NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

Student: Daniel Alan Coffin

THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN

Follow these procedures: If requested by your instructor, please include an assignment cover
sheet. This will become the first page of your assignment. In addition, your assignment header
should include your last name, first initial, course code, dash, and assignment number. This
should be left justified, with the page number right justified. For example:

DoeJXXX0000-1 1

Save a copy of your assignments: You may need to re-submit an assignment at your instructors
request. Make sure you save your files in accessible location.

Academic integrity: All work submitted in each course must be your own original work. This
includes all assignments, exams, term papers, and other projects required by your instructor.
Knowingly submitting another persons work as your own, without properly citing the source of
the work, is considered plagiarism. This will result in an unsatisfactory grade for the work
submitted or for the entire course. It may also result in academic dismissal from the University.

EDU7001 Dr. Leggett

Advanced Scholarly Writing Prepare an Annotated Bibliography

<Add student comments here>

Faculty Use Only

<Faculty comments here>

<Faculty Name> <Grade Earned> <Date Graded>

Prepare an Annotated Bibliography

Daniel Coffin

Northcentral University
CoffinDEDU7001-6 2
CoffinDEDU7001-6 3

Annotated Bibliography

Ari, O. (2014). Reading fluency and comprehension instruction for pre-service teacher candidates.
Journal of College Reading & Learning, 45, 96-103.

In this experimental quantitative study, the author examined how reading fluency and

comprehension instruction influenced oral reading fluency and comprehension skills of pre-service

teachers who have successfully completed college coursework but have failed to pass the reading

portion of a teacher candidacy eligibility examination. In particular, the author sought to determine if

an intervention combining fluency development techniques such as repeated reading and performance

feedback with comprehension would lead to improvements in oral reading fluency and reading

comprehension.

This study used an experimental design to compare measures of oral reading fluency and

reading comprehension before and after the implementation of fluency and comprehension instruction

for 4 college juniors from a Pennsylvania university who had failed to pass the reading portion of a

teacher candidacy eligibility examination. The independent variable for this study was the fluency and

comprehension instruction and the dependent variables were oral reading fluency and reading

comprehension, and word recognition. Analysis of the word recognition data indicated that the

participants scores were at ceiling level and that spelling, then, was not responsible for the

participants reading difficulties. No further spelling data was collected following the baseline. Data on

reading rate and comprehension was collected to form a baseline as well as following each intervention

session.

The data indicated that all participants showed modest improvements in reading rate and

reading comprehension following the intervention. Of the four participants, two went on to pass a

retake of their teacher candidacy eligibility reading examinations. The author concluded that the
CoffinDEDU7001-6 4

combination of both oral fluency instruction including performance feedback and a growth criterion for

reading rate along with comprehension instruction focusing on predicting, inferring, and summarizing

was effective in improving student reading performance.

One limitation of the study is the small sample size and the lack of descriptive statistics for the

participants (age, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnic background, general cognitive ability, and field

of study). It is difficult to generalize from this study to a larger population of indeterminate makeup.

The study also did not gather data between instruction focusing on fluency and instruction focusing on

comprehension and so it is impossible to determine to what degree one or the other contributed to

participant improvement.

This study aligns with others which support the efficacy of repeated reading as an intervention

for developing oral reading fluency as well as that of combining fluency and comprehension instruction

to improve overall reading performance. The findings in this study were not as dramatic as others

focusing on younger students, however, suggesting that these interventions might be less effective for

older and more developed readers who have developed other reading strategies for coping with poor

fluency.

This study is useful for my purposes in that it investigates the efficacy of fluency interventions

for an older population that is typically not addressed in fluency development research. The findings in

this study suggest to me that it would be worthwhile to conduct similar and more structured research at

different age and educational levels to see how the efficacy of these interventions change in relation to

different populations of students.

CoffinDEDU7001-6 5

Eller, A., & Poe, E.M. (2016). Teachers perception of primary literacy preparation: Has it improved?
Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 82(3), 1-12.
In this mixed-methods study, the study authors explored how both new and veteran teachers

perceived their pre-service preparation for literacy education. The research question driving this study

is whether pre-service teacher literacy education preparation has improved over time.

