A Virtual Tutoring Program to Increase Students’ Text Reading Fluency

Abstract

Text reading fluency is an important reading goal for all students. Students with a known reading disability often need systematic and evidence-based instructional supports to reach grade-level benchmarks in fluency. A recent focus on high-impact tutoring practices has given attention to the virtual or remote implementation of programs. This article provides recommendations for educators interested in setting up and implementing fluency instruction virtually to improve elementary or middle school students’ text reading fluency. Key instructional elements and other considerations for virtual implementation are discussed.

Keywords

virtual tutoring remote tutoring fluency instruction oral reading fluency,HELPS Program

In the United States, the 2019 Nation’s Report Card published by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2021) showed that 34% of the nation’s fourth graders performed at or below basic level, 31% were at or above basic level, 26% were at or above proficient level, and only 9% were at the advanced level. Text reading fluency is one of the foundational literacy skills that elementary-age students must develop (National Reading Panel [NRP], 2000). Unfortunately, consistent with assessments of students’ reading comprehension, data continue to suggest that far too many students do not gain proficiency in reading fluency. For example, results from the 2018 National Assessment of Educational Progress oral reading fluency study indicated that 1.27 million fourth graders (36%) were below basic levels in fluency (White et al., 2021). A closer look at the data, based on student demographics, revealed differences based on race/ethnicity, English learner (EL) status, and disability. White et al. (2021) reported that 52% of Black fourth graders and 45% of Hispanic fourth graders performed below the basic level in comparison to 23% of White fourth graders. Students with EL status and students with disabilities showed similar patterns, both scoring below average levels in comparison to their non-EL peers and students without disabilities, respectively.

According to the Learning Disabilities Association of America (n.d.), about 75% to 80% of the students with a specific learning disability (LD) have identified needs in reading. Students with LD in reading often demonstrate difficulties in phonemic awareness (e.g., decoding words) and fluency (e.g., reading phrases and sentences with speed and accuracy; Chard et al., 2002). Efforts to address the reading gap and prevent students from LD classification have included the delivery of systematic, explicit, and intensive reading interventions using multi-tiered systems of supports (MTSS; Gersten et al., 2009). With limitations to the amount of time and personnel available to deliver these additional tiers of instruction during the regular school day, researchers have turned to out-of-school opportunities such as home-based tutoring, summer school instruction (Folsom et al., 2019; Logan et al., 2019), and after-school reading interventions (Katzir et al., 2013). There has been a focus on the need for high-impact tutoring that includes (a) substantial time allocated to tutoring each week, (b) strong relationships between students and their tutors, (c) close monitoring of skills and students’ progress, and (d) supervision of tutors to ensure quality interactions (Robinson & Loeb, 2021). With limited resources to provide one-on-one tutoring during the school day, Hirsch and McDaniel (2021) emphasized the need for educators to embrace opportunities for virtual learning to help address learning needs at home and/or school.

This article highlights the importance of reading fluency and outlines instructional steps that can be implemented virtually as part of a tutoring program to increase students’ text reading fluency. The terms “virtual” and “remote” instruction are used synonymously to describe synchronous instructional activities by a trained tutor (i.e., an adult) with a student. In a synchronous session, the tutor and the student meet online using a video conferencing platform such as Zoom, Google Meets, or Microsoft Teams that allows tutor–student interactions in real time. The steps are presented with the assumption that the students have a device at home (i.e., district-provided or student-owned) that allows video-based communication and that students have access to an Internet connection to participate in virtual tutoring. Also discussed in this article are key considerations for starting up a virtual tutoring program and ongoing considerations for ensuring the success of the program.

