WTS 1 and 2

page !1 of 31
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
The Effectiveness of Timed Repeated Reading on Special Education Students
Leah D. Aubert
Saint Marys University of Minnesota
Schools of Graduate and Professional Programs
Portfolio Entry for Wisconsin Teacher Standard 1 and 2
EDUW 691 Professional Skills Development
Caroline Hickethier, Instructor
October 29, 2014

!
!
!
!
!
!
!

WTS 1 and 2

page !2 of 31
!

Selected Wisconsin Teacher Standard Descriptors

Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 1: Teachers know the subjects they are teaching
The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the
discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of
subject matter meaningful for students.
Knowledge. The teacher understands major concepts, assumptions, debates, processes of
inquiry, and ways of knowing that are central to the discipline(s) s/he teaches.
Dispositions. The teacher realizes that subject matter knowledge is not a fixed body of
facts but is complex an ever-evolving. S/he seeks to keep abreast of new ideas and
understandings in the field.
Performances. The teacher can evaluate teaching resources and curriculum materials for
their comprehensiveness, accuracy, and usefulness in representing particular ideas and concepts.

WTS 1 and 2

page !3 of 31
!

Selected Wisconsin Teacher Standard Descriptors

Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 2: Teachers know how children grow
The teacher understands how children with broad ranges of ability learn and develop, and
can provide instruction that supports their intellectual, social, and personal development.
Knowledge. The teacher understands how learning occurs-how students construct
knowledge, acquire skills, and develop habits of mind-and knows how to use instructional
strategies that promote student learning for a wide range of student abilities.
Dispositions. The teacher is disposed to use students strengths as a basis for growth, and
their errors as an opportunity for learning.
Performances. The teacher assesses individual and group performance in order to
design instruction that meets learners current needs in each domain (cognitive, social, emotional,
moral, and physical) and that leads to the next level of development.

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

WTS 1 and 2
Danielson Domains
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Component 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
Component 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
Component 1c: Selecting Instructional Goals
Component 1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
Component 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction
Component 1f: Assessing Student Learning
Domain 3: Instruction
Component 3a: Communicating Clearly and Accurately
Component 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
Component 3d: Providing Feedback to Students
Component 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

page !4 of 31
!

WTS 1 and 2

page !5 of 31
!

Pre-assessments
Self-assessment of Instruction Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
For Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 1, I am focusing on the teacher understands
central concepts and that a teacher creates learning experiences that are meaningful to students
and their learning. Learning to read is key to every students learning on a daily basis. I am a
special education teacher. Therefore, I have to teach my students to read and make the process
worthwhile despite their disability. Teaching a student using an ineffective method, in regards to
learning to read, would only lead to frustration. Frustration often promotes a general dislike for
school. Special education teachers have to know their students, the students disabilities, and
what works for the student to help them be successful in the classroom. As a result, I turned my
attention to understanding and knowing what is important to my students and their IEPs for the
knowledge descriptor. Some of my students have grown significantly as readers, meaning they
have met their IEP goals. However, not all of my students have grown as much as I would like.
Therefore, need to change something to improve their fluency and overall reading skills. If I do
not change, then the learning is not meaningful for the student anymore.
On the disposition descriptor of WTS 1, I narrowed my focus to teacher [realizing] that
subject matter knowledge is not a fixed body of facts but is complex and ever-evolving. As a
teacher it is important that I am staying current on the effectiveness of various reading strategies.
A teacher needs to be able to evaluate resources and materials to determine which ones provide
the greatest support for students. This relates the need to change my overall reading program for
my students because what I am doing is not working. If I do not change, then my students (who
are not improving as much as I would like) will not change or grow as readers. Therefore, I must

WTS 1 and 2

page !6 of 31
!

