Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes of a home-based, repeated reading intervention in which texts are matched to children’s school-based instructional reading level. Results indicated that across the five cases, improvements were evident in reading accuracy, rate, and fluency for the take-home texts and all participants’ instructional reading levels increased during the intervention. Parents’ support for children’s reading differed across cases. The five participating children read more than 18,000 words during the course of the intervention.

Keywords

Parental involvement home and school fluency struggling readers book reading

Reading fluency, an indicator of automaticity in reading, is an essential element in successful reading endeavors. Fluency is often thought of in terms of reading rate, yet it comprises various components and is multifaceted. According to Kuhn and Levy (2015), fluency is signified by rate, which is an indicator of automaticity, as well as accuracy and prosody, which includes intonation and appropriate pausing. Further, Kuhn and Levy (2015) describe fluency as an element of reading that can either “limit or support comprehension.” The relationship between automaticity and reading comprehension was highlighted by LaBerge and Samuels (1974), who described the need for readers to focus their attention on meaning instead of decoding word by word. Although fluency is not synonymous with comprehension, the two appear to have a direct relationship with one another, whereby, children reading with fluency are more likely to comprehend the text and, conversely, children reading dysfluently are more likely to struggle with comprehension (Abbott et al., 2012; Kuhn et al., 2010; Perfetti & Zhang, 1996). If not addressed through instruction, struggles with fluency can persist throughout children’s years of schooling and beyond (Rasinksi, 2019).

To reach this level of automaticity, children need practice reading connected text and not just isolated words, to solidify their word recognition skills (Ehri & McCormick, 2004; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). Yet, time spent reading connected text in school is often limited (Brenner et al., 2009), particularly for striving readers, as opportunities for reading in school are further diminished because more time is devoted to skill-based instruction and non-reading tasks rather than reading connected text (Allington, 1977, 1983, 2000, 2009; Juel, 1988; Chorzempa & Graham, 2006). Differences in reading opportunities for stronger and weaker readers is a primary reason children who struggle with reading, initially, continue to struggle with reading as they progress in school (Foorman et al., 1997; Juel, 1988; Stanovich, 1986, 2000; Stuart et al., 1999).

Home reading experiences also play a significant role in children’s reading development (Anderson et al., 1988; OECD, 2010). For example, children who read for pleasure outside of school have consistently higher literacy achievement on national assessments (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). Despite the importance of home literacy, not all children have the opportunities to help them succeed in reading. Researchers have found that home language and literacy experiences vary depending on children’s cultural, linguistic, and economic backgrounds (Goldenberg, 1987; Hart and Risley, 1995; Heath, 1983; Jeynes, 2012; Maguire et al., 2018; Nord et al., 1999; Ortiz, 1986; Pollard-Durodola et al., 2017; Protacio and Edwards, 2015; Purcell-Gates, 1995). Building on our prior research (Hindin and Paratore, 2007), this study was designed to improve second-grade children’s reading performance by increasing their home reading opportunities while considering the role parents play in their children’s reading development. More specifically, we examine the ways home reading opportunities that use texts selected based on reading levels can influence children’s reading performance.

Literature review

Children experience difficulties with reading for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, learning disabilities, early language and literacy experiences, and classroom instruction. Although there are many ways to improve children’s reading performance, one of the most important ways is to increase the amount of time children actually spend reading (Guthrie et al., 1999). Hiebert and Martin (2009) describe the importance of these opportunities to read (OtR) for children’s overall reading development. Research on the volume of reading that children complete in school demonstrates that although elementary school classrooms dedicate a large block of time to reading instruction, the amount of time children spend reading is quite small. For example, in a study of 32 schools, researchers found that during a 90-minute literacy block, children read for only 18 minutes, on average (Brenner et al., 2009).

Given the potentially limited opportunities that struggling readers may experience in school, it is important to consider ways to maximize their reading experiences outside of the school context. One way to accomplish this goal is to increase children’s home reading opportunities with the support of parents or caregivers. Building children’s home reading experiences aligns with the research that shows that both home reading opportunities and parent involvement in reading correlate with higher reading performance in large- and small-scale studies (Hindin and Paratore, 2007; Chall et al., 1990; Ece Demir-Lira, 2019; Inoue et al., 2018; National Center for Education Statistics, 2011; Dearing et al., 2006; Hewison and Tizard, 1980; Leseman and De Jong, 1998; OECD, 2010).

In addition to increasing overall home reading opportunities, the current study is designed to increase children’s reading fluency. The importance of reading fluency is tied to the connection between fluency and children’s reading comprehension (i.e., Rasinski et al., 2011). Fluency is evidence of automatic word reading, which allows the reader to focus attention on the meaning of the text rather than on decoding (Daane et al., 2005; LaBerge and Samuels, 1974; Kuhn and Shwanenflugel, 2009). Although rate and accuracy have been the primary focus of fluency research and assessment, recent research has demonstrated the important contribution of prosody as a component of fluency (Kuhn and Stahl, 2003; Rasinski et al., 2011).

One approach for improving children’s reading fluency is for children to engage in multiple readings of the same text. Researchers have found these repeated readings of the same text serve to build reading fluency (Chafouleas et al., 2004; Dowhower, 1987; Herman, 1985; Lee and Yoon, 2017; O’Shea, Sindelar, and O’Shea, 1985; Rashotte and Torgesen, 1985; Rasinski, 1990; Samuels, 1979; Sindelar, Monda, and O’Shea, 1990; Turpie and Paratore, 1995; Weinstein and Cooke, 1992). Repeated readings are used in many elementary school classrooms; yet this practice is not typically adopted in home reading. Even if parents used multiple readings of storybooks with their children when they were very young, it is unlikely that this type of reading is occurring in the homes of second-grade children who would be more likely to read by themselves, if at all.