Fluency Instruction

Reading fluency has been defined as the ability to read text with accuracy, speed, and proper expression (National Reading Panel, 2000). The two foundational skills of reading fluency are word reading and phonological decoding (White et al., 2021). Word reading is the ability to read familiar words with speed and accuracy while phonological decoding is the ability to use phonics skills to read unfamiliar words accurately. Fluency instruction is paramount for students who are phonologically aware and have good decoding skills but continue to be dysfluent readers (Chard et al., 2002). The ability to automatically decode text allows readers to focus on the meaning of text which in turn aids in better comprehension (Kuhn, 2005). Therefore, an important element of reading fluency instruction is its focus on reading text using appropriate phrasing, intonation, and attention to punctuation (Rasinski et al., 2011).

Kuhn’s (2020) four principles of fluency instruction that maximize available instructional time include providing students with: (1) a model of fluent reading, (2) opportunities to read aloud, (3) sufficient scaffolds that include repeated readings of the passage, and (4) support for building prosodic elements of reading such as expression and appropriate pacing. Other explicit strategies that have shown to be effective in increasing reading fluency include systematic error correction and instruction in phrasing (Begeny et al., 2006; Rasinski et al., 2011), goal setting (Sweeney et al., 2003), and motivational reward strategies (P. L. Morgan & Sideridis, 2006).

Educators can choose an existing evidence-based intervention program that strategically integrates several of these strategies or they can opt to use evidence-based strategies as part of their daily instruction. Using a standardized program that strategically integrates most or all evidence-based strategies to improve specific literacy skills offers relative advantages compared with using isolated instructional strategies. For example, some standardized programs (a) have been shown in rigorous studies to be effective; (b) offer educators all needed materials for implementation (e.g., a curriculum of reading passages); (c) offer detailed implementation guidance through an instructor’s manual; (d) allow for time efficient ways to improve and document intervention fidelity; (e) are relatively easy to learn and affordable to access; and/or (f) can be logically integrated as part of frameworks for instructional support, such as MTSS.

Examples of Standardized Programs for Fluency Instruction

Over the years, at least some research has evaluated the impact of standardized programs available to educators, with some programs evidencing positive impacts at varying degrees of efficacy (Richardson, 2018). Although educators have multiple fluency-focused instructional programs to choose from, the programs that follow are often used in schools, have evidence of being beneficial for students with LD in reading, and are referenced in the most recent Practice Guide published by the What Works Clearinghouse (Foorman et al., 2016) to assist educators in evaluating reading instruction for students in kindergarten through third grade.

Great Leaps

The Great Leaps Reading Fluency program (Campbell, 1995) is an intervention that targets reading fluency and comprehension by incorporating letter recognition, phonics, high-frequency words, and stories. This program was designed to be implemented with students in Grades K–5 for 15 min, 5 days a week. Features of this program include modeled reading, goal setting, and performance feedback.

Read Naturally

Read Naturally (Hasbrouck et al., 1999) has a range of products: Read Naturally Masters Edition, Read Naturally Encore, Read Naturally Software Edition, and Read Naturally Live. At their core, the Read Naturally programs are evidence-based reading fluency and comprehension interventions for students in Grades 1 to 8 that include strategies such as modeling, repeated reading, and progress monitoring. The web-based programs (i.e., Read Naturally Software Edition and Read Naturally Live) also include phonics instruction.

Helping Early Literacy With Practice Strategies

The Helping Early Literacy With Practice Strategies (HELPS) program is a structured, evidence-based program designed to improve students’ oral reading fluency and confidence in reading. Published studies have evidenced the effectiveness of HELPS for a broad and diverse group of students, including but not limited to students in elementary and middle school, students with and without disabilities, students for whom English is or is not the student’s first language, and students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (Begeny et al., 2011). The HELPS program includes evidence-based strategies for building fluency, such as model reading, repeated reading, systematic error correction, verbal cueing, goal setting, performance feedback, and structured motivation systems (Begeny, 2009). Instructional sessions last approximately 15 to 20 min, and it is recommended that students receive at least three sessions per week.