find resources or materials that I can use to help my students grow. I have to do what I can to
ensure that they are successful in the regular education classroom. After pondering the
performance descriptor, I chose a teacher can evaluate teaching resources and curriculum
materials for their accuracy and usefulness in representing particular ideas and concepts. Not
only am I choosing a strategy that is the right fit for my program, it has to be effective for my
students and their learning.
While examining WTS 2, there were a few key components that caught my eye. WTS 2
focuses on the importance of a teacher understanding how children learn and develop as well as
the teacher being able to provide instruction that supports to ensure student development. A
special education teacher often spends a lot of time, sometimes years, with his/her students and
gets to know them extremely well. The teachers job is to do whatever they can to ensure that
the student is developing and learning to their fullest potential. Therefore, I chose the knowledge
descriptor that discusses how a teacher understands how students construct knowledge, acquire
skills, and develop habits of mind-and knows how to use instructional strategies that promote
student learning for a wide range of student abilities. As a teacher gets to know his/her
students, they learn about the student strengths, weaknesses, background, family, likes, dislikes,
etc. I must use that knowledge to support my students and their learning.
An effective teacher uses the students strengths to build learning and knowledge.
Accordingly I chose the disposition descriptor that discusses building learning, knowledge, and
how teachers must learn from their mistakes. Learning from mistakes is a natural part of life.
Students with disabilities often face many hurdles in life, and a teacher is there to guide the
students through those mistakes in a positive learning environment. Special education teachers

WTS 1 and 2

page !7 of 31
!

are constantly assessing students and how they are doing on individualized education plan (IEP)
goals. I have learned that my students are not improving their fluency as much as they should.
That means I need to change my methods of teaching. A teacher also focuses his/her instruction
on the learners current needs. As a result, I chose the performance descriptor that addressed
teachers designing instruction tailored to their students needs to help move them to the next
level of development. My students fluency scores reflected a need that I needed to address.
Artifact A is a table that shows the 2013 - 2014 fluency assessment results of my students for 11
of my 13 students that I will be using the HELPS program on. Notice students A, C, and D did
not have significant gains. These students failed to make much progress on their developmental
reading assessments (DRA) as well. Students E and F made more gains, but not significant
enough to close the grade level gap.
Essentially, I want to broaden my knowledge of instructional strategies in reading to
improve my students reading fluency. Specifically, I am focusing on repeated reading and its
effect on a students ability to improve his/her words correct per minute (wcpm) fluency. With
WTS 1 and 2, I have to know the reading strategy content, as well as how much students learn.
This is important to make my students instruction as effective as possible. If I can improve my
students wcpm fluency, it will improve their comprehension and writing skills; this will result in
an overall improvement of the students learning in other content areas that are literacy based.
This, in turn, improves their overall success in school.
Assessment of Student Performance Related to Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
I am a specific learning disabilities (SLD) teacher at an elementary school. Currently, I
have 14 students, grades two through five, that require academic support. One student has

WTS 1 and 2

page !8 of 31
!

Autism, two students receive support under other health impairment (OHI), and ten of them have
a specific learning disability (SLD). On average, I see my students between 30 and 45 minutes a
day in some sort of small group or one-on-one setting.
My school district uses a variety of assessments to ensure that students are learning and
growing. One example is the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screener (PALS) in grades K
though three. In fourth-grade and fifth-grade, my school district uses the AIMSweb reading
based curriculum measurement, R-CBM, (fluency screener), the AIMSweb MAZE
(comprehension screener), and the DRA. Thirteen of my students are reading well below grade
level and each is at a different level. They range from being able to read at a pre-primer level to
about a fourth grade level. Artifact B is a table that shows the 2014 fall fluency assessment
results of my students for 11 of my 13 students. These scores will be used as a baseline on my
students before the HELPS intervention is implemented. Out of these 11 students, only one is
not significantly below grade level expectations. If I can improve my students fluency, I can
then improve their comprehension and general ability to function at a more independent level in
the regular education classroom.
Assessment of Learning Environment While Learning Targeted Objective(s)
I have always spent time teaching reading and phonics to my students. In my classroom I
have incorporated a myriad of activities to support student learning, which include: providing
students with leveled text, partner reading, choral reading, listening to reading, round-robin
reading, reading with the teacher, read to self, read to self with whisper reading, etc. I progress
monitor students using the AIMSweb R-CBM fluency screener at their instructional reading
level and individually show them their progress to help them monitor their own reading as well.

WTS 1 and 2

page !9 of 31
!

