Effects of a Digital Fluency-Based Reading Program for Students with Significant Reading Difficulties

Abstract

Fluency is one of the critical factors necessary for proficient reading due to its connection with reading comprehension yet many students with reading difficulties struggle to become efficient readers of connected text. The purpose of the current study was to examine the effects of a digital reading fluency program that incorporates evidence-based practices such as repeated reading, immediate error correction, modeling, and graphing of performance to improve the oral reading fluency of four elementary students with significant reading difficulties. Using a single-case, multiple probe across participants design, results indicated the Great Leaps Digital Reading Program was an effective intervention for increasing the oral reading fluency of both within-program and grade-level reading passages. Implications of results and future research are discussed.

Keywords

technology-based intervention fluency intervention repeated reading oral reading fluency

The need to develop proficient readers has been an emphasis in elementary schools for many years. However, results from the 2019 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2019) show that only 35% of all fourth-grade students performed at or above the proficient level of performance in reading while 66% performed at the basic level. Of more concern is that only 12% of fourth-grade students with disabilities performed at or above the proficient level while 30% performed at or above the basic level (NCES, 2019). Furthermore, although 4^th grade students without disabilities have improved their reading performance since 2002, students with disabilities reading performance have declined (NCES, 2019). This trend suggests that despite our best efforts, students with disabilities are not receiving the instruction needed to become proficient readers.

Reading fluency—the ability to read with accuracy, rate, and expression—is one of the critical factors necessary for proficient reading (Chard et al., 2002; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHHD], 2000; Stevens et al., 2017). It is considered a bridge between word recognition and comprehension because a fluent reader can concentrate on understanding the meaning of the text rather than decoding words (Laberge & Samuels, 1974; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). Despite this, findings from observational research examining reading components taught by special educators indicate it is not given as much attention as other reading components for upper-grade elementary students. For example, Swanson and Vaughn (2010) observed special educator’s reading instruction for students with learning disabilities in grades 2 through 5. They found that fluency instruction represented only 8.9% of the total observed instructional time. Additionally, Cuillo et al. (2019) observed special educator’s reading instruction for students with learning disabilities in grades 4 and 5. They found that fluency instruction represented only 7% of the total observed instructional time.

On a positive note, both studies found that most fluency instruction was delivered through repeated reading of the text. Repeated reading involves students orally reading a passage a specific number of times or until a desired criterion is met (Wexler et al., 2008). Repeated reading has been empirically supported as a supplementary intervention for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. For example, Chard et al. (2002) and Stevens et al. (2017) conducted systematic reviews of effective reading interventions and their findings indicated repeated reading improved students’ reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension. Furthermore, explicit modeling of fluent reading, providing immediate error correction, and establishing criteria for gradually increasing text difficulty were also associated with improving both fluency and comprehension (Chard et al., 2002; Stevens et al., 2017).

Great Leaps Digital Reading Program

The Great Leaps Reading Program (GLRP; Campbell, 1998) is a supplementary reading program that involves repeated practice of phonics, sight phrases, and story passages to increase oral reading fluency (ORF). The program incorporates many of the evidence-based strategies that Chard et al. (2002) and Stevens et al. (2017) found to be effective for students with reading difficulties. These include the use of repeated reading, providing immediate error correction, modeling of appropriate reading, teaching to mastery, systematically increasing difficulty, and graphing of performance to improve reading fluency. Studies have shown GLRP to be effective in increasing ORF across a variety of settings and students; including middle school students with reading disabilities (Lingo, 2014; Mercer et al., 2000; Pruitt, 2000), elementary students with and at-risk for reading disabilities (Pruitt, 1999; Walker et al., 2005), and students in self-contained special education classrooms (e.g., Houchins et al., 2004; Scott & Shearer Lingo, 2002; Spencer & Manis, 2010).

Recently, Great Leaps has introduced a digital version of the reading program. The Great Leaps Digital Reading Program (GLDRP; digital.greatleaps.com) is a web-based program that can be used with devices such as a desktop computer, tablet computer, or mobile device. Although similar to the original GLRP, the digital program has several advantages over the print version such as automatic passage placement based on previous performance and immediate display of student data (raw and equal ratio chart) for visual analysis. These features help make implementation easier and more efficient for the teacher to implement as well as ensuring that student data are collected accurately. Furthermore, it allows sharing and transferring of data so teachers can share with parents, administrators, or other teachers.

Research suggests there is promising evidence that technology-based interventions can be used to improve the reading outcomes for students with reading difficulties (Alqahtani, 2020). For example, a meta-analysis conducted by Cheung and Slavin (2013) found small group technology-based reading interventions had a moderate effect size of (d = 0.32) for struggling readers. Additionally, research has shown that technology-based reading interventions increase students’ engagement and motivation (Bryant et al. 2015). Specifically, studies have shown that technology-based fluency interventions are effective for increasing oral reading fluency (e.g., Barber et al., 2018; Bennett et al., 2017; Mize et al., 2020), comprehension (e.g., Council et al., 2016; Gibson et al., 2014), and student engagement (Musti-Rao et al., 2015).