Rationale for Describing the HELPS Program in Subsequent Examples

Although every evidence-based program has potential pros and cons depending on the educator’s needs and context, the HELPS One-on-One program is used as an example in subsequent sections of this article to highlight and illustrate some key elements that should be included in virtual tutoring designed to support text reading fluency. In addition to having consistency and continuity, the HELPS program is highlighted in this article for a few reasons.

First, HELPS was systematically adapted for virtual implementation and shown in multiple projects to offer significant benefits for students. Second, all HELPS program implementation and training materials are available for free, offered by Helps Education Fund, a U.S. 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that aims to develop and disseminate research-validated programs and services for a free or low cost. Educators who wish to access all the free materials simply need to download them from the Helps Education Fund website (see Table 1 for a list of website addresses). Prior research suggests that many educators can self-learn the program and use it with fidelity (e.g., Begeny et al., 2013). For educators who prefer to receive training and/or coaching from a certified HELPS trainer (or prefer to receive pre-assembled HELPS materials instead of freely downloading and printing them), these options are also available from Helps Education Fund for a free or low cost.

Table 1.

Websites That Provide Support for Text Reading Fluency.

Program	Link to website
Great Leaps program	https://greatleaps.com/
Read Naturally program	https://www.readnaturally.com/
HELPS program	https://www.helpseducationfund.org/programs-services/helps-one-on-one/
Wheel Spinner^a	https://wheeldecide.com
Online Games^a (e.g., UNO, tic-tac-toe, coloring, word games)	https://poki.com

Note. HELPS = Helping Early Literacy With Practice Strategies.

Examples of website options a teacher can use for motivational and rewards strategies when using the HELPS Program virtually with students.

Finally, research and practice with HELPS have consistently documented that the program can be used effectively and with fidelity (in-person or virtually) by a wide range of individuals, including but not limited to professionally credentialed educators (e.g., classroom teachers, special education teachers, school psychologists, school-based speech pathologists), teaching assistants, university students training to be teachers, and even parents or community volunteer tutors (Begeny et al., 2011; Mitchell & Begeny, 2014). As discussed by Begeny (2009), ensuring the widespread usability of HELPS was intentional as part of its research, development, and instructional design. This is reflected in its recommended training activities and implementation materials.

As shown in Figure 1, the HELPS flowchart summarizes and sequences core intervention steps that users can follow during each HELPS session with a student. The flowchart also serves as a guide to conceptualize the different strategies discussed in the next section of this article. As shown in Figure 1, every HELPS session begins with Steps 1 to 3. After Step 3, the teacher determines whether the student has met the Reading Goal (see bottom of Figure 1). If the Goal is met, the teacher then completes Steps 4a to 13a. If the student does not meet the Reading Goal, the teacher would instead complete Steps 4b to 12b. More extensive information about HELPS and how to implement it is available in the Instructor’s Manual (Begeny, 2009) and online (see respective link in Table 1). HELPS is a structured intervention program and, as with all evidence-based programs, it is most effective when implemented as intended.

Figure 1.

Implementation flowchart for HELPS one-on-one program.

Instructional and Motivational Components for Virtual Fluency Instruction

As illustrated in the HELPS Flowchart (see Figure 1), the following instructional and motivational components have been found to be effective in previous research. They are all systematically integrated into the sequence of HELPS program procedures, and whether the program is implemented virtually or in-person, HELPS provides tutors with clear and concise, scripted directions for each step, so the student knows exactly what to do throughout the session. A copy of the scripted directions is included in the HELPS Instructor’s Manual (Begeny, 2009). An abridged version is integrated within the following sections to illustrate how to implement the following instructional components listed in Figure 1.

Model Reading

In model reading, the teacher or tutor reads aloud to the student while the student follows along with the text before they attempt an independent reading of the text. Model reading has been shown to be effective in improving fluency and aiding comprehension (Chard et al., 2002). The abridged steps for the model reading procedure in a virtual HELPS setting are as follows:

Share the screen with the student showing the reading passage. Say to the student, “Now I am going to read today’s story to you. Please follow along with your finger, reading the words to yourself as I read them. Sometimes I will stop reading to make sure you are following along. When I stop, you need to tell me the next word in the story. If you read the correct word, this will show me you are reading along with me and doing your best.”