This study employed a concurrent triangulation design to assess teacher perceptions of literacy

education preparedness. The study sample of 74 teachers of kindergarten through grade 3 was drawn

from a population of 232 public school teachers in three districts, one urban, one rural, and one which

served both urban and rural students. Teacher attitudes were assessed through the use of a survey made

up of both Likert-scale statements as well as open-ended questions designed to clarify and expand upon

the responses to the Likert-scale responses. The survey questions limited responses to experiences and

views formed within their first 3 years of teaching so as to focus on preparation gained during college

and not through daily practice or professional development. Questions related to the following topics:

demographics and general teacher preparation, preparation in phonemic awareness, preparation in

phonics, preparation in fluency, preparation in comprehension, preparation in assessment and analysis

of assessment data, and a final overview section. Qualitative data was analyzed with Cronbachs alpha

to assess internal reliability of Likert-scale responses. Responses were divided into categories of novice

teachers (3 or fewer years of experience), practiced teachers (4-10 years of experience), and veteran

teachers (11 or more years of experience). The Likert-scale responses from each group were analyzed

using the Kruskal-Wallis test to determine whether there were any statistically significant differences in

responses between the three groups. A statistically significant score on this test for a particular Likert-

scale item indicated a statistically significant difference in opinion between the groups on that item.

Qualitative data from the survey was analyzed as to similarities in responses and overall emergent
CoffinDEDU7001-6 6

themes with open coding and axial coding strategies and used to further illustrate the quantitative data

gathered.

The quantitative and qualitative data from the survey agreed with each other, and the findings

based on survey responses indicated significant differences in response to questions about general pre-

service teacher preparation between the novice, practiced, and veteran teacher groups, with 76% of

novice teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement that they had received coursework

dealing with in-depth knowledge about best practices for teaching reading, as opposed to 50% of

practiced teachers and 32% of veteran teachers. These differences were reflected in each of the sections

focusing on phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension preparedness. While many

veteran teachers reported that they had received little to no preparation relevant to teaching reading, or

coursework dealing only with literacy education theory, most novice teachers indicated that they had

received what they felt to be sufficient coursework involving both the theory and practice of teaching

reading. Interestingly, in response to the statement regarding being prepared in the first years of

teaching to deliver instruction relevant to each of the core areas of literacy, with only 58% agreeing or

strongly agreeing, as opposed to rates of 50% for practiced teachers and 13% for veteran teachers. The

qualitative data indicated that many teachers felt their preparation to be overly focused on theory or

foundation knowledge, with little effort made to show how to apply this knowledge to instructional

practice. The study authors concluded as a result of these findings that while progress has been made

over time in providing pre-service teachers with coursework in evidence-based literacy education

theory, there still remains much work to do in providing pre-service teacher with practical experiences

in delivering instruction related to the core areas of literacy education. While teachers are expected to

be fully effective upon entering the classroom, many do not feel they are prepared to teach literacy and

have to learn on the job. The study authors conclude that teacher preparation programs would serve
CoffinDEDU7001-6 7

their students well by providing additional pedagogical instruction in how to teach reading as well as

additional fieldwork exercises to practice instructional techniques in an authentic setting.

This study was limited by the fact that all three districts included in the study were located in

the same state and relatively few universities were represented in the sample. Another limiting factor

was the relatively small response rate of 32%. There is also the possibility, especially for practiced and

veteran teachers, that their recollections do not accurately reflect beliefs or experiences from much

earlier in their careers.

This study is useful for my purposes because it sheds additional light on the question of why, if

interventions like fluency development are effective in improving student reading performance, they

are not universally practiced amongst all teachers of language arts and reading? This study suggests

that improving student reading performance might not be a matter of just professional development for

in-service teachers, but also of demonstrating the utility of these interventions so that they will be

incorporated into pre-service teachers preparation and practical experiences as well.

Gellert, A.S. (2014). Does repeated reading predict reading development over time? A study of children
from grade 3 to 4. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55, 303-310.

In this experimental quantitative study, the study author investigated how repeated reading

contributed to reading development over time. In particular, the study author questioned whether

repeated reading sessions contributed to long-term reading development and whether gains in fluency

during repeated reading could predict future reading development once general cognitive ability,

vocabulary, and word reading ability had been controlled for.

This study used an experimental design to compare measures of reading ability gathered in

grades 3 and 4. The correlational variables for this study were sentence reading fluency, text reading

fluency, and text comprehension. The control variables for this study were cognitive ability, expressive
CoffinDEDU7001-6 8

and receptive vocabulary, word reading fluency, and rapid automatized naming (RAN). The

independent variables were meaning-focused and speed-focused reading instruction and the dependent

variable was gains in reading fluency.

