LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 1

Literacy Analysis and Intervention: Repeated Reading

Susan A. Hart
St. Bonaventure University
October 2014

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 2

Abstract
The literature review highlights literacy intervention using repeat reading passages. The
intervention was implemented in a second grade classroom with a repeat student who reads at an
intensive fluency level. The repeat reading intervention resulted in a higher level of fluency and
comprehension when student reads a passage at least three times with corrective feedback.
Key words: fluency, repeated reading, literacy intervention, students with learning disabilities

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 3

Introduction to Literacy Intervention
The literacy issue that is being addressed in this literacy intervention will focus primarily
on fluency. The development of reading fluency is a critical aspect of learning to read, and is
vital in developing effective and efficient readers (Abadiano &Tumer, 2005). Fluency is a
significant component of being successful in learning within the academic schema. The National
Reading Panel (NRP) identifies the beginning reading skills to include: phonemic awareness,
phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary instruction, and reading comprehension. Reading fluency is
defined as the ability to read text quickly, accurately and with proper expression (NICHHD,
2000). Fluency is usually measured as number of words read correctly (orally or silently) per
minute (Ari, 2011). Fluency encompasses reading at a reasonable rate, with few errors, and with
prosody. Decoding and fluency are important foundational skills for vocabulary and
comprehension to build upon (Swain, Leader-Janssen & Conley (2013). Intensive readers decode
word-by-word so slowly that they cannot retain enough information in their working memories
long enough to comprehend connected text (Gorsuch & Taguchi, (2010).
In this case study, Repeated Reading was implemented as a literacy intervention for a
student reading significantly below grade-level. Repeated Reading process is an intervention
where the learner will read a leveled passage repeatedly.
The student in this case study was formally classified on February 4, 2014 as learning
disabled. The student ethnicity or race is listed as Hispanic/Latino. The student lives at home
with both his parents and younger sister. Both parents are fluent English speaking, the student is
not listed as English Second Language.

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 4

The student is 8 years old, and currently placed in a second grade integrated co-teaching
classroom at Buffalo Public School, 67, Discovery. The integrated classroom has one general
education teacher, and one special education teacher. The Integrated Co-teacher works with the
second-grade team to develop materials and student-centered areas to supplement curriculum for
students that are performing above and below grade level. There are 29 students in the
classroom. Of the 29, 5 students currently have special education services with IEPs (approx. 1:6
ratio). At this time, there is also a student teacher in the classroom who has been leading
instruction.
The school is located in a closely integrated (tight-knit) neighborhood of South Buffalo.
The school has over 90% parent involvement. Other supports at the school include a student
support team that includes the committee on special education and a school psychologist. WNY
United also has members of their staff working in the school on a daily basis. The WNY United
staff members discuss character traits with the students - as in what makes you a good citizen and
making the right choices.
Academics for ELA includes a CKLA Skills component that teaches the mechanics of
reading. Students are taught systematic and explicit phonics instruction as their primary tool for
decoding written English. By the end of grade 2, students will learn all of the soundspelling
correspondences in the English language and should be able to decode written material. In
addition to phonics, students also are taught spelling, grammar, and writing.
The skills strand uses student readers from the Core Knowledge Foundation and are
accessible online at Enageny.org. The skills reader states that the readability levels are suitable
for early readers. The skills books are designed to make early reading experiences easier and
more productive by using a subset of the available spellings. It uses only spellings that students

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 5

have been taught to sound out as part of their phonics lessons, plus a handful of tricky words,
which have also been deliberately introduced in the lessons. This means that the stories should be
100% decodable. Using http://www.readability-score.com, the average grade level of the Unit 4
reader (middle of the 2nd grade year), The Job Hunt is at 1.1, with a Gunning-Fog Score of 2.8,
Coleman-Liau Index of 3.5, and SMOG Index of 2.3.
The student currently struggles with Skills practice. Supports currently in place include:
small group instruction, altering the presentation of instruction, differentiated materials,
scaffolding lessons, supplementing lessons with remediation guide, and chunking material into
smaller parts in order for the student to be successful. In addition, a speech therapist pulls out for
services. He also receives Tier 3 Academic Intervention Services (AIS) for ELA. Tier 3 provides
intensive, individualized intervention that typically occurs for a long duration, includes fewer
students, is more individualized, and is provided by a special educator. (Lam, 2014).
Individual goals listed on the student IEP are:
STUDY SKILLS
Student will maintain on task during class lessons and assignments in order to complete
work in a timely manner. (4 out of 5 trials, to be observed/recorded daily by special educator)
READING
When presented with Second grade level literature text and/or specific informational text
from content area subjects, student will read 30 words per minute fluently with accuracy and
appropriate rate. (4 out of 5 trials - structured observations of targeted behavior to be recorded
every four weeks by special educator)
When recounting stories or after reading beginning of the 2nd grade level text, student
will determine the main topic, retell key details, and demonstrate understanding of the central