Read the passage at a comfortable reading rate and with good expression. Make sure the student is following along and prompt the student to do this, if necessary.

While reading the passage, stop five to seven times in order to have the student read the word that immediately follows the words you stopped at.

At the end of the activity, praise the students for their effort (as applicable).

Repeated Reading

In repeated reading, the student rereads a passage of text for a given time period until a predetermined fluency criterion is met (e.g., for third graders, 120 correct words per minute) or for a fixed number of repetitions (e.g., three times; Kuhn, 2005, 2020). While the student reads from the passage that is presented on the screen, the tutor typically marks the words read incorrectly on a hard copy of the passage. The tutor can either correct the errors using a scripted error correction procedure (Yurick et al., 2006) or wait until the student reads the passage and then use a phrase-drill error correction procedure. In the HELPS program, the tutor uses the student’s repeating reading of the text as a timed reading to determine a fluency score. The following are summarized steps for one reading in a repeated reading process.

Share the screen with the student showing the reading passage. Have a “teacher copy” of the reading passage in front of you to record student’s response.

Say to the student, “Here is a story that I would like you to read. When I say ‘Begin,’ start reading aloud at the top of the page and read across the page. Try to read each word. If you come to a word you don’t know, I’ll tell it to you. Do you have any questions? Be sure to do your best reading.”

Say, “Begin” and start the stopwatch when the student says the first word. At the end of the 1 minute mark, place a closed bracket after the last word read by the student.

Score the students’ words correct per minute (WCPM) and words incorrect per minute (WIPM) according to the Timed Reading Scoring Rules in the HELPS Instructor’s Manual (Begeny, 2009).

Teachers often ask what text should be used to support a student’s reading fluency. A systematically developed sequence of 100 reading passages (Begeny et al., 2009) is used with HELPS, and they are freely available for use with in-person or virtual HELPS. Along with this HELPS curriculum, a brief placement assessment (see Begeny, 2009) allows teachers to determine exactly where in the curriculum of passages each student should begin.

Phrase-Drill Error Correction

Providing corrective feedback is an important element of fluency instruction. Phrase-drill has shown to be effective in reducing errors in consequent rereading of the text (Begeny et al., 2006). The abridged steps for phrase-drill with virtual HELPS are as follows:

Say to the student, “Now we are going to practice some of the words you missed.”

Highlight the first error word, say the word, and then say, “Read this after I do. Again. Again.” Allow the students to read the phrase three times.

Repeat the above procedure for all unique error words in the passage (up to five error words or until time permits).

Praise the student for every two to three sets of phrase-drills.

Motivational Strategies

Explicitly designed motivational strategies are key to ensuring student engagement and participation (Martens & Witt, 2004) and have evidence of improving academic skills beyond what would be expected when only using instructional strategies in isolation (McBreen & Savage, 2021). Strategies such as goal setting, performance feedback, and the use of specific praise are incorporated into the HELPS program (Begeny, 2009), and the interconnected motivational strategies are all aligned with evidence-based practices.

As part of the virtual HELPS program, the student receives performance feedback on their reading in relation to the goal that was set for them (e.g., 120 WCPM). The performance feedback includes specific praise statements along with showing students their progress on a line graph. At the end of the session, the student can earn one or two stars on a “star chart” included in the student’s virtual folder. If a student lands on a “bonus bag” square, they spin a wheel on a website to earn up to five bonus stars. After enough stars are earned (usually across 2–3 weeks), the student earns a small reward from the virtual prize box. The virtual prize box was adapted from the physical prize box used when HELPS is implemented in person (see Begeny, 2009). In the virtual prize box, rather than a student earning a small reward (e.g., a pencil or sticker) after 2 to 3 weeks of HELPS sessions, the student chooses to play an online game like “tic-tac-toe” or “UNO” with the tutor for approximately 5 min or until the game is completed. Playing games together virtually also provides opportunities for tutors to build rapport with the student. Some useful links to the spinning wheel and free online games are provided in Table 1.

