Between Students Who Qualify for Free or Reduced Lunch and
11. Variance of Scores Between Students with an Individualized Education Plan and
12. Mean Change in Fluency Rates by IEP and Non-IEP on the FAST Assessment ..............55
xiii
6. Variance of Growth Between Males and Females (Interaction of time by gender) ......... 81
7. Variance of Scores Between Males and Females (Main effect of gender) ........................82
9. Mean Change in Fluency Rates by IEP and Non-IEP on the FAST Assessment ..............84
xiv
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Reading is the foundation for learning and the window for life. Davis (2016) wrote on
his website Learn to Read, eleven reasons why reading is important. Davis explains that reading
is a life skill needed to function in society for things like finding a job, reading a medicine bottle,
and being able to do daily activities. He also describes the brain as a muscle that must be
exercised in order to develop and grow. As learners, we are able to discover, grow an
“…reading is important because words – spoken and written – are the building blocks of life”
(para. 13).
reader is one who reads fluently while a poor reader lacks fluency. Hudson, Lane, and Pollen
(2005) explain, “Differences in reading fluency not only distinguish good readers from poor, but
a lack of reading fluency is also a reliable predictor of reading comprehension problems” (p.
702). Reading fluency “lays a foundation on which readers build their reading skills to become
strategic and versatile in using a variety of cognitive and metacognitive strategies of reading”
Legislators in the State of Iowa recognized the importance of reading fluently and the
done in the State of Iowa to increase reading scores of elementary age students. During the 2012
legislative session, legislators passed Iowa Code section 279.68 also known as Early Literacy
Implementation (ELI) Law to ensure Iowa students meet reading proficiency goals by the end of
2
their third-grade year. The intent of this new law was to “promote effective evidence-based
programming, instruction, and assessment practices across schools” by setting high expectations
for Iowa School Districts (Iowa Department of Education, 2017b). Little attention was given to
ELI once passed due to fiscal restraints of the new law. No dollars were appropriated, and no
During the 2013 legislative session, the State Board of Education adopted Iowa
Administrative Code 281, Chapter 62, which put rules in place for Iowa Code 279.68 after $8
million were appropriated by the legislators to support and fund ELI. The state began their work
to develop an early warning system for districts to use to identify at-risk readers. Select schools
began piloting an early warning system during the 2014-15 school year, and the following year
The Early Literacy Initiative is a complex law that has changed the way schools approach
working with struggling readers. It has many components beginning with universal screening.
All kindergarten through third-grade students must be screened three times a year; fall, winter,
and spring, using an approved tool by the Iowa Department of Education. Once the screening is
completed it will be determined if students are showing “adequate progress,” are “at-risk”
readers or are considered “persistently at-risk” (Iowa Department of Education, 2017e, p. 1).
ELI then recommends that any student identified as at-risk be placed in a reading intervention. It
is required that students considered persistently at-risk receive a research-based intensive reading
intervention program for ninety minutes a day (Iowa Department of Education, 2017e).
During the 2014-15 school year, administrative rules were written setting the criteria for
an intensive summer reading program with plans to begin researching programs during the 2016-
17 school year to develop a comprehensive program. Also during the 2016-17 school year,
3
administrative rules were finalized outlining the details of the third-grade retention piece of the
law for students identified as persistently at-risk (Iowa Department of Education, 2017e, p. 1).
Starting in May 2018, students who are not proficient on statewide reading assessments at the
end of their third-grade year and are also identified persistently at-risk will be required to enroll
in an intensive summer reading program or be retained unless they meet one of the good-cause
ELI has pushed schools to monitor reading achievement more closely and to put the focus
on universal screening, progress monitoring, and intensive instruction to ensure that non-
proficient readers are making gains. A model the State has adopted and which schools are
implementing is the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), which provides schools with an
the needs of all students…MTSS allows educators to judge the overall health of their
students who need additional supports. Those supports are provided in both small group
and individual settings, and are monitored to ensure they support all learners demonstrate
proficiency in the Iowa Core standards and leave school ready for life. (Iowa Department
of Education, 2017d)
The MTSS framework focuses not only on the students, but the system as a whole. This
framework brings educators together to collaborate on student achievement but also use data to
put structures in place to prevent students from not meeting the standards.
The MTSS model has the potential to impact all students. By aligning instruction and
assessments with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), teachers can make instructional
4
decisions to meet the needs of all learners. Students not meeting CCSS and grade-level
indicators may need more intense instruction which may or may not eventually lead them to
special education.
According to the Iowa Department of Education (2017e), the Iowa model of MTSS has
five essential components: a) curriculum and quality instruction; b) universal screening of every
student; c) instructional interventions that are evidence-based targeting those students who need
them; d) on-going progress monitoring; and e) making data-based decisions. Through this
process of MTSS, schools can use student progress monitoring data to make decisions on the
a student needs to move to the next step in the identification process. This framework focuses on
each student’s individual needs and guides educators to deliver instructional interventions to
In 2013, the Iowa Department of Education adopted the Formative Assessment System
Education, 2017e). This suite includes universal screening assessments and progress monitoring
tools for Iowa schools to use to meet the ELI law while supporting the MTSS model. The State
Department chose FAST as the statewide universal screener due to its ability to track progress on
students’ fluency which also measures “phonological awareness, sounds, words, text reading and
During the 2013-14 school year, a school superintendent in the Midwest tasked the
building leadership team (BLT) at an elementary school in his district to take a closer look at
student achievement data due to the school being on the School In Need of Assistance (SINA)
list for reading and math. What the BLT found were achievement gaps in two subgroups: special
5
education students and English-Language Learners (ELL). Achievement gaps were also found
among students identified as at-risk. These struggling students needed intensive interventions
but based on the structure of the day, intervention time was not possible, unless it happened
during recess or before or after school. Through a yearlong planning process, the BLT
The BLT worked with the structure of the school day by cutting passing time down
throughout the day, by eliminating one recess and by lengthening the remaining recess from
fifteen to twenty minutes. This helped to create a 30-minute intervention block called WIN time.
WIN was implemented in the fall of 2014 with all students. Identified at-risk and persistently at-
risk students received two days of intensive instruction in the area of math and two days of
intensive instruction in reading. Wednesday was an early out day, which means students were
Communities at the end of the school day. This shortened the WIN schedule by ten minutes so
all classes would meet prior to dismissal on Wednesdays. This shorter WIN time was used to
monitor progress of students using the Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) and
Individual Education Plan (IEP) goals. Students not identified as needing an intervention were
placed in on-level groups. These students rotated through brain games, novel studies, music
After evaluating the effectiveness of year one, the BLT saw that students who were able
to stay in an intervention group all four days focusing on only reading or math made greater
gains than those in the two-day rotations. During year two, the leadership team decided to focus
on one intervention area at a time for six weeks. Teachers used STAR Reading and STAR Math
reports along with FAST scores to determine which intervention a student received
6
(Renaissance, 2016). Students who showed deficiencies in reading would be placed in a reading
Students who were deficient in math were placed in a math group and those students meeting
grade level expectations would be in an on-level rotation cycle. At the end of the WIN rotation,
students were assessed using the STAR Reading and STAR Math assessments to look for growth
and further deficiencies. Students could continue in the same WIN group or move to a new
At the end of year two, the BLT once again looked at the effectiveness of WIN time and
made small changes with the start of the 2016-17 school year. The structure remained the same,
four days a week, thirty minutes a day for six weeks, devoted to working on one intervention.
However, the focus shifted from effectively identifying students, as the staff had become
proficient in that area, to the interventions being used and to their effectiveness.
One intervention that has been used since WIN time was implemented is the Read
Naturally Live fluency intervention program (Read Naturally, 2017a). This program
incorporates the repeated reading strategy, which addresses students’ fluency deficiencies.
Select students identified as persistently at-risk or at-risk on the FAST reading assessment were
placed in the Read Naturally Live program as an intervention during WIN time. These students
met four days a week for 30 minutes for a duration of six to seven weeks, depending on the
Read Naturally Live is a web-based intervention program that utilizes the Read Naturally
Strategy. This strategy combines teacher modeling with repeated reading and progress
monitoring while engaging students with non-fiction informational texts to practice reading
fluently. The program works on reading fluency skills while also practicing vocabulary, phonics,
7
and comprehension skills. When students are able to recognize words their fluency increases so
they can turn their focus to understanding and gaining meaning from the text.
Theory of Automaticity
The idea of fluency dates back as far as the late19th century with researchers like
William MacKeen Cattell (1886) and Edmund Burke Huey (1908) studying and beginning the
discussion on reading fluency. In 1974, David LaBerge and Jay Samuels further defined fluency
through automaticity. They explain how readers are able to “attend to one thing at a time” while
being “able to process many things at a time so long as no more than one requires attention”
(LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, p. 295). They go on to explain that words are processed through
stages while working toward comprehension. Each of these stages are “processed automatically”
and each stage “must be automatic as well” (p. 295). In order to be a fluent reader, the reader
needs “microlevel subskills,” meaning they need to know letter sounds and combinations along
LaBerge and Samuels found that there are two tasks that readers use energy for when
reading; word recognition and comprehension (Rasinski, 2014). The theory was “based on the
assumption that the transformation of written stimuli into meanings involves a sequence of
stages of information processing” (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, p. 296). It explained that when
one task is at work, cognitive energy is being used and is no longer available for the other task.
Therefore, “when readers have to use excessive amount(s) of their cognitive energy for word
recognition, they have reduced the amount of cognitive energy available for comprehension”
processed…from visual, phonological, and episodic memory until it finally reaches semantic
8
memory” (Schrauben, 2010, p. 84) and is comprehended. Over the course of several grade levels
and with reading practice, decoding and word recognition becomes more automatic. When word
recognition becomes automatic, cognitive energy can be used to comprehend what is being read
and the reader gains understanding of the text (Rasinski, Blachowicz, & Lems, 2012).
As readers are repeatedly exposed to print, they will begin to recognize words with more
accuracy and automaticity (Schrauben, 2010, p. 84). Read Naturally Live exposes students to
words using the repeated reading strategy to increase automatic word recognition shifting the
attention from reading words to comprehending the text. Samuels (1997) explains, “as less
attention is required for decoding, more attention becomes available for comprehension” (p.
378).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Read Naturally Live as a
fluency intervention with at-risk and persistently at-risk third and fourth-grade students in an
elementary school during the 2016-17 school year. Pre- and post-intervention data were
compared to evaluate the computer-based fluency program using the Iowa Department of
Education approved universal screening tool. The study set out to determine the effect of a
reading intervention program on student achievement as measured by words correct per minute
Research Questions
1. How has the Read Naturally Live fluency program impacted the oral reading fluency
assessment?
9
2. What differences exists between oral reading fluency rates of males and oral reading
fluency rates of females as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read
3. What differences exist between oral reading fluency rates of students of minority and
non-minority students as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read
4. What differences exists between oral reading fluency rates of students qualified for free
or reduced lunch and oral reading fluency rates of students not qualified for free and
reduced lunch as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read Naturally
5. What differences exist in oral reading fluency rates between students identified as having
utilizing the Read Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?
6. What is the relationship between the amount of time spent in Read Naturally Live and the
were not at the proficient level at the end of third-grade despite interventions being put into
place. This study examined the Read Naturally Live fluency program and determined if the
program increased fluency scores of third and fourth-grade students identified as at–risk and
persistently at-risk at this elementary school. The results of this study offer schools the
opportunity to see results of fluency scores to determine if the program may be a possible
10
solution in their own districts. Evidence has shown that “students who read with automaticity
and have appropriate speed, accuracy, and proper expression are more likely to comprehend
material because they are able to focus on the meaning of the text” (Rasplica & Cummings,
2013). Reading fluency can thus be used as a predictor for student performance on state reading
assessments.
The State of Iowa has put reading fluency at the forefront of the Early Literacy
Implementation statute and therefore, schools must put interventions in place to close the gap of
readers identified persistently at-risk. This study set out to determine the effect of Read
Naturally Live on oral reading fluency scores using pre- and post-data from the 2016-17 school
year.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions are provided to ensure uniformity and understanding of these
At-risk. “The student is below benchmark for the first time, or was previously
‘persistently at-risk’ and met the benchmark once” (Iowa Department of Education,
2017a, p. 2).
Common Core State Standards. A set of academic standards that lay out what students
should know at the end of each grade level in mathematics and English language arts
programming, instruction, and assessment practices across schools to support all students
11
to become proficient readers by the end of third grade” (Iowa Department of Education,
2017b).
Effective intervention. When growth is shown from pre- to post- intervention data.
Intervention. “Explicit and systematic instruction tailored to meet the identified needs
practices in instruction and assessment that addresses the needs of all students (Iowa
Persistently at-risk. “The student has had difficulty meeting benchmarks over time. The
parents must be notified, research-based interventions must be provided, and the school
must monitor the child’s progress” (Iowa Department of Education, 2017a, p. 2).