Current study

Our prior work with home repeated readings (Hindin and Paratore, 2007) revealed that when children read at home to their parents, their reading fluency and accuracy improved for each home story and children who participated made substantial gains in their overall reading. All children gained at least one level in isolated reading (reading individual words), oral reading (reading stories aloud), and reading comprehension; five of eight children scored at or above grade level in isolated word reading, six of eight for oral reading, and six of eight for reading comprehension. Yet, we found that the lowest-performing readers read fewer times with their families. In the prior study, we had children reading grade-level stories that their teachers had already reviewed in the classroom to parents four times per week. All of the children were reading below grade level at the start of the intervention but for some children the stories were more difficult than for others. We reasoned that although the teachers had spent a week reviewing the stories prior to sending them home, these stories were still too challenging for some of the participating students. While challenging texts may be appropriate for teacher-supported repeated readings, they may not be appropriate for home readings in which parents’ level of support may not match the support children receive from their teachers (Stahl and Heubach, 2005).

Therefore, the current study extends the research by evaluating the effects of a home-repeated reading intervention in which texts read at home are matched to children’s instructional reading level each week. The study aims to address questions that remain in the fluency research, including which types of fluency interventions are most successful and what level of texts should be used to maximize reading gains (Kuhn and Stahl, 2003). The specific questions guiding this research are: Does participation in a home repeated reading intervention of instructional level texts improve second-grade students’ reading performance and increase their home reading experiences? What is the relationship between participants’ reading accuracy, rate, and overall fluency? Does the type of assistance provided by parents influence participants’ reading performance?

Methodology

Setting and participants

Five second-grade children participated in the study. They attended a small, suburban, ethnically and culturally diverse school in the United States with the following demographics: 65% White students, 20% African American students, 6% Hispanic students, 5% Native American students, and 4% students with more than one race. At this school, 5.6% of students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

To select the participants, one of the researchers met with the second-grade teachers and asked them to identify children in the class who were struggling in reading, especially in the area of reading fluency. Of the five participants, none were identified as having a learning disability at the time of the study, but were identified by their teachers as needing reading support. The children were selected from all of the second-grade classes in the same elementary school. Participants in the study included three male students and two female students. They were all Caucasian and primary speakers of English. Their Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA-3) levels at the start of the intervention ranged from 10 to 20 as displayed in Table 1. Pseudonyms are used for all participants. The DRA-3 is an informal reading inventory that is administered one-on-one with students (Beaver and Carter, 2019) and was a required assessment in this district. For this assessment, students orally read isolated words as well as passages to determine students’ independent, instructional, and frustration reading levels. Both oral reading and reading comprehension are assessed for the passages. To assess comprehension, students orally answer questions read aloud by the teacher and students complete a retelling. Baseline data was collected in February for this study. The school’s benchmark DRA-3 score for second graders in January is level 20 and level 24 for March.

Table 1.

Participants’ initial DRA scores, duration of participation, and total words read.

	Initial DRA scores	Weeks of participation	# of texts read 4–5 times	# of texts read 3 times	Total words read
Brian	16	10	9	1	36,582
Adam	20	8	7	1	28,190
Kelly	20	6	3	3	18,941
Clara	20	6	3	3	24,302
Parker	10	14	14	0	27,110

Of the five participants, Brian and Parker were considered below grade level at the start of the study, with DRA-3 scores of 16 and 10 in the middle of second-grade. Brian had been receiving extra help in reading since first grade in an after-school program, but he had not been diagnosed with a learning disability. Adam was not receiving any extra support for reading at school. Clara was one of the lowest-performing readers in her class at the beginning of second grade. Her second-grade teacher reported that Clara had made good progress in the first few months of school and she had not been evaluated for a learning disability. Parker had not been evaluated for a learning disability at the time of the intervention, although he was performing far below his peers in reading. Kelly was identified by her teacher to participate in the intervention because Kelly was dysfluent, lacked confidence, and often lost her place when engaging in guided reading.

Intervention procedures

Teachers identified the students who would most benefit from a fluency-based intervention based on their DRA-3 scores and observations of the students’ in-class reading performance. We then wrote to each of the parents/guardians of these children to participate in a home reading project. All parents expressed interest in participating in the study with their children. One of the researchers met one-on-one with the parents to describe the intervention procedures and to explain the use of the audio recorder, which we provided for each family. These meetings lasted approximately twenty minutes and were held either at the school or in convenient location for the parents.

During the meetings with parents, the researcher provided a brief description of strategies that parents could use to assist their children during the reading, if possible. Parents were informed that they could help their child during the reading when their child came to an unknown word. Suggestions for providing this support included asking the child any of the following questions: How does the word begin? Can you sound out the word? What do you think the word might be? Parents were also told they could provide a semantic clue such as, if the word is “house” you might say it is another word for “home” or provide the starting sound of the word. Additionally, parents received the directions in writing. During the intervention, the researchers emailed participating parents to discuss questions or observations about the home readings.

An adapted form of single subject, multiple baselines, across-subjects design was used for this study to specifically tailor the intervention to participants. This design was selected to allow for in-depth analyses of reading behaviors for a small set of students with varied reading profiles (Cakiroglu, 2012; Horner et al., 2005). This study differs from the traditional format of single-subject design because each week the texts students read at home aligned to their instructional reading level. This purposeful changing of text levels allowed us to provide a more customized intervention, yet, changed the text levels from baseline to intervention.

At least three baseline readings were used for each participant before entering the intervention (McCormick, 1995). A stable baseline was achieved when children’s reading accuracy scores were within 15 percentage points of their average reading accuracy scores (McCormick, 1995). Once the baseline was established, children were asked to read each take-home text at least five times with their caregiver and audio record each home reading session. Participants and caregivers were told they could determine how they wanted to conduct the readings over the course of each week, depending on their weekday and weekend schedules.

At the end of the week, children returned the recorders and the researcher conducted a running record on the first home reading of the week (Clay, 2000). The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether the take-home texts were at the children’s instructional reading levels in order to guide the selection of the next take-home texts. If the researcher determined that this text was at the participant’s instructional level, the same level of text was provided for the subsequent week. If the text was at the participant’s independent reading level, the researcher selected a higher-level text for the next reading. Take-home texts included fiction and non-fiction trade books from the classrooms and home libraries of the researcher that had been leveled using the DRA-3 three leveling system. All of the books included a combination of text and pictures and had not been used as part of the classroom instruction. Neither the children nor parents reported prior familiarity with any of the books. A list of the take-home books is displayed in the Children’s Books References.