Using a Virtual Student Folder to Support Instruction

In most tutoring contexts, a student will have a student folder to maintain and organize tutoring information and/or documentation. In the case of virtual tutoring, the student folder is created in an electronic format. Using a “cloud” sharing program such as Google Sheets, educators can create a virtual student folder. Once a virtual folder is created, the file can be duplicated for multiple students who get the same tutoring. With virtual HELPS, the student folder was uniquely developed to include an attendance tracking form, a data sheet, an auto-generated graph linked to the data sheet, a star chart for the motivation system, and a progress tracking form (see Figure 2). The contents of the HELPS student folder (available in hardcopy or digital) that are made available to users further streamline the usability of HELPS.

Figure 2.

Example Progress Tracking Form (PTF) in virtual HELPS student folder for a third-grade student.

Attendance Tracker Form

The attendance tracker is the first worksheet tab and is used to log student attendance. The column headers for this form include date of session, name of tutor, student present (i.e., yes or no), and device used for the session. Such information is valuable for reviewing intervention dosage/frequency and general information about the session.

Data Sheet

The second worksheet tab includes the student’s performance on 1-min timed readings completed during each tutoring session. The column headers include date of session, ORF score for first and third timed-reading, and number of errors on the first and third timed-reading.

Student Graph

The third worksheet tab is linked to the data sheet described above and it automatically displays a line graph to show a student their progress toward their reading goal. Such visual displays of progress can be highly motivating for students, especially those with learning difficulties or disabilities. The graph also displays the number of errors made during the timed readings. A green goal line denotes whether the student reached or surpassed the reading goal for that passage. The goal line helps to improve student motivation and provides opportunities for verbal praise as the student nears or reaches their goal.

Star Chart

The fourth worksheet tab includes a star chart, which displays a series of boxes, with some boxes marked as “bonus star” and “prize box.” At the end of a session, based on the student’s progress and effort, the student earns one or two stars on the systematically developed Star Chart. With this, the tutor can easily copy and paste a symbol of a star into the respective box(es). After the student earns enough stars (i.e., usually 15 across 2–3 weeks), the student earns a small reward from the virtual prize box (e.g., a game the student and tutor can play together).

Progress Tracking Form

The fifth and final tab of the HELPS virtual folder is used to track key information across all sessions. This tab is useful for tracking information about a student’s performance with HELPS, tracking information about intervention fidelity, and for facilitating correspondence between multiple tutors who work with the same student. The progress tracking form (PTF) summarizes the steps in the tutoring protocol and corresponds to the steps in the flowchart. As shown in Figure 2, the information logged in the PTF includes the session number, tutor name and date, the passage number the student started the session with, whether the student reached their reading goal (Step 2 of Figure 1), whether the student passed a retell check on that passage (Step 3 of Figure 1), other relevant oral reading fluency scores generated during the session, and a section for the tutor to self-record notes and/or if they missed any of the intervention steps. Using and knowing how to read the HELPS PTF is an essential step of the program, whether implemented virtually or in-person. Collectively, the embedded assessment data and motivational tools reflected in the HELPS virtual student folder allow tutors to support student learning, monitor key data, and better evaluate if students are making optimal progress.

Start-Up and Ongoing Considerations for Virtual Fluency Instruction

Successful implementation of virtual instruction usually requires collaboration between tutors, parents, and students. Once a reading fluency program has been identified to use for virtual tutoring, there are several other factors that should also be considered.

