Teaching to Read Naturally: Examination of a fluency training program for third grade students.
Kemp, S. C. (2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(07A), 95-2447.
-
examining158Students, grade3
Read Naturally Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2013
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Read Naturally.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Orthographic Choice Test |
Read Naturally vs. Structured sustained silent reading |
Posttest in January |
Grade 3;
|
13.49 |
13.41 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Structured sustained silent reading |
Posttest in January |
Grade 3;
|
35.32 |
34.63 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rosner Auditory Analysis Test |
Read Naturally vs. Structured sustained silent reading |
Posttest in January |
Grade 3;
|
27.52 |
27.29 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Structured sustained silent reading |
Posttest in January |
Grade 3;
|
64.29 |
64.91 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bear Spelling Inventory (BSI): Word List subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Structured sustained silent reading |
Posttest in January |
Grade 3;
|
53.85 |
52.42 |
No |
-- | |
|
The Morphological Relatedness Test (MRT): Written version |
Read Naturally vs. Structured sustained silent reading |
Posttest in January |
Grade 3;
|
13.15 |
12.67 |
No |
-- | |
|
Bear Spelling Inventory (BSI): Word List subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Structured sustained silent reading |
Posttest in January |
Grade 3;
|
19.89 |
18.99 |
No |
-- | |
|
Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test: Comprehension subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Structured sustained silent reading |
Posttest in January |
Grade 3;
|
33.85 |
34.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test: Vocabulary subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Structured sustained silent reading |
Posttest in January |
Grade 3;
|
33.86 |
34.49 |
No |
-- | |
|
Morphological Relatedness Test (MRT): Oral/Written version |
Read Naturally vs. Structured sustained silent reading |
Posttest in January |
Grade 3;
|
12.85 |
13.76 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Structured sustained silent reading |
Posttest in January |
Grade 3;
|
114.00 |
113.32 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
20% English language learners -
Suburban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California
-
Race Asian 8% Black 2% Other or unknown 11% White 53% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 26% Not Hispanic or Latino 74%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in three schools in a school district in Orange County, California.
Study sample
The study included 13 third-grade classrooms spread across three schools. From an initial sample of 168 students, students in each class were assigned to pairs based on the similarity of their scores on the reading portion of the California Standards Test from the previous spring. One member from each pair was then randomly assigned to the intervention group, and the other member of the pair to the comparison group. Students receiving special education services were dropped from the data analysis, leaving an analysis sample size of 158 students (79 in the Read Naturally® group and 79 in the comparison group). Of these, 39 students, or 25%, were classified as English language learners.
Intervention Group
The Read Naturally® program was implemented 4 days per week for 20 minutes a day during the months of October through January. The program consisted of teacher modeling, repeated reading, and progress monitoring for the purpose of promoting fluency. Students were assigned to instructional level reading materials. When participating in the program, students (1) practiced a “cold” reading of a self-selected passage from their assigned reading level, (2) practiced reading the same passage three or four times with an audio recorded model, (3) practiced reading independently until they reached their timed goal, and (4) met with the classroom teacher so a timed reading sample could be documented. After successfully completing a number of passages at a given reading level, the student advanced to the next level.
Comparison Group
Comparison group students participated in structured sustained silent reading. They were trained to select material at their reading level, and then read silently for 20 minutes 4 days per week from October to January, while maintaining a log of book titles and number of pages read. These reading sessions occurred concurrently with sessions of Read Naturally®. Teachers walked around the room to ensure students were reading.
Outcome descriptions
Students were assessed using the TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency and Phonetic Decoding Efficiency subtests; the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency subtest; the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Fourth Edition, Vocabulary and Comprehension subtests; the Rosner Auditory Analysis Test; the Morphological Relatedness Test Written and Oral/Written subtests; the BSI Word List and Features subtests; and the Orthographic Choice Test. Tests were administered by the researcher and a research assistant in October before the intervention began, and in January at the conclusion of the study. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
Classroom teachers in the intervention group received training on the Read Naturally® curriculum and implementation. The study author conducted six visits to each classroom during the course of the study and conducted observations to assess fidelity of implementation.
Read Naturally Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2013
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Read Naturally.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Read Naturally Intervention Report - Students with a Specific Learning Disability
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2010
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Read Naturally.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Read Naturally Intervention Report - English Language Learners
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2010
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Read Naturally.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The Morphological Relatedness Test (MRT): Written version |
Read Naturally vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR) |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
13.26 |
12.21 |
No |
-- | |
|
The Morphological Relatedness Test (MRT): Oral/Written version |
Read Naturally vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR) |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
13.13 |
12.68 |
No |
-- | |
|
Orthographic Choice test |
Read Naturally vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR) |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
13.17 |
12.84 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR) |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
94.08 |
89.37 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR) |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
29.15 |
27.58 |
No |
-- | |
|
Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test Comprehension Subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR) |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
30.98 |
30.37 |
No |
-- | |
|
Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test Vocabulary Test |
Read Naturally vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR) |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
29.10 |
28.63 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR) |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
57.90 |
57.74 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
100% English language learners -
Suburban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California
-
Race Asian 8% Black 2% Other or unknown 11% White 53% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 26% Not Hispanic or Latino 74%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in three schools in a suburban school district located in western Orange County, California. The intervention (Read Naturally®) and comparison (SSSR) conditions were implemented in each classroom.
Study sample
A randomized controlled trial was used to examine the effects of Read Naturally® on third-grade reading performance. A total of 42 English language learners, from three elementary schools across 13 classrooms, initially participated in the study. Students in each participating classroom were ranked by standardized tests of reading and then randomly assigned to either the Read Naturally® intervention group or the scaffolded sustained silent reading (SSSR) comparison group. Of the 42 original students, 21 were assigned to the Read Naturally® group and 21 were assigned to the SSSR group. Three students were excluded from the study because they were receiving special education services. The analysis sample consisted of 39 English language learners; 20 students in the intervention group, and 19 students in the comparison group.
Intervention Group
The Read Naturally® Masters Edition program was implemented four days per week for 20 minutes a day during the months of October through January. Read Naturally® consists of teaching modeling, repeated reading, and progress monitoring for the purpose of promoting fluency. Students are assigned to instructional level reading materials. When participating in the program, students (1) practice a “cold reading” of a self-selected passage from their assigned reading level, (2) practice reading the same passage three or four times with an audio recorded model, (3) practice reading independently until they reach their timed goal, and (4) meet with the classroom teacher so a timed reading sample can be documented.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition participated in scaffolded sustained silent reading (SSSR), which involved teaching students to select materials at their individual reading level. Students then engaged in independent, silent reading. Teachers did not provide significant feedback; they walked around the room and monitored whether or not students were documenting the number of pages they read. As in the case of Read Naturally®, use of SSSR occurred from October through January, four days a week, for 20 minutes each day.
Outcome descriptions
Study measures in the reading achievement domain included the Test of Oral Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) Sight Word and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtests; the Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Reading Fluency subtest; the Stanford Diagnostic Reading test, 4th Edition, Vocabulary and Comprehension subtests; the Orthographic Choice test; and the Morphological Relatedness Test (MRT), Written and Oral/Written versions. All measures were administered at pre- and posttest. (For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.2.)
Support for implementation
Thirteen general education teachers received training on both the Read Naturally® program and the use of SSSR. No additional details were provided.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).