The goal of the present study was to extend the literature on Great Leaps by examining the effects of GLDRP for students with reading difficulties. Specifically, the study attempted to answer the following research questions:

1. What are the effects of implementing the GLDRP on the oral reading fluency of within-program passages for fourth and fifth grade students with reading difficulties?

2. What are the effects of implementing the GLDRP on the oral reading fluency of generalized passages (grade level material) for fourth and fifth grade students with reading difficulties?

3. Do teachers and students perceive the GLDRP to be socially valid?

Method

Participants and Setting

Four students were identified for inclusion in the study, based on the following criteria: (a) they were identified by their teacher as struggling in the area of reading; (b) they had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) with specified goals that were written to address their reading concerns; and (c) their grade-level oral reading fluency rate fell below the 10th percentile using Hasbrouck and Tindal’s (2017) Oral Reading Fluency Norms. The updated norms were compiled using data from three commercially available ORF assessments that were validated with samples that included students receiving services for special education (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2017). See Table 1 for demographic data pertaining to each of the selected participants.

Table 1.

Participant Demographic Information.

	Participants
	Jordyn	Clark	Royce	Donovan
Placement category	MMD¹	SLD²-reading	SLD-reading	SLD-reading
PRF winter benchmark percentile	0	0	3	2
Gender	Female	Male	Male	Male
Grade-level	5	4	4	5
Daily hours in special education	3	1	1	1
Level of placement	Resource	Resource	Resource	Resource
Race/Ethnicity	White	White	White	White

Note. 1 = Mild Mental Disability; 2 = Specific Learning Disability

Jordyn was a ten-year-old white fifth grade student identified with a mild intellectual disability. When provided with a fifth-grade level passage, Jordyn orally read 10 correct words per minute (CWPM) with nine errors which falls significantly below the 10th percentile (80 CWPM) for the beginning of fifth grade.

Donovan was a ten-year-old white fifth grade student identified with a specific learning disability in reading. When provided with a fifth-grade level passage, Donovan orally read 55 correct words per minute (CWPM) with four errors which falls below the 10th percentile (80 CWPM) for the beginning of fifth grade.

Clark was a nine-year-old white fourth-grade student identified with a specific learning disability in reading. When provided with a fourth-grade level passage, Clark orally read 12 correct words per minute (CWPM) with 12 errors which falls significantly below the 10^th percentile (60 CWPM) for the beginning of fourth grade.

Royce was a nine-year-old white fourth-grade student identified with a specific learning disability in reading. When provided with a fourth-grade level passage, Royce orally read 50 correct words per minute (CWPM) with three errors which falls below the 10th percentile (60 CWPM) for the beginning of fourth grade.

The setting for the study was a special education resource classroom in a public elementary school in a large Midwestern city. The school had an enrollment of 421 students and 82% of the population were eligible for free and reduced lunch. A third-year special education teacher implemented the program in a resource room for all sessions. He held state level dual-certification in elementary education (K-5) and learning and behavior disorders (K-12). Sessions lasted between five to 7 minutes per student and occurred at various times of the day, depending on the student’s schedule.

Materials

Materials included student subscriptions to the GLDRP (https://digital.greatleaps.com) and two tablet computers (e.g., iPad) connected to the internet. The GLDRP program includes within-program story passages that gradually increase in difficulty (i.e., grade level, number of words). For participants in this study, the within-program passages ranged from probe one (first-grade level, 36 total words) to probe 35 (third grade level, 97 total words). Generalization passages consisted of grade-level curriculum-based measurement (CBM) passage reading fluency probes from easyCBM (Alonzo et al., 2006).

Procedures

Each session included a one-minute timing in each of three sections: Phonics, Sight Phrases, and Stories. At the beginning of each session, the special education teacher would log into the GLDRP website with their username and password and click on the appropriate student’s name. He would then link the teacher and student tablets using a unique 5-digit code. Starting with the phonics section, the teacher would select the highlighted probe, which would then appear on the student’s device waiting to be selected. The same process would be used for the sight phrases section; however, the teacher needed to select the appropriate grade level (i.e., elementary, middle, or high) before selecting the student’s probe in the Stories section.

For each section, a student advanced to the next probe, or made a “great leap,” when he or she met the criterion of reading the entire probe within 1 minute with no more than two errors. The criterion of no more than two errors is equivalent to a student reading at their desired rate on their instructional level (e.g., 90 to 94% accuracy) or above. If the child did not meet criterion on the one-minute timing; the teacher would provide feedback on specific errors made, and the same probe would be highlighted for the next session. The program automatically documented student performance at the conclusion of each session using a semi-logarithmic graph. The graph included total number of words read per minute and errors. Additionally, a “great leap” was indicated by a highlighted line drawn on vertical session lines when the student met criterion.

During all oral reading fluency probes, errors were defined as (a) mispronunciations of sounds or words, (b) substitutions of wrong words, (c) pauses longer than 3 seconds, (d) omissions of sounds or words, (e) reversals of sounds or words, and (f) self-corrections longer than 3 seconds. Proper nouns mispronounced more than once and losing reading place each were counted as one error. Self-corrections within 3 seconds, additions and insertions of words not in the text, and dialectical mispronunciations the student uses in everyday conversation (e.g., articulation, pattern, or accent) did not count as errors.