Identify Students Needing Fluency Instruction

Benchmark assessments administered at the beginning, middle, or end of the year allow teachers to screen and identify students who are performing below grade level and can benefit from individualized (virtual) tutoring in text reading fluency. For example, the oral reading fluency (ORF) measure of the Dynamics Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, Eighth Edition (University of Oregon, 2020) provides instructional recommendations based on a student’s score as needing strategic or intensive intervention. It is important to note that not all students scoring below grade-level cutoffs will benefit from an intervention that specifically targets text reading fluency. For example, it is key for students to have adequate phonological awareness and decoding skills to benefit most from a text reading fluency intervention. If a student lacks these skills, they may benefit more from a targeted intervention in phonics or phonemic awareness.

Identify Tutors and Provide Training

Teachers, teaching assistants, teacher candidates training to be teachers, and even community volunteers or parents can be recruited and successfully trained to serve as tutors. District-specific protocols for working with K–12 students should be adhered to. For example, tutors may need to complete background checks and be fingerprinted. For a virtual fluency program, tutor training should include, at minimum, a brief overview of oral reading fluency, steps on completing timed readings, scoring rules for timed reading, steps in model reading and repeated reading procedures, and steps in graphing data. With programs such as HELPS, a tutor can self-train on these procedures from an instructor’s manual; alternatively, such training with a certified trainer requires approximately 2.5 to 3 hr and can be provided in-person or virtually.

Identify a Video Conferencing Tool

The use of video conferencing tools became ubiquitous during the Covid-19 pandemic, with many people working and learning from home. However, to mitigate concerns surrounding child privacy and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR; Mac Mahon et al., 2019), it is best to use the video conferencing software adopted by the school district (e.g., Google Classroom, Google Meet, Zoom, Microsoft Teams). For example, in the case of a district that has adopted the Google Suite, all tutors can be given district email addresses to allow access to Google Classrooms and Meets. Using the district addresses, each student can be assigned to a Google Classroom with a tutor. Assigning two or three tutors to a student can be beneficial (e.g., if one tutor is unavailable, another tutor can serve as a substitute). Technical training may be required if tutors are unfamiliar with the video conferencing tool used for virtual tutoring.

Measure and Support Each Tutor’s Intervention Fidelity

Proper training is an important first step in ensuring a tutoring program is implemented with fidelity; however, tutors benefit from additional implementation support given that interventionists often struggle to implement evidence-based practices after training alone (Kretlow & Helf, 2013). Post-training support such as coaching can be an effective way to ensure tutors are implementing with fidelity, a key component of success when providing evidence-based interventions. Fidelity can be monitored by having an individual experienced in the intervention observe a tutoring session and complete an observation checklist that includes key components of the intervention. Although planning how to measure intervention fidelity is a start-up consideration, measuring fidelity periodically throughout a tutor’s experience is important and thus an ongoing consideration.

Monitor Students’ Reading Progress

The collection of ORF data allows educators to monitor student growth across several weeks of instruction. For example, many ORF measures specify expected rates of student improvement (i.e., how many words per week a student is expected to improve in oral reading fluency based on grade and initial ability level). By collecting at least two benchmark scores (beginning-, middle-, and/or end-of-year) and referencing the expected rates of improvement for that ORF measure, one can evaluate whether students met or exceeded expected growth.

Each student’s reading progress can also be monitored by reviewing the embedded assessments that are sometimes integrated within an intervention program (Begeny et al., 2015). If students are taking several sessions to reach their goal and careful observation of the reading reveals that the student has difficulty with decoding the text, then reducing the reading level may benefit the student. In some cases, temporarily reducing a student’s goal can help the student maintain a high level of motivation to keep working toward the reading goal.