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 6

message or lesson. (75% success - to be observed through weekly classroom assessments by
special educator)
SPEECH / LANGUAGE
Student will produce correct vowel sounds in CVC words (4 out of 5 trials observed/recorded monthly by speech therapist).
Student will use correct noun-verb agreement in sentences (4 out of 5 trials observed/recorded monthly by speech therapist).
Literature Review
Literature researched includes literacy interventions that increase fluency in students.
Effective reading instruction should include phonological awareness, decoding skills,
vocabulary, fluency practice and variety of reading comprehension strategies (Swain, et al.,
2013). When decoding strategies reach mastery, this leads to automaticity in word recognition.
When the reader exerts less efforts in decoding, the focus becomes meaning of text, whereas
fluency connects word recognition to comprehension (Hasbrouch & Tindal, 2006). Fluency is
important to overall reading success and must be a component that is addressed during reading
instruction (Swain, et al., (2013).
An intervention that has been proven to be effective is the Repeated Reading process
(Abadiano &Tumer, 2005; Ardoin, et al., 2013; Ari, 2001; Ates, 2013; Begeny, 2011; Huang, et al., 2008;
Strickland, et al., 2013; Swaain, 2013; Therrien, 2004). A Repeated Reading program, Helping Early
Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) was developed by integrating eight evidence-based
fluency-building instructional strategies into a systematic program that can be feasibly
implemented (Begeny, 2011). Students receiving The Helping Early Literacy with Practice
Strategies (HELPS) increased reading fluency compared to students that have not receiving the

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 7

program (Begeny, 2011). HELPS includes key instructional strategies (repeated reading,
modeling, corrective feedback) that have been shown in research to improve the fluency of
students identified as learning disabled (Strickland, et al, 2013; Therrien, 2004). These are
instructional strategies specifically designed to target reading fluency deficits (Begeny, 2011).
Interventions including feedback to students, goal setting, and reinforcement were effective
practices for students with learning disabilities (Begeny, 2001). Students with disabilities may
struggle with on-task behaviors and continue to remain engaged in academic tasks (Botsas
& Padeliadu, 2003). Goal setting with feedback and reinforcement can benefit students with
learning disabilities because it helps to improve active engagement and the motivation for selfmanagement (Morgan & Sideridis, 2006). Repeated Reading using the same text, modeled reading
by an adult, and receiving corrective feedback on missed words has shown to be beneficial for
struggling readers (Abadiano &Tumer, 2005). Corrective feedback enhances both word
recognition and comprehension (Therrein, 2004). According to Therrein (2004), Adult
implementation of the Repeated Reading process is recommended. Fluency and comprehension
effect sizes for students in transfer interventions conducted by adults were more than three times
larger than those obtained by students in interventions conducted by peers. Students should be
provided with a cue, and the passage should be repeated three to four times. Corrective feedback
component should be added and passages should be read until a performance criterion is reached
(in this case, student read passage for one minute).

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 8

Intervention
Student Performance
The student's IQ Score as listed from student IEP falls in the average range of 87 to 113 WASI-Z Full Scale: 93, 32 percentile. The level of exceptionality for this student as listed on IEP
is classified as learning disabled.
Student participates at a higher rate during small group instruction as opposed to whole
group discussions. He often needs questions repeated and will often repeat the questions as his
answer (e.g. - What was the Pony Express? student might say, The Pony Express.) Student has
a writing journal that can be shared with the class. There has been improvement from last year,
however, the content is lacking when compared to peers.
Student is social during non-structured and in small group class activities. He has
developed friendships within the class, and is respectful to other classmates and adults. Student
has shown improvement in being proactive in lessons and is willing to try new tasks/activities.
There are no behavioral concerns for this student, however, he is a chronic absence.
The student struggles in all content areas of the second grade curriculum. The educational
priority for the student is to develop reading skills. He has repeated second grade and has shown
great strides already this year. Although the student is showing progress, reading fluency level
continues to be at an intensive rate. At the end of last year, there was a profound gap in progress
in regards to academic growth when compared to other classmates. The parents, along with the
teachers and school student support team came to a unanimous decision to repeat the student for
the current academic year. The learner struggled the prior year with completing independent
tasks that involve reading and writing. Although he continues to need assistance, student is more
engaged and has displayed an increase in on-task behavior. Most reading and written work needs