This has proven to be successful for some students, while others continue to struggle. When I
pull students for small group instruction, I attempt to group them by similar reading levels.
However, due to my high caseload, often my students reading levels vary by one or two grade
levels. This makes group reading and partner reading more difficult, but doable. Most students
do okay with this, but others also continue to struggle. I also found that while some students
were making significant gains, other students made little or no gains. This continues to widen
the gap between students. In addition, I find that many of my students do not have the stamina
or attention span to read and do the same thing the entire time. Nine out of my twelve students
are able to focus on one task for approximately 30 minutes, with two or less prompts. The other
three students can focus about 15 minutes max with five or more prompts.
Assessment Conclusion and Essential Question to Guide Research
The self-assessment, assessment of student performance, and learning environment
assessment show I need to address the methods I am using to teach reading. First, my goal is to
find a new way to provide instruction so that the students can vary activities and not feel like
they are just reading everyday. In the future I also need to be sure that time is being focused
on student improvement in fluency, specifically on accuracy and rate (the number of wcpm), to
help my students feel more successful in district screeners and in their everyday reading as well.
Originally, I thought I would find what were considered best practices in improving students
fluency over the past 10 years. However, I felt that the research I found was a bit broad and I
wanted to focus on one strategy that would allow the students to do a couple activities in their 30
- 45 minute group time. My learning goal, stated as an essential question to guide research,

WTS 1 and 2

page !10 of 31
!

focuses on ideas from WTS 1 and 2: How does repeated reading as a strategy impact students
accuracy and rate in the fluency of struggling readers?
Research Summary
There has been significant research on reading and literacy for many years. As we all
know, reading is crucial to function in todays society. It can be something as simple as filling
out a job application or hitting the right key on a register. Shortly after students learn to read
they are expected to read to learn, which can leave the struggling students in a state of
frustration. It is important for teachers to assess and monitor student progress in reading fluency.
Honig, Diamond, and Gutlohn (2008) stated that Fluency instruction is vital to an overall
reading program (p.360). It was also implied that in order to have good fluency, the reader must
possess accuracy, an appropriate rate (wcpm), and prosody (phrasing, expression, etc). There are
several methods to build reading fluency, they include: independent silent reading, assisted
reading, repeated oral reading, and integrated fluency instruction (Honig et al.).
According to instructional coach and reading specialist, Melissa Ender (personal
communication, September 26, 2014), repeated oral reading has widely become known as a best
practice by teachers all over the United States and is an acceptable Tier III intervention for
many districts that utilize Response to Intervention (RtI). Repeated oral reading consists of
students reading the same passage until they are able to reach an acceptable accuracy and fluency
rate. Honig et al. (2008) emphasized that repeated and monitored oral reading improves
fluency and overall reading achievement (p. 363). Most struggling readers do not develop
fluency independently, despite their ability to decode text. Direct instruction is a necessity for
struggling readers and it is important that intense, fluency focused practice [should be]

WTS 1 and 2

page 11
! of 31
!

incorporated in [an overall] reading program (Hudson, Lane, & Pullen, 2005, p. 702).
Independent reading practice is thus not sufficient for many students to develop the level of
reading fluency needed for proficient reading. (Honig et al., p. 370).
Chard, Vaughn, and Tyler (2002) studied and discovered that repeated reading
interventions for students with LD are associated with improvements in reading rate, accuracy,
and comprehension (p. 402). It also has been indicated that a repeated reading program that
includes modeling is more effective than a program without modeling (Chard et al.). In
Therrians 2004 paper, he examined both SLD and non-disabled (ND) students. He found that
when the strategy is implemented by adults, the mean fluency [wcpm] effect size was
large (p. 257). An increase of 1.37 wcpm, versus a peer intervention increase of 0.36 wcpm.
The adult implementation result is a mean fluency score that is three times larger. Therrian
(2004) also found an increase of wcpm mean fluency scores when repeated readings include
adult modeling, charting, corrective feed back, and students reading a passage until they meet the
performance criteria (wcpm goal). Therrian, Wickstrom, and Jones (2006) met with similar
results. When given a DIBELS oral reading test, the control group had an average of 77.93
wcpm on the pretest and 80.21 wcpm on the posttest. However, the repeated reading group
scored an average of 68.4 wcpm on the pretest and 81.40 wcpm on the posttest. As a result, it
can be said that repeated oral reading does increase student fluency, specifically in accuracy and
rate/wcpm.
It has been well researched over the years that fluency tends to lead to comprehension,
this is due to the fact that students are no longer spending much of their time and concentration
on decoding the text. When reading is labored and disconnected, comprehension becomes

WTS 1 and 2

page !12 of 31
!