Phonemic awareness. Reader can identify and manipulate the smallest units of sounds,
implemented so instruction can be adjusted to meet the student’s needs and to evaluate
Reading fluency. Reader reads with speed, accuracy, and expression (Reading Rockets,
2016b).
Struggling readers. Readers read one or more years below their current grade level but
do not have an identified learning disability of any kind. Perceived as lacking the skills
2015).
Universal screening. Brief assessment given to all students, three times a year, to
identify students who are at-risk on the targeted skill being assessed (RTI Action
Network, 2017).
1. Due to the small sample available for the study, results may not be generalizable beyond
2. The data is limited to only one year. Additional years or different years may produce
different results.
3. The study does not look at the effectiveness of Read Naturally Live at kindergarten
4. During some WIN rotations, the group sizes were either more or less than the target
5. Only students who were assessed on the fall universal screener in September were
6. The overall student population was limited to third and fourth-grade students who
7. The FAST fluency assessment was administered to all third and fourth-grade students in
8. The strategies used in this study were beyond the control of the researcher.
13
Assumptions
1. The building principal had a knowledge base of the Iowa Multi-Tiered System of
Supports model including the five components making the model effective.
2. Trained personnel implemented Read Naturally Live with fidelity and efficacy.
3. Certified teachers gave FAST Assessments and completed the progress monitoring.
4. FAST data were manually entered into the data system correctly.
research questions, significance of the study, definition of terms, limitations of the study,
delimitations of the study, and assumptions made during the research. Chapter 2 contains a
review of literature and research related to the implementation of the Early Literacy Initiative. It
includes the political perspectives of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA), Early Literacy Initiative (ELI), and Multi-Tier System of Support (MTSS). It looks
into the importance of oral reading fluency (ORF) and how the research supports this concept.
Chapter 2 will also further define reading fluency assessments including universal screeners,
benchmarks, and progress monitoring. It will also review current trends, strategies and
interventions to support oral reading fluency goals. The methodology and procedures used to
gather data for this study, including participants, data gathering procedures, and data analysis are
described in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 will display the pre and post fluency results for students who
were engaged in Read Naturally Live during the 2016-17 school year. A summary of the study
and its conclusions drawn from the findings, a discussion, and recommendations for practice and
CHAPTER 2
Reading is the foundation for learning and being able to read fluently allows readers to
focus on understanding the text and comprehending what is being read. Chapter 2 provides a
including computer-assisted interventions. This chapter is divided into the following sections:
Political Perspective
On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act into law. When this was enacted, the Federal Government updated the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which held all public school districts and states accountable.
This new law focused on accountability and success for every student by setting expectations of
Students were assessed in grade three through eight in reading and math, and adequate
yearly progress was reported at the state level. Federal funds were directly tied to the progress
schools made (Klein, 2015). No Child Left Behind ensured districts hired highly qualified
teachers and parents were given school choice options if their child’s school was not making
NCLB expired in 2007, but until something new was written, it was still the law that
governed all public school districts in the United States. The law stated that all students will be
15
proficient at grade level by 2014, and if schools were underperforming, tight sanctions were
enforced. On December 10, 2015, President Obama signed into law Every Student Succeeds Act
ESSA pulls back the Federal Government’s involvement and gives the decision-making
power back to the states and local school districts. ESSA will go into effect during the 2017-18
school year with states submitting an accountability plan “that addresses academic standards,
assessments, school and district accountability, funding and support for struggling schools” in
which the Department of Education will review and approve (Iowa Department of Education,
2017c). The State of Iowa released the state accountability plan for public review on January 6,
2017. The State will maintain annual assessments to measure Common Core and state standards
while monitoring student and district progress towards the standards. The new law will give
During the 2012 legislative session, the State of Iowa saw a need for change within the
State so, legislators passed Iowa Code section 279.68 which is known as the Early Literacy
Implementation (ELI) Law to ensure Iowa students meet reading proficiency goals by the end of
their third-grade year (Iowa Department of Education, 2017e, p. 1). During the 2013 legislative
session, the State Board of Education adopted Iowa Administrative Code 281, Chapter 62, which
put rules in place for Iowa Code 279 or ELI. Eight million dollars were appropriated by the
legislators to support and fund ELI at this time (Iowa Department of Education, 2017e, p. 1).
The Early Literacy Initiative contains many components to ensure students are reading
fluently at grade level by the end of their third-grade year. These components include universal
summer reading program and third-grade retention. Through ELI, all K-3 students must be
16
assessed three times a year using a State approved universal screener. Students are placed into
three categories: adequately progress, at-risk or persistently at-risk. Those students identified as
persistently at-risk must receive additional reading interventions and be progress monitored
weekly to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. This is also recommended for students
As a way to identify interventions and best practices, the State of Iowa has adopted a
framework for districts to follow called Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). MTSS has
five key components according to the Iowa Department of Education webpage (2017d). First is
evidence-based curriculum and instruction provided at the universal level. Next is universal
the targeted and intensive levels for students who need them. Fourth is progress monitoring for
learners below benchmark expectations and finally, data-based decision making needs to be done
throughout the system. At the time of the study, Iowa PK-12 schools used the MTSS framework
to implement ELI, which includes universal screening, progress monitoring, and interventions.
Theory of Automaticity
The idea of fluency dates back as far as the late19th century with researchers like
William MacKeen Cattell (1886) and Edmund Burke Huey (1908) studying and beginning the
discussion on reading fluency. In 1974, David LaBerge and Jay Samuels further defined fluency
through automaticity. They explain how readers are able to “attend to one thing at a time” while
being “able to process many things at a time so long as no more than one requires attention”
(LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, p. 295). They go on to explain that words are processed through
stages while working toward comprehension. Each of these stages are “processed automatically”
and each stage “must be automatic as well” (p. 295). In order to be a fluent reader, the reader
17
needs “microlevel subskills,” meaning they need to know letter sounds and combinations along
LaBerge and Samuels found that there are two tasks that readers use energy for when
reading; word recognition and comprehension (Rasinski, 2014, p. 4). The theory was “based on
the assumption that the transformation of written stimuli into meanings involves a sequence of
stages of information processing” (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, p. 296). It explained that when
one task is at work, cognitive energy is being used and is no longer available for the other task.
Therefore, “when readers have to use excessive amount(s) of their cognitive energy for word
recognition, they have reduced the amount of cognitive energy available for comprehension”
processed…from visual, phonological, and episodic memory until it finally reaches semantic
memory” (Schrauben, 2010, p. 84) and is comprehended. Over the course of several grade levels
and with reading practice, decoding and word recognition becomes more automatic. When word
recognition becomes automatic, cognitive energy can be used to comprehend what is being read
and the reader gains understanding of the text (Rasinski et al., 2012).
(NRP) dedicated an entire chapter to fluency in its 2000 report on teaching students to read. One
reason the panel included fluency in its review is due to students inability to read fluently
(National Reading Panel, 2000). Prior to the NRP report, the National Assessment of
and found “44% of students to be disfluent” (p. 189) on grade appropriate passages with testing
support.
Three key components define reading fluency and play an important role developing a
fluent reader. Fluency is defined as having the ability to read with speed, accuracy, and
expression (Schrauben, 2010, p. 85). Speed is the rate at which a person reads while accuracy is
how many words a reader reads correctly on a given passage. Expression, also known as
prosody, is the use of feelings and emotions while reading. When these components work
Rasinski (2004), a leading educator on fluency explains, “Reading fluency refers to the
reader’s ability to develop control over surface-level text processing so that he or she can focus
on understanding the deeper levels of meaning embedded in the text” (p. 46). Over the last forty
years, researchers have been linking reading fluency to reading comprehension thus creating a
Reading comprehension difficulties can be detected early when poor fluency skills are
identified (Hudson et al., 2005, p. 702). Educators can therefore, use reading fluency as a
predictor of comprehension. When students no longer have to think about the words being read,
Kulich (2009) explains, “Students who read word by word and thus lack automaticity are
less likely to comprehend the meaning of the whole text” (p. 26). Kulich continues writing,
“comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading, and when any one component of fluency is
jeopardized, the reader is less likely to derive meaning from the text” (p. 26). When a reader
incorrectly reads a word or group of words, they are unable to comprehend the intended message
19
which leads to a lack of comprehension and understanding of the text (Hudson et al., 2005, p.
703).
A good reader is described as one who can read fluently while comprehending the text
being read (Rasinski et al., 2012). They are able to read at an appropriate rate, with a high level
of accuracy while being expressive to gain a deeper understanding of the text. A poor reader
who lacks fluency exerts their energy decoding words. They are often slow and labored making
Fluent readers are able to maintain focus and generalize skills across texts while poor
readers are often characterized as being unable to complete work, remain focused and can lose
interest in school (Hudson et al., 2005, p. 704). For these reasons, Rasinski and Young (2014)
explains, “classroom-based research has shown that increases in fluency led to increases in
comprehension as readers’ attention can be focused away from the task of word recognition and
Fluency assessments are an important tool for educators as a way to identify struggling
readers and provide them with the support and interventions needed to be successful (Rasinski,
2014). Listening to students read aloud helps teachers make judgments of their reading rate,
accuracy, and prosody (Hudson et al., 2005, p. 705). When listening to a student read, three
components are evaluated. The first component is rate or speed to which the text is read.
Reading rate tells the number of words read correctly in a predetermined amount of time,
typically one minute. The next component assessed is accuracy. Accuracy is the number of
errors made while a student is reading aloud. The third component is prosody or expression.
The educator observes the student’s expression, phrasing, and voice emphasis to assess their
20
prosody. When these three components are evaluated on an unfamiliar passage, information is
assessment. CBMs can be used as both a universal screener and progress-monitoring tool.
“CBM provides teachers with reliable and valid indicators of academic competence. With these
indicators of performance, teachers can gauge individual student standing at a given point in time
or can index student progress over time” (L. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 2007, p. 553).
progress” (p. 5). It is simple because the assessment is quick and easy to administer. A CBM
can be used as an indicator of progress and “overall academic competence” (p. 5). In essence,
“CBM provides the tool by which teachers and schools can model students’ trajectories of
learning in a time frame that permits practitioners to use the data to tailor instructional programs,
fluency and accuracy. It is given as a “cold” read to measure the student's initial reading rate
without practice. Students can read grade level or instructional level passages depending on the
purpose of the measure. The teacher is able to track a student’s errors, which show the accuracy
of the reader and subtract those errors from the words read correct. This will give a score of the
words read correct per minute (WCPM). Teachers can compare students’ scores against
benchmark or norms to determine academic progress towards a goal. Students whose scores fall
below the benchmark or norm may be considered at-risk and in need of further interventions
With the passing of Iowa’s Early Literacy Initiative Iowa school districts were
introduced to the Formative Reading Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) suite. The FAST
suite houses a curriculum-based measurement for reading (CBM-R) system, which is now used
to assess students reading fluency across the state. FAST originated at the University of
Minnesota in 2010 through the work of Dr. Theodore Christ and colleagues and was funded by
FAST was created as a suite of assessment tools to assist educators in analyzing reading
skills by screening and monitoring the progress of elementary age students (Iowa Reading
Research Center, 2017). The CBM-R assessment tool in the FAST suite is an oral assessment
used to measure students’ fluency. The teacher listens to the student read three-grade level
passages for one-minute each, and the FAST system takes an average of the students WCPM and
accuracy from the three passages. The FAST system also has a progress-monitoring component
where students read one passage for one-minute weekly to monitor their progress toward the
Table 1 shows the FAST CBM-R fluency benchmarks for third and fourth-grade students
Table 1
A universal screener is administered three times a year to all students using the FAST
suite through the Iowa Tier. Students are identified as making adequate progress, at-risk, or
persistently at-risk after each universal screening is completed (Iowa Department of Education,
intervention and be progress monitored weekly through the tier system. ELI requires school
districts to notify parents after each universal testing window of their child’s progress toward the
Phonemic Awareness
Before students can become fluent readers and have automatic word recognition, there
must be an understanding that letters make sounds. This understanding is known as phonemic
awareness which “is recognized for its importance as a precursor for reading development”
(Reading & Van Deuren, 2007, p. 267). Phonemic awareness is the ability to match sounds or
phonemes to letters and letter patterns (p. 268). Snider (1995) explained that “phonemic
awareness requires the ability to attend to one sound in the context of other sounds in the word”
(p. 444).
automaticity. Snider (1995) explains five levels that readers move through when learning
phonemic awareness:
nursery rhymes. Second is the ability to compare and contrast sounds in words by
grouping words with similar or dissimilar sounds at the beginning, middle, or end of a
word. Third is the ability to blend and split syllables. Fourth is phonemic segmentation
23
or the ability to isolate individual sounds in syllables. Fifth is the ability to manipulate
phonemes by omitting and deleting phonemes to make new words. (Snider, 1995, p. 444)
As readers go through the stages, they are able to store word segments so when they
encounter a new word, they can recall these segments to put the word together. As they continue
to have exposure through practice, segments become whole words and readers are able to
increase reading fluency through automatic recall. When readers have automatic recall, they
“unconsciously apply multiple strategies to decode and confirm unfamiliar words, resulting in
Reading failure can be due to a lack of phonemic awareness skills (Reading & Van
Deuren, 2007, p. 269). Students need to be able to see patterns when reading, connect the
patterns to sounds and the sounds to words to understand phonemic awareness. When readers
are able to decode words, their word recognition increases and they can then turn their attention
to fluency and comprehension leading to a better chance of being a successful reader. Beginning
readers only have “so much attention and memory capacity” so if reading is inefficient then they
are unable to connect what they read to background knowledge and unable to comprehend the
Fluency Strategies
Successful readers need to have a good foundation of phonics so they can easily decode
words. This leads to word recognition and word attack, which will make the reader fluent and
once fluent able to comprehend the text being read. When a student does not have to think about
the word itself and how to read it and reading comes automatically, they can begin to focus on
Samuels (1979) began studying and researching the reading process including improving
way for readers to practice word recognition and recall. When doing repeated reading, readers
repeatedly read a passage at their instructional level until they reach their desired fluency rate
while improving their decoding s5kills, reading rate, prosody, and comprehension.