Plan for Clear Home–School Communication

Clear, consistent, and positive home–school communication is important for the educational success of children (Musti-Rao & Cartledge, 2004). Before starting a virtual tutoring program, scheduling an in-person or online information session for parents or caregivers is recommended. Goals of the tutoring program, its structure, and the frequency of the tutoring sessions can be discussed at the minimum. When feasible, parents should be encouraged to identify a consistent location in the home for tutoring that is relatively free of distractions. In terms of daily communication with parents/caregivers, there is sometimes a need for quick interactions as it relates to the tutoring sessions. In some cases, text-messaging may be better than email communication or phone conversation, but the ideal method and/or options for communication with the parent/caregiver should be determined in advance.

Schedule Sessions Based on Parent Availability

When using after-school hours for virtual tutoring, some parents may work outside their homes during the tutoring sessions. It is important to determine whether an adult or caregiver being present at home will impact student attendance for tutoring. Younger students who are home alone after school may have difficulty logging on to the tutoring session on their own or may forget about the session. Having a parent or adult caregiver at home will increase the likelihood that the student will be present for the tutoring session. If possible, it is important to schedule the tutoring sessions based on a time when both the caregiver and the student are home rather than schedule only according to student availability. That said, caregiver availability at home may not be an issue for older and more independent students in upper elementary grades.

Conclusion

When school districts are grappling with how to provide tiered intervention to bridge the reading gap, a well-structured virtual tutoring program delivered after school can help meet the needs of students who are reading below grade-level benchmarks, including those with LD in reading. In addition, virtual tutoring can help provide services to those in rural communities or those in highly populated suburban areas where a tutor may not be located and/or available near them. In terms of personnel resources, well-trained teacher candidates or community members reflect two options of individuals who could potentially provide virtual tutoring. For teacher candidates, virtual tutoring enables them to accrue valuable fieldwork hours and experiences needed to become effective teachers.

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.

References

Begeny

J. C.

(2009). Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS): A one-on-one program designed to improve students’ reading fluency. Helps Education Fund. https://www.helpseducationfund.org/programs-services/helps-one-on-one/

Begeny

J. C.

Daly

E. J.

Valleley

R. J.

(2006). Improving oral reading fluency through response opportunities: A comparison of phrase drill error correction with repeated readings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15, 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-006-9028-4

Begeny

J. C.

Mann

C. M.

Cunningham

M. D.

Tsuen

H. Y.

(2009). The Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) curriculum: Instructional passages developed for use with the HELPS program. Helps Education Fund.

Begeny

J. C.

Mitchell

R. C.

Whitehouse

M. H.

Harris

C. F.

Stage

S. A.

(2011). Effects of the HELPS reading fluency program when implemented by classroom teachers with low-performing second-grade students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00332.x

Begeny

J. C.

Upright

J. J.

Easton

J. E.

Ehrenbock

C. A.

Tunstall

K. R.

(2013). Validity estimates and functionality of materials and procedures used to monitor the implementation integrity of a reading intervention. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 29, 284–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2013.810187

Begeny

J. C.

Whitehouse

M. H.

Methe

S. A.

Codding

R. S.

Stage

S. A.

Neupert

(2015). Do intervention-embedded assessment procedures successfully measure student growth in reading? Psychology in the Schools, 52, 578–593. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21843

Campbell

K. U.

(1995). Great Leaps reading program. Diarmuid.

Chard

D. J.

Vaughn

Tyler

B-J.

(2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350050101

Folsom

J. S.

Reed

D. K.

Aloe

A. M.

Schmitz

S. S.

(2019). Instruction in district-designed intensive summer reading programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(3), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718765207

10.

Foorman

Beyler

Borradaile

Coyne

Denton

C. A.

Dimino

Furgeson

Hayes

Henke

Justice

Keating

Lewis

Sattar

Streke

Wagner

Wissel

(2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://whatworks.ed.gov

11.

Gersten

Compton

Connor

C. M.

Dimino

Santoro

Linan-Thompson

Tilly

W. D.

(2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/rti_reading_pg_021809.pdf

12.

Hasbrouck

J. E.

Ihnot

Rogers

G. H.

(1999). “Read Naturally”: A strategy to increase oral reading fluency. Reading Research and Instruction, 39(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079909558310

13.