challenging, if not impossible. (Hudson et al., 2005, p. 702). Strickland, Boon, and Spencer
(2013) revealed that fluency aids comprehension. Honig et al. (2008) agreed that there is merely
a strong correlation between fluency and comprehension. Fluency and comprehension skills still
need to be taught independently from each other. A student who is fluent does not directly mean
the student will comprehend the text. There is merely a strong connection between the two. It is
also important to remember when doing repeated oral reading, if the goal is a transfer of the skill,
the student should reread the passage until they meet their performance criteria. However, if
repeated reading is being used as a comprehension tool, a non-transfer of skills, then the passage
should be read no more than four times. Therrien (2004) found that after four times, the rate of
improvement decreases.
Several sources advocated that effective repeated oral reading instruction utilizes the
following components: modeling by an adult, immediate corrective feedback, goal setting,
graphing, skill practice, error correction procedures, and a systematic praise or reward system.
HELPS (helping early literacy with practice strategies) is a one-on-one timed repeated reading
program developed by John Begeny. This program incorporates all the components that the
sources say are important to effective oral reading instruction. This program also incorporates a
brief verbal check for comprehension as well. Malouf, Reisener, Gadke, Wimbish, and Frankel
(2014) studied the HELPS program. It was found that Overall, the HELPS program was found
to be a beneficial tool in creasing the level of reading fluency (Malouf et al., p. 278). While it
was only a short term study of four weeks, both students had an increase of fluency (accuracy
and rate/wcpm).

WTS 1 and 2

page !13 of 31
!

When incorporating repeated oral reading, it is essential the right kind of text is chosen
for the student(s). Text length and genre, text content, and level of text difficulty must be
considered when providing repeated oral reading instruction (Honig et al., 2008). Reading is
already difficult for struggling readers and it is challenging to get them to read assigned text
once, much less asking them to read it several times. The student must be invested and interested
in the text for repeated oral reading to be successful. There are a myriad of repeated oral
reading options that range from one-on-one to large group choices. This gives teachers the
opportunity to find repeated oral reading instruction that works for his or her classroom. Honig,
et al. examined the research-based methods of repeated oral reading. They also explored what
each method requires for assistance, such as peer, teacher, audio, etc. The instructional focus
was also noted to differentiate between methods that focus on accuracy, rate, and prosody. The
methods Honig et al. analyzed were timed repeated oral reading, self timed repeated oral reading,
partner reading, phrase-cued reading, radio reading, choral reading, duet reading, echo reading,
and reading with recordings.
Research from the sources also uncovered that repeated oral reading does have an impact
on the rate and accuracy of struggling readers. They all agree that improved fluency will
positively impact a students ability to read in general. The sources also indicate that some sort
of direct instruction with immediate student feedback is essential to the success. A critical point
to remember is that repeated oral reading is an important part of an overall reading program for
struggling readers.
Research Implications

WTS 1 and 2

page !14 of 31
!

My essential question to guide research was How does repeated reading as a strategy
impact students accuracy and rate in the fluency of struggling readers? Through my research, I
found promising results. Repeated reading seems to have a positive influence on a students
fluency and overall comprehension. Rereading text is a strategy that I encourage my students to
utilize in the regular education setting. I had never done any direct instruction related to repeated
reading before.
After reading through everything, I found that many of the activities I had incorporated
into my groups were important elements in an overall reading program. To improve my students
long term fluency in accuracy and rate, I need to concentrate on a couple of things. There were
three key elements that Therrien (2004) emphasized in his article and that were also common
among the other references. He emphasized that there should be an adult to facilitate the
repeated reading, corrections and immediate feedback, and that the passage is read until the
student reaches his/her wcpm goal. I also felt that I needed to ensure that the wcpm goal was
appropriate for my student, taking into account his/her grade and ability level. Now that I know
repeated reading will have a positive effect on my students, it is a matter of finding the
appropriate program or routine with each my students. The HELPS program seem to be an
appropriate choice and seems easy to implement. I plan to incorporate a repeated reading
program into the activities that we already do in the classroom, giving my students as much of a
comprehensive reading program as possible. This will allow students to learn from multiple
strategies. The repeated reading at an appropriate level will make the learning more meaningful
for each individual student.

WTS 1 and 2

page !15 of 31
!