Placement Procedures

The students were assessed by the first author per procedures for initial placement in the GLDRP. Students were asked to read a predetermined probe in each section and their performance determined where they would start in the program. For phonics and sight phrases, students were asked to read the last probe of section one. If the criterion of completing the probe within 1 minute with no more than two errors was met, the student would begin the program with the first probe of section two. If the student did not meet the criterion, they would begin the program with the first probe of the Great leaps digital reading program section. For stories, students were asked to read the last probe of section one. If the criterion of completing the probe within 1 minute with no more than two errors was met, they would then be assessed on the last probe of the next section. This process would continue until the student did not meet the criterion and then begin the program with the first probe of the section in which the criterion was not met.

Baseline Procedures

During baseline sessions, students were provided with a series of equivalent story passages at their instructional level as determined during the placement procedures. The baseline passages came from an older edition of the GLRP to prevent the students from encountering the same passages during intervention. The first author timed the student’s reading for 1 minute and recorded the number of correct words and number of errors. The phonics and sight phrases were not included in the baseline condition as the level of difficulty of the pages within these sections varied.

Teacher Training

Prior to implementation, the first author trained the teacher on implementing the GLDRP. The 30 min training consisted of (a) reviewing the procedural guidelines of the program, (b) modeling how to implement the program, followed by (c) the teacher practicing the program until the performance criterion of 100% accuracy was met. Once implementation of the intervention began, the first author met with the teacher at the end of each session to address any questions or implementation issues.

Instructional Procedures

The teacher was asked to conduct sessions at least 3 times a week and each session lasted approximately five to 7 minutes per participant. Each session consisted of completing a phonics probe, a phrases probe, and a stories probe. After linking the teacher and student tablets, the teacher would review the student’s previous day’s performance (graph only, not specific items missed) and remind them of criterion for making a “great leap.” Next, the teacher would select the highlighted probe and ensure the correct probe opened on the student’s device. The teacher would then ask the student to read the probe’s passage for 1 minute without reviewing or teacher modeling immediately beforehand. To conduct the one-minute timing of the within-program passage, the teacher would follow the following procedures: 1) prompt student to start reading while selecting “start” on the electronic probe; 2) immediately correct student errors and highlight on teacher’s device by clicking on error; 3) highlight the last word read by double-clicking word on screen. The one-minute timings were followed by an error correction procedure. The error correction procedure involved the teacher modeling the correct reading of the student’s errors and having the student repeat the model correctly.

The same procedures were used for the sight phrase section and the story passage section. The teacher would conclude the session by briefly summarizing the student’s reading performance from all three sections and briefly reminding the student of their goals for meeting criterion at the next tutoring session.

Generalization Procedures

Generalization probes occurred after every 10th session during the intervention condition. The probes consisted of grade-level CBM passage reading fluency (PRF) probes from easyCBM (Alonzo et al., 2006). Jordyn and Donovan were provided fifth-grade level PRF probes while Clark and Royce were provided fourth-grade level PRF probes. The first author administered the one-minute timing and recorded total words read, correct words read, and errors. A different grade-level passage was used for each session.

Experimental Design

A single-case, multiple probe design (Horner & Baer, 1978) was used to evaluate the effects of the GLDRP on participants’ oral reading fluency. When baseline data of the first participant’s passage reading probe was stable for at least three consecutive probes, the intervention was introduced to the first participant only while intermittent probes were given to the other participants. When the first participant reached the specified criterion of at least three data points of an increasing level or trend and the baseline data were stable for the second participant, the intervention was applied to the second participant while intermittent probes were given to the third and fourth participant. This schedule of implementation continued until all four students were in the intervention condition. Student performance on the phonics and phrases section were recorded but not part of the experimental design and baseline data were not collected on these variables.

The present study meets quality standards for single-case design as described by the What Works Clearinghouse (Kratochwill et al., 2010) by satisfying the following criteria: (a) the independent variables were systematically manipulated; (b) outcome variables were measured systematically over time by more than one assessor, and interassessor agreement was collected for at least 20% of all conditions; (c) the study included at least three attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect at three different points in time; and (d) and the study had a minimum of six phases with at least five data points per phase.

Analysis

Systematic visual analysis was used to evaluate changes in dependent measures across the multiple probe designs. Specifically, researchers evaluated if there were any changes in level, trend, stability, immediacy of effect, consistency of effect, and overlap within and across adjacent conditions for each tier (Ledford & Gast, 2018). Additionally, researchers conducted a vertical analysis to evaluate the degree of change (if any) across tiers prior to entering intervention. Prior to the introduction of the intervention, researchers conducted a within condition analysis for each tier. A stability envelope was used to evaluate the degree of stability across a series of data in each tier. If 80% of the data points fell on or within the 20% of the stability envelope (e.g., median value), the data would be considered stable.

