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