Data collection and analysis

Assessments collected during the baseline and intervention phases of the study include measures of reading rate, reading accuracy, reading fluency, parents’ helping strategies, and number of words read. The individual assessments and the data analysis are described below.

Running record assessments. Data consists of digital audio recordings taken at school during baseline data collection and at home during the intervention. As compared to self-report data, the audio-recorded readings provided access to all of the home reading examples and ways parents’ and children’s strategies correlate with children’s reading performance. The first reading of each take-home text was immediately analyzed using a running record to assess whether the text was at a child’s instructional reading level (Clay, 2000). If the text was at the child’s independent reading level, the researcher could then select a higher-level text for the next home reading. Running records were taken for the first and last reading of each text read at home and the researchers reviewed the audio tapes to determine the number of times each text was read. Participation in the program varied from six to 14 weeks.

The running record includes a measure of reading rate using words correct per minute (wcpm) and reading accuracy (% of correct words read). For the running records, miscues included insertions, deletions, and replacements. As per Clay’s (2000) guidelines, self-corrections were not considered as errors. The running records were based on a minimum of the first 200 words of each reading, with the exception of one text that only contained 131 words. To determine the reading level, children’s reading accuracy and rate were calculated and compared to Clay’s (2000) level of accuracy and the norms set by Hasbrouk and Tindal (2006). Accordingly, a rate of between 50–80 wcpm, the norm for second-grade students in winter, was used as a marker for an instructional level rate. At the completion of the intervention, the researchers completed a running record on the last reading of each text.

Fluency Assessment. The Comprehensive Reading Fluency Scale (CORF) was used for both the first and last reading of each intervention text as an additional measure of reading fluency that captured not only children’s reading rate but also their reading prosody (Benjamin et al., 2013). The CORF includes an automaticity rating, an intonation rating, and a rating for pausing. Each component of the CORF has four possible levels. Automaticity scores on the CORF range from 2 to 8 (2, 4, 6, 8), intonation and pausing each range from 1 to 4 (1, 2, 3, 4), and the total scores ranges from 4 to 16. The components are added together to develop an overall reading fluency score. Because the intonation and pausing ratings are descriptive, a second researcher scored the readings for intonation and pausing to ensure reliability of scores. Differences in scores were adjudicated for 100% agreement. Although accuracy, rate, and fluency scores were determined based on the first and last reading of the texts, the researcher listened to the other home readings to check for completion.

Analysis of reading gains. Reading accuracy, rate, and fluency scores were compared from baseline to intervention and during each week of the intervention by comparing the first and last reading of each intervention text. Data were initially plotted on graphs to allow for visual inspection, but then displayed tables for clarity of presentation. The percentage of change from the initial to final reading of intervention texts was calculated to further analyze changes in reading rate and fluency. The number of times each participant increased their instructional level was also calculated. Total words read at home included calculations of numbers of words in each text and times each text was read at home and audio recorded.

Parents helping strategies. The strategies parents employed to assist their children were analyzed by comparing the children’s miscues with parents’ assistance with the miscues on the first reading of each text. Parents’ helping strategies were categorized by common scaffolding strategies, which include telling the children when an error was made, providing a phonetic cue, providing a semantic cue, or providing the word. No examples of using illustrations as a prompt were evident in this sample. Multiple helping strategies were noted if parents used more than one strategy for the same miscue. For each case, the researcher calculated the total percentage of miscues for which parents provided assistance.

Results

Results are presented for each area of reading for individual participants using their baseline readings and weekly readings as sources of comparison.

Reading accuracy

Baseline reading accuracy scores for participants ranged from 93.5% to 100%, as displayed in Table 2. Brian’s baseline reading accuracy ranged from 96.4% to 97.3% for texts at DRA-3-3 level 16. Baseline accuracy scores for Adam ranged from 97.5% to 98.8% for texts at DRA-3DRA-3-3 level 20. During the baseline readings, Clara’s reading accuracy ranged from 94.4% to 98.8% for texts at a DRA-3 level of 20. Kelly’s reading accuracy during the baseline readings 93.9%–96.9% for texts at DRA-3 level 20. Parker’s reading accuracy for his baseline readings ranged from 95% to 97% for texts at DRA-3 level 10.

Table 2.

Baseline reading rate (WCPM) and accuracy.

Baseline Readings
Participant	Baseline 1		Baseline 2			Baseline 3		Baseline 4
	Rate	Accuracy		Rate	Accuracy	Rate	Accuracy	Rate	Accuracy
Brian	60	96.4%		49.2	97.3%	45	96.4%
Adam	103.4	98.4%		101.1	97.5%	85.5	98.8%
Kelly	95.8	100%		81.4	96.7%	122	93.5%	91.9	96.9%
Clara	87.6	99.3%		71.7	99.2%	39.1	94.2%	74.5	98.8%
Parker	51	97%		43.4	96.3%	57.3	95%

Across participants, accuracy rates during the initial readings of take-home texts ranged from 89% to 95.5% accuracy as shown in Table 3. Reading accuracy improved from the first to the last reading of take-home texts for 84% of the home readings as shown in Table 3. Changes in accuracy for participants ranged from −0.4% to 8%. Accuracy for 9% of the readings stayed constant and rates decreased for 7% of the readings.

Table 3.

Initial and final reading accuracy for each text.