The percentages of non-overlapping data point values (PND) were calculated to compare the data of the baseline and intervention conditions. The PND values were calculated by dividing the number of data points that fell outside the range of data-point values of the baseline condition by the number of data points in the intervention condition and multiplying by 100 (Ledford & Gast, 2018). PND can be interpreted with the following criteria: 0.70 or lower = small or questionable effect; between 0.70 and 0.90 = moderate effects; and more than 0.90 = large effects (Scruggs et al., 1987). To supplement visual analysis, an online Tau-U calculator (Vannest et al., 2016) was used to compute effect size and demonstrate improvement of the data between baseline and intervention conditions. Tau-U can be interpreted with the following criteria: 0.20 or lower = weak or small effect; between 0.20 and 0.60 = medium to high effect; between 0.60 and 0.80 = large effect; and between 0.80 and 1.00 = large to very large effect (Parker et al., 2011; Vannest & Ninci, 2015).

Reliability

Reliability measures on the dependent and independent variable were collected by the first author and a trained graduate student for a minimum of 20% of sessions during both baseline and intervention conditions. Dependent variable reliability was collected on both reading accuracy and reading rate. For reading accuracy, data was collected on the total number of sounds or words in the passage, number of sounds or words read by the student, and number of errors. Reliability was calculated using the point-by-point method in which the number of agreements divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements multiplied by 100. Similarly, dependent variable reliability on reading rate was assessed with the point-by-point method based upon agreement on the last word read—within a range of two words—when the timer sounded at the end of the one-minute timings. The dependent variable reliability data was 100% for the observed sessions.

Independent variable reliability data were collected using a teacher fidelity checklist adapted from Lingo (2014; see Table 2). Procedural reliability data were calculated using the following formula: number of observed behaviors divided by the number of planned tutor behaviors divided by 100. Results of the procedural fidelity data showed the teacher completed an average of 96% of the observed intervention procedures. Furthermore, to provide evidence that procedural fidelity data was accurate, interobserver agreement (IOA) was conducted by the first author and a trained graduate student for at least 20% of the sessions. The percentage of IOA on the fidelity checklist was 100%.

Table 2.

Great Leaps Digital Procedural Checklist.

Sections	Procedures
Phonics	1. Reviewed previous day’s performance 2. Presented student with correct phonics probe 3. Conducted one-minute timing appropriately 4. Recorded errors on the teacher probe 5. Immediate feedback given for errors 6. Recorded last word read by student on teacher probe 7. Modeled correct responses 8. Practiced correct responses 9. Selected submit to record performance
Sight phrases	1. Reviewed previous day’s performance 2. Presented student with correct sight phrase probe 3. Conducted one-minute timing appropriately 4. Recorded errors on the teacher probe 5. Immediate feedback given for errors 6. Recorded last word read by student on teacher probe 7. Modeled correct responses 8. Practiced correct responses 9. Selected submit to record performance
Story passages	1. Reviewed previous day’s performance 2. Presented student with correct story passage probe 3. Conducted one-minute timing appropriately 4. Recorded errors on the teacher probe 5. Immediate feedback given for errors 6. Recorded last word read by student on teacher probe 7. Modeled correct responses 8. Practiced correct responses 9. Selected submit to record performance
Additional procedures	1. Gave student verbal praise for making a “great leap”

Social Validity

The special education teacher who implemented the intervention and the student participants were given a social validity questionnaire following the completion of the study. The special education teacher was asked to complete an adapted version of the Intervention Rating Profile-15 (IRP-15; Witt & Elliott, 1985). The IRP-15 is a 15-item survey that measures treatment acceptability and perceived effectiveness by asking the respondent to rate statements on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Higher scores on the survey would indicate higher acceptability and effectiveness of the intervention. The student survey consisted of four multiple-choice and open response questions. The multiple-choice questions included: 1) did you like doing the program; 2) do you think it helped you read better; 3) what was your overall effort; and (4 would you like to continuing doing the program. The open response asked them what they liked best about the program.

Results

The researchers analyzed the effects of the GLDRP on both with-in program reading passages and grade-level reading passages as well as evaluated the social validity of the intervention program. Results are presented using descriptive statistics, systematic visual analysis, and effect sizes (e.g., PND, Tau-U). Mean and standard deviations for within-program and grade-level reading passages are shown in Table 3 and individual and aggregated Tau-U effect size results for with-in program and grade-level reading passages are shown in Table 4.

Table 3.

Mean and Standard Deviation for With-in Program and Generalization Reading Passages.

Reading Passages	Participant	Correct Words Per Minute (CWPM)				Errors
		Baseline		Intervention		Baseline		Intervention
		M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
With-in Program	Jordyn	12.80	1.79	30.30	10.54	9.40	2.07	4.83	1.84
	Donovan	65.00	3.94	76.24	16.23	2.40	1.67	1.32	1.57
	Clark	15.40	3.29	33.17	10.76	8.60	1.14	3.04	2.68
	Royce	55.17	2.40	69.11	12.56	3.33	2.94	1.21	1.58
Grade-level	Jordyn	11.80	1.79	21.40	2.88	9.60	1.52	5.60	2.70
	Donovan	53.60	2.07	70.00	4.32	2.20	1.10	2.25	2.22
	Clark	10.60	1.52	18.00	1.63	10.60	2.19	6.50	0.58
	Royce	46.83	1.94	67.25	12.84	3.67	0.82	1.00	0.00

Table 4.