Text reading fluency was measured by calculating words correct per minute (WCPM) scores for

participants reading short texts 98 words in length. Sentence reading fluency was measured by

providing participating with a picture accompanied with four sentences. Participants were asked to

view the picture and choose the sentence associated with the picture. The sentence reading fluency

score was the number of correct responses. Text comprehension was measured with a standardized

Danish reading ability assessment consisting of 33 multiple-choice items and 11 yes-no questions

related to a short text. The text comprehension score was the number of correct responses on this

assessment. Gains in reading fluency were measured in two phases by calculating WCPM scores for

participating reading short texts following meaning-focused instruction and again following speed-

focused instruction. Cognitive ability was calculated using a standardized test of non-verbal reasoning.

Word reading fluency was measured by calculating WCPM for participants reading a list of 99 words

of increasing orthographic complexity. Rapid automatized naming was measured by calculating the

number of items correctly named on a list of 50 letters presented to participants. Expressive vocabulary

was measured by the number of items correctly identified on a picture naming test. Receptive

vocabulary was measured based on the number of correct responses on a Danish translation of the

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine whether

the gains in reading fluency from repeated reading instruction contributed to the prediction of reading

development and to determine if reading ability measures in grade 3 could predict reading ability in

grade 4.
CoffinDEDU7001-6 9

The data indicated that all participants demonstrated significantly significant improvement in

measures of text reading fluency, sentence reading fluency, and text comprehension from grade 3 to 4.

Regression analysis indicated that while gains from meaning-focused repeated reading instruction

contributed significantly to predictions of future reading fluency development, gains from speed-

focused repeated reading instruction did not significantly contribute to predictions of future reading

fluency development after cognitive ability, RAN, word reading fluency, and expressive and receptive

vocabulary had been controlled for. Neither type of repeated reading instruction contributed to

prediction of future text comprehension achievement. These data suggest that instruction designed to

develop comprehension of the text as a whole helps students to not only improve comprehension, but to

improve reading speed by using that understanding as a basis to increase speed, and that this in turn

leads to greater gains in reading development over those students who are less able to understand text

and merely become faster at decoding text.

One limitation of this study is the age of the participants and their limited word reading ability,

which may have lessened the degree to which the repeated reading instruction could have improved

text comprehension. It would be interesting to replicate this study with older students to see if students

with more developed word reading ability and background knowledge might benefit from repeated

reading to develop comprehension to a greater degree. Another limitation is the short period of time

covered in this study, which likely constrained the ability of the intervention to significantly affect

long-term reading development.

This study parallels similar findings of other studies which support the efficacy of repeated

reading instruction in developing text decoding speed and accuracy and the idea that while fluent

decoding is a precursor to reading comprehension, increasing oral reading fluency does not necessarily

translate into gains in comprehension.

CoffinDEDU7001-6 10

This study is useful to me in that it examines the efficacy of repeated reading as an intervention

not only in the short term, but over an extended period of time. The authors conclusion that meaning-

focused reading instruction is more valuable to reading development than speed-focused read

instruction suggested that many commercially produced fluency interventions which focus solely on

improving WCPM are insufficient to aid struggling readers and that some other comprehension-

focused component is necessary.

Hilsmier, A. S., Wehby, J.H., & Falk, K.B. (2016). Reading fluency interventions for middle school
students with academic and behavioral disabilities. Reading Improvement, 53(2), 53-64.

In this experimental quantitative study, researchers attempted to determine what interventions

would be effective at developing fluency in middle school students with academic and/or behavioral

disabilities. Specifically, this study was designed to determine if a repeated reading and oral previewing

intervention would be effective and if adding a contingent reinforcer and performance feedback would

further enhance the efficacy of that intervention.

This study used a multiple baseline design to measure the reading performance of four middle-

school students in a self-contained classroom for academic and behavioral disabilities prior to

treatment, during the repeated reading and oral previewing treatment, during the treatment with the

addition of the contingent reinforcer and performance feedback, and in a follow-up two weeks

following the completion of the final intervention sessions. The independent variables in this study

were the repeated reading and oral previewing intervention and the intervention with the addition of the

contingent reinforcer and performance feedback component. The dependent variables in this study were

student readers oral reading fluency and reading comprehension.

Data related to oral reading fluency was collected by having students read passages aloud.

Research assistants would calculate the student readers words correct per minute (WCPM) by dividing
CoffinDEDU7001-6 11

the total words read correctly by the student with the number of minutes taken to read the passage in its

entirety. Data related to reading comprehension was gathered with a five-question standardized

multiple-choice reading comprehension assessment which was given to student readers following the

reading of each passage. These data were gathered at each baseline practice, treatment, and follow-up

session and then the data from each session were averaged for that period of the study. Data collection

from each observer was calibrated weekly to ensure interobserver agreement.