	Brian		Adam		Kelly		Clara		Parker
	Initial	Final	Initial	Final	Initial	Final	Initial	Final	Initial	Final
Week 1	98%	99.5%	98.5%	99%	99%	100%	98.5%	99%	95%	100%
Week 2	98%	97.2%	*96.3%	98.4%	*99.5%	99.5%	*98.1%	99.5%	*93%	98.6%
Week 3	89%	97%	96.6%	97.6%	97.7%	97.7%	96.5%	99.5%	93%	92%
Week 4	96.2%	99%	97.7%	97.3%	99%	100%	96.4%	99%	*95.5%	96%
Week 5	93.8%	98%	*98.2%	100%	*95.4%	97.7%	97.8%	98.7%	96.8%	98%%
Week 6	*99%	100%	96.2%	98%	**98.6%	99%	97.4%	99.5%	96.2%	96.6%
Week 7	99%	99%	95.7%	97.6%	—	—	—	—	*95.4%	95.4%
Week 8	97%	98%	93%	99%	—	—	—	—	95.1%	98%
Week 9	98%	99%	—	—	—	—	—	—	*97.5%	99.5%
Week 10	*95.6	97%	—	—	—	—	—	—	91.7%	99%
Week 11	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	95%	96.7%
Week 12	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	94%	97.1%
Week 13	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	97.5%	98%
Week 14	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	*91.5%	99.5%

*Indicates an increase in text reading level ** Indicates a decrease in text reading level.

Reading rate

Baseline reading rates for participants ranged from 43.4 to 122 wcpm, as displayed in Table 2. Initial reading rates for each take-home story differed across participants and reading levels of texts as displayed in Table 4. Beginning reading rates ranged from 29.5 wcpm to 101.3 wcpm. At times, lower initial reading rates for participants were correlated with increases in the reading level of the texts as evidenced for Brian in Week 10, Adam in Week 2, and Parker in Weeks 2, 4, and 7.

Table 4.

Initial and final reading rate (WCPM) for each text.

	Brian		Adam		Kelly		Clara		Parker
	Initial	Final	Initial	Final	Initial	Final	Initial	Final	Initial	Final
Week 1	41.8	89.4	101.3	124	99.2	122.9	64.4	88.1	46.3	99.5
Week 2	49.1	90.4	*54.9	117.5	*96.2	99.3	*65.7	80.6	*34.3	64.2
Week 3	42.1	74.1	76.3	97.4	81.8	81.8	63.9	78.7	40	58.5
Week 4	43.3	95.3	84.2	99.2	51.3	101.9	67.2	81.5	*43.7	70.5
Week 5	36.9	88.8	*85.6	135.5	*58.9	55.3	64.3	90	45.3	77.3
Week 6	*59	111.1	65.8	85.4%	**85.6	96.7	85.6	104.9	53.3	65.4
Week 7	60	101.5	53.6%	103.8	—	—	—	—	*39.4	57.8
Week 8	58.2	105.9	53.1%	82	—	—	—	—	38.7	79.5
Week 9	58.3	118.8	—	—	—	—	—	—	*52.7	85.7
Week 10	*36.4	81	—	—	—	—	—	—	29.5	91.5
Week 11	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	44.4	99.7
Week 12	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	51	103.8
Week 13	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	80.1	87.1
Week 14	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	*41.1	134

*Indicates an increase in text reading level ** Indicates a decrease in text reading level.

Reading rates improved from the first to the last reading of all but one take-home reading, with mean changes for participants ranging from 15.2 wcpm to 47.2 wcpm. The percentage of change from the initial to the final readings for participants ranged from −6% to 226% as shown in Table 7. Brian and Adam had large percentage changes in their reading rates from the initial to final readings of texts ranged from 69% to 140% and 54% to 114%, respectively, demonstrating large reading gains for texts read at home. Kelly’s changes in reading rate from the initial to final reading of texts tended to be lower than other participants, with the exception of Week 4, when her rate improved 98%. She read one text more slowly during the final reading as compared to the initial reading (change of −6%). Clara’s rate increased from the first to the last reading of each take-home story with her percentage of change ranging from 21% to 40%. Parker’s reading rates increased for each week of his participation (ranging from 9% to 226%), and for several weeks, his rate grew substantially with the percentage of change over 100% for six of the weeks.

Fluency

Across participants, initial reading fluency of texts, as measured by the CORF, ranged from a score of 5 to a score of 14, with 16 as the highest possible score as shown in Table 5. Brian’s initial fluency for texts ranged from 5 to 10. Although Brian had a higher initial fluency when the DRA-3 level of texts was increased from 16 to 18, his fluency for the first reading decreased to a six when the DRA-3 level was changed from 18 to 20. Adam’s first readings of the take-home texts ranged in fluency from 8 to 15, with the lowest fluency scores on texts at DRA-3 level 30–34. Kelly and Clara had similar ranges in initial fluency with 8–14 and 8–12, respectively. Parker’s reading fluency on the first reading of each text ranged from 6 to 12. He was more fluent on the first readings of texts in Weeks 4–6 than Weeks 1–3, although he was reading higher-level texts. His first reading of texts improved between Week 10 and Week 13, but dropped in Week 14 when reading a harder level text.

Table 5.

Initial and final fluency (CORF) for each text.

	Brian		Adam		Kelly		Clara		Parker
	Initial	Final	Initial	Final	Initial	Final	Initial	Final	Initial	Final
Week 1	8	12	15	15	14	16	10	12	10	15
Week 2	9	12	*11	14	*12	14	*10	13	*6	9
Week 3	8	12	12	12	12	11	10	13	6	10
Week 4	9	14	12	13	10	15	10	13	*8	10
Week 5	5	11	*12	16	*8	9	8	12	8	12
Week 6	*8	15	10	12	**13	13	12	15	10	10
Week 7	10	15	9	14	—	—	—	—	*6	10
Week 8	8	16	8	14	—	—	—	—	6	14
Week 9	10	14	—		—	—	—	—	*8	12
Week 10	*6	13	—		—	—	—	—	6	12
Week 11	—	—	—		—	—	—	—	8	12
Week 12	—	—	—		—	—	—	—	10	15
Week 13	—	—	—		—	—	—	—	12	12
Week 14	—	—	—		—	—	—	—	*6	12

*Indicates an increase in text reading level ** Indicates a decrease in text reading level.