Tau-U Results with Confidence Intervals for With-in Program and Generalization Reading Passages.

Reading Passages	Participant	Correct Words Per Minute (CWPM)
Reading Passages	Participant	Tau-U	90% CI
With-in program	Jordyn	0.95	[0.49, 1.00]
	Donovan	0.64	[0.17, 1.00]
	Clark	0.94	[0.47, 1.00]
	Royce	0.75	[0.30, 1.00]
	Aggregate	0.82	[0.59, 1.00]
Grade-level	Jordyn	1.00	[0.33, 1.00]
	Donovan	1.00	[0.33, 1.00]
	Clark	1.00	[0.33, 1.00]
	Royce	1.00	[0.36, 1.00]
	Aggregate	1.00	[0.67, 1.00]

Note. Tau-U effect sizes 0.20 or lower = small effect, between 0.20 and 0.60 = moderate effect, between 0.60 and 0.80 = large effect, and 0.80 to 1.0 = large to very large effect.

With-in Program Reading Passages

Figure 1 reveals the correct words per minute (CWPM) and errors for each session in addition to each “great leap” made by the student for the with-in program passages. Visual analysis of Figure 1 reveals that each participant’s reading rate increased as a result of the GLDRP. Baseline data remained stable and reflected a decreasing trend before implementation of the intervention for each participant. Although there were instances of a reduction in CWPM on the next probe after a “great leap,” they were followed by an acceleration in performance to the criterion score. The percent of non-overlapping data between the baseline and intervention points ranged from 84% to 93%, suggesting the intervention had medium to large effect (Scruggs et al., 1987). The aggregated Tau-U effect size for CWPM was 0.82, suggesting the intervention had a large effect (Parker et al., 2011; Vannest & Ninci, 2015).

Figure 1.

Correct words per minute for within-program passages

Jordyn

Jordyn’s baseline mean reading rate was 12.80 CWPM with 9.40 errors (range, 10/7–15/11). Her mean reading rate during intervention was 30.30 CWPM with 4.83 errors (range, 13/5–51/5), which is an increase of 17.50 CWPM and decrease of 4.57 errors. Jordyn met criterion on one first-grade level story passage during the intervention. She met criteria on this passage within five sessions and spent the remaining 25 sessions on the second probe. Jordyn’s PND was 97%, with only two out of her 30 intervention points falling within or below her baseline range, suggesting the intervention had a large effect. Additionally, the Tau-U effect size of 0.95 suggests the intervention had a very high effect.

Donovan

Donovan’s baseline mean reading rate was 65.00 CWPM with 2.40 errors (range, 59/1–69/1). His mean reading rate during intervention was 76.24 CWPM with 1.32 errors (range, 97/0–39/7), which is an increase of 11.24 CWPM and decrease of 1.08 errors. Donovan reached criterion on 12 story passages, spanning from a late first-grade level to late second-grade level. The average number of sessions required for Donovan to make a “great leap” on the story passages was 1.92 sessions with a range of 1–4 sessions. Donovan’s PND was 92%, with only two of his 25 intervention points falling within or below his baseline range, suggesting the intervention had a large effect. Additionally, the Tau-U effect size of 0.64 suggests the intervention had a large effect.

Clark

Clark’s baseline mean reading rate was 15.40 CWPM with 8.60 errors (range, 10/8–18/10). His mean reading rate during intervention was 33.17 CWPM with 3.04 errors (range, 15/8–54/2), which is an increase of 17.77 CWPM and decrease of 5.56 errors. Clark reached criterion on two first-grade level story passages. Although it only took six sessions to make a “great leap” on the first story passage, Clark spent 15 sessions on the second probe and was currently working on the third probe at the conclusion of the study. Clark’s PND was 96%, with only one of his 24 intervention points falling within or below his baseline range, suggesting the intervention had a large effect. Additionally, the Tau-U effect size of 0.94 suggests the intervention had a very large effect.

Royce

Royce’s baseline mean reading rate was 55.17 CWPM with 3.33 errors (range, 52/4–58/1). His mean reading rate during intervention was 69.11 CWPM with 1.21 errors (range, 40/3–82/0), which is an increase of 13.94 CWPM and decrease of 2.12 errors. Royce reached criterion on 10 story passages, spanning from a late first-grade level to mid second-grade level. The average number of sessions required for Royce to make a “great leap” on the story passages was 1.7 sessions with a range of 1–3 sessions. Royce ‘s PND was 84%, with three out of 19 of his intervention points falling within or below his baseline range, suggesting the intervention had a medium effect. However, the Tau-U effect size of 0.75 suggests the intervention had a large effect.

Grade-Level Reading Passages

Grade level reading passages were administered every 10th session to determine if reading fluency gains generalized to grade level passages. Figure 2 reveals the correct words per minute (CWPM) and errors for each session made by the student for the grade level passages. Baseline data for each participant remained stable and reflected a decreasing trend before implementation of the intervention for each participant and a minimal but therapeutic change in level was observed within the first intervention session for each participant. Additionally, the percent of non-overlapping data between the baseline and intervention points was 100% and the aggregated Tau-U effect size was 1.00, suggesting the intervention had a very high effect (Parker et al., 2011; Scruggs et al., 1987; Vannest & Ninci, 2015).