Samuels (1979) claimed that readers go through three stages when practicing repeated
reading (p. 379). First is the ‘non-accurate’ stage where the reader has difficulty recognizing
words. Next is the ‘accurate’ stage when the reader is decoding slowly, without fluency or
comprehension. And finally, the ‘automatic’ stage when the reader is reading with automaticity
approach to help students gain automaticity and therefore learn to read fluently. He worked with
mentally challenged beginning readers by having them practice reading and rereading passages
from a story until they reached a predetermined rate. Over time, and through practice, these
mentally challenged students were able to gain fluency and automaticity by using the repeated
reading method (Rasinski et al., 2012, p. 11). Samuels proved through repeated exposure to
words, readers “should be able to recognize words with increasing accuracy and automaticity”
Guided oral reading. Guided oral reading is an instructional strategy that can be
strategies, including reading aloud, repeated reading, assistance with decoding and appropriate
text selection (Hoffman & Isaacs, 1991). Teachers meet with small groups of students who are
25
working at the same reading level while prompting students, modeling appropriate fluency and
A teacher begins the lesson by reading an appropriately leveled passage to a small group
of students at the same reading level. The students then read the passage silently to themselves.
When done, the teacher listens to each student read the passage aloud. This provides the teacher
the opportunity to monitor and assist each student with any words that may affect their fluency.
Guided oral reading allows the teacher to work with a small group in a structure that allows for
According to the National Reading Panel (2000) using the strategy of guided oral reading
is an effective approach to improving overall reading fluency. The Panel wrote the procedures of
guided oral reading “had a consistent, and positive impact on word recognition, fluency, and
comprehension as measured by a variety of test instruments and at a range of grade levels” (p.
141). The Panel completed a meta-analysis and “found a weighted effect size average of 0.41,
suggesting that guided oral reading has a moderate impact upon reading achievement” (p. 141)
Modeling. Children learn from watching and hearing others and reading is no exception.
Rasinski (2014) writes, “reading to children increases children’s motivation for reading, enlarges
their vocabulary, and also improves their comprehension” (p. 7). Through modeling, students
can hear appropriate fluency, including reading rate, prosody and accuracy while developing a
positive attitude toward reading. Modeling through read-alouds provides students the
opportunity to “hear what a fluent reader sounds like in order to internalize correct
Modeling can take place in a small, guided reading group where the teacher reads the text
to the students before beginning repeated reading strategies. It can also be used as a whole class
read-aloud which offers opportunities to expand students’ reading experiences by reading aloud a
story they would not have selected on their own. The teacher may also select text that is above
students’ reading level to motivate the reluctant reader to want to read. Throughout the modeling
process, the teacher can be engaging the students in discussions to build understanding and make
Repeated reading. To develop fluency, students must practice reading. Samuels (1997)
explains in “The Method of Repeated Readings,” that “the method consists of rereading a short,
meaningful passage several times until a satisfactory level of fluency is reached” (p. 377).
Studies have continued to support the effectiveness of the repeated reading approach. Repeated
reading improves fluency by also improving decoding skills, rate, and prosody which leads to
improved comprehension (Guerin & Murphy, 2015; Hawkins, Marsicano, Schmitt, McCallum,
Best practice is having students practice text at their instructional level to keep from
getting frustrated. If text is above the students’ instructional reading level, then support needs to
be offered by the teacher to keep the students from becoming frustrated. With the right amount
of support, struggling readers can read text above their independent reading level. Supporting it
Kuhn and Stahl (2003) evaluated 58 studies dealing with repeated reading and assisted
reading to see if one has a larger effect on reading fluency than the other. Assisted reading
provides the struggling reader an opportunity to listen to a fluent reader who models what the
text should sound like. Kuhn and Stahl’s findings supported the work of Samuels and Dahl’s in
27
that repeated reading does increase reading rate and accuracy and therefore is a successful
strategy.
Kuhn and Stahl (2003) found assisted reading to be successful with the only drawback
being the time constraints needed to have an adult work with a student one-on-one (p. 9). Based
on their study, they also concluded that both strategies enabled readers to read more difficult
passages and found that students’ comprehension increased when practicing repeated reading,
Practicing repeated reading offers readers the opportunity to rehearse the text they are
reading. This more authentic approach helps the readers develop prosody while gaining meaning
of the text. Students who engage in authentic repeated reading opportunities through
measures of reading fluency” (Rasinski, 2014, p. 10). There are many variations of the repeated
Reader’s theater. Reader’s theater is a strategy that has been shown through studies to
help students improve their fluency as well as their attitude toward reading (Kulich, 2009, p. 28).
Within a group, students read scripts or stories, practicing their assigned parts to present to an
audience. Through practicing they learn the vocabulary and are able to incorporate phrasing and
Reader’s theater gives students a purpose to read. Lower, reluctant readers can practice
fluency while fluent readers can explore characterization through expressive reading. Reader’s
theater is often performed without props so students must use their voice through expression to
Choral reading. Another repeated reading strategy is choral reading. When students are
engaged in choral reading, the teacher is leading the reading, providing a model of fluent
reading, and the students join in to orally read the text in unison. This process is repeated until
they reach the desired fluency rate with good accuracy and expression. This strategy helps to
build self-confidence with students who may struggle to read fluently by providing them support
before they are expected to read on their own (Reading Rockets, 2016a). By reading aloud as a
group, students can feel successful and not be self-conscious about reading aloud (Paige, 2011).
Choral reading can help students not only increase fluency, but also build sight words and
improve decoding skills (Kulich, 2009). While choral reading, students are using repeated
reading, reading the same text several times to improve automaticity and fluency.
Partner reading. Partner reading is another strategy where students are paired up and
take turns reading to one another (Reading Rockets, 2016d). This strategy works best when a
strong reader is paired up with an emerging reader so the strong reader can model fluent reading.
The strong reader then listens to the emerging reader reading while giving assistance, feedback,
and encouragement. If a strong reader is not available, two readers of the same level can be
paired up to reread a passage that has been read to them or they have received instruction on
Kuhn and Stahl (2003) concluded in their study that fluency increases based on the
amount of time spent reading. An increase of reading practice, not necessarily the repetition of
reading, but the time spent reading, effects reading fluency. The National Reading Panel (2000)
agreed that “fluency develops from reading practice” (pp. 3-1). Since the repeated reading
strategy increases time spent reading through repeated practice, the Panel concluded that there
29
was a “positive impact on word recognition, fluency, and comprehension…at a range of grade
Text selection. When choosing an appropriate text to use with readers there are several
considerations teachers must keep in mind. First is type of text being utilized. Informational text
is the most common type of text; however, these types of text can be lengthy and do not provide
the reader opportunities to practice reading with prosody. Rasinski (2014) promotes the use of
texts that students can practice and perform such as poetry, scripts and song lyrics which allow
students to show prosody and are an appropriate length that students will not get frustrated or
bored using the repeated reading strategies (p. 10). By choosing passages from a variety of
genres, students will find texts that motivate them so they do not get bored with only one type of
text.
Next is the difficulty level of the text. Students who practice reading fluency with little
support should have text at their independent reading level. If support is being given in a small
group or one-on-one setting, then frustration level text can be used. It has been shown “when
text levels of text difficulty increase, most students’ reading rates decrease” (Rasinski et al.,
2012, p. 120). However, Rasinski (2014) sited research by Kuhn and Stahl (2003) which found
in multiple studies that with the appropriate support, students fluency rates increased when the
Computer-Assisted Instruction
Teacher guided oral reading incorporating repeated reading strategies “confers benefits,
but human guidance incurs costs” (Mostow, Nelson-Taylor, & Beck, 2013, p. 250). Limited
time in the school day restrict teachers’ ability to work one-on-one or in small groups with
30
students to improve reading skills. Computer-assisted instruction provides students with the
…immediate (and corrective) feedback, reinforcement and modeling. Students are often
able to work at their own pace, engage in interesting and motivating activities, receive
many opportunities to repeatedly practice skills to build fluency, and develop master in
an environment that is not threatening or embarrassing. (Keyes, Cartledge, Gibson Jr, &
individualized lessons at their instructional level. Students can have repeated practice on reading
skills for an extended period of time without requiring one-on-one teacher attention. Computer-
assisted instruction supports “student access to targeted, systematic, and explicit reading
instruction” (Fenty, Mulcahy, & Washburn, 2015, p. 141) while providing them the opportunity
One such computer-assisted instructional program that provides students the opportunity
to work on reading fluency skills while also practicing vocabulary, phonics, and comprehension
is Read Naturally Live. Read Naturally Live (Read Naturally, 2017a) is a web-based
intervention program, which models the Read Naturally print program, focused on improving
reading fluency. The program utilizes the Read Naturally Strategy, which “combines the three
individualizes instruction and improves reading proficiency” (Read Naturally, 2017a). The Read
Naturally Strategy combines teacher modeling with repeated reading and progress monitoring
while engaging students with non-fiction, informational texts to practice reading fluency.
31
The first strategy, teacher modeling, incorporates audio support by reading the passages
to the students during the lesson. By listening to a model reader the student is able to hear words
they may not know pronounced correctly (Read Naturally, 2017a). They can also hear
appropriate prosody (expression and phrasing) while listening to the text being read aloud.
The Read Naturally program embraces the repeated reading strategy to improve reading
fluency by having students reread the story three to ten times until they reach the desired rate.
While doing this, students are able to “master difficult words, increase accuracy, and improve
Progress monitoring is the third strategy of the Read Naturally Strategy that tracks
student’s progress on each lesson. Through graphs and visuals, students are able to track their
progress from a cold to hot read, which serves as a motivator to increase their fluency reading
rate.
Students are given a benchmark reading assessment to place them at their instructional
reading level before beginning the program. Once placed, a reading rate goal is set and the
student then begins their first lesson. They select a nonfiction, instructional story and keywords
are identified for them. Students then make a prediction of the story. A one-minute cold timing
is completed with the adult supervisor listening and marking any errors. When an error is made,
The student then listens to the story encompassing the teacher modeling strategy.
Students listen to the whole story three times, each time getting a little faster. They then practice
reading the story independently using the repeated reading strategy. Once the student feels they
have reached their desired rate, they complete a comprehension quiz and write a retell of the
story.
32
Students finish the lesson with a hot timing with the adult supervisor listening and
counting errors. The adult supervisor then enters the number of words read correct in one minute
and the program shows the student with a chart if they met their goal and how much growth they
made from the cold read to the hot read bringing in the third strategy, progress monitoring.
Students need to meet their hot timing goal and pass the comprehension questions and retell
which are evaluated by the adult monitoring the program before moving to their next lesson.
The report, “Read Naturally Rationale and Research” (Read Naturally, 2017b) shares
other benefits to the Read Naturally Strategy. Students are able to work independently
increasing time on task and active engagement. While students are waiting to complete a cold or
hot read, they are able to practice target vocabulary words, instead of sitting and waiting for the
adult supervisor.
