Continuous texts or word lists? Exploring the effects and the process of repeated reading depending on the reading material and students’ reading abilities

IF 2 2区教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Reading and Writing Pub Date : 2024-04-11 DOI:10.1007/s11145-024-10536-5

Mareike Ehlert, Jan Beck, Natalie Förster, Elmar Souvignier

{"title":"Continuous texts or word lists? Exploring the effects and the process of repeated reading depending on the reading material and students’ reading abilities","authors":"Mareike Ehlert, Jan Beck, Natalie Förster, Elmar Souvignier","doi":"10.1007/s11145-024-10536-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Repeated reading (RR) is often recommended for promoting reading fluency, but it is unclear whether continuous texts or word lists should be used. This study tested whether the effects of RR depend on the reading material and whether these effects interact with students’ prior abilities. N = 304 primary school students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) a repeated reading group receiving continuous texts (RR-T), (2) a repeated reading group receiving word lists (RR-W), and (3) a control group (CG). Before and after the training (M = 13 sessions), students’ reading fluency and reading motivation were assessed. In both RR-groups, the average level and growth in (a) words read correctly per minute and (b) affect were recorded during each reading session. Multilevel modelling revealed that growth in reading fluency and reading motivation did not differ significantly between the RR groups and the CG. Process analyses showed that the number of words students read correctly per minute increased significantly per session. Students’ affect remained stable at a high level throughout the reading interventions. In the RR-T, significantly more words were read correctly than in the RR-W, and this was a mediator between group and reading fluency. Students’ initial levels of reading performance and reading motivation strongly predicted both process and outcome variables, but not in interaction with the reading material. Results emphasise the importance of investigating the effects of repeated reading interventions with higher dosage and of offering differentiated methods (instead of reading material) to struggling readers.","PeriodicalId":48204,"journal":{"name":"Reading and Writing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading and Writing","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10536-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Repeated reading (RR) is often recommended for promoting reading fluency, but it is unclear whether continuous texts or word lists should be used. This study tested whether the effects of RR depend on the reading material and whether these effects interact with students’ prior abilities. N = 304 primary school students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) a repeated reading group receiving continuous texts (RR-T), (2) a repeated reading group receiving word lists (RR-W), and (3) a control group (CG). Before and after the training (M = 13 sessions), students’ reading fluency and reading motivation were assessed. In both RR-groups, the average level and growth in (a) words read correctly per minute and (b) affect were recorded during each reading session. Multilevel modelling revealed that growth in reading fluency and reading motivation did not differ significantly between the RR groups and the CG. Process analyses showed that the number of words students read correctly per minute increased significantly per session. Students’ affect remained stable at a high level throughout the reading interventions. In the RR-T, significantly more words were read correctly than in the RR-W, and this was a mediator between group and reading fluency. Students’ initial levels of reading performance and reading motivation strongly predicted both process and outcome variables, but not in interaction with the reading material. Results emphasise the importance of investigating the effects of repeated reading interventions with higher dosage and of offering differentiated methods (instead of reading material) to struggling readers.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

连续文本还是单词表？根据阅读材料和学生的阅读能力探索反复阅读的效果和过程

重复阅读（RR）经常被推荐用于提高阅读流利性，但目前还不清楚应该使用连续文本还是单词表。本研究测试了重复阅读的效果是否取决于阅读材料，以及这些效果是否与学生的原有能力相互影响。N = 304 名小学生被随机分配到三个条件中的一个：(1) 重复阅读组，接受连续文本（RR-T）；(2) 重复阅读组，接受单词表（RR-W）；(3) 对照组（CG）。在训练前后（M = 13 次），对学生的阅读流畅性和阅读动机进行了评估。在两个 RR 组中，每节阅读课都记录了 (a) 每分钟正确阅读字数和 (b) 情绪的平均水平和增长情况。多层次模型显示，阅读流畅性和阅读动机的增长在 RR 组和 CG 组之间没有显著差异。过程分析表明，学生每分钟正确阅读的单词数在每节课上都有显著增加。在整个阅读干预过程中，学生的情绪稳定在较高水平。在 RR-T 中，正确阅读的单词数明显多于 RR-W，这也是小组与阅读流畅性之间的中介因素。学生最初的阅读成绩水平和阅读动机对过程和结果变量都有很强的预测作用，但与阅读材料之间没有相互作用。研究结果表明，研究加大剂量重复阅读干预的效果以及为有困难的读者提供有区别的方法（而不是阅读材料）非常重要。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Reading and Writing Multiple-

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

16.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Reading and writing skills are fundamental to literacy. Consequently, the processes involved in reading and writing and the failure to acquire these skills, as well as the loss of once well-developed reading and writing abilities have been the targets of intense research activity involving professionals from a variety of disciplines, such as neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics and education. The findings that have emanated from this research are most often written up in a lingua that is specific to the particular discipline involved, and are published in specialized journals. This generally leaves the expert in one area almost totally unaware of what may be taking place in any area other than their own. Reading and Writing cuts through this fog of jargon, breaking down the artificial boundaries between disciplines. The journal focuses on the interaction among various fields, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Reading and Writing publishes high-quality, scientific articles pertaining to the processes, acquisition, and loss of reading and writing skills. The journal fully represents the necessarily interdisciplinary nature of research in the field, focusing on the interaction among various disciplines, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Coverage in Reading and Writing includes models of reading, writing and spelling at all age levels; orthography and its relation to reading and writing; computer literacy; cross-cultural studies; and developmental and acquired disorders of reading and writing. It publishes research articles, critical reviews, theoretical papers, and case studies. Reading and Writing is one of the most highly cited journals in Education, Educational Research, and Educational Psychology.