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 9

to completed in a small group setting in order for learner to be successful. Last year, the student
needed constant prompting from the educator, whereas this year, he is showing initiative to do
well and wants to complete work independently.
The student displays skill weaknesses in receptive language, reading comprehension,
written language, processing speed and fluency. Based upon significant discrepancies between
cognitive abilities and measured reading, skills, the student requires a higher level of supports.
Student shows delays in language and is performing significantly below grade level in reading
fluency and comprehension. Of the interfering factors described, the literacy
analysis/intervention plan is to improve reading fluency skills and comprehension. Improvement
in reading fluency would allow the students to complete reading and written assignments with
more independence.
To determine the priorities of the learner, I reviewed current data in reading assessments
(DIBELS), spelling test scores, comprehension test scores, end-of-unit skills tests, 1-1
instructional performance, participation in small group instruction, and completion and accuracy
of independent work.
The instructional reading level for oral reading fluency benchmark for second grade,
beginning of the year (BOY) target is 52 words per minute (WPM). BOY DIBELS assessment
(oral reading fluency assessment) were administered on September 17, 2014. Student is reading
at an intensive level that is well below benchmark of 8 WPM.
Relevant WATI section checklist for the priority area, reading was completed by educator
(See Appendix, Figure 1).

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 10

Implementation of Intervention Repeat Reading
Facilitator of the intervention worked 1-1 setting in a remedial classroom. The facilitator
gave instructions to student (SEE Appendix, Figure 3, lesson plan). The Repeated Reading
process was implemented with this student for two days a week for two weeks, for a total of four
times. There were four passages implemented for the intervention. The passages were obtained
using the HELPS program. The passages are structured, repeated readings of progressively
increasing ability and appropriate text. The first week, the student read one passage three times
on Tuesday, and read another passage three consecutive times on Thursday. The student was
given instructions, was aware that performance was being timed, received corrective feedback on
words read incorrectly, had the opportunity to read the passage three consecutive times, and
received a reward for participation. Reading the passage more than four times does not appear to
be necessary because the difference in comprehension gains between reading the passage three
times and four times was minimal (Therrien, 2004). During week two, the facilitator modeled
fluency by reading the passage at an appropriate rate, with no errors and with prosody before the
student read the passage aloud. Research supports that by providing students with models of
fluent reading, students increase fluency and comprehension of read passages (Abadiano
&Tumer, 2005). Since HELPS is not designed for assessment, The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (DIBELS) measures of oral reading fluency and accuracy were used as pre- and
post-test data to evaluate participant reading growth.
Repeated Reading interventions for students with Learning Disabilities are
associated with improvements in reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension (Abadiano
&Tumer, 2005; Strickland, et al., 2013). As the target student is identified as LD, and has
displayed great difficulty in reading fluency, the Repeated Reading process was chosen. The

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 11

intervention focuses on the task at hand, rather than confusing the learner with more strategies
that can ultimately take away from working memory and cause the learner to show little progress
toward reading. As indicated in the introduction, processing time to decoding or other factors
interferes with working memory and comprehension of text (Gorsuch & Taguchi, (2010).
Repeated Reading is an intervention that is implemented to improve fluency, and was
chosen for this literacy intervention. Research has indicated that repeated oral reading has been
proven to show growth in fluency (Abadiano &Tumer, 2005; Ardoin, et al., 2013; Ari, 2001; Ates, 2013;
Huang, et al., 2008; Strickland, et al., 2013; Swaain, 2013; Therrien, 2004). The learner reads the same
passage for at least three times to increase accuracy and fluency. The general format for
Repeated Reading has a student reading a grade-level passage multiple times until
reaching a goal (Kostewicz, 2012).
The student increased fluency and accuracy each time the passage was re-read The data listed show the
pre-test, the series of interventions. The labels for interventions list the date followed by R1 -first reading, R2second reading, and R3-third and final reading (SEE figure 4, data chart). Pre-test data was obtained using
DIBELS beginning of the year reading passage, the post-test passage was acquired from DIBELS beginning of
the year progress monitoring. By implementing DIBELS passages for both pre- and post-test indicators, it was
determined that data may be more accurate in showing growth in fluency and accuracy within the same program.
The student pre-test score was significantly low at 8 WPM with 53% accuracy. The post-test
score increased with data showing 18 WPM and 85% accuracy. Data also show that modeling
reading fluency increased the RI scores of passages read in week 2.