Research-based Action
Action Plan Outline
1. Rather than design a completely new timed repeated oral reading program, I was able
to find several examples through the research. Initially I had one program in mind, but I wanted
to see what the research said about repeated reading before I made a decision. I will implement
the HELPS Program repeated reading. It already incorporates many of the important features of
a repeated reading program.
2. Deliver the HELPS timed oral reading program to eleven of my thirteen low readers.
They all require some sort of direct fluency instruction. One student will not receive the
repeated reading program because it is inappropriate for him as a reader, he will get more
phonics-based instruction. Another student is cross-programmed with the cognitive disabilities
program for reading, therefore he will also not receive HELPS instruction. Each student will
receive at least two, one-on-one direct instruction lessons per week.
3. Assess outcomes and growth of my students. Compare graphical data from the HELPS
program, but also progress monitor students at grade level using the AIMSweb probes to see if
the growth also transfers to more challenging text.
Targeted Student Learning
1. Fluency: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.5.4 Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to
support comprehension.
2. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.5.4.a Read grade-level text with purpose and understanding.

WTS 1 and 2

page !16 of 31
!

*This particular common core standard is stated in each grade level, one through five. I
specified five just for consistency on both and ease. The common core state standard number
changes by replacing 5 with the appropriate grade level.
Task(s) and Essential Proficiency Criteria for Targeted Learning Objective(s)
1. Task: Student will increase fluency while reading text through repetitive one-onone direct instruction of timed repeated readings.
2. Criteria that Prove Proficiency in Meeting Targeted Learning Objective(s)
a. Student will complete all passages at their individual target wcpm goal.
b. Student is showing growth and reading more words per minute on the
HELPS program graph and other assessments, such as district or IEP assessments.
Method(s) to Assess Progress of Proficiency for Targeted Learning Objective(s)
1. PALS, AIMSweb data, and HELPS graphical data on students direct
instruction results.
Post-assessments
Instructional Insights Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
My initial observation and research of the HELPS program is that it seemed easy to
integrate into my weekly classroom activities. The program incorporates important features that
all of the research pointed out as important elements of a timed repeated reading program. Those
features include teacher modeling, corrective feedback, error practice, graphical data for students
to see their own progress, and set goals. The program also includes a quick verbal
comprehension check with students. It really emphasized what I learned about corrective
feedback and modeling for the students with the research. I felt that this was something that was

WTS 1 and 2

page !17 of 31
!

lacking in my reading instruction. After all, the goal is to improve their fluency ability; and
eventually improve their comprehension and success in the regular education classroom. In
addition, I appreciated the fact that the HELPS program had placement assessments to determine
where to start students. I work hard with my students in understanding that they are all different
and often receive different assignments from me. My goal is to provide materials that challenge
the students at their independent learning levels.
Comparison of Student Performance Related to Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
The students responded and seemed excited to see the graphical data of their
improvement on individual passages. Students also responded well to the modeling and error
correction routine of the HELPS program, which resulted in very little repetition of initial errors
by the students. Some students seemed annoyed at first when they realized they had to repeat a
passage, but that was often replaced by the excitement of seeing their individual growth on the
graph. Artifact C is several graphs that represent my students fluency with the HELPS program.
The first data point is the baseline score (see artifact B). The rest of the data points are the
students fluency (wcpm) scores, so far, from the HELPS program and passages. Every circled
data point represents a new passage and errors are shown with a X. Also, the HELPS program
has the instructor graph the first timed reading and the third (final) timed reading for each
session. The HELPS program also recommends that if a student does not meet their wcpm goal,
the instructor moves on to a new passage after three sessions. However, in my research I
discovered that it is recommended to have to student read a passage until they meet his/her wcpm
goal for long-term fluency success. Consequently, I decided to adapt the program and only have
students move on to a new passage after they meet, or surpass, their wcpm goal.

WTS 1 and 2

page !18 of 31
!

I discovered several interesting things after examining my graphs (artifact C). Students
K, E A, and C are showing nice continued growth, but have not met the wcpm goal on one
passage yet. If you look at artifact B these students tend to have the largest grade level gaps in
fluency. Repeated reading seems to be very successful for students J, I, F, and B. They have
been able to have instruction on two or more passages after several instructional sessions. Take
notice of Student Bs gap. He was reading 128 wcpm after passage one for the first time, and he
read 63 wcpm after reading passage two for the first times. I believe this is due to the fact that he
did not have his glasses that day. Student B is the one who is closest to his grade level peers.
One student, I, has been through a few sessions and has been able to pass a passage with each
session (except for the last time), this may indicate that she is reading passages that are too easy
for her. Student D has only had two sessions (a baseline and four data points), however he seems
to be making continued growth. One student, who is qualified under OHI, has extremely
inconsistent attendance. This is represented in her data because she has had only one direct
instruction session and has yet to meet the wcpm goal. There is not much I can do if the student
does not come to school. Student H made nice progress and met the wcpm goal after two
sessions. I also noticed that most of my students, except H and D, show data that is typical with
SLD students. The students wcpm and error data points do not make straight lines. There is a
lot of up and down behavior with these students due to their learning style. Another thing that I
noticed is that when my students wcpm increases, their errors also decrease, which is what I am
looking for in a repeated reading program. Overall, I am very pleased with these trends and data
points.

