We attempted to strengthen an evidence-based, peer-mediated, first-grade reading program (First Grade Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies [PALS]) by modestly revising its content and adding a repeated-reading (RR) component. In a cluster-randomized trial, we conducted a component analysis of the revised program by creating two versions of it. “PALS+Fluency” represented the modified program with an RR component, whereas “PALS-Only” represented the same program without RR. We tested the efficacy of the two PALS versions together against controls and against each other to determine if peer-mediated RR had “value added.” With moderator analyses, we further explored whether the PALS programs benefited weaker and stronger readers alike. Thirty-three first-grade classroom teachers (and 491 students) from eight urban schools were randomly assigned to the three study groups within their schools. The PALS-Only and PALS+Fluency programs ran for 22 weeks. Multilevel modeling showed that the combined effects of the two PALS programs on phonological awareness (PA), word reading, and reading fluency were superior to those of controls. Students’ pretreatment PA moderated combined program effects on PA and word reading, indicating stronger effects for students with weaker PA. PALS-Only students improved PA skills (over PALS+Fluency students) with stronger effects for those with weaker pretreatment PA.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CalhoonM. J.Al OtaibaS.GreenbergD.KingA.AvalosA. (2006). Improving reading skills in predominantly Hispanic Title I first-grade classrooms: The promise of peer-assisted learning strategies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00222.x
2.
ChardD. J.VaughnS.TylerB. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350050101
DionE.BroudeurM.GosselinC.CampeauM.-E.FuchsD. (2010). Implementing research-based instruction to prevent reading problems among low-income students: Is earlier better?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00306.x
6.
DiStefanoC.ZhuM.MîndrilăD. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 14, Article 20. https://doi.org/10.7275/da8t-4g52
7.
DunnT. J.BaguleyT.BrunsdenV. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
8.
FalkK. B.WehbyJ. H. (2001). The effects of peer-assisted learning strategies on the beginning reading skills of young children with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavior Disorders, 26, 344–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290102600404
9.
FienH.SmithJ. M.SmolkowskiK.BakerS.NelsonN.ChaparroE. (2015). An examination of the efficacy of a multitiered intervention on early reading outcomes for first grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 602–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414521664
10.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BurishP. (2000). Peer-assisted learning strategies: An evidence-based practice to promote reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1502_4
11.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.MathesP. G.SimmonsD. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034001174
12.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.SimmonsD. C.MathesP. G. (2008). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Reading methods for Grades 2–6 (2nd ed.). Vanderbilt University.
13.
FuchsD.KearnsD. M.FuchsL. S.EllemanA. M.GilbertJ. K.PattonS.PengP.ComptonD. L. (2019). Using moderator analysis to identify the first-grade children who benefit more and less from a reading comprehension program: A step towards aptitude-by-treatment interaction. Exceptional Children, 85, 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918802801
14.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. K.JenkinsJ. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3
15.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.MaxwellL. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258800900206
16.
FuchsL. S.MaloneA.SchumacherR. F.NamkungJ. M.HamlettC. L.JordanN. C.SieglerR. S.GerstenR.ChangasP. (2016). Supported self-explaining during fraction intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000073
17.
GerberM. M.SemmelM. I. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19, 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528409529290
18.
HofmannD. A.GavinM. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400504
19.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
20.
HughesT. A.FredrickL. D. (2006). Teaching vocabulary with students with learning disabilities using classwide peer tutoring and constant time delay. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-005-9003-5
21.
JenkinsJ. R.HeliotisJ.HaynesM.BeckK. (1986). Does passive learning account for disabled readers’ comprehension deficits in ordinary reading situations?Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 69–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510403
22.
KintschW.KintschE. (2005). Comprehension. In ParisS. G.StahlS. A.ParisS. G.StahlS. A. (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71–92). Lawrence Erlbaum.
LeeJ.YoonS. Y. (2017). The effects of repeated reading on reading fluency for students with reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415605194
25.
LeeY. (2014). Promise of enhancing children’s reading attitudes through peer reading: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Educational Research, 107, 482–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.836469
26.
LevyB. A.LysynchukL. (1997). Beginning word recognition: Benefits of training by segmentation and whole word methods. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 359–387. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0104_4
27.
MathesP. G.HowardJ. K.AllenS. H.FuchsD. (1998). Peer-assisted learning strategies for first-grade readers: Responding to the needs of diverse learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 62–94. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.33.1.4
28.
MattatallC. (2017). Using peer assisted learning strategies for boys, aboriginal learners, and at-risk populations. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 33, 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1142914
29.
McDonaldR. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
McMasterK. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies: The promise and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560500203491
31.
McMasterK. L.KungS.-H.HanI.CaoM. (2008). Peer-assisted learning strategies: A “Tier 1” approach to promoting English language learners’ response to intervention. Exceptional Children, 74, 194–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400204
32.
MeyerM. S.FeltonR. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-999-0027-8
33.
Musti-RaoS.HawkinsR. O.BarkleyE. A. (2009). Effects of repeated readings on the oral reading fluency of urban fourth-grade students: Implications for practice. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 54, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.54.1.12-23
34.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2015). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.
35.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2019). The nation’s report card: Reading 2019. National Center on Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
36.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Government Printing Office.
OddoM.BarnettD.W.HawkinsR.O.Musti-RaoS. (2010). Reciprocal peer tutoring and repeated reading: Increasing practicality using student groups. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 842–858. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20508
39.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
40.
PreacherK. J.CurranP. J.BauerD. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986031004437
41.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). Sage.
42.
RaykovT. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006
43.
SáenzL. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100302
SpencerV. G.ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2003). Content area learning in middle school social studies classrooms and students with emotional or behavioral disorders: A comparison of strategies. Behavioral Disorders, 28, 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290302800208
47.
StaubitzJ. E.CartledgeG.YurickA. LLoY. (2005). Repeated reading for students with emotional or behavioral disorders: Peer- and trainer-mediated instruction. Behavioral Disorders, 31(10), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290503100108
48.
StevensE. A.WalkerM. A.VaughnS. (2017). The effects of reading fluency interventions on the reading fluency and reading comprehension performance of elementary students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the research from 2001 to 2014. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416638028
49.
StevensR. J.SlavinR. E. (1995). Effects of a cooperative learning approach in reading and writing on academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Elementary School Journal, 95, 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1086/461801
50.
StrongA. C.WehbyJ. H.FalkK. B.LaneK. L. (2004). The impact of a structured reading curriculum and repeated reading on the performance of junior high students with emotional and behavioral disorders. School Psychology Review, 33, 561–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086268
51.
TherrienW. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250040801
TherrienW. J.WickstromK.JonesK. (2006). Effect of a combined repeated reading and question generation intervention on reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00209.x
54.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.BurgessS.HectS. (1997). Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming ability to the growth of word-reading skills in second-to fifth-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0102_4
55.
WechslerD. (1992). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.). Psychological Corporation.
WoodcockR. W. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Revised. American Guidance Service.
58.
YangJ. (2000). A meta-analytical review of the effects of repeated reading with remedial readers and students with disabilities. Vanderbilt University.
59.
YangJ. (2006). A meta-analysis of the effects of interventions to increase reading fluency among elementary school students [Doctoral dissertation]. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
60.
YoppH. K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 159–177. https://doi.org/10.2307/747800
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