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 12

Reflection
When researching interventions, I was specifically looking for an intervention that would allow the
student to read more. I was able to find many articles targeting the Repeated Reading process. I was unsure how
successful this technique would be with the targeted student. The student is repeating second grade, where there
was little progression academically within the previous school year. The learner is more open minded and willing
to learn this year, and I was hoping the intervention would be successful. While facilitating the Repeated Reading
lesson, I saw, first hand, intervention in motion. Each time the student read the passage, the accuracy and fluency
increased. In the course of 2 weeks, the student increased fluency and accuracy with every passage read. My
specific concern with this intervention was that the increase would be isolated with the passage at hand, and every
time the student read a new passage, the process would start all over again. Therrien states that transfer results
(measures of student ability to fluently read or comprehend new passages) in Repeated Reading
may improve student ability to read new passages with increased fluency and comprehension
(2004). Every time the student read the passage, words were being recognized in context, and the
more text the student read within the passage. By the third lesson, the student was already
showing an increase in reading fluency with the first reading of the passage. The student also
displayed enthusiasm to read. This is a trait that was not presented in this student yet this year or
the prior school year. The student was successful and was also cognizant of his progress.
While completing this intervention, I have become aware of the Repeated Reading
process and have become more familiar with the implementation process. The Helping Early
Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) Program will be implemented to integrate the
Repeated Reading process as a remedial intervention to improve student reading fluency
(Begeny, et al., 2011).

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 13

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 14

Conclusion
To address significant delays as listed in the introduction and student performance, the
target student received literacy intervention to improve fluency. The Repeated Reading process
has shown to be an effective intervention to increase reading fluency, motivation, and
comprehension in the student. The data show that the reader read with less error each time the
passage was re-read, and with an even greater increase when text was modeled for student. It is
concluded that Repeated Reading is an effective intervention that takes little time to implement.
Repeated Reading will be a tool that will be integrated within my second-grade classroom. The
technique of Repeated Reading will also be added as a supplement to ELA skills lessons.
Planning will reflect student reading skills stories for a total of 3 times to improve fluency and
comprehension. Material will also be differentiated to students that may need additional
supports, and will receive modeling of text prior to reading independently.

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 15

References
Abadiano, H. R., & Turner, J. (2005). Reading fluency: The road to developing efficient and
effective readers. New England Reading Association Journal, 41(1), 50-56.
Ardoin, S. P., Morena, L. S., Foster, T. E., & Binder, K. S. (2013). Examining the impact of
feedback and repeated readings on oral reading fluency: Let's not forget prosody. School
Psychology Quarterly, 28(4), 391-404.
Ari, O. (2011). Fluency interventions for developmental readers: Repeated readings and wide
reading. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 28(1), 5-15.
Ates, S. (2013). The effect of repeated reading exercises with performance-based feedback on
fluent reading skills. Reading Improvement, 50(4), 158-165.
Botsas, G., & Padeliadu, S. (2003). Goal orientation and reading comprehension strategy use
among students with and without reading difficulties. International Journal of Educational
Research, 39, 477495.
Gorsuch, G., & Taguchi, E. (2010). Developing reading fluency and comprehension using
repeated reading: Evidence from longitudinal student reports. Language Teaching
Research, 14(1), 27-59.
Hasbrouch, J., & Tindal, G. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment
tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-644.
Huang, L. V., Nelson, R., & Nelson, D. (2008). Increasing reading fluency through studentdirected repeated reading and feedback. California School Psychologist, 13, 33-40.

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 16

Kostewicz, D. E. (2012). Implementing systematic practice to build reading fluency via repeated
readings. New England Reading Association Journal, 47(2), 17-22.
Lam, E. A., & McMaster, K. L. (2014). Predictors of responsiveness to early literacy
intervention: A 10-year update. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(3), 134-147.
doi:10.1177/0731948714529772
Morgan, P. L., & Sideridis, G. D. (2006). Contrasting the effectiveness of fluency
interventions for students with or at risk for learning disabilities: A multilevel random
coefficient modeling meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 191
210.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National
Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH
Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Strickland, W. D., Boon, R. T., & Spencer, V. G. (2013). The effects of repeated reading on the
fluency and comprehension skills of elementary-age students with learning disabilities
(ld), 2001-2011: A review of research and practice. learning disabilities. A Contemporary
Journal, 11(1), 1-33.
Swain, K. D., Leader-Janssen, E. M., & Conley, P. (2013). Effects of repeated reading and
listening passage preview on oral reading fluency. Reading Improvement, 50(1), 12-18.
Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated
reading. Remedial And Special Education,25(4), 252-261.