WTS 1 and 2

page !19 of 31
!

It is hard to give a complete comparison considering the amount of time since

implementation. It has only been about two weeks and students overall fluency scores on cold
reads would not be impacted too much yet. See Artifact C to examine students current progress
in the HELPS program. I look forward to progress monitoring students on the AIMSweb RCBM passages and collecting data to see if this impacts grade level passages.
Comparison of Learning Environment While Learning Targeted Objective(s)
I began to pull students in a one-on-one setting. My goal was to ensure that each student
met with me at least twice a week to work. In my classroom I continued to incorporate the
numerous reading activities that I was previously using. While I was working one-on-one, I had
other students work on other independent tasks including: word family work, decoding work,
sight word/fast phrase work, read with someone, listen to reading, other word work, writing, and
much more. My students had to get into the new routine of letting me work with a student and
how solve problems independently. Two students struggled with being slightly more
independent while I pulled other students. However, I think given enough time they will adjust.
Students are able to move around to do a couple learning activities in this set up, which is nice
for my students who struggle with focus. I look forward to seeing how HELPS affects my
students in the long term.
Reflection of Entire Learning Process
Overall, I enjoyed the learning process. I had been wanting to implement the HELPS
program to see if it was worthwhile. I really relished the opportunity to do the research on it. I
am anxious to see how functional this program is in a classroom. It will be interesting to see if it
is worth recommending to my colleagues as a Tier II or Tier III intervention.

WTS 1 and 2

page !20 of 31
!

I faced several challenges along the way. First, the time frame to truly research,
implement, and get data was limited. The other challenges I ran into were: two days of parent
teacher conferences (no school), several field trips, several longer absences by students, and
completing district required assessments (i.e. PALS, AIMSweb, and DRA). I also had to do
initial placement assessments of the HELPS program to determine where to place students.
Finally, I was transitioning back to work after several weeks off for surgery as well. I want to
continue to progress monitor students at grade level with AIMSweb. However, we just
completed the appropriate grade level fall screeners and I want to give students more time with
the HELPS program before I assessed them again. As stated above, it is hard to make a true
comparison with a limited numbers of direct instruction lessons of the repeated reading.
What Worked and Why
1. The students enjoyed seeing individual progress on the first couple meetings.
2. It was a relatively easy (except the placement tests) to adapt into my classroom and
daily activities.
What Did Not Work and Why
1. There was not enough time to research, implement, and get adequate data due to time
and school circumstances.
2. I did not realize the amount of time needed to do the placement tests. It took about
twice as long as I had expected.
My Next Steps
1. Continue to implement HELPS program more consistently.
2. Continue to collect data over the school year and look at long term results.

WTS 1 and 2

page !21 of 31
!

References
Begeny, J., Braun, L., Lynch, H., Ramsay, A., & Wendt, J. (2012). Initial evidence for using the
HELPS reading fluency program with small instructional groups. School Psychology
Forum, 6(3), 50-63.
Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions
for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities.
Journal Of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386-406. doi:10.1177/00222194020350050101
Guzel-Ozmen, R. (2011). Evaluating the effectiveness of combined reading interventions on
improving oral reading fluency of students with reading disabilities. Electronic Journal
Of Research In Educational Psychology, 9(3), 1063-1086.
Honig, B., Diamond, L., & Gutlohn, L. (2008). Teaching reading sourcebook (Second ed.).
Berkeley, CA: Consortium on Reading Excellence, Inc.
Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction:
What, why, and how?. Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702-714.
Malouf, R. C., Reisener, C.D., Gadke, D.L., Wimbish, S. W., & Frankel, A.C. (2014). The effect
of helping early literacy with practice strategies on reading fluency for children with
severe reading impairments. Reading Improvement, 51 (2), 269 - 279.
Strickland, W. D., Boon, R. T., & Spencer, V. G. (2013). The effects of repeated reading on the
fluency and comprehension skills of elementary-age students with learning disabilities
(LD), 2001-2011: A review of research and practice. Learning Disabilities: A
Contemporary Journal, 11(1), 1-33.

