Early Literature Review information vs. What I am seeing

I wrote a literature review prior to beginning my action research in the classroom. I wanted to take some time and talk about my early literature review information about fluency. In doing this, I will be able to discuss whether or not my research efforts are running counter to it or supporting it.

In my literature review I talked about the three components of fluency: speed, accuracy, and proper expression. I talked about how I thought that proper expression was the last to come. I agree with this statement even more now that I have worked with students specifically on fluency each week. The students are picking up their speed and their accuracy is improving, but I am still not seeing the proper expression when they are reading. Only my highest readers are using expression and intonation (pitch) when they read. The National Reading Panel stated, “The fluent reader has learned how to recognize the printed words with ease and speed, and few cognitive resources are consumed in the process” (2000, p. 3-8). I see my students become more and more fluent readers as I work with them each week.

In my literature review, I talked about how I would be using a constructivist view of learning in my classroom with this research study. In a constructivist classroom, “The teacher functions more as a facilitator who coaches, mediates, prompts, and helps students develop and assess their understanding, and thereby their learning”(Ed Online, 2004). I do these things when working with my fluency session groups each week. I coach the students by informing them on what they should do when they come to a word they do not know. For the HELPS sessions, we discuss unknown words and I help them to understand the passage. I feel like my research efforts are supporting this view.

My prior research discussed how the HELPS Programs “integrate easy-to-use instructional strategies that are specifically designed to improve students’ reading fluency” (Begeny, 2009-2013). I have to complete statistical analysis on the data still but I did look at gains and losses from week to week in students’ WCPM for each group. I do agree that the HELPS has been easy-to-use instructional strategies. The students have picked up on the routine at this point and they already know what to expect at each session now. This has allowed me to cut back on time spent reading the instructions and allows us to spend more time on the actual passage. HELPS research does say that sessions can be completed in 10-12 minutes. I really don’t see how this is possible based on the experiences I have had with the program. I have needed a solid 15 minutes to work with the students in order to get everything completed. I guess this could be due to working with a small group instead of just one student. 

As for repeated reading itself, Therrien and Kubina (2006) stated, “repeated reading appears beneficial for students who read between a first and third-grade instructional level” (p.156). Based on what I seen thus far, this statement seems to be accurate. I have only used repeated reading with first graders but it does seem to be beneficial for students. Repeated reading can serve as both Tier 2 RTI intervention and possible Tier 3 intervention (Huang, Nelson & Nelson, 2008). I have been using repeated reading as a part of my Tier 2 student interventions in the classroom.

As I am still not sure whether repeated reading, HELPS, or just normal reading series instruction is more effective (I will know soon!), I can at least say that my literature review seems to be right on track with what I am seeing in my research study. I know that the methods I have been using have affected the students' reading fluency. I can see results without even looking at data. I am also anxious to see if reading attitudes were affected.