Hirsch

S. E.

McDaniel

(2021). Remote instruction and interventions: Considerations for students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 57(2), 75–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512211001828

14.

Katzir

Goldberg

Aryeh

Donnelley

Wolf

(2013). Intensity vs. duration: Comparing the effects of a fluency-based reading intervention program, in after-school vs. summer school settings. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1, 61–73. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v1i2.143

15.

Kretlow

A. G.

Helf

S. S.

(2013). Teacher implementation of evidence-based practices in tier 1: A national survey. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(3), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413489838

16.

Kuhn

M. R.

(2005). A comparative study of small group fluency instruction. Reading Psychology, 26, 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710590930492

17.

Kuhn

M. R.

(2020). Whole class or small group fluency instruction: A tutorial of four effective approaches. Education Sciences, 10(5), Article 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10050145

18.

Learning Disabilities Association of America. (n.d.). New to LD. https://ldaamerica.org/support/new-to-ld/

19.

Logan

J. A. R.

Dynia

J. M.

Justice

L. M.

Sawyer

(2019). Caregiver implementation of a home-based reading program with their children with disabilities: Patterns of adherence. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(3), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871878623

20.

Mac Mahon

Gradaigh

S. O.

Ghuidhir

S. N

. (2019). Super vision: The role of remote observation in the professional learning of student teachers and novice placement tutors. Tech Trends, 63, 703–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00432-z

21.

Martens

B. K.

Witt

J. C.

(2004). Competence, persistence, and success: The positive psychology of behavioral skill instruction. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10135

22.

McBreen

Savage

(2021). The impact of motivational reading instruction on the reading achievement and motivation of students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 1125–1163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09584-4

23.

Mitchell

Begeny

J. C.

(2014). Improving student reading through parents’ implementation of a structured reading program. School Psychology Review, 43(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2014.12087453

24.

Morgan

P. L.

Sideridis

P. D.

(2006). Contrasting the effectiveness of fluency interventions for students with or at risk for learning disabilities: A multilevel random coefficient modeling meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00218.x

25.

Musti-Rao

Cartledge

(2004). Making home an advantage in the prevention of reading failure: Strategies for collaborating with urban parents. Preventing School Failure, 48(4), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.48.4.15-21

26.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Students with disabilities. Condition of education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg

27.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel—Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (report of the subgroups). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

28.

Rasinski

Yildirim

Nageldinger

(2011). Building fluency through the phrased text lesson. The Reading Teacher, 65, 252–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01036

29.

Richardson

(2018, August 20). An overview of evidence-based literacy interventions in North Carolina. Education NC. https://www.ednc.org/an-overview-of-evidence-based-literacy-interventions-in-north-carolina/

30.

Robinson

C. D.

Loeb

(2021). High-impact tutoring: State of the research and priorities for future learning (EdWorkingPaper: 21-384). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/qf76-rj21

31.

Sweeney

W. J.

Ring

M. M.

Malanga

Lambert

M. C.

(2003). Using curriculum-based assessment and repeated practice instructional procedures combined with daily goal setting to improve elementary students oral reading fluency: A preservice teacher training approach. Journal of Precision Teaching and Celeration, 19, 2–19. https://celeration.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2003_JPTC_V19.01_02.pdf

32.

University of Oregon. (2020). 8th edition of dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS®). Author. https://dibels.uoregon.edu

33.

White

Sabatini

Park

B. J.

Chen

Bernstein

(2021). Highlights of the 2018 NAEP Oral Reading Fluency Study (NCES 2021-026). U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/studies/pdf/2021026_2018_orf_highlights.pdf

34.

Yurick

A. L.

Robinson

P. D.

Cartledge

Evans

T. L.

(2006). Using peer-mediated repeated readings as a fluency building activity for urban learners. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 469–506. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/42899897