Students are taught how to select stories of high interest to them and at their instructional
level (Read Naturally, 2017b). The immediate feedback is motivating for some students. It
encourages them to “beat their previous score” (p. 35) and the graphs provide a visual, which
Finally, the report explains how “students develop greater confidence,” “exhibit fewer
behavior problems,” and “get excited about reading” (Read Naturally, 2017b, p. 35). Students
are able to see and feel success working with the Read Naturally program through improved
The research has mixed results when determining if the Read Naturally program impacts
student’s fluency rates, comprehension, vocabulary, and ability to generalize to non-familiar text.
What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) from the U.S. Department of Education issued an updated
33
summary of the Read Naturally program in July 2013. Five studies met the WWC requirements
When evaluating reading fluency, “one study showed a statistically significant positive
effect, three studies showed an indeterminate effect, and no studies showed a statistically
significant or substantively important negative effect” (What Works Clearninghouse, 2007, pp.
5-6). The fifth study did not meet the standards to be considered for reading fluency results. For
comprehension, four of the five studies met the standards with all four studies “showing an
Keyes et al. (2016) examined the Read Naturally Software Edition (RNSE) with a
population of six second-grade students. Demographics included one male/five female; one
Learning/five non-ELLs. The study lasted 16 weeks. found that “all participants made gains in
ORF on the RNSE and AIMSweb generalization probes” (Keyes et al., 2016, p. 164). The
participants’ also showed improvements in their comprehension based on their oral retelling of
the stories.
When interviewed, teachers reported that all six participants showed improvement in
reading fluency and enjoyed working with the RNSE program. It was also reported that students
showed improved confidence in the classroom after working with the program. Based on the
results, this study supported the Read Naturally Strategy and promoted repeated reading as a
In 2004, Denton, Anthony, Parker and Hasbrouck studied the effects of the Read
Naturally program with students identified as English Language Learners in a bilingual school.
34
29 students participated in the Read Naturally treatment group and 25 students were in the
comparison group. Students ranged from second grade through fifth grade and participated in
the reading intervention meeting three times a week for 10 weeks (Denton, Anthony, Parker, &
Hasbrouck, 2004). ELL students in the intervention group did show gains in their ability to
decode words in English and therefore increase their fluency (Denton et al., 2004). (Denton et
al., 2004) explains “such findings reinforce the importance of explicit instruction in English
Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, and Frances (2006) looked at the effectiveness of Read
Naturally with 27 first, second and third-grade students “with severe reading difficulties and
disabilities” (p. 446) including 15 girls and 12 boys (p. 454). Denton et al. (2006) engaged
students in the Read Naturally program for 8 weeks, following an 8-week intervention with a
phonics program.
This “study indicated that an intensive 8-week oral reading fluency intervention
emphasizing repeated reading can have significant effects on the abilities of students with severe
reading impairments to fluently and accurately read words in lists and connected text” (Denton et
al., 2006, p. 462). The researchers explained that students who had made minimal growth with
previous interventions at Tier 1 or Tier 2 levels showed significant gains following this 8-week
intervention. However, the researchers were unable to find gains when evaluating reading
Erickson, Derby, McLaughlin, and Fuehrer (2015) examined the Read Naturally program
to find the effectiveness of the program with three special education students (p. 6). The
researchers conducted the Read Naturally intervention daily over a 6-week period in the special
education classroom. Erickson et al. (2015) found the program to be “somewhat successful” (p.
35
15) as a reading fluency intervention. Fluency rates increased for all three students and each
gained confidence in the area of reading. The authors noted that Read Naturally is “a flexible
program that can be modified for any classroom setting, ability level, and instructional area. It
requires minimal time per session to set up and implement (and) results in increased performance
The following year, Morgan, McLaughlin, Webe, and Bolich (2016) replicated the study
Erickson et al. (2015) had completed with two third-grade special education students (p. 40).
The results supported the findings from Erickson et al. (2015) with both students showing gains
in the number of words per minute from cold reads to hot reads. However, the researchers did
not see growth in cold reads. It would be assumed that words read correctly per minute would
increase during cold reads due to familiarization with words and generalization from one passage
Camarata and Woodcok (2006) compared the cognitive abilities of males and females
using the Woodcock Johnson achievement assessments. The results indicated females have a
higher processing speed than males. The researchers define processing speed as “the ability to
automatically perform cognitive tasks when under pressure to maintain attention and
concentration” (Camarata & Woodcock, 2006, p. 249). Furthermore, the researches explain that
males display and manipulate knowledge different than females when doing routine tasks (p.
250).
Gutman (2012) looked at the effectiveness of the Read Naturally program with students
identified as low socioeconomic status (SES). The researcher used an experimental group (n =
89) and a control group (n = 89) with the experimental group participating in the Read Naturally
program for 12 weeks. The results “lead the researcher to conclude that the weekly use of Read
36
Naturally did not have a statistically significant difference on low SES students’ reading
fluency” (Gutman, 2012, p. 96). Research repeats itself that children from poverty have a higher
risk of having academic failure than those not from poverty (Borman, Rachuba, & Center for
Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, 2001). Teale, Paciga, and Hoffman
(2007) explain “children from poverty backgrounds score significantly lower in reading and
writing than children from middle and high income backgrounds” (p. 344).
Conclusion
In 2012 the State of Iowa passed the Early Literacy Implementation (ELI) law with the
adoption of Iowa Administrative Code 281, Chapter 62 the following year, which puts reading
fluency proficiency at the forefront of Iowa schools. Components of ELI include universal
summer reading program and third-grade retention. ELI assesses all K-3 students three times a
year using the Formative Reading Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) suite, which
adequately progressing, at-risk, or persistently at-risk. Those at-risk and persistently at-risk must
constant when referring to fluency: rate, accuracy, and prosody. The rate is the speed at which a
student reads, accuracy is words correct minus errors made, and prosody is expression and
phrasing. Rasinski (2006) further explains these “three key elements of reading fluency:
accuracy in word decoding, automaticity in recognizing words, and appropriate use of prosody or
comprehension (Morgan et al., 2016, p. 38). When students are able to recognize words their
fluency increases so they can turn their focus to understanding and gaining meaning from the
text. LaBerge and Samuels’ Theory of Automaticity (1974) explained that when one task is at
work, cognitive energy is being used and is no longer available for the other task (Rasinski,
2014, p. 4).
Students need to have opportunities to practice reading fluently. A widely used strategy
is repeated reading, where students reread a passage until they reach the desired fluency rate.
Through repeated reading students are able to become familiar with words when rereading texts
until they become automatic (Erickson et al., 2015, p. 5). Repeated reading and its variety of
strategies must be meaningful to the reader and include opportunities for expressive
interpretation through performance to demonstrate not only fluency but also prosody.
and phonics skills while supporting comprehension and vocabulary (Read Naturally, 2017a). It
incorporates modeling with audio support that reads the passages to the students three times
during the lesson at three varying rates. Next, it utilizes repeated reading by having the students
practice reading the story to self, three to ten times while timing each practice to develop the
fluency, accuracy, and prosody needed to pass the lesson. Finally, it incorporates progress
monitoring by having the student complete a cold read for one minute to get a baseline on their
reading rate. At the end of the lesson, the student completes a hot read to show growth from
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
This chapter contains the methods and procedures that guided this research study.
Chapter 3 includes the following sections: a) the purpose of the study, b) research questions, c)
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Read Naturally Live as
a fluency intervention with at-risk and persistently at-risk third and fourth-grade students in an
elementary school during the 2016-17 school year. Pre- and post-intervention data were
compared to evaluate the computer-based fluency program using the Iowa Department of
Education approved universal screening tool. The study set out to determine the effect of a
reading intervention program on student achievement as measured by words correct per minute
Research Questions
1. How has the Read Naturally Live fluency program affected the oral reading fluency
assessment?
2. What differences exists between oral reading fluency rates of males and oral reading
fluency rates of females as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read
3. What differences exist between oral reading fluency rates of students of minority and
non-minority students as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read
4. What differences exists between oral reading fluency rates of students qualified for free
or reduced lunch and oral reading fluency rates of students not qualified for free and
reduced lunch as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read Naturally
5. What differences exist in oral reading fluency rates between students identified as having
utilizing the Read Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?
6. What is the relationship between the amount of time spent in Read Naturally Live and the
A review of literature was conducted to examine relevant data and research related to
reading fluency, the effectiveness of the Read Naturally Live fluency program and components
of a fluency program using the I.D. Weeks library, which was accessed through the University of
South Dakota website. Literature, case studies, and dissertations were reviewed using
EBSCOhost that included Education Research Complete (ERIC), PsycINFO, Web of Science and
ProQuest Dissertations. Google Scholar was also used as an online research source.
The researcher used ENDNOTE and The Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (6th edition, 2010) for formatting purposes as well as Dr. Mark
Baron’s Guidelines for Writing Research Proposals and Dissertations. Key words used in this
40
search for relevant literature included: oral reading fluency, repeated reading, Read Naturally
Live, Read Naturally, curriculum based measurement, multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS),
Research Design
design that employed pre- and post-test data to compare the gains made using Read Naturally
Live as a fluency intervention. The causal comparative design was selected due to the study
being a nonexperimental study. SPSS calculated the relationship between the variables based on
pre- and post- FAST scores (Creswell, 2014, p. 12). This design used ex post facto data
comparing pre- (beginning of the school year) and post- (end of the school year) fluency scores
of students who utilized the computer-based fluency program Read Naturally Live. This study
adds to the current literature by determining if the Read Naturally Live program was an effective
oral reading fluency program on one elementary school in one district in rural Iowa. The
outcome of this study could help administrators and other school personnel make informed
decisions when using the Read Naturally Live program in their schools.
A limitation to this study was that it only used one elementary school to look at the
effectiveness of the Read Naturally Live program as an intervention with third and fourth grade
students. However, because only one school was used, outside variables were controlled since
the researcher worked directly with the third and fourth grade staff that implemented the
intervention and assessed the reading fluency of students included in this study.
Students included in this study may have had the opportunity to participate in other
interventions that could have impacted their fluency scores. Since ex post facto data was used,
41
the researcher did not have control of what intervention the students were placed in thus creating
Grade level teachers placed students in Read Naturally Live for WIN intervention
rotations based on FAST fluency scores and other interventions needed therefore not all
populations may be represented. Finally, this study was not designed to include random
Population
This study took place in a school district in the Midwest with approximately 1600
students. Ex-post facto data came from students enrolled in grades three and four during the
2016-17 school year. At the time of this study, the elementary school enrollment included 380
students in grades three through five. The school population included 29 percent of the students
eligible for free and reduced lunch with 85 percent identified as Caucasian, 5 percent Hispanic,
5 percent identified as two or more races, 2 percent identified as African American, 2 percent as
Two percent of students were identified as ELL at the elementary school, and 16 percent
of students in this school received special education services. Table 2 displays students who
qualify for free or reduced lunch, ethnicities, ELL and special education populations.
Table 2
Demographics N % of Population
reduced lunch
Hispanic 19 5%
2 or more races 19 5%
African American 6 2%
Asian American 9 2%
American Indian 3 1%
ELL 7 2%
The participants in this study included 78 students identified as needing a reading fluency
intervention. Of those students, 33 were in third grade and 45 were in fourth grade. Table 3
depicts the composition of the participants used in this study. This population of students was
selected because the third and fourth grade teachers consistently used the Read Naturally Live
Table 3
Boys 22 28 50
Girls 11 17 28
Low SES 12 16 28
Minority 4 9 13
Special Education 3 10 13
Students were placed in Read Naturally Live fluency intervention based on their FAST
fluency scores. Those considered persistently at-risk and not reading fluently at grade level were
43
placed in the Read Naturally Live intervention for a period of six to seven weeks. At the end of
that time, students’ fluency scores were reassessed and students either (a) continued in the
intervention; (b) moved to another intervention, based on need; or (c) moved into the on-level
rotation cycle. The intervention schedule allowed for movement in and out of an intervention
It was assumed that students might need multiple interventions during WIN time and not
remain in the Read Naturally Live intervention the entire school year. It was also assumed that
students would make adequate progress and reach the grade level fluency benchmark moving
them out of the Read Naturally Live program. Students had the opportunity to be in the Read
Naturally Live intervention rotation from one cycle up to all five cycles. Finally, it was assumed
a student not showing adequate growth would be moved into a Tier 3 intervention.
Instrumentation
This study employed the Curriculum Based Measurement for Reading (CBM-R)
assessment of the Formative Assessment for Teachers (FAST) suite as the data collection
instrument to support its correlational research design. The FAST assessment originated at the
The first assessment tool that FAST provides is Curriculum Based Measurement for
monitor their students’ progresses and evaluate the level and rate of a student’s oral
reading fluency. It is a simple and efficient procedure whereby teachers listen and
evaluate student performance while they read aloud from grade level passages.