Figure 2.

Correct words per minute for grade-level passages

Jordyn

During the baseline condition, Jordyn’s mean reading rate on grade-level passages was 11.80 CWPM with 9.60 errors (range, 10/10–14/8). Jordyn was administered five fifth-grade level reading passages during the intervention phase. Her mean reading rate during intervention was 21.40 CWPM with 5.60 errors (range, 18/4–25/7), which was an increase of 9.60 CWPM and decrease of 4.0 errors. Additionally, Jordyn’s PND was 100% and the Tau-U effect size was 1.00, suggesting the intervention had a very high effect.

Donovan

During the baseline condition, Donovan’s mean reading rate on grade-level passages was 53.60 CWPM with 2.20 errors (range, 50/2–55/2). Donovan was administered four fifth-grade level reading passages during the intervention phase. His mean reading rate during intervention was 70.00 CWPM with 2.25 errors (range, 64/5–74/0), which was an increase of 16.4 CWPM and also a slight increase of 0.05 errors. Additionally, Donovan’s PND was 100% and the Tau-U effect size was 1.00, suggesting the intervention had a very high effect.

Clark

During the baseline condition, Clark’s mean reading rate on grade-level passages was 10.60 CWPM with 10.60 errors (range, 9/12–12/7). Clark was administered four fourth-grade level reading passages during the intervention phase. His mean reading rate during intervention was 18.00 CWPM with 6.50 errors (range, 16/6–20/6), which was an increase of 7.40 CWPM and a decrease of 4.10 errors. Additionally, Clark’s PND was 100% and the Tau-U effect size was 1.00, suggesting the intervention had a very high effect.

Royce

During the baseline condition, Royce’s mean reading rate on grade-level passages was 46.83 CWPM with 3.67 errors (range, 45/5–50/3). Royce was administered four fourth-grade level reading passages during the intervention phase. His mean reading rate during intervention was 67.25 CWPM with one error (range, 58/1–86/1), which was an increase of 20.42 CWPM and a decrease of 2.67 errors. Additionally, Royce’s PND was 100% and the Tau-U effect size was 1.00, suggesting the intervention had a very high effect.

Social Validity

The special education teacher completed an adapted version of the IRP-15 (Witt & Elliott, 1985) to evaluate treatment acceptability and perceived effectiveness of the program. He strongly agreed (6) with all 15 statements. The resulting score of 90 indicate higher acceptability and effectiveness of the GLDRP. The student survey consisted of four multiple-choice and open response questions. Three out of four students indicated that they liked doing the GLDRP and all agreed that the program helped them become better readers. They also all thought that they put forth good effort during the sessions and would like to continue doing the program. As for what they liked best about the program, responses included “it helped me read better and I can get better at reading,” “I really liked the doing the sight words,” “stories were not too hard and not too easy,” and “I liked to read the stories and work with my teacher.”

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to extend the literature on Great Leaps Reading by examining the effects of the digital program. Specifically, the study examined if the GLDRP increased the correct words read per minute of within-program and grade-level passages of four elementary students with significant reading difficulties. Results indicate the GLDRP was an effective intervention for increasing the ORF of within-program passages. Every participant’s CWPM increased from baseline to intervention on within-program passages only when the intervention was systematically applied. As a group, the participants gained an average of 12.52 CWPM and decreased errors by 3.1 from baseline to intervention. Additionally, the percent of non-overlapping data ranging from 84% to 93% and a Tau-U effect size of 0.82 suggests the intervention had a moderate or medium effect. These results add to the previous studies that support the GLRP as one possible intervention that can produce gains in the area of reading fluency for students with reading difficulties (Lingo, 2014; Mercer et al., 2000; Pruitt, 1999, 2000; Spencer & Manis, 2010).

Results also suggest the GLDRP was an effective intervention for increasing the ORF of grade-level passages. Every participant’s CWPM increased from baseline to intervention on grade-level passages only when the intervention was systematically applied. As a group, the participants gained an average of 11.35 CWPM and decreased errors by 2.44 from baseline to intervention. Additionally, the percent of non-overlapping data of 100% and a Tau-U effect size a 1.00, suggests the intervention had a very high effect (Parker et al., 2011; Scruggs et al., 1987; Vannest & Ninci, 2015). The increase in CWPM is consistent with the literature on the effectiveness of repeated reading interventions that incorporate explicit modeling of fluent reading, provide immediate error correction, and establish criteria for gradually increasing text difficulty (Chard et al., 2002; Stevens et al., 2017).

