WWC review of this study

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.

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    158
     Students
    , grade
    3
No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: July 2013

Alphabetics outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Orthographic Choice Test

Read Naturally® vs. Structured sustained silent reading

Posttest in January

Grade 3;
158 students

13.49

13.41

No

--
More Outcomes

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest

Read Naturally® vs. Structured sustained silent reading

Posttest in January

Grade 3;
158 students

35.32

34.63

No

--

Rosner Auditory Analysis Test

Read Naturally® vs. Structured sustained silent reading

Posttest in January

Grade 3;
158 students

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;
158 students

64.29

64.91

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Statistically significant negative effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Bear Spelling Inventory (BSI): Word List subtest

Read Naturally® vs. Structured sustained silent reading

Posttest in January

Grade 3;
158 students

53.85

52.42

No

--
More Outcomes

The Morphological Relatedness Test (MRT): Written version

Read Naturally® vs. Structured sustained silent reading

Posttest in January

Grade 3;
158 students

13.15

12.67

No

--

Bear Spelling Inventory (BSI): Word List subtest

Read Naturally® vs. Structured sustained silent reading

Posttest in January

Grade 3;
158 students

19.89

18.99

No

--

Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test: Comprehension subtest

Read Naturally® vs. Structured sustained silent reading

Posttest in January

Grade 3;
158 students

33.85

34.4

No

--

Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test: Vocabulary subtest

Read Naturally® vs. Structured sustained silent reading

Posttest in January

Grade 3;
158 students

33.86

34.49

No

--

Morphological Relatedness Test (MRT): Oral/Written version

Read Naturally® vs. Structured sustained silent reading

Posttest in January

Grade 3;
158 students

12.85

13.76

No

-16
 
 
Reading fluency outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest

Read Naturally® vs. Structured sustained silent reading

Posttest in January

Grade 3;
158 students

114

113.32

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 20% English language learners

  • 37% Free or reduced price lunch
  • Race
    Asian
    8%
    Black
    2%
    Not specified
    11%
    White
    53%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic
    26%
    Not Hispanic
    74%

  • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    California

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.

Reviewed: March 2013

Study sample characteristics were not reported.

Reviewed: July 2010

Study sample characteristics were not reported.
No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: July 2010

English language development outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

The Morphological Relatedness Test (MRT): Written version

Read Naturally® vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR)

Posttest

Grade 3;
39 students

13.26

12.21

No

 
 
14
More Outcomes

The Morphological Relatedness Test (MRT): Oral/Written version

Read Naturally® vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR)

Posttest

Grade 3;
39 students

13.13

12.68

No

--

Orthographic Choice test

Read Naturally® vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR)

Posttest

Grade 3;
39 students

13.17

12.84

No

--
Reading achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest

Read Naturally® vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR)

Posttest

Grade 3;
39 students

94.08

89.37

No

--
More Outcomes

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest

Read Naturally® vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR)

Posttest

Grade 3;
39 students

29.15

27.58

No

--

Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test Comprehension Subtest

Read Naturally® vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR)

Posttest

Grade 3;
39 students

30.98

30.37

No

--

Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test Vocabulary Test

Read Naturally® vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR)

Posttest

Grade 3;
39 students

29.1

28.63

No

--

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest

Read Naturally® vs. Scaffolded Sustained Silent Reading (SSSR)

Posttest

Grade 3;
39 students

57.9

57.74

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 100% English language learners

  • 37% Free or reduced price lunch
  • Race
    Asian
    8%
    Black
    2%
    Not specified
    11%
    White
    53%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic
    26%
    Not Hispanic
    74%

  • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    California

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.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top