This universal screener was given to all third and fourth grade students three times during
2016-17 the school year; early September, mid-January and early May. Table 4 displays the oral
reading fluency FAST benchmarks for third grade and fourth grade during the 2016-17 school
year (Iowa Department of Education, 2016, p. 4). The ELI statute required districts to assess
students using a universal screener three times a year. The elementary school used in this study
chose to use the FAST suite utilizing the CBM-R fluency assessment to meet state requirements.
Completing a set of assessments within the online program certified all teachers who
administered the CBM-R fluency assessment. Students identified as persistently at-risk or at-risk
may have been placed in the Read Naturally Live fluency intervention depending on the
Table 4
The FAST suite also has a progress-monitoring component that teachers used to progress
monitor persistently at-risk students on a weekly basis. This allowed homeroom teachers to
track individual student’s level of progress throughout the intervention cycle as well as the
beginning and end of each intervention cycle. The progress monitoring data also helped
determine which students would remain in the Read Naturally Live intervention and which
students would move to a new rotation at the end of each WIN cycle.
During Whatever I Need (WIN) time, students logged onto a Chromebook to access the
online Read Naturally Live program. All students had secure usernames and passwords they
45
used for their login. Students were given the placement assessment prior to beginning the
program to be placed at the appropriate instructional level. Goals were set by adding 40 words to
their placement assessment timing. The staff who monitored Read Naturally Live during WIN
time participated in training with the district’s instructional coach. Process and procedures were
Students began their lesson by choosing a nonfiction story to read from the titles within
their level. They started the lesson with a “cold” timing in order to determine their words correct
per minute (WCPM), which is the total number of words read minus errors. The adult monitor
marked the errors in the passage as the student was reading it aloud. After the “cold” timing, the
students listened to the story three times and practiced reading it along with the computer as well
as independently. They answered retell questions about the passage and practiced vocabulary
words within each lesson. When the students felt they would meet their fluency goal, they
completed a hot timing to determine their WCPM. The adult monitor listened to each student
read during the “hot” timing and tracked the number of words missed. Once complete they
checked the student’s answers to the retell questions and either passed the student on the story or
had them continue practicing the passage until their goal was reached. When the student had
passed the story, they started the process over again by self-selecting a passage of interest to
read.
Data Collection
Demographic data was extracted from the district’s Infinite Campus database where
student information is stored. Written permission to use data from Infinite Campus was secured
from the superintendent of the school district (See Appendix A). The researcher worked with the
curriculum secretary to extract de-identified demographic data of third and fourth grade students
46
from the 2016-17 school year. Data extracted included gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status,
The primary instrument for data collection in this study was the Curriculum Based
Measurement for Reading (CBM-R) assessment of the Formative Assessment for Teachers
(FAST) suite. This pre- and post-test design utilized baseline data collected in the fall of 2016 as
the beginning of the year benchmark data. The State of Iowa requires districts to use a universal
screener to assess all students three times a school year. Using pre- and post-test data, it was
determined that the FAST suite CBM-R assessment would provide the most relevant and
Students whose scores fell below grade level expectations and into the substantially
deficient range, determined by the Iowa Department of Education, were considered for the Read
Naturally Live fluency program. Students who were placed in the intervention received thirty
minutes, four times a week, of additional reading instruction, outside the reading class. Students
were leveled using the placement test within the Read Naturally Live program and placed in
appropriate texts at their instructional reading level. Students were able to work independently
Students’ oral reading fluency was assessed three times during the 2016-17 school year
per State of Iowa requirements using the Iowa Tier website. The FAST assessment was given to
every student in third and fourth grade using the Curriculum Based Measurement – Reading
(CBM-R) fluency passages in September. Students read three one-minute passages per test
session. Teachers marked the errors in the program and the computer system took the average of
the three scores to determine their WCPM. The CBM-R was given again in January and the final
47
screening was given in May. Students whose scores fell into the substantially deficient range
and were identified as persistently at-risk were recommended for the Read Naturally Live
fluency intervention. Students who fell in the substantially deficient range and were identified as
persistently at-risk were also progress monitored weekly within the FAST program. This gave
the researcher pre- and post-fluency scores for each intervention cycle.
Fluency scores (WCPM) were recorded in a spreadsheet by grade level; fall, winter and
spring scores were recorded separately. Students were assigned a number for anonymity.
Students’ fluency growth was calculated by subtracting the spring score from the fall score,
which was recorded in the spreadsheet. Statistical analysis was ran using SPSS for windows.
Ethical considerations were made to maintain the confidentiality of the students since ex-
post facto data was used. Human Subject Protocol was completed and signed and then submitted
to the Human Subjects Review Committee before data collection began. The school district’s
instructional coach and district curriculum secretary deidentified the data before it was given to
the researcher. Names were replaced with randomized identification numbers so students’
names were not associated with the data and the researcher was unable to identify students based
on the data.
Data Analysis
The process of data analysis in this study was guided by a pre-test, treatment, and post-
test process to determine the effectiveness of the Read Naturally Live fluency program using ex
post facto data from the 2016-17 school year. Data was initially collected, organized and stored
in a Microsoft EXCEL 2013 spreadsheet and then was analyzed using the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS) program to find results in fluency scores. This quantitative approach
48
utilized descriptive statistics to answer the research questions by looking at students’ scores to
see if fluency rates had increased after completing the Read Naturally Live fluency program.
The following reported statistics may be included in the results; means, standard
deviations, and ranges associated with the effectiveness of the Read Naturally Live fluency
intervention program.
For research question one, a paired sample t-test was used to determine the effectiveness
of the Read Naturally Live fluency program had on students’ oral reading fluency as measured
by the FAST assessment. This test was appropriate as the pretest and posttest represent two
different times so the paired sample t-test showed if there was evidence that the mean difference
For research question number two, a two-way mixed model ANOVA was used to
determine if there was a difference of oral reading fluency rates between male and female
students after utilizing the Read Naturally Live fluency program. Students’ pretest and posttest
For the third research question, a two-way mixed model ANOVA test was used to
determine if there was a difference of oral reading fluency rates between students of minority
and non-minority students as measured by the FAST assessment after completing the Read
For the fourth research question, a two-way mixed model ANOVA was used to determine
if there was a difference of oral reading fluency rates between students who qualify for free or
reduced lunch and students who do not qualify for free or reduced lunch as measured by the
For the fifth research question, a two-way mixed method ANOVA was used to determine
if there was a difference of oral reading fluency rates between IEP and non-IEP students using
For the final research question, a Pearson correlation was used to determine the if the
amount of time spent in Read Naturally Live affected oral reading fluency rates.
Summary
The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine the effectiveness of the Read
Naturally Live fluency program as an intervention in a Midwest elementary school. The pre- and
post CBM-R scores were analyzed for the students who were involved in the Read Naturally
Live fluency program as an intervention to improve their oral reading fluency. Students in
grades three and four were identified for this study as using the intervention. Chapter 3
described the research design and methodology used for this study. In chapter 4, the study’s
Chapter 4
Research Question One. How has the Read Naturally Live fluency program impacted the oral
reading fluency achievement as measured by the Formative Assessment System for Teachers
(FAST) assessment?
Table 5
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Mean Mean
Note. Mean scores are reported as words correct per minute (WCPM). A paired t-test is associated with this table.
Students who were in the Read Naturally Live reading intervention showed growth from
the fall FAST assessment to the spring FAST assessment with a mean change of 45.31 words
correct per minute (WCPM). The probability of seeing data that varies by at least 45.31 WCPM
from fall to spring when no real difference exists are .05. The researcher can be 95% confident
Research Question Two. What differences exists between oral reading fluency rates of males
and oral reading fluency rates of females as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the
Read Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?
Table 6
51
95% Confidence
Interval of
Difference
Mean Mean
Gr. 3
Gr. 3
Gr. 3
Gr. 4
Gr. 4
Gr. 4
Note. Mean scores are reported as words correct per minute (WCPM). A paired t-test is associated with this table.
Table 6 displays results for FAST scores of male and female students. Third grade
female students showed the most growth with a mean change of 57.45 WCPM with fourth grade-
female students showing the least growth with a mean change of 33.84 WCPM. Overall, third
52
grade students showed more growth, M = 52.36 WCPM compared to fourth grade students, M =
40.14 WCPM.
Table 7
gender)
Measure N F p η2
Table 8
Measure N F p η2
Table 7 displays the variance of growth between male and female students based on the
interaction of time by gender. For third-grade, there was not a significant difference between
male and female growth, F (1,31) = 1.9, p = .18. There was also not a significant difference
between male growth and female growth in fourth grade, F (1, 42) = 3.44, p = .07.
Table 8 displays the variance of scores between male and female students based on FAST
fluency scores. Results did not show a statistical significance between male and female scores
for students in third grade, F (1,31) = .02, p = .91. A statistical significance was not found
53
between male and female students in fourth grade, although there was a trend toward a
Research Question Three. What differences exist between oral reading fluency rates of
students of minority and non-minority students as measured by the FAST assessment after
utilizing the Read Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?
Table 9
Measure N F p η2
(Interaction of
time by race)
Table 9 displays results for variance of scores between minority and non-minority third
and fourth grade students. There was not a statistical significance between the growth of the two
subgroups, F (1,76) = .67, p = .42. There was also not a significant difference between scores of
Research Question Four: What differences exist between oral reading fluency rates of students
qualified for free or reduced lunch and oral reading fluency rates of students not qualified for
free and reduced lunch as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read Naturally
Table 10
54
Lunch and Students Who Do Not Qualify for Free or Reduced Lunch
Measure N F p η2
(Interaction of
time by FRL
status)
Table 10 compares FAST scores of students who qualify for free or reduced lunch and
students who do not qualify for free or reduced lunch. There was not a significant difference
between growth of those student who facility for free or reduced lunch to those who do not
qualify for free or reduced lunch, F (1,76) = 1.36, p = .25. There was also not a significant
difference between scores, F (1,76) = 2.66, p = .11 for the two subgroups.
Research Question Five. What differences exist in oral reading fluency rates between students
identified as having an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and students not identified as having
an Individualized Education Plan (non-IEP) as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing
the Read Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?
Table 11
by IEP)
Measure N F p η2
55
(Interaction of
time by IEP)
status
Note: *Significant Correlation at p<.05. A 2-way ANOVA is associated with this table.
Table 12
Mean Change in Fluency Rates by IEP and Non-IEP on the FAST Assessment
95% Confidence
Interval of
Difference
Mean Mean
IEP
Note. Mean scores are reported as words correct per minute (WCPM). A paired t-test is associated with this table.
Education Plan (IEP) and students without a plan. Results showed a statistically significant
difference in growth between students with an IEP and those without an IEP, F (1,76) = 5.99, p =
.02. Table 12 illustrates that students not on an IEP had a mean growth score of M = 47.45 while
Research Question Six. What is the relationship between the amount of time spent in Read
Table 13
1 37 46.51
2 22 48.95
3 13 36.23
4 3 49.33
5 3 39.00
Table 13 displays the mean growth of fluency scores based on the frequency of the
intervention. The correlation between number of rotations and their change from pre to post
assessment was negative, yet small, and non-significant, r (76) = *.13, p = .25.
57
http://www.begintoread.com/articles/phonemic-awareness.html
Borman, G. D., Rachuba, L. T., & Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At
Risk, B. M. D. (2001). Academic success among poor and minority students: An analysis
https://login.ezproxy.usd.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr
ue&db=eric&AN=ED451281&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Camarata, S., & Woodcock, R. (2006). Sex differences in processing speed: Developmental
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.12.001
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2017). About the standards. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/
Davis, G. (2016). Why reading is important. Learn to Read. Retrieved from http://www.learn-
to-read-prince-george.com/why-is-reading-important.html
Denton, C. A., Anthony, J. L., Parker, R., & Hasbrouck, J. E. (2004). Effects of two tutoring
Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., & Frances, D. J. (2006). An evaluation of
Erickson, J., Derby, K. M., McLaughlin, T. F., & Fuehrer, K. (2015). An evaluation of read
naturally® on increasing reading fluency for three primary students with learning
Fenty, N., Mulcahy, C., & Washburn, E. (2015). Effects of computer-assisted and teacher-led
Florida Center for Reading Research. (2007). 4/5 teacher resource guide part 2. Retrieved from
http://www.fcrr.org/documents/sca/G4-5/45TRGPartTwo.pdf
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. (2007). Using curriculum-based measurement to inform
doi:10.1111/ldrp.12127
Guerin, A., & Murphy, B. (2015). Repeated reading as a method to improve reading fluency for
struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(7), 551-560.
doi:10.1002/jaal.395
Gutman, T. E. (2012). The effects of read naturally on reading fluency and comprehension for
students of low socioeconomic status. (73), ProQuest Information & Learning, US.