Although results are positive, there are a few caveats that need to be addressed for practical considerations. First, it should be noted that two participants struggled to meet the criteria to make a “great leap” and move to another within-program passage. Jordyn needed 25 attempts to meet the criterion for the first within-program passage and Clark needed 15 attempts to meet the criterion for his second within-passage. For this study, the decision was made to allow the students to continue with the same passage until they earned the necessary criteria to advance to the next passage or they become visibly frustrated. Neither Jordyn nor Clark showed frustration, so they remained on the same passage. In practice, a teacher will want to closely monitor the student’s performance and provide adaptations as needed. This can include providing a motivation system to maximize attentiveness and accurate reading and/or having the student read the next passage to determine if the struggle was specific to the prior reading passage. Second, both Jordyn and Clark’s mean accuracy rate of both within-program and grade-level passages were also below the recommended accuracy rate of at least 97% (Carnine et al., 2017). In practice, a teacher will want to analyze error patterns to determine the cause of the errors and provide extra practice on these skills. Errors can include phonic errors or context-related errors (e.g., over- or under-reliance on the context of the story; Carnine et al., 2017).

It should also be noted that although participants’ results on grade-level passages were positive, it is still significantly below their grade-level expectations. For example, the 50^th percentile for oral reading fluency winter benchmark is 130 CWPM for fourth grade and 149 CWPM for fifth grade. Jordyn and Clark’s mean CWPM placed them in the first percentile of their respective grades, while Donovan and Royce’s mean CWPM placed them in the fourth and eighth percentile of their respective grades. In practice, a teacher would use these benchmarks to determine which students are making progress and which students need additional assistance. When working with students significantly below desired reading rates, it is recommended that the short-term goals are set 30 to 40% higher than the student’s current reading rate (Carnine et al., 2017).

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations of this study have been identified and should be considered when interpreting current findings as well as conducting future research. First, although the teacher was asked to conduct sessions at least 3 times a week, this did not consistently occur due to issues that included student and teacher absences along with times school was not in session (e.g., fall break, Thanksgiving break, winter break). Collectively, students received the intervention at least 3 times a week for a little over 50% of the 11 weeks of intervention. The inconsistent implementation may have impacted student progress and/or momentum. Future research should seek to implement the program at least three times weekly to ensure maximum effectiveness.

Second, the intervention was limited to four student participants for 12 weeks and included no maintenance measures. It would be useful to determine if the intervention had been implemented for an extended period, if the participants would have made even more progress. Therefore, questions remain about the length and magnitude needed for significant and long-term change. Future research should consider increasing the number of participants and length of time the program is implemented.

Third, there was only one special education teacher for this study and his participation was voluntary. For this reason, social validity outcomes assessing the treatment acceptability and perceived effectiveness of the program should be interpreted with caution. Future research should include multiple special education teachers across schools to effectively evaluate treatment acceptability and perceived effectiveness of the program.

Fourth, as previously discussed, the ability to read fluently is considered a critical bridge between word recognition and reading comprehension because a fluent reader can concentrate on understanding the meaning of the text rather than decoding words (Laberge & Samuels, 1974; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). However, the current study did not directly assess students’ reading comprehension skills. Future research should include comprehension measures to determine if growth in fluency is associated with reading comprehension outcomes.

Finally, the practicality and adoption of the digital version of the program versus the print version of the program is dependent on cost. At the time of this study, an annual subscription to the digital program was $129 per student while the print edition can be continuously used for an unlimited number of students and for many years. Special education teachers will need to take this into account when making the decision of which program to purchase.

More and more, technology is having an increased influence on the teaching and learning process. Technology-based interventions are allowing special education teachers efficient and effective ways to provide students with reading difficulties individualized reading instruction needed to be successful in reading. The GLDRP appears to be a promising intervention that special education teachers can implement in a resource setting to increase their student’s oral reading fluency. Additionally, the program only takes 15 minutes a day, three to 5 days per week of one-to-one instruction which is both practical and efficient for teachers to implement.

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

Todd Whitney

Author Biographies

Todd Whitney is an Assistant Professor of Special Education in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Louisville. His research focuses on academic and behavioral interventions for students with disabilities and the effective use of evidence-based instructional practices to increase student engagement.

Kera B. Ackerman is an Assistant Professor of Special Education at the University of Kentucky. Her research interests include preand in-service teacher training and the use of high leverage and evidence-based practices in inclusive settings.

References

Alonzo

Tindal

Ulmer

Glasgow

(2006). easyCBM® online progress monitoring assessment system. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching. http://easycbm.com

Alqahtani

S. S.

(2020). Technology-based interventions for children with reading difficulties: A literature review from 2010 to 2020. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 3495–3525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09859-1

Barber

Cartledge

Council

III. Konrad

Gardner

Telesman

A. O.

(2018). The effects of computer-assisted culturally relevant repeated readings on English learners’ fluency and comprehension. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 16(2), 205–229.

Bennett

J. G.

Gardner

III. Cartledge

Ramnath

Council

M. R.

III. (2017). Second-grade urban learners: preliminary findings for a computer-assisted, culturally relevant, repeated reading intervention. Education and Treatment of Children, 40(2), 145–185. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2017.0008

Bryant

B. R.

Kim

M. K.

M. W.

Kang

E. Y.

Bryant

D. P.

Lang

Son

S. H.

(2015). A comparison of the effects of reading interventions on engagement and performance for fourth-grade students with learning disabilities. Behavior Modification, 39(1), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445514561316

Campbell

K. U.

(1998). Great leaps reading (4th ed.). Gainesville, FL: Diarmuid, Inc.