WTS 1 and 2

page !22 of 31
!

Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and Comprehension Gains as a Result of Repeated Reading: A

meta-analysis. Remedial & Special Education, 25(4), 252-261. doi:
10.1177/07419325040250040801
Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006). Effect of a combined repeated reading and
question generation intervention on reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice (Wiley-Blackwell), 21(2), 89-97. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00209.x

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

WTS 1 and 2

page !23 of 31
!

Artifact A
My goal is to improve my students fluency in accuracy and rate (wcpm). This table
shows the 2013 - 2014 fluency assessment results of my students. These scores are results from
reading intervention that I provided last school year. The numbers represent growth or lack of
significant growth. All, except one, were unable to dramatically close the grade level gap. ORL
represents oral reading level and is measured in wcpm.

Student

Grade Level

Fall ORL

Winter ORL

Spring ORL

wcpm/errors

wcpm/errors

wcpm/errors

Grade Level
Expectation
at end of the
year

27/8

41/8

54/6

136

80/3

103/3

130/3

136

71/4

80/5

83/3

136

7/4

16/3

21/5

119

14/4

35/6

40/4

119

37/3

52/2

60/3

119

G*

77/9

98/3

106/1

136

H**

45/5

75/1

55/2

136

I**

19/6

58/4

73/3

119

J**

9/9

33/5

59/4

92

K**

N/A

5/4

26/6

53

* This student was at a different elementary school in my district last year and did not receive
any services from me.
**These students were not in my caseload last year, therefore did not receive an intervention
from me. However, these students were provided with Tier III interventions in fluency as part of
the SLD referral process.

Notice students A, C, and D did not have significant gains. These students failed to
make much progress on their DRAs as well. Students E and F made more gains, but not
significant enough to close the grade level gap.

!
!

WTS 1 and 2

page !24 of 31
!

Artifact B
My goal is to improve my students fluency in accuracy and rate (wcpm). This table
shows the 2014 fall fluency assessment results of my students. These scores will be used as a
baseline on my students before the HELPS intervention is implemented. They are considered a
baseline because the scores are from a median of three different passages. Out of these 11
students, only one is not significantly below grade level expectations.

Student

Grade Level

FALL

!
!

Grade Level
Expectation at end
of the year

wcpm/errors
A

27/15

143

128/2

143

77/5

143

43/6

136

33/7

136

51/3

136

G*

88/5

143

H**

64/8

143

I**

80/6

136

J**

47

92

K**

***

53

* This student was at a different elementary school in my district last year and did not receive
any services from me.
**These students were not in my caseload last year, therefore did not receive an intervention
from me. However, these students were provided with Tier III interventions in fluency as part of
the SLD referral process.
***Unable to get assessment results for this person. She scored between the pre-primer and
primer level on PALS. PALS does not document wcpm until students is reading at first grade
level. Last school year during her Tier III intervention, she scored 26 wcpm with 6 errors on the
AIMSweb R-CBM (fluency) screener.

!
!
!
!

WTS 1 and 2

page !25 of 31
!

Artifact C
My goal is to improve my students fluency in accuracy and rate (wcpm). These graphs
represent my students fluency with the HELPS program. The first data point is the baseline
score (see artifact B). The rest of the data points are the students fluency scores, so far, from the
HELPS program and passages. See analysis on pages 17 - 19.

!
!

WTS 1 and 2

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

page !26 of 31
!

WTS 1 and 2

!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

page !27 of 31
!

WTS 1 and 2

!
!

!
!
!

page !28 of 31
!

WTS 1 and 2

!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!

page !29 of 31
!

WTS 1 and 2

!
!

!
!

page !30 of 31
!

WTS 1 and 2

page !31 of 31
!

Student
Assessment Rubric Category
3

Pre-assessments

Research and Implications, Action Plan

Post-assessments of Instruction (compares to pre-assessment)

Post-assessments of Student Performance, Learning Environment

Reflection of Entire Learning Process

Artifacts

Conventions and Writing Proficiency

Overall Evidence of Masters Level Teaching Attributes

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!