Retrieved from
https://login.ezproxy.usd.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr
https://leighahall.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/what-is-a-struggling-reader/
Hawkins, R. O., Marsicano, R., Schmitt, A. J., McCallum, E., & Musti-Rao, S. (2015).
Hoffman, J. V., & Isaacs, M. E. (1991). Developing fluency through restructuring the task of
Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction:
Retrieved from
https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/ELI%20ID%20of%20Students%2
0as%20Substantially%20Deficient.pdf
Iowa Department of Education. (2016). Early literacy technical assistance appendices. Retrieved
from
https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/EarlyLiteracyTechnicalAssistance
Appendices-Revised08-31-2016.pdf
Iowa Department of Education. (2017a). Common questions from parents. Retrieved from
https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/CommonQuestionsFromParents.p
df
https://www.educateiowa.gov/early-literacy-implementation
Iowa Department of Education. (2017d). Iowa's multi-tiered system of supports. Retrieved from
https://www.educateiowa.gov/pk-12/learner-supports/iowas-multi-tiered-system-
supports-mtss
Iowa Department of Education. (2017e). Iowa early literacy law facts sheet.
Iowa Reading Research Center. (2017). Formative assessment system for teachers (fast) k-6.
system/
Katz, C. A., & Bohman, S. (2007). Partner reading. Book Links, 16(6), 38-40.
Keyes, S. E., Cartledge, G., Gibson Jr, L., & Robinson-Ervin, P. (2016). Programming for
http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-overview-definition-
summary.html
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. a. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.
Kulich, L. S. (2009). Making the batter better: Using the fluency development lesson as a recipe
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in
Lyon, G. R. (1998). Why reading is not a natural process. Educational Leadership, 55(6), 14-18.
61
Morgan, S. V., McLaughlin, T. F., Webe, K. P., & Bolich, B. (2016). Increasing reading fluency
using read naturally® with two third grade students with specific learning disabilities: A
Mostow, J., Nelson-Taylor, J., & Beck, J. E. (2013). Computer-guided oral reading versus
doi:10.2190/EC.49.2.g
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2016). Rti glossary of terms. Retrieved from
http://www.rti4success.org/resources/rti-glossary-terms
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the
scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.
Paige, D. D. (2011). “That sounded good!”: Using whole-class choral reading to improve
Rasinski, T. (2006). Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy, automaticity, and
7(1), 3-12.
Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C., & Lems, K. (2012). Fluency instruction: Research-based best
Rasinski, T., & Young, C. (2014). Assisted reading-a bridge from fluency to comprehension.
Rasplica, C., & Cummings, K. D. (2013). Oral reading fluency. Retrieved from
http://www.council-for-learning-disabilities.org/what-is-oral-reading-fluency-verbal-
reading-proficiency
https://www.readnaturally.com/product/read-naturally-live
Read Naturally. (2017b). Read naturally rationale and research. Retrieved from
https://www.readnaturally.com/knowledgebase/documents-and-resources/31/19
http://www.readingrockets.org/strategies/choral_reading
http://www.readingrockets.org/helping/target/fluency
Reading, S., & Van Deuren, D. (2007). Phonemic awareness: When and how much to teach?
http://www.renaissance.com/products/assessment/star-360/star-reading-skills/
rti-model
Samuels, S. J. (1997). The method of repeated readings. Reading Teacher, 50(5), 376.
63
doi:10.1080/02702710902753996
Snider, V. A. (1995). A primer on phonemic awareness: What it is, why it's important, and how
Taguchi, E., Melhem, L., & Kawaguchi, T. (2016). Assisted reading: A flexible approach to l2
reading fluency building. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 16(1), 106-
118.
Teale, W. H., Paciga, K. A., & Hoffman, J. L. (2007). Beginning reading instruction in urban
schools: The curriculum gap ensures a continuing achievement gap. Reading Teacher,
University of Minnesota. (2016). Formative reading assessment system for teachers (fast).
assessment-system-for-teachers-fast
What Works Clearninghouse. (2007). Read naturally. Revised. What works clearinghouse
https://login.ezproxy.usd.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr
ue&db=eric&AN=ED499298&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Wolf, M. (2017). New research on an old problem: A brief history of fluency. Retrieved from
https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/new-research-old-problem-
brief-history-fluency/
64
Chapter 5
Evaluating the Outcomes of Read Naturally Live: An Elementary Schools Search for a
By
Jenni M. McCrory
Abstract:
Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) assessment data indicates that a
percentage of students are not at the proficient level at the end of third-grade despite
interventions being put into place to improve reading fluency rates. This study examined the
Read Naturally Live fluency program to determine if it increased fluency scores of third and
fourth-grade students identified as at–risk and persistently at-risk at this elementary school. The
study used a quantitative approach informed by a causal comparative research design that
employed pre- and post-test data to compare the gains made using Read Naturally Live as a
fluency intervention. The participants in this study included 78 students identified as needing a
reading fluency intervention. Of those students, 33 were in third grade and 45 were in fourth
grade. The overall research results showed positive growth for all students based on the FAST
assessment using the Read Naturally Live program as a fluency intervention. This study
demonstrated students who struggle with reading fluency, when provided a research based
intervention, utilizing the repeated reading strategy, can improve their reading fluency.
65
Introduction
Reading is the foundation for learning and the window for life. To be a successful reader,
students must be proficient in five areas: phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, vocabulary,
and comprehension. An easily defined characteristic of a good reader is one who reads fluently
while a poor reader lacks fluency. Reading fluency “lays a foundation on which readers build
their reading skills to become strategic and versatile in using a variety of cognitive and
Legislators in the State of Iowa recognized the importance of reading fluently and the
done in the State of Iowa to increase reading scores of elementary age students. During the 2012
legislative session, legislators passed Iowa Code section 279.68 also known as Early Literacy
Implementation (ELI) Law to ensure Iowa students meet reading proficiency goals by the end of
their third-grade year. The intent of this new law was to “promote effective evidence-based
programming, instruction, and assessment practices across schools” by setting high expectations
ELI has pushed schools to monitor reading achievement more closely and to put the focus
on universal screening, progress monitoring, and intensive instruction to ensure that non-
proficient readers are making gains. A model the State has adopted and which schools are
implementing is the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), which provides schools with an
approach that provides early intervention to at-risk students. The MTSS framework focuses not
only on the students but the system as a whole. This framework brings educators together to
collaborate on student achievement but also use data to put structures in place to prevent students
In 2013, the Iowa Department of Education adopted the Formative Assessment System
Education, 2017b). This suite includes universal screening assessments and progress monitoring
tools for Iowa schools to use to meet the ELI law while supporting the MTSS model. The State
Department chose FAST as the statewide universal screener due to its ability to track progress on
students’ fluency which also measures “phonological awareness, sounds, words, text reading and
During the 2013-14 school year, a school superintendent in the Midwest tasked the
building leadership team (BLT) at an elementary school in his district to take a closer look at
student achievement data due to the school being on the School in Need of Assistance (SINA)
list for reading and math. What the BLT found were achievement gaps in two subgroups: special
education students and English-Language Learners (ELL) as well as among students identified as
at-risk. These struggling students needed intensive interventions but based on the structure of
the day, intervention time was not possible, unless it happened during recess or before or after
school. Through a yearlong planning process, the BLT developed Whatever I Need (WIN) time,
Teachers used STAR Reading and STAR Math reports along with FAST scores to
determine which intervention a student received (Renaissance, 2016). Students who showed
deficiencies in reading were placed in a reading intervention group that included instruction in
phonics, vocabulary, fluency, or comprehension. Students who were deficient in math were
placed in a math group and those students meeting grade level expectations were placed in an on-
level rotation cycle. At the end of the WIN rotation, students were assessed using the STAR
Reading, STAR Math, and FAST assessments to look for growth and further deficiencies. Based
67
on the assessment results, students could either continue in the same WIN group or move to a
One intervention that has been used since WIN time was implemented is the Read
Naturally Live fluency intervention program (Read Naturally, 2017). This program incorporates
the repeated reading strategy, which addresses students’ fluency deficiencies. Select students
identified as persistently at-risk or at-risk on the FAST reading assessment were placed in the
Read Naturally Live program as an intervention during WIN time. These students met four days
a week for 30 minutes for a duration of six to seven weeks, depending on the length of the WIN
rotation.
Read Naturally Live is a web-based intervention program that utilizes the Read Naturally
Strategy. This strategy combines teacher modeling with repeated reading and progress
monitoring while engaging students with non-fiction informational texts to practice reading
fluently. When students are able to recognize words their fluency increases so they can turn their
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Read Naturally Live as a
fluency intervention with at-risk and persistently at-risk third and fourth-grade students in an
elementary school during the 2016-17 school year. Pre- and post-intervention data were
compared to evaluate the computer-based fluency program using the Iowa Department of
Education approved universal screening tool. The study set out to determine the effect of a
reading intervention program on student achievement as measured by words correct per minute
Theory of Automaticity
68
The idea of fluency dates back as far as the late19th century with researchers like
William MacKeen Cattell (1886) and Edmund Burke Huey (1908) studying and beginning the
discussion on reading fluency. In 1974, David LaBerge and Jay Samuels further defined fluency
through automaticity. They explain how readers are able to “attend to one thing at a time” while
being “able to process many things at a time so long as no more than one requires attention”
(LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, p. 295). They go on to explain that words are processed through
stages while working toward comprehension. Each of these stages are “processed automatically”
and each stage “must be automatic as well” (p. 295). In order to be a fluent reader, the reader
needs “microlevel subskills,” meaning they need to know letter sounds and combinations along
LaBerge and Samuels found that there are two tasks that readers use energy for when
reading; word recognition and comprehension (Rasinski, 2014). The theory was “based on the
assumption that the transformation of written stimuli into meanings involves a sequence of
stages of information processing” (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974, p. 296). It explained that when
one task is at work, cognitive energy is being used and is no longer available for the other task.
Therefore, “when readers have to use excessive amount(s) of their cognitive energy for word
recognition, they have reduced the amount of cognitive energy available for comprehension”
processed…from visual, phonological, and episodic memory until it finally reaches semantic
memory” (Schrauben, 2010, p. 84) and is comprehended. Over the course of several grade levels
and with reading practice, decoding and word recognition becomes more automatic. When word
69
recognition becomes automatic, cognitive energy can be used to comprehend what is being read
and the reader gains understanding of the text (Rasinski, Blachowicz, & Lems, 2012).
As readers are repeatedly exposed to print, they will begin to recognize words with more
accuracy and automaticity (Schrauben, 2010, p. 84). Read Naturally Live exposes students to
words using the repeated reading strategy to increase automatic word recognition shifting the
attention from reading words to comprehending the text. Samuels (1997) explains, “as less
attention is required for decoding, more attention becomes available for comprehension” (p.
378).
elementary school were not at the proficient level at the end of third-grade despite interventions
being put into place. This study examined the Read Naturally Live fluency program to determine
if the program increased fluency scores of third and fourth-grade students identified as at–risk
and persistently at-risk at this elementary school. The results of this study offer schools the
opportunity to see results of fluency scores to determine if Read Naturally Live may be a
possible solution in their own districts. Evidence has shown that “students who read with
automaticity and have appropriate speed, accuracy, and proper expression are more likely to
comprehend material because they are able to focus on the meaning of the text” (Rasplica &
Cummings, 2013). Reading fluency can thus be used as a predictor of student performance on
(NRP) dedicated an entire chapter to fluency in its 2000 report on teaching students to read. One
reason the panel included fluency in its review is due to students’ inability to read fluently
(National Reading Panel, 2000). Prior to the NRP report, the National Assessment of
and found “44% of students to be disfluent” (p. 189) on grade appropriate passages with testing
support.
Three key components define reading fluency and play an important role developing a
fluent reader. Fluency is defined as having the ability to read with speed, accuracy, and
expression (Schrauben, 2010, p. 85). Speed is the rate at which a person reads while accuracy is
how many words a reader reads correctly on a given passage. Expression, also known as
prosody, is the use of feelings and emotions while reading. When these components work
Reading comprehension difficulties can be detected early when poor fluency skills are
identified (Hudson, Lane, & Pollen, 2005, p. 702). Educators can therefore, use reading fluency
as a predictor of comprehension. When students no longer have to think about the words being
read, they can focus on the meaning of the text. Kulich (2009) explains, “Students who read
word by word and thus lack automaticity are less likely to comprehend the meaning of the whole
text” (p. 26). When a reader incorrectly reads a word or group of words, they are unable to
comprehend the intended message which leads to a lack of comprehension and understanding of
A good reader is described as one who can read fluently while comprehending the text
being read (Rasinski et al., 2012). They are able to read at an appropriate rate, with a high level
71
of accuracy while being expressive to gain a deeper understanding of the text. A poor reader
who lacks fluency exerts their energy decoding words. They are often slow and labored making
Fluency assessments are an important tool for educators as a way to identify struggling
readers and provide them with the support and interventions needed to be successful (Rasinski,
2014). Listening to students read aloud helps teachers make judgments of their reading rate,
accuracy, and prosody (Hudson et al., 2005, p. 705). Curriculum-based measurements (CBM)
are the most common form of fluency assessment. CBMs can be used as both a universal
fluency and accuracy. It is given as a “cold” read to measure the student's initial reading rate
without practice. Students can read grade level or instructional level passages depending on the
purpose of the measure. The teacher is able to track a student’s errors, which shows the accuracy
of the reader and subtract those errors from the words read correctly. This will give a score of
the words read correctly per minute (WCPM). Teachers can compare students’ scores against
With the passing of Iowa’s Early Literacy Initiative Iowa school districts were
introduced to the Formative Reading Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) suite. The FAST
suite houses a curriculum-based measurement for reading (CBM-R) system, which is now used
to assess students reading fluency across the state three times a year. Students are identified as
making adequate progress, at-risk, or persistently at-risk after each universal screening is
are required to be provided intensive intervention and be progress monitored weekly through the
tier system.