Reading fluency increased from the first to the last reading of all but one take-home story for participants, as measured by the CORF (See Table 5). The mean change in mean scores on the CORF, across participants, was 3.5 and the percentage of change from the first to the final reading ranged from −0.8 to 133% as depicted on Table 6. The percentage of change from the first to last reading of each text for Brian ranged from 33% to 100%. Brian’s reading fluency scores aligned with his reading rates scores with the same pattern of changes for each. Adam’s reading fluency, as measured by the CORF, improved on 6 of the 8 take-home texts and stayed constant for Weeks 1 and 3 as displayed in Table 5, even though his accuracy and reading rates improved. Adam’s percentage of reading fluency change, as measured by the CORF, ranged from 0 to 75%. Kelly’s fluency increased from the initial to final readings for four of the six take-home texts. The percentage of change in fluency from the first to the final readings ranged from 8% to 50%. Similar to her reading rate, Clara’s fluency improved from the first to the last reading of take-home texts, with a percentage of change ranging from 25% to 50%. Parker’s fluency improved from the first to the last reading for 12 of the 14. The other 2 weeks, his fluency remained constant. The change from the first to the last reading ranged from 0 to 8 points with a percentage of change ranging from 0 to 133%.

Table 6.

Percentage of change in reading fluency (CORF) from first to last reading of texts.

	Brian	Adam	Kelly	Clara	Parker
Week 1	50%	0	14%	20%	50%
Week 2	33%	27%	17%	30%	50%
Week 3	50%	0	−8%	30%	66%
Week 4	55%	8%	50%	30%	25%
Week 5	83%	33%	12%	50%	50%
Week 6	87%	20%	0	25%	0
Week 7	50%	55%	—	—	66%
Week 8	100%	75%	—	—	133%
Week 9	40%	—	—	—	50%
Week 10	85%	—	—	—	50%
Week 11	-	—	—	—	50%
Week 12	-	—	—	—	50%
Week 13	-	—	—	—	0
Week 14	-	—	—	—	50%

Increased levels of intervention texts

Based on the scoring of the first reading of intervention texts, the researchers increased the text levels participants at least once during the study to ensure that the texts remained as the participants’ instructional reading levels. This step was necessary to ensure the texts were matched to the readers’ level of difficulty. Clara’s text level was increased once and Brian’s and Adam’s were increased twice. Kelly’s was also increased twice but after increasing the level the second time, Kelly struggled with the higher-level reading so we dropped down one level for her last reading. Parker’s reading level was increased five times during the intervention. See Tables 3–5 for changes in text levels.

Total words reading

Participants completed between six to 14 weeks of home readings, when they read take-home texts three to five times. The intervention was designed to last 12 weeks, but some participants did fewer weeks of home readings, and one participant wanted to continue beyond the 12 weeks. Table 1 displays participation rates for each case, including the number of weeks and readings completed. Participants read a substantial number of words during the intervention ranging from 18,941 to 36,582 words.

Parents’ helping strategies

Parents’ helping strategies differed by case, as displayed in Table 8. Parker’s parents helped with the greatest percentage of his errors (89.9%), whereas Kelly’s parents provided no word level support. Table 8 displays the total percent of errors for which parents helped as well as specific strategies used. The most commonly used strategy used by three of the parents was informing their children of a word reading error. Clara’s parents always provided the word when they helped her with reading errors. Three parents used multiple strategies for one reading error. Only Brian’s and Parker’s parents used a phonetic cue when supporting reading.

Table 7.

Percentage of change in reading rate (WCPM) from first to last reading of texts.

	Brian	Adam	Kelly	Clara	Parker, %
Week 1	114%	24%	24%	37%	115
Week 2	84%	114%	3%	23%	87
Week 3	76%	27%	8%	23%	46
Week 4	125%	18%	98%	21%	61
Week 5	140%	58%	−6%	40%	71
Week 6	88%	30%	13%	22%	23
Week 7	69%	94%	—	—	47
Week 8	82%	54%	—	—	105
Week 9	104%	—	—	—	63
Week 10	122%	—	—	—	210
Week 11	—	—	—	—	124
Week 12	—	—	—	—	103
Week 13	—	—	—	—	9
Week 14	—	—	—	—	226

Table 8.

Percentage of total reading errors for which parents helped and type of help provided.

	% of errors	Informed of error	Provided word	Phonetic cue	Multiple strategies
Brian	53%	62.5%	46.9%	25%	25%
Adam	39.3%	77%	32%	0	1%
Kelly	0	0	0	0	0
Clara	38%	100%	0	0	0
Parker	87.9%	40%	9%	9%	10%

Highest reading levels

A final indicator of reading growth was determined by examining the first readings of take-home stories to identify the highest DRA-3 level on which participants were reading at the independent reading level for accuracy and rate. Brian’s first take-home story was at a DRA-3 level 16 and by the end of the intervention he was reading texts of level 18–20 independently. Adam began the intervention reading texts at DRA-3 level 24; by the end of the intervention, he read a level 30 text independently. Kelly started at DRA-3 level 24 and by the end she read level 28 texts independently. Clara started the intervention at DRA-3 level 24 and ended at DRA-3 28. Parker had the largest change from level DRA-3 10 to DRA-3 18.

Findings and recommendations

Developing children’s reading fluency requires ample opportunity for children to read at both school and home (Guthrie et al., 1999; Hiebert and Martin, 2009). However, parents may have limited knowledge in how to employ specific practices in the home to promote reading fluency, and teachers may have limited knowledge in how to involve parents meaningfully. This study demonstrated the potential for supporting teachers and parents in using repeated home readings to improve children’s reading fluency and increase the number of words children read at home. To answer the first research question as to how to gauge the effectiveness of a home repeated reading intervention using instructional level texts, we found that across the five cases, improvements were evident in reading accuracy, rate, and fluency for the take-home texts. All participants were able to read higher DRA-3 level texts successfully at the end of the intervention, as compared to the start of the intervention, as demonstrated by their first readings of home texts. The most substantial changes were evident for Parker, who had the lowest reading level at the start of the study. His reading of a DRA-3 level 10 was at the instructional level at the start of the intervention. At the end of the intervention, he read a DRA-3 18 text at the independent reading level. This finding is similar to Rasinski and Stevenson (2005) who found the most gain in their Fast Start home reading program for participants performing at lower reading levels.