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 17

Begeny, J. C., Mitchell, R., Whitehouse, M. H., Samuels, F., & Stage, S. A. (2011). Effects of the
helps reading fluency program when implemented by classroom teachers with lowperforming second-grade students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(3),
122-133.

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 18

Appendix
Figure 1.

Subject Area

Reading
(decoding,
fluency and
comprehension
)

Writing
(spelling and
composition
skills)

Study Skills,
Test Taking
Skills

Interests &
Preferences

Strengths:
Needs:
Most Recent
Meeting
Specific
Specific
Report Card
Grade
skills/concepts skills/concepts Grades
Level
LITERACY
ANALYSIS
AND
INTERVENTION:
Repeated
Reading
that the student that the student
Expecta19
has achieved
lacks.
tions?
close
- Is able to read - Unable to
Needs
No.
proximity
one-syllable
read fluently or Improvement
to
words,
with prosody.
with:
instruction
- Doesnt use
- Reading
- Small
- identifies sight decoding
fluency, group
words that
strategies
comprehension
instruction
include: the, a,
effectively.
- sight
- Uses
are, to, in, what, - Needs to
vocabulary
reading
she, was, and
improve
- read and retracker
high frequency phonological
tell
words like:
and expressive - express ideas
many, books,
language skills clearly
and mom
- Needs to
improve
DIBELS score
reading
for DORF for
comprehension BOY was 8
skills.
WPM
- Has difficulty (benchark:52
completing
WPM)
independent
work, reading
textbooks, and
tests.
can copy
words or
sentences
during
instruction.

preferential
seating for
guided
practice
when
needed.

Nice
penmanship:
spacing and line
correspondence.

- respectful.
- non-disruptive
during class

- beginning to
compose
sentences
independently.
-shows little
progression
with spelling
phonetically.
- unable to
write thoughts
or details in a
paragraph
format without
guided
practice.
- has difficulty
locating main
ideas or details
pertinent to a
given topic
within a
passage.
- has difficulty
retaining
learned
information
and applying it
to independent

Needs
Improvement:
- Spelling,
- Written
expression
- writing ideas
clearly in
paragraph
form

No.

Spelling tests
on average
with phonetic
spellings: avg.
60% (increase
from end of
year avg. of
33%)

Needs
improvement
in - Class
participation
- using time
effectively

No.

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 20

Figure 1. Student WATI Checklist. Shows student present levels that
pertain to and are adversely affected by the priority area, reading fluency.

Figure 2.

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 21

Figure 2. Pre-test, DIBELS BOY Benchmark Figure 2 shows passage read by student to
determine student reading level is intensive.

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 22

Figure 3.
Repeated Reading Lesson
Objective: Student will increase reading fluency (WPM) and accuracy.
Materials: Core Knowledge Foundation, Reading Fluency Packet for Grade 2, Unit 2
Pre-Planning

Text selected for use in the Repeated Reading intervention from reading fluency packet
that corresponds with current skills lesson.
2 copies of text, one copy provided to the student in large, wide space text
Conducted 1-1 setting
Student will be timed for one minute. Use of stopwatch or timer.
Lesson

Teacher states:
1. The goal is to read the passage three times to increase fluency
2. Im going to set the timer for one minute, and well count the number of words you read
correctly at the end of one minute.
Set timer for ONE minute

Student will read passage for one minute.

Instructor will mark the stopping point on teacher copy.
Instructor tells the student how many words he or she read correctly in one minute, and
gives corrective feedback of any errors in reading specific words.
Process repeated for a total of three times.
Instructor will show student progress made from the first reading to the third reading

Post-Intervention

Instructor records the number of words read correctly on the students fluency graph (to
be labeled WPM [words per minute])
Instructor divides the total number of words read correctly by the number of words
attempted to read and record accuracy on chart (for ex.: student stops at 42 words with 4
errors. Student has read 38 out of 42 words correct. 38/42=90% accuracy) (labeled
accuracy on graph)
Instructor will complete lesson four times in a two-week period

* Week Two Repeated Reading passages were modeled by the instructor prior to student
reading passage. The findings in the literature review found that modeling the text for the
student assists in accuracy and comprehension of the passage.
Figure 3. Lesson Plan. Shows lesson plan implemented for Repeated Reading intervention.
Lesson was administered in a 1-1 setting during a course of 2 weeks (twice each week).

LITERACY ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION: Repeated Reading 23

Figure 4

Progresion from
pre- and posttest scores

Figure 4. Fluency Graph. Data show an increase in words per minute and
accuracy between repeated readings of the same passage, and growth from
Pre- and Post-test scores.