Reading Strategies
Successful readers need to have a good foundation of phonics so they can easily decode
words. This leads to word recognition and word attack, which will make the reader fluent and
once fluent able to comprehend the text being read. When a student does not have to think about
the word itself and how to read it and reading comes automatically, they can begin to focus on
Samuels (1979) began studying and researching the reading process including improving
way for readers to practice word recognition and recall. When doing repeated reading, readers
repeatedly read a passage at their instructional level until they reach their desired fluency rate
while improving their decoding skills, reading rate, prosody, and comprehension.
Children learn from watching and hearing others and reading is no exception. Through
modeling, students can hear appropriate fluency, including reading rate, prosody and accuracy
while developing a positive attitude toward reading. Modeling through read-alouds provides
students the opportunity to “hear what a fluent reader sounds like in order to internalize correct
Modeling can take place in a small, guided reading group where the teacher reads the text
to the students before beginning repeated reading strategies. It can also be used as a whole class
read-aloud which offers opportunities to expand students’ reading experiences by reading aloud a
story they would not have selected on their own. The teacher may also select a text that is above
students’ reading level to motivate the reluctant reader to want to read. Throughout the modeling
73
process, the teacher can be engaging the students in discussions to build understanding and make
To develop fluency, students must practice reading. Samuels (1997) explains in “The
Method of Repeated Readings,” that “the method consists of rereading a short, meaningful
passage several times until a satisfactory level of fluency is reached” (p. 377). Studies have
continued to support the effectiveness of the repeated reading approach. Repeated reading
improves fluency by also improving decoding skills, rate, and prosody which leads to improved
comprehension (Guerin & Murphy, 2015; Hawkins, Marsicano, Schmitt, McCallum, & Musti-
Best practice is having students practice text at their instructional level to keep from
getting frustrated. If the text is above the students’ instructional reading level, then support
needs to be offered by the teacher to keep the students from becoming frustrated. With the right
amount of support, struggling readers can read text above their independent reading level.
Computer-assisted instruction
Limited time in the school day restrict teachers’ ability to work one-on-one or in small
groups with students to improve reading skills. Computer-assisted instruction provides students
with the opportunity to engage in their learning while offering “immediate (and corrective)
feedback, reinforcement and modeling” (Keyes, Cartledge, Gibson Jr, & Robinson-Ervin, 2016,
individualized lessons at their instructional level. Students can have repeated practice on reading
skills for an extended period of time without requiring one-on-one teacher attention.
74
One such computer-assisted instructional program that provides students the opportunity
to work on reading fluency skills while also practicing vocabulary, phonics and comprehension
is Read Naturally Live. Read Naturally Live (Read Naturally, 2017) is a web-based intervention
program, which models the Read Naturally print program, focused on improving reading
fluency. The program utilizes the Read Naturally Strategy, which combines teacher modeling
with repeated reading and progress monitoring while engaging students with non-fiction,
The first strategy, teacher modeling, incorporates audio support by reading the passages
to the students during the lesson. The Read Naturally program embraces the repeated reading
strategy to improve reading fluency by having students reread the story three to ten times until
they reach the desired rate. Progress monitoring is the third strategy of the Read Naturally
Strategy that tracks student’s progress on each lesson. Through graphs and visuals, students are
able to track their progress from a cold to hot read, which serves as a motivator to increase their
Methodology
Research Design
design that employed pre- and post-test data to compare the gains made using Read Naturally
Live as a fluency intervention. The causal comparative design was selected due to the study
being a nonexperimental study. SPSS calculated the relationship between the variables based on
pre- and post- FAST scores (Creswell, 2014, p. 12). This design used ex-post facto data
comparing pre- (beginning of the school year) and post- (end of the school year) fluency scores
of students who utilized the computer-based fluency program Read Naturally Live.
75
Research Questions
1. How has the Read Naturally Live fluency program impacted the oral reading fluency
assessment?
2. What differences exists between oral reading fluency rates of males and oral reading
fluency rates of females as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read
3. What differences exist between oral reading fluency rates of students of minority and
non-minority students as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read
4. What differences exists between oral reading fluency rates of students qualified for free
or reduced lunch and oral reading fluency rates of students not qualified for free or
reduced lunch as measured by the FAST assessment after utilizing the Read Naturally
5. What differences exist in oral reading fluency rates between students identified as having
utilizing the Read Naturally Live fluency program during the 2016-17 school year?
6. What is the relationship between the amount of time spent in Read Naturally Live and the
Population
76
This study took place in a school district in the Midwest with approximately 1600
students. Ex-post facto data came from students enrolled in grades three and four during the
2016-17 school year. At the time of this study, the elementary school enrollment included 380
students in grades three through five. The school population included 29 percent of the students
eligible for free and reduced lunch with 85 percent identified as Caucasian, 5 percent Hispanic,
5 percent identified as two or more races, 2 percent identified as African American, 2 percent
as Asian American, and 1 percent as American Indian. Two percent of students were identified
as ELL at the elementary school, and 16 percent of students in this school received special
education services. Table 1 displays students who qualify for free or reduced lunch, ethnicities,
Table 1
reduced lunches
Hispanic 19 5%
2 or more races 19 5%
African American 6 2%
Asian American 9 2%
American Indian 3 1%
ELL 7 2%
The participants in this study included 78 students identified as needing a reading fluency
intervention. Of those students, 33 were in third grade and 45 were in fourth grade. Table 2
depicts the composition of the participants used in this study. This population of students was
selected because the third and fourth-grade teachers consistently used the Read Naturally Live
Table 2
Boys 22 28 50
Girls 11 17 28
Low SES 12 16 28
Minority 4 9 13
Special Education 3 10 13
Instrumentation
This study employed the Curriculum Based Measurement for Reading (CBM-R)
assessment of the Formative Assessment for Teachers (FAST) suite as the data collection
instrument to support its causal comparative research design. The FAST assessment was given
to every student in third and fourth grade in September. Students read three one-minute grade
level passages per test session. Teachers marked the errors in the program and the computer
system took the average of the three scores to determine their WCPM. The CBM-R was given
again in January with the final screening in May. This universal screener was given to all third
and fourth grade students three times during 2016-17 the school year; early September, mid-
January and early May. Additional assessment data included STAR reading scores and Iowa
78
Assessment reading comprehension scores. Table 3 displays the oral reading fluency FAST
benchmarks for third grade and fourth grade during the 2016-17 school year (Iowa Department
Table 3
The FAST suite also has a progress-monitoring component that teachers used to progress
monitor persistently at-risk students on a weekly basis. This allowed homeroom teachers to
track individual student’s level of progress throughout the intervention cycle as well as the
beginning and end of each intervention cycle. The progress monitoring data also helped
determine which students would remain in the Read Naturally Live intervention and which
students would move to a new rotation at the end of each WIN cycle.
Data Analysis
The process of data analysis in this study was guided by a pre-test, treatment, and post-
test process to determine the effectiveness of the Read Naturally Live fluency program using
fluency scores from the 2016-17 school year. Data was initially collected, organized and stored
in a Microsoft EXCEL 2013 spreadsheet and then were analyzed using the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program to find results in fluency scores using a paired sample t-
test, 2 way mixed ANOVA and Pearson Correlation. This quantitative approach utilized
descriptive statistics to answer the research questions by looking at students’ scores to see if
fluency rates had increased after completing the Read Naturally Live fluency program. An F
79
statistic is associated to results from the 2 way mixed ANOVA tests. This value reports whether
Findings
In addressing the first research question, students who were in the Read Naturally Live
reading intervention did show growth from the fall FAST assessment to the spring FAST
assessment. Students who participated in Read Naturally Live (n = 78) during the 2016-17
school year grew a mean of 45.31 words correct per minute (WCPM). The researcher
determined that the probability of seeing data that varies by at least 45.31 WCPM from fall to
spring when no real difference exits are .05. There is a 95% chance of seeing data less
discrepant than this if no real difference exists in the population. The researcher can be 95%
confident that the true difference lies between 49.42 and 41.29. Using a paired t-test, Table 4
displays the results from fall reading fluency scores to spring reading fluency scores for all
students.
Table 4
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Mean Mean
Note: Mean scores are reported as words correct per minutes (WCPM). A paired t-test is associated with this table.
80
Research question two looked at the difference between males and females in third and
fourth-grade who participated in the Read Naturally Live intervention. Third-grade female
students showed the most growth with a mean change of 57.45 WCPM with fourth-grade female
students showing the least growth with a mean change of 33.94 WCPM. None of the
populations assessed met the FAST benchmarks set by the Iowa Department of Education
(2016). Third-grade spring benchmark is 131 WCPM and the fourth-grade benchmark is 150
WCPM for the spring testing period. However, all subgroups showed growth toward the
benchmark as demonstrated in Table 5. There was a smaller difference from fall to spring in
Table 5
95% Confidence
Interval of
Difference
Mean Mean
Gr. 3
Gr. 3
Gr. 3
Gr. 4
Gr. 4
Gr. 4
Note: Mean scores are reported as words correct per minutes (WCPM). A paired t-test is associated with this table.
As Table 5 demonstrates, there is a probability of seeing data that vary by at least 52.36
WCPM from fall to spring for third-grade when no real difference exists is .05. The researcher
can be 95% confident that the true difference for third-grade fluency scores lies between 46.97
and 57.76 if no real difference exists in the population. For fourth-grade, the probability of
seeing data that vary by at least 40.14 WCPM from fall to spring when no real difference exists
is .05. There is a 95% chance of seeing data less discrepant than this if no real difference exists
in the population. The research can be 95% confident that the true difference lies between 34.74
and 45.52.
Table 6 displays the variance of growth between male and female students based on the
interaction of time by gender. For third-grade, there was not a significant difference between
male and female growth, F (1,31) = 1.9, p =.18. There was also not a significant difference
between male growth and female growth in fourth-grade, F (1,43) = 3.44, p = .07. However,
there is a trend toward a difference but it is not statistically significant. For all students who
participated in the Read Naturally Live intervention, there was not a significant difference
Table 6
82
Measure N F p η2
Table 7 displays the variance of scores between male and female students based on FAST
fluency scores during the 2016-17 school year. Once again, there was not a significant
difference between male scores and female scores for students in third grade, F (1,31) = .02, p =
.91. There was not a significant difference between male and female scores in fourth-grade,
however, there was a trend toward a difference but it was not statistically significant, F (1,42) =
3.01, p =.09. When looking at third and fourth-grade students combined, there was not a
significant difference between male scores and female scores, F (1,76) = .67, p = .42.
Table 7
Measure N F p η2
Research question three examined the differences that exist between students of minority
and non-minority students in third and fourth-grade that participated in the Read Naturally Live
program. When looking at growth between minority and non-minority students, there was not a
83
significant difference, F (1,76) = .67, p = .42. There was also not a significant difference
Research question four compared FAST scores of students who qualify for free or
reduced lunch and students who did not qualify for free or reduced lunch. There was not a
significant difference between growth of those students who qualify for free or reduced lunch
and those students who do not qualify for free or reduced lunch, F (1,76) = 1.36, p = .25. There
was also not a significant difference between scores, F (1,76) = 2.66, p =.11 for the two
subgroups.
Research question five evaluated what differences existed between students identified as
having an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) with those students not on an IEP using the FAST
assessment. There was a statistically significant difference in growth between students with an
IEP and students without an IEP, F (1,76) = 5.99, p =.02 as referenced in Table 8. As illustrated
in Table 9, students not on an IEP had a mean growth score of M = 47.45 while students
Table 8
Variance of Scores Between Students with an Individualized Education Plan and Students
Measure N F p η2
(Interaction of
time by IEP)
status
84
Note: *Significant Correlation at p<.05. A 2-way ANOVA is associated with this table.
