**2. Literature on automaticity in reading**

#### **2.1. Orientation**

I am an educational psychologist who specialises in work with children with learning and reading difficulties. As part of this work, I have been developing a reading fluency programme

designed to be used with a form of oral impress procedure based on paired reading. This is simple to implement. It differs from the type of paired reading procedures documented in the literature, as it involves additional repetition to develop phonic associations and automaticity

The ebooks are set in large print with wide spaces between words to provide maximal visual cues and also to prevent crowding, which has emerged in recent literature as a factor affecting reading in dyslexic children. The oral impress procedure also builds in visual tracking to maintain visual attention. Repetition on both the phonological and the visual level is thus provided both in the text of the ebooks as well as in the procedures used to work with the children. Visual attention is maintained through the use of a pointer working from the top of the line, and not from the bottom, for the reason that the top of the line provides greater visual

As the materials are in electronic form, they provide a form of e-learning which can be used in contact, as well as at distance. The ebooks are designed to be used by parents and can also be used by therapists, teachers and schools to develop fluent reading. Assessment and evaluation are built into the programme's structure, linked to an awards system for children

This chapter is written in three parts. The first part of the chapter presents a literature review. The second part describes the development of the characters and setting of a set of reading materials called 'The Doctor Skunk Stories', which were developed for a child who lived some 6,000 miles away from my rooms. This part of the chapter is based on a longitudinal case study. The third part of the chapter then describes the subsequent development of the materials into an assessment-based reading programme and presents results of the first cohort of children

At this stage in the development of the programme, there is plenty of material available, and the ebooks and supporting methodology are currently being used by the parents, therapists and teachers of over seventy children with reading difficulty across our country. Some