The WCPM and comprehension data indicate that all four study participants showed

statistically significant improvements in reading performance (both WCPM and comprehension)

following the implementation of the repeated reading and oral previewing intervention. The data

showed that the addition of the contingent reinforcer and performance feedback, however, did not

significantly affect the reading performance of any of the study participants. The data showed that three

of the four study participants showed continued improvement in reading performance over their

baseline two weeks following the end of the intervention. These data suggest that repeated reading and

oral previewing are an effective intervention for long-term improvement in fluency and reading

comprehension for students with academic and/or behavioral disabilities. They further suggest that

contingent reinforcers and performance feedback were not an effective component of this intervention.

The study authors caution that, due to the small sample size, these results might not be

generalizable to a larger population, and might not be generalizable to middle-school students as a

whole due to the focus on students with academic and behavior disabilities. The authors further note

that while all students showed improvement in fluency and comprehension on average during the

intervention, their performance from day-to-day was highly variable and they were unable to account

for this variability. They also note that the way that the goals for contingent reinforcement were

calculated (based on WCPM from practice reading during the baseline measurement rather than on
CoffinDEDU7001-6 12

reading from during the treatment) might have made the reinforcers too easy to earn and limited their

desirability and effectiveness.

The efficacy of repeated reading and oral previewing in this study mirrors that shown in other

studies aimed at primary grade students, suggesting that other interventions shown to be effective for

younger students might be effective for middle-school students as well.

This study is useful for my research because it shows that fluency development should still be

part of the language arts/reading curriculum and that interventions which have been developed for

younger students might be tried with older students as well who are demonstrating similar deficits in

oral reading fluency and reading comprehension. This suggests areas to pursue for further research.

Lambe, D., Murphy, C., & Kelly, M.E. (2015). The impact of a prevision teaching intervention on the
reading fluency of typically developing children. Behavioral Interventions, 30, 364-377.

In this experimental quantitative study, the study authors investigated the effect of a precision

teaching technique on student oral reading fluency. Specifically, the researchers sought to determine

whether precision teaching would affect the oral reading fluency of typically developing children ages

7 and 8.

This study used a multiple baseline design to measure the reading fluency of participants before

the intervention, during two phases of intervention, and following the precision teaching intervention.

The independent variable in this study was the precision teaching fluency training and the dependent

variable was the student readers oral reading fluency.

Data relating to oral reading fluency was gathered by having students read from a series of flash

cards, each printed with a Dolch sight word (one of the 220 most common words in the English

language), as well as a brief story featuring those same words. For each type of reading task, WCPM

was calculated by dividing the number of words correctly read by the student by the time in minutes the
CoffinDEDU7001-6 13

student took to read the text. These data were gathered prior to beginning the intervention, during the

first phase of the intervention (just using Dolch word flash cards), during the second phase of the

intervention (just using the Dolch story), and following the end of the intervention. Data gathered was

calibrated among observers at 60% of the treatment sessions to ensure interobserver accuracy of 98.9%

to 100%. WCPM data from each session was averaged for the baseline, both phases of intervention,

and follow-up.

These data show that all 8 participants showed statistically significant improvement in WCPM

from baseline in both the flash cards and story phases of intervention, and 6 of 8 participants continued

to show improvement above or equal to their intervention WCPM average at follow-up. The findings

suggest that the precision teaching intervention was an effective method of improving oral reading

fluency for typically developing readers without any indicators of reading difficulties.

One limitation of this study is that baseline data were only gathered at the beginning of the

study, prior to implementation of the intervention. As such, it is impossible to determine to what degree

the sight word practice in the first phase of the intervention influenced the participants oral reading

fluency in the authentic reading tasks of the second phase. The authors proposed gathering additional

measures of fluency following each of the two phases of intervention to better investigate this

interaction.

This study parallels similar research indicating that precision teaching is a cost- and time-

effective intervention for developing oral reading fluency, and not only for struggling readers or

students with reading disabilities, but typically developing children as well. The fact that the study

participants gains in oral reading fluency surpassed national norms suggests that all students might

benefit from additional instruction to develop oral reading fluency.

CoffinDEDU7001-6 14

This study is useful for my research because it shows that targeted fluency development can

improve student oral reading fluency beyond gains associated with typical language arts/reading

instruction. As such, it would seem that fluency development deserves a greater place in the

mainstream language arts/reading curriculum for all students. This suggests further research to see if

these results can be replicated with typically developing middle-school students who do not evince

reading difficulties or disabilities.