Table 9
Mean Change in Fluency Rates by IEP and Non-IEP on the FAST Assessment
95% Confidence
Interval of
Difference
Mean Mean
IEP
Note. Mean scores are reported as words correct per minutes (WCPM). A paired t-test is associated with this table.
Finally, question six analyzed the relationship between the amount of time spent in Read
Naturally Live and the growth of oral reading fluency rates. The correlation between a number
of rotations and their change from pre to post assessment was negative, yet small, and non-
significant, r (76) = *.13, p = .25. Each rotation was six to seven weeks giving students between
24 and 28 days in the fluency intervention. The majority of students (n = 59) participated in one
or two rotations of Read Naturally Live. These students had a mean growth score of M = 47.73
while 7.7 percent of the population (n = 6) participated in four or five total rotations and had a
mean growth score of M = 44.17. This analysis indicated that the number of times students
Table 10
85
1 37 46.51
2 22 48.95
3 13 36.23
4 3 49.33
5 3 39.00
The results of the research were based on the reading fluency scores of one school’s
participation in Read Naturally Live as a reading fluency intervention during the 2016-17 school
year. The researcher did not use random sampling and therefore the results cannot be
generalized to a larger population. Due to a small number of students in some subgroups, not all
populations were represented, i.e. ELL students, ethnicities. The researcher did not have a
control group to measure normal reading fluency growth over the course of a school year to
compare with growth of students in the reading intervention. Finally, the researcher did not track
other interventions students may have received to work on improving reading fluency.
As the State of Iowa continues to improve and refine the requirements of the Early
Literacy Initiative, changes continue to be made. During the 2017-18 school year the State
ended the use of Iowa Tier and moved to the FASTBridge online assessment system. This
system gives teachers diagnostic data that can be used to determine reading interventions. At
this time, the state has not prescribed any reading fluency interventions and continues to leave it
Assumptions
86
In this study it is assumed that trained personnel implemented Read Naturally Live with
fidelity and efficacy. The researcher will assume that certified teachers gave the FAST
assessment and completed the weekly required progress monitoring. The researcher will also
assume that students gave their best effort on the FAST assessments. Finally, the researcher will
assume that FAST data was manually entered into the data system correctly.
Research has shown that there is a correlation between reading fluency rate and
identifying reading comprehension problems (Hudson et al., 2005). The Theory of Automaticity
explains how improved reading fluency sores will increase comprehension scores “as less
attention is required for decoding, more attention becomes available for comprehension”
(Samuels, 1997, p. 378). This study set out to evaluate the effectiveness of the Read Naturally
Live reading fluency program for third and fourth-grade students based on the FAST reading
assessment. The researcher examined growth over time and scores for gender, minority students,
students receiving free or reduced lunch, and students on an IEP to determine if there would be a
difference in growth or scores for each subgroup. Finally, the researcher examined the
relationship of time and if more exposure to Read Naturally Live impacted reading fluency
scores.
In an era of compliance, schools are constantly looking for ways to improve student
achievement to meet State and Federal mandates. Studies have shown “that increases in fluency
led to increases in comprehension as readers’ attention can be focused away from the task of
word recognition and directed toward meaning making” (Rasinski & Young, 2014, p. 1).
Rasinski (2014) explains, “good readers are so automatic…they can use their cognitive resources
87
for…comprehension. Struggling readers, on the other hand, are not automatic in their word
recognition, so they must use their cognitive resources for…word recognition” (p. 5).
Fluency can be defined as the ability to automatically recall words through word
recognition while reading. When students do not have this automatic recall it slows down their
reading and hinders their ability to comprehend what is being read. Repeated reading is a
strategy that can be used with struggling readers in an effort to improve automatic recall. The
“practice of repeated reading involved the repeated reading of the same passage of text until a
degree of fluency is attained” (Guerin & Murphy, 2015, p. 553). With continual use of the
repeated reading strategy, students initial reading rates will increase on a cold read and fewer re-
readings will be necessary as students transfer automatic word recognition across readings
(Samuels, 1979).
student’s reading fluency, vocabulary, phonics and comprehension. Read Naturally Live uses
the Read Naturally Strategy, which combines teacher modeling with repeated reading and
progress monitoring while engaging students with non-fiction, informational texts to practice
reading fluency.
This study investigated the effectiveness of Read Naturally Live as a reading fluency
intervention for at-risk and persistently at-risk third and fourth-grade students. Students
participated in the program for a six or seven-week rotation, four days a week. Students could
participate in all five rotations down to just one rotation. All students showed growth from fall
to spring on the FAST fluency assessment. The mean change between pretest FAST scores and
post-test FAST scores for all students who participated in the program over the course of the
school year (n = 78) was M = 45.31. Third-grade students (n = 33) had a mean change of M =
88
52.36 while fourth-grade students (n = 45) had a mean change of M = 40.14. This data analysis
led the researcher to conclude that Read Naturally Live had a positive effect on all students as no
The researcher continued the study by looking at reading fluency growth between male
and female students and concluded that no statistically significant differences were found.
Third-grade female students (n = 11) showed the most growth with a mean change of M = 57.45
while fourth-grade female students (n = 17) had the least growth with a mean change of M =
33.94. There was a trend toward a difference in growth for fourth-grade female students but it
was not statistically significant enough to report. Third-grade male students (n = 22) showed
moderate growth with a mean change of M = 49.82 with fourth-grade male students (n = 28)
The study also looked at the comparisons between minority and non-minority students
reading fluency scores. Minority students (n = 13) showed growth with a mean change of M =
39.98 while non-minority students (n = 65) showed growth with a mean change of M = 46.05.
Although the minority students show slightly lower growth overall, there was not a statistically
significant difference in scores. These findings support studies conducted by Keyes et al. (2016)
and Denton, Anthony, Parker, & Hasbrouck, (2006) in which male and female students as well
as minority and non-minority students who participated in a Read Naturally program showed
This study of reading fluency had positive results when looking at students who qualify
for free or reduced lunches compared to other research of low SES populations. This study
showed growth for students who qualify for free or reduced lunches and did not show a
statistically significant difference between students who qualify for free or reduced lunches (n =
89
27) with a mean change of M = 42.18 and those who do not qualify for free or reduced lunches
(n = 49) with a M = 47.06. One study by Gutman (2012) reported that “the weekly use of Read
Naturally did not have a statistically significant difference on low SES students’ reading
The last subgroup the researcher evaluated for fluency growth was students identified as
having an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) compared to their counterparts without an IEP.
Students with an IEP (n = 12) did show growth with a mean change of M = 34.62 compared to
non-IEP students (n = 64) who produced a mean change of M = 47.45. There was a statistically
significant difference in growth between the two subgroups. F (1,76) = 5.99, p = .02. Erickson et
al. (2015) looked at the effectiveness of the Read Naturally program with special education
students and Morgan et al. (2016) replicated the study by Erickson et al. (2015). Both research
teams reported similar results with Read Naturally being “somewhat successful” (Erickson et al.,
The final research question, the researcher sought to investigate was to determine if the
amount of time spent using Read Naturally Live impacted reading fluency scores. 75% of the
student population (n = 59) participated in one or two rotations of Read Naturally Live. These
students had a mean growth score of M = 47.73 while 7.7% of the population (n = 6) participated
in four or five total rotations and had a mean growth score of M = 44.17. This analysis indicates
that the number of times students participate in a rotation is insignificant to demonstrate fluency
growth.
Discussions
The overall research results showed positive growth for students identified as at-risk and
persistently at-risk based on the FAST assessment using the Read Naturally Live program as a
90
fluency intervention. This program was used as a fluency intervention to target third and fourth-
grade students struggling to meet fluency benchmarks. This study supports previous research
that Read Naturally Live improves reading fluency rates for students using the repeated reading
strategy. The findings from this study demonstrate students who struggle with reading fluency,
when provided a research based intervention, utilizing the repeated reading strategy, can improve
their reading fluency. The researcher concluded that the use of Read Naturally Live with third
and fourth-grade students during a scheduled intervention time benefited students, helping to
use during intervention time to increase reading and math skills. When the Early Literacy
Initiative became law in the State of Iowa, districts were left to figure out what fluency strategies
would be effective and efficient to help increase fluency scores. As a building administrator and
researcher, I set out to determine if Read Naturally Live was an effective program and would use
the results to determine if the program would continue to be used or discontinued following this
study. Based on the results of this study, I support and encourage the continued use of Read
The researcher will take the results of this study to work with the instructional coach and
teachers to identify students in need of a fluency intervention to be placed in the Read Naturally
Live program. The instructional coach will work with teachers to correctly place students within
the program and then monitor their progress every four weeks to make appropriate adjustments.
The researcher believes with continued use of the program, reading scores will continue to
This study did not find significant differences in the amount of time spent using Read
Naturally Live, therefore the researcher recommends only placing a student in the program for
the amount of time needed to improve fluency. The intervention sessions used in this study were
seven weeks long, four days a week, approximately 28 days a rotation. For some students, this
time frame was sufficient and for other students, multiple rotations were needed. The findings
did not yield different results based on the number of rotations supporting that the program is
The FAST assessment used to determine fluency rates in this study was a one-time
snapshot of students’ reading fluency abilities in the fall and spring. The researcher followed the
lead of the State of Iowa and only used FAST scores for this study and did not look at other
measures to compare fluency rates, such as progress monitoring fluency scores or Read
Naturally Live fluency scores. Although the researcher does not feel that multiple measures
would have changed the outcome of the study, it is worth noting that the scores used to
determine the effectiveness of the program are pre- and post-assessment scores.
The researcher believes this study can provide school districts with a research based
fluency intervention program that can be used to improve student achievement toward meeting
fluency benchmarks. Based on the findings of this study, all subgroups included in the study
showed growth toward the benchmark and therefore the researcher supports the use of this
The following are recommendations for practice based on the results of this study.
School districts need to identify a fluency assessment tool to assess reading fluency prior to
implementing Read Naturally Live. Schools need to then commit to 30 minutes of intervention
time, four to five days a week to implement the intervention with fidelity. Finally, districts need
92
to monitor student progress toward fluency benchmarks to determine the length of the
intervention. Once students meet the benchmark, the intervention may be ended.
Several recommendations for further study emerged from this study. These
recommendations include a study with a larger population, including all grade levels, across
multiple schools using Read Naturally Live to make the study more generalizable. Since data
was only collected for one school year, data should be collected and analyzed over multiple
years. Further research should also be done comparing fluency and comprehension scores to
REFERENCES
Denton, C. A., Anthony, J. L., Parker, R., & Hasbrouck, J. E. (2004). Effects of two tutoring
Guerin, A., & Murphy, B. (2015). Repeated reading as a method to improve reading fluency for
struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(7), 551-560.
doi:10.1002/jaal.395
Hawkins, R. O., Marsicano, R., Schmitt, A. J., McCallum, E., & Musti-Rao, S. (2015).
Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction:
Iowa Department of Education. (2016). Early literacy technical assistance appendices. Retrieved
from
https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/EarlyLiteracyTechnicalAssistance
Appendices-Revised08-31-2016.pdf
https://www.educateiowa.gov/early-literacy-implementation
Iowa Department of Education. (2017b). Iowa early literacy law facts sheet.
94
Iowa Reading Research Center. (2017). Formative assessment system for teachers (fast) k-6.
system/
Keyes, S. E., Cartledge, G., Gibson Jr, L., & Robinson-Ervin, P. (2016). Programming for
Kulich, L. S. (2009). Making the batter better: Using the fluency development lesson as a recipe
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the
scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.
7(1), 3-12.
Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C., & Lems, K. (2012). Fluency instruction: Research-based best
Rasinski, T., & Young, C. (2014). Assisted reading-a bridge from fluency to comprehension.
Rasplica, C., & Cummings, K. D. (2013). Oral reading fluency. Retrieved from
http://www.council-for-learning-disabilities.org/what-is-oral-reading-fluency-verbal-
reading-proficiency
95
Read Naturally. (2017). Read naturally rationale and research. Retrieved from
https://www.readnaturally.com/knowledgebase/documents-and-resources/31/19
http://www.renaissance.com/products/assessment/star-360/star-reading-skills/
Samuels, S. J. (1997). The method of repeated readings. Reading Teacher, 50(5), 376.
doi:10.1080/02702710902753996
Taguchi, E., Melhem, L., & Kawaguchi, T. (2016). Assisted reading: A flexible approach to l2
reading fluency building. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 16(1), 106-
118.
Wolf, M. (2017). New research on an old problem: A brief history of fluency. Retrieved from
https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/new-research-old-problem-
brief-history-fluency/
96
Appendix A
97
98
Appendix B
99
100