Continuous texts or word lists? Exploring the effects and the process of repeated reading depending on the reading material and students’ reading abilities
Mareike Ehlert, Jan Beck, Natalie Förster, Elmar Souvignier
{"title":"Continuous texts or word lists? Exploring the effects and the process of repeated reading depending on the reading material and students’ reading abilities","authors":"Mareike Ehlert, Jan Beck, Natalie Förster, Elmar Souvignier","doi":"10.1007/s11145-024-10536-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Repeated reading (RR) is often recommended for promoting reading fluency, but it is unclear whether continuous texts or word lists should be used. This study tested whether the effects of RR depend on the reading material and whether these effects interact with students’ prior abilities. <i>N</i> = 304 primary school students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) a repeated reading group receiving continuous texts (RR-T), (2) a repeated reading group receiving word lists (RR-W), and (3) a control group (CG). Before and after the training (<i>M</i> = 13 sessions), students’ reading fluency and reading motivation were assessed. In both RR-groups, the average level and growth in (a) words read correctly per minute and (b) affect were recorded during each reading session. Multilevel modelling revealed that growth in reading fluency and reading motivation did not differ significantly between the RR groups and the CG. Process analyses showed that the number of words students read correctly per minute increased significantly per session. Students’ affect remained stable at a high level throughout the reading interventions. In the RR-T, significantly more words were read correctly than in the RR-W, and this was a mediator between group and reading fluency. Students’ initial levels of reading performance and reading motivation strongly predicted both process and outcome variables, but not in interaction with the reading material. Results emphasise the importance of investigating the effects of repeated reading interventions with higher dosage and of offering differentiated <i>methods</i> (instead of reading material) to struggling readers.</p>","PeriodicalId":48204,"journal":{"name":"Reading and Writing","volume":"204 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading and Writing","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10536-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Repeated reading (RR) is often recommended for promoting reading fluency, but it is unclear whether continuous texts or word lists should be used. This study tested whether the effects of RR depend on the reading material and whether these effects interact with students’ prior abilities. N = 304 primary school students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) a repeated reading group receiving continuous texts (RR-T), (2) a repeated reading group receiving word lists (RR-W), and (3) a control group (CG). Before and after the training (M = 13 sessions), students’ reading fluency and reading motivation were assessed. In both RR-groups, the average level and growth in (a) words read correctly per minute and (b) affect were recorded during each reading session. Multilevel modelling revealed that growth in reading fluency and reading motivation did not differ significantly between the RR groups and the CG. Process analyses showed that the number of words students read correctly per minute increased significantly per session. Students’ affect remained stable at a high level throughout the reading interventions. In the RR-T, significantly more words were read correctly than in the RR-W, and this was a mediator between group and reading fluency. Students’ initial levels of reading performance and reading motivation strongly predicted both process and outcome variables, but not in interaction with the reading material. Results emphasise the importance of investigating the effects of repeated reading interventions with higher dosage and of offering differentiated methods (instead of reading material) to struggling readers.
期刊介绍：
Reading and writing skills are fundamental to literacy. Consequently, the processes involved in reading and writing and the failure to acquire these skills, as well as the loss of once well-developed reading and writing abilities have been the targets of intense research activity involving professionals from a variety of disciplines, such as neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics and education. The findings that have emanated from this research are most often written up in a lingua that is specific to the particular discipline involved, and are published in specialized journals. This generally leaves the expert in one area almost totally unaware of what may be taking place in any area other than their own. Reading and Writing cuts through this fog of jargon, breaking down the artificial boundaries between disciplines. The journal focuses on the interaction among various fields, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Reading and Writing publishes high-quality, scientific articles pertaining to the processes, acquisition, and loss of reading and writing skills. The journal fully represents the necessarily interdisciplinary nature of research in the field, focusing on the interaction among various disciplines, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Coverage in Reading and Writing includes models of reading, writing and spelling at all age levels; orthography and its relation to reading and writing; computer literacy; cross-cultural studies; and developmental and acquired disorders of reading and writing. It publishes research articles, critical reviews, theoretical papers, and case studies. Reading and Writing is one of the most highly cited journals in Education, Educational Research, and Educational Psychology.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