The purposeful selection of instructional level texts allowed participants to read texts that were somewhat challenging, but not frustrating, as measured by the running record assessments. By monitoring the first readings each week, the researchers were able to increase the level of the texts to maintain instructional reading levels week to week and assess how changes in level influenced performance. Parker increased his reading levels the most times in the intervention, but he began at the lowest reading level at the start of the study and participated for the most weeks. Although the intervention showed positive outcomes, the intentional increase in text levels adds to the challenge of comparing baseline to intervention readings as would typically be done with a single-subject design study.

The number of words participants read at home was substantial, ranging from 18,931 to 36,582 in a short period of time, as displayed in Table 1. This intervention promoted important opportunities to read (Hiebert and Martin, 2009), and participants knew that home audio recordings were being monitored, which may have made them feel more accountable for their reading. Differences in total words can be explained by the number of weeks and readings completed as well as the reading levels of the texts. As expected, the lower-level texts had fewer words, meaning that the participants reading at a lower level had to read for more weeks and more times to have comparable reading experiences. For example, Parker and Adam read close to the same number of words, but Parker participated for six more weeks than Adam. This finding is consistent with the research that demonstrates differences in the amount of reading opportunities for stronger and weaker readers (Allington, 2009; Juel, 1988; Stanovich, 2000). The second research question addressed the relationship between children’s reading accuracy, rate, and overall fluency. This study utilized a new fluency assessment, the CORF, which includes a measure of reading prosody. This assessment provides a clearer picture of reading fluency as compared to reading rate. This is most evident when comparing changes in rate and changes in fluency from the first to last readings of texts. Although these measures sometimes aligned, there were times that they did not and the CORF more accurately reflected the way the text were being read (Benjamin et al., 2013). Coupling the measure of reading fluency with a measure of reading accuracy/error provides a more accurate profile of the participants’ reading performance (Abbott et al., 2012).

Lastly, the study addressed whether the type of assistance provided by parents influenced children’s reading performance. We found parents’ support for children’s reading differed across cases with four of the five parents providing word level support for more than one third of their children’s reading errors. These types of differences in levels of support have been found in other studies designed to promote parent and child reading and talk (Steiner et al., 2021; Troseth et al., 2020). When parents did provide support, they most often did so by providing their child the word or letting their child know they had made an error. We did not identify any patterns in the relationship between parents’ level of support and children’s reading gains, yet we did find differences in levels of participation and parental support. For Kelly, we found no evidence of any word level support from her parents and she had the lowest participation in terms of words read of the five participants. The students with the greatest percentage of word level support, Brian and Parker, had the highest levels of participation. A future study including more elaborate training with parents, in which they are provided ongoing examples of ways to support their children’s reading, may lead to greater levels of parental support as their children read.

Although this study is limited by a small sample size, the benefits of the home readings are evident for participants at varying reading levels, and the use of the adapted single-subject design of the study allowed for close monitoring of the children’s readings. Additionally, the system for leveling the texts may not be exact; nonetheless, this system is used in many school districts to create classroom libraries and served as a proxy for this process. This system was also chosen because it could be replicated by teachers who would like to use this model of this study to involve parents and caregivers in helping to promote children’s fluency. A further limitation of the study was the absence of a comprehension measure. Although fluency and comprehension are related, they are not the same, and the addition of a comprehension measure for the home readings would provide important data about children’s reading performance.

As mentioned, the model used in this study could be replicated for use at school and home. The study required little training for parents aside from the initial description of how they might help their children if they reach an unknown word while reading. This allowed parents to more readily integrate the home readings into their home literacy practices. Likewise, teachers could adopt this approach into their classrooms and manage it with little extra time and effort, apart from selecting books from their classroom libraries. The design of the reading intervention has additional benefits. Because parents are listening to their children read aloud, they can hear first-hand the ways children’s reading improves when completing repeated readings. This might lead parents to continue the practice, even when the intervention is complete, as they think their participation fosters increases in children’s reading achievement. It is essential that school-based attempts to promote parent involvement are specific and lead to “doable” parent activities in which they see the value of their involvement. If parents do not believe their involvement will have specific benefit for their child, they are less likely to engage (Green et al., 2007).

A next step for this research is to study the effectiveness of home repeated readings when parents are provided with training both for word level support and discussions around text. This addition would help determine whether providing training to parents in specific strategies would further enhance children’s reading performance and offer a window into children’s comprehension of the texts while they are reading at home. More research is also needed to see whether sending more difficult books would lead to even greater changes in children’s reading performance.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Alisa Hindin

References

Abbott

Wills

Miller

, et al. (2012) The relationship of error rate and comprehension in second and third grade oral reading fluency. Reading Psychology 33(1/2): 104–132. DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2012.630613.

Allington

(1977) If they don’t read much, how they ever gonna get good? Journal of Reading 21(1): 57–61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40009862.

Allington

(1983) The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. The Elementary School Journal 83(5): 549–559. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1001078.

Allington

(2000) What Really Matters for Struggling Readers: Designing Research-Based Programs. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Allington

(2009) If they don’t read much…30 years later. In: Hiebert

(ed) Reading more, reading better. New York, NY: The Guildford Press, 30–54.

Anderson

Wilson

Fielding

(1988) Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly 23(3): 285–303. https://www.jstor.org/stable/748043.

Beaver

Carter

(2019) The Developmental Reading Assessment. 3rd edition. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Benjamin

Schwanenflugel

Meisinger

, et al. (2013) A spectrographically grounded scale for evaluating reading expressiveness. Reading Research Quarterly 48(2): 105–133.

Brenner

Hiebert

Tompkins

(2009) How much and what are third graders reading?: Reading in core programs. In: Hiebert

(ed) Reading More, Reading Better. New York, NY: The Guildford Press, 30–54.

10.

Cakiroglu

(2012) Single subject research: applications to special education. British Journal of Special Education 39(1): 21–29. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8578.2012.00530.x.

11.

Chafouleas

Martens

Dobson

, et al. (2004) Fluent reading as the improvement of stimulus control: Additive effects of performance-based interventions to repeated reading on students’ reading and error rates. Journal of Behavioral Education 13(2): 67–81. DOI: 10.1023/B:JOBE.0000023656.45233.6f.

12.