Carnine

D. W.

Silbert

Kame’enui

E. J.

Slocum

T.A.

Tarvers

(2017). Direct instruction reading (6th ed.). London, UK: Pearson.

Chard

D. J.

Vaughn

Tyler

B-J.

(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. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350050101

Cheung

A. C.

Slavin

R. E.

(2013). Effects of educational technology applications on reading outcomes for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.50

10.

Council

M. R.

III. Cartledge

Green

Barber

Gardner

III. (2016). Reducing risk through a supplementary reading intervention: A case study of first-and second-grade urban students. Behavioral Disorders, 41(4), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.17988/bedi-41-04-241-257.1

11.

Cuillo

Ely

McKenna

J. W.

Alves

K. D.

Kennedy

M. J.

(2019). Reading instruction for students with learning disabilities in grades 4 and 5: An observation study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(2), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718806654

12.

Gibson

Jr. Cartledge

Keyes

S. E.

Yawn

C. D.

(2014). The effects of a supplementary computerized fluency intervention on the generalization of the oral reading fluency and comprehension of first-grade students. Education and Treatment of Children, 37(1), 25–51. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2014.0003

13.

Hasbrouck

Tindal

(2017). An update to compiled ORF norms (technical Report No. 1702) Behavioral research and teaching. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon.

14.

Horner

R. D.

Baer

D. M.

(1978). Multiple probe technique: A variation of the MB. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(1), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-189

15.

Houchins

D. E.

Gammel

Shippen

M. E.

(2004). Using a fluency-based reading intervention in an alternative setting: A case study. Beyond Behavior, 13(2), 7–12. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/24011167

16.

Kratochwill

T. R.

Hitchcock

Horner

R. H.

Levin

J. R.

Odom

S. L.

Rindskopf

D. M.

Shadish

W. R.

(2010). Single-case design technical documentation. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Document/229

17.

Laberge

Samuels

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

18.

Ledford

J. R.

Gast

D. L.

(Eds.), (2018). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed). England, UK: Routledge.

19.

Lingo

A. S.

(2014). Tutoring middle school students with disabilities by high school students: Effects on oral reading fluency. Education and Treatment of Children, 37(1), 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2014.0005

20.

Mercer

C. D.

Campbell

K. U.

Miller

M. D.

Mercer

K. D.

Lane

H. B.

(2000). Effects of a reading fluency intervention for middle schoolers with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15(4), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1207/sldrp1504_2

21.

Mize

Bryant

D. P.

Bryant

B. R.

(2020). Teaching reading to students with learning disabilities: Effects of combined iPad-assisted and peer-assisted instruction on oral reading fluency performance. Assistive Technology, 32(6), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2018.1559896

22.

Musti-Rao

Y. Y.

Plati

(2015). Using an iPad® app to improve sight word reading fluency for at-risk first graders. Remedial and Special Education, 36(3), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514541485

23.

National Center for Education Statistics (2019). National assessment of educational progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2019 reading assessments. Washington, D.C: Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

24.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, D.C: US Government Printing Office.

25.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

Davis

J. L.

Sauber

S. B.

(2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.00

26.

Pruitt

B. A.

(1999). The effects of great leaps reading implemented by senior citizen volunteers, on reading fluency of third grade students reading below grade level. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.

27.

Pruitt

B. A.

(2000). The effects of great leaps reading on the reading fluency of students served in special education: [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.

28.

Scott

T. M.

Shearer-Lingo

(2002). The effects of reading fluency instruction on the academic and behavioral success of middle school students in a self-contained EBD classroom. Preventing School Failure, 46(4), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880209604417

29.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Casto

(1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258700800206

30.

Spencer

S. A.

Manis

F. R.

(2010). The effects of a fluency intervention program on the fluency and comprehension outcomes of middle-school students with severe reading deficits. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(2), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00305.x

31.

Stevens

E. A.

Walker

M. A.

Vaughn

(2017). The effects of reading fluency interventions on the reading fluency and reading comprehension performance of elementary students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the research from 2001 to 2014. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(5), 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416638028

32.

Swanson

E. A.

Vaughn

(2010). An observation study of reading instruction provided to elementary students with learning disabilities in the resource room. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20484

33.

Vannest

K. J.

Ninci

(2015). Evaluating intervention effects in single-case research designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(4), 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12038

34.

Vannest

K. J.

Parker

R. I.

Gonen

Adiguzel

(2016). Single case research: Web based calculators for SCR analysis (Version 2.0) [Web-based application]. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University. http://www.singlecaseresearch.org

35.

Walker

Jolivette

Lingo

A. S.

(2005). Improving the reading fluency: A case study using the great leaps reading program. Beyond Behavior, 14(1), 21–27.

36.

Wexler

Vaughn

Edmonds

Reutebuch

C. K.

(2008). A synthesis of fluency interventions for secondary struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 21(4), 317–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9085-7

37.

Witt

J. C.

Elliott

S. N.

(1985). Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In Kratochwill

T. R.

(Ed.), Advances in School Psychology, (4, pp. 251–288). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

38.

Wolf

Katzir-Cohen

(2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_2