Chall

Jacobs

Baldwin

(1990) The Reading Crisis: Why Poor Children Fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

13.

Clay

(2000) Running Records for Classroom Teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

14.

Chorzempa

Graham

(2006). Primary-grade teachers' use of within-class ability grouping in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 98(3): 529–541. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.529.

15.

Daane

Campbell

Grigg

, et al. (2005) Fourth-grade Students Reading Aloud: NAEP 2002 Special Study of Oral Reading (NCES 2006-469). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Government Printing Office.

16.

Dearing

Kreider

Simpkins

, et al. (2006) Family involvement in school and low-income children’s literacy: Longitudinal associations between and within families. Journal of Educational Psychology 98(4): 653–664. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.653.

17.

Dowhower

(1987) Effect of repeated reading on second-grade transitional readers’ fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 22(4): 389–406. DOI: 10.2307/747699.

18.

Ece Demir‐Lira

Applebaum

Goldin‐Meadow

, et al. (2019) Parents’ early book reading to children: relation to children’s later language and literacy outcomes controlling for other parent language input. Developmental Science 22(3): 1–16.

19.

Ehri

McCormick

(2004) Phases of word learning and implications for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. In: Ruddell

Unrau

(eds) Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. 5th edition. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 365–389.

20.

Foorman

Francis

Shaywitz

, et al. (1997) The case for early reading intervention. In: Blachman

(ed) Foundations of Reading Acquisition and Dyslexia: Implications for Early Intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 243–264.

21.

Green

Walker

JMT

Hoover-Dempsey

, et al. (2007) Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(3): 532–544. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.532.

22.

Goldenberg

(1987) Low income Hispanic parents’ contributions to their first-grade children’s word-recognition skills. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 18(3): 149–179. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3216588.

23.

Guthrie

Wigfield

Metsala

, et al. (1999) Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading 3(3): 231–256.

24.

Hart

Risley

(1995) Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

25.

Heath

(1983) Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Hasbrouk

Tindal

(2006) Oral reading fluency norms: a valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher 59(7): 636–644. DOI: 10.1598/RT.59.7.3.

27.

Herman

(1985) The effect of repeated readings on reading rate, speech pauses, and word recognition accuracy. Reading Research Quarterly 20(5): 553–565. DOI: 10.2307/747942.

28.

Hewison

Tizard

(1980) Parental involvement and reading attainment. British Journal of Educational Psychology 50(3): 209–215. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1980.tb00803.x.

29.

Hindin

Paratore

(2007) Supporting young children’s literacy learning through home-school partnerships: the Effectiveness of a home repeated-reading intervention. Journal of Literacy Research 39: 307–333.

30.

Hiebert

Martin

(2009) Opportunity to read: a critical but neglected construct in reading instruction. In Hiebert

(ed) Reading More, Reading Better. New York, NY: The Guildford Press, 30–54.

31.

Horner

Carr

Halle

, et al. (2005) The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children 71(2): 165–179. DOI: 10.1177/001440290507100203.

32.

Inoue

Georgiou

Parrila

, et al. (2018) Examining an extended home literacy model: the mediating roles of emergent literacy skills and reading fluency. Scientific Studies of Reading 22(4): 273–288.

33.

Jeynes

(2012) A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education 47(4): 706–742. DOI: 10.1177/0042085912445643.

34.

Juel

(1988) Learning to read and write: a longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology 80(4): 437–447. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437.

35.

Kazdin

(1982) Single-case Research Designs: Methods for Clinical and Applied Settings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

36.

Kucera

Axelrod

(1995) Multiple-baseline designs. In: Neuman

McCormick

(eds) Single-subject Experimental Research: Applications for Literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 47–63.

37.

Kuhn

Levy

(2015). Developing Fluent Readers: Teaching Fluency as a Foundational Skill. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

38.

Kuhn

Shwanenflugel

(2009) Time, engagement, and support: Lessons from a 4-year fluency intervention. In: Hiebert

(ed) Reading More, Reading Better. New York, NY: The Guildford Press, 141–162.

39.

Kuhn

Schwanenflugel

Meisinger

(2010) Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly 45(2): 230–251. DOI: 10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4.

40.

Kuhn

Stahl

(2003) Fluency: a review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology 95(1): 3–21. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.3.

41.

LaBerge

Samuels

(1974) Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology 6(2): 293–323. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2.

42.

Lee

Yoon

(2017) The effects of repeated reading on reading fluency for students with reading disabilities: a meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities 50(2): 213–224. DOI: 10.1177/0022219415605194.

43.

Leseman

PPM

de Jong

(1998) Home literacy: opportunity, instruction, cooperation and social-emotional quality predicting early reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly 33(3): 294–316. DOI: 10.1598/rrq.33.3.3.

44.

Maguire

Schneider

Middleton

, et al. (2018). Vocabulary knowledge mediates the link between socioeconomic status and word learning in grade school. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 166: 679–695.

45.

McCormick

(1995) What is single-subject experimental research? In: Neuman

McCormick

(eds) Single-Subject Experimental Research: Applications for Literacy. Newark, DE:International Reading Association, 1–31.

46.

National Center for Education Statistics (2011) The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012–457). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

47.

Nord

Lennon

Westat

, et al. (1999) Issue Brief: Home Literacy Activities and Signs of Children’s Emerging Literacy, 1993-1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

48.

OECD (2010) PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background – Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes. DOI: 10.1787/9789264091504-en.

49.

O’Shea

Sindelar

O’Shea

(1985) The effects of repeated readings and attentional cues on reading fluency and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior 17(2): 129–141. DOI: 10.1080/10862968509547535.

50.

Ortiz

(1986) Reading activities and reading proficiency among Hispanic, Black, and White students. American Journal of Education 95(1): 58–76. DOI: 10.1086/444292.

51.

Perfetti

Zhang

(1996). What it means to learn to read. In: Graves

van den Broek

Taylor

(eds) The First R: Every Child’s Right to Read. New York, NY:Teachers College Press, 37–61.

52.

Pollard‐Durodola

Gonzalez

Satterfield

, et al. (2017) Parent book talk to accelerate Spanish content vocabulary knowledge. The Reading Teacher 71(3): 335–345. DOI: 10.1002/trtr.1615.

53.

Protacio

Edwards

(2015) Restructuring sharing time for English Learners and their parents. The Reading Teacher 68(6): 413–421. DOI: 10.1002/trtr.1327.

54.

Purcell-Gates

(1995) Other People’s Words: The Cycle of Illiteracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

55.

Rashotte

Torgesen

(1985) Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly 20(2): 180–188.

56.

Rasinski

(1990) Effects of repeated reading and listening-while-reading on reading fluency. Journal of Educational Research 83(3): 147–150. DOI: 10.1080/00220671.1990.10885946.

57.

Rasinski

(2019) Introduction to special issue of reading psychology on reading fluency. Reading Psychology 40(4): 1–4. DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2018.1555360.

58.

Rasinski

Stevenson

(2005) The effects of Fast Start Reading: a fluency-based home involvement reading program on the reading achievement of beginning readers. Reading Psychology 26(2): 109–125. DOI: 10.1080/02702710590930483.

59.

Rasinski

Reutzel

Chard

, et al. (2011) Reading fluency. In: Kamil

Pearson

Moje

, et al. (eds), Handbook of Reading Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, Vol. 4.

60.

Samuels

(1979) The method of repeated reading. The Reading Teacher 32(4): 403–408.

61.

Sindelar

Monda

O’Shea

(1990) Effects of repeated readings on instructional-and mastery-level readers. Journal of Educational Research 83(4): 220–226. DOI: 10.1080/00220671.1990.10885959.

62.

Stahl

Heubach

(2005) Fluency oriented reading instruction. Journal of Literacy Research 37(1): 25–60. DOI: 10.1207/s15548430jlr3701_2.

63.

Stanovich

(1986) Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly 21(4): 360–405.

64.

Stanovich

(2000) Progress in Understanding Reading: Scientific Foundations and New Frontiers. The New York, NY: Guilford Press.

65.

Steiner

Hindin

Carley-Rizzuto

(2021) Developing children’s literacy learning through skillful parent-child shared book readings. Early Childhood Education Journal. DOI: 10.1007/s10643-021-01170-9

66.

Stuart

Masterson

Dixon

(1999) Learning to read words turns listeners into readers: How children accomplish this transition. In: Oakhill

Beard

(eds) Reading Development and the Teaching of Reading. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 109–130.

67.

Troseth

Strouse

Flores

, et al. (2020) An enhanced eBook facilitates parent–child talk during shared reading by families of low socioeconomic status. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 50: 45–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.02.009.

68.

Turpie

Paratore

(1995) Using repeated reading to promote reading success in a heterogeneously grouped first grade. In: Hinchman

Leu

Kinzner

(eds) Perspectives on Literacy Research; Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference, 255–264.

69.

Weinstein

Cooke

(1992) The effects of two repeated reading interventions on generalizations of fluency. Learning Disability Quarterly 15(1): 21–28. DOI: 10.2307/1510562.

70.

Aardema

(1992) Bringing the Rain to Kapiti Plain. Puffin Books.

71.

Aboff

(2006) Chip to the Rescue (J. Wolf). Pearson Education.

72.

Arnold

(2000) Parts. Puffin Books.

73.

Berenstain

(1984) Berenstain Bears Trick or Treat. Random House Books.

74.

Berenstain

(1987) Berenstain Bears and the Trouble with Friends. Random House Books.

75.

Berenstain

(1988) Berenstein Bears Ghost of the Forest. Random House Books.

76.

Branley

(2015) The Planets in the Solar System (K. O’Malley). Harper Collins.

77.

Branley

(2015) What Makes Day and Night? (A. Dorros). Haper Collins.

78.

Brett

(1999) Gingerbread Baby. Scholastic.

79.

Brett

(2004a) Armadillo Rodeo. Puffin Books

80.

Brett

(2004b) The Umbrella. G.P. Putnam's Sons Books for Young Readers.

81.

Briggs

(1997) Jim and the Beanstalk. Puffin Books.

82.

Brown

(2000) D.W.’s Lost Blanket. Little Brown Books for Young Readers.

83.

Burton

(2017) The Little House. HMH Readers for Young Readers.

84.

Cannon

(1993) Stellaluna. Scholastic.

85.

Hallander

(1998) Jackson’s Contraption. Scholastic.

86.

Heller

(2010) Touchdown! After School Sports Club (S. Björkman). Simon and Schuster

87.

Henkes

(2014) Lilly’s Big Day. Greenwillow Books.

88.

James

(2003) Supertwins: Meet the Dangerous Dino-Robots (C. Demarest). Turtleback Books.

89.

Kimmel

(1988). Anansi and the Moss-Covered Rock (J. Stevens). Holiday House.

90.

Kimmel

(1994) Anansi and the Talking Melon (J. Stevens). Holiday House.

91.

London

(2005) Froggy’s Baby Sister (F. Remkiewicz). Puffin Books.

92.

Maestro

(2000) How Do Apples Grow? (G. Maestro). Harper Collins.

93.

Marsh

(2011) Spiders. National Geographic Readers.

94.

Marshall

(1985). Fox on Wheels (J. Marshall). Penguin Young Readers.

95.

Marshall

(1996) Fox on Stage. Penguin Young Readers.

96.

Mayer

(1999) Just Lost. Random House.

97.

Mayer

(2001) Just Me and Mom. Random House.

98.

Pfeffer

(2002) Thunder and Lightning. Scholastic.

99.

Rey

(1999) Curious George Goes Camping. HMH Books.

100.

Ryland

(2000) Henry and Mudge and the Snowman Plan (S. Stevenson). Alladin Paperbacks.

101.

Trumbauer

(2006) Turtle’s Big Race (L. Martin). Celebration Press.

Creating opportunities to read and build fluency at home

Abstract

Keywords

Literature review

Current study

Methodology

Setting and participants

Intervention procedures

Data collection and analysis

Results

Reading accuracy

Reading rate

Fluency

Increased levels of intervention texts

Total words reading

Parents’ helping strategies

Highest reading levels

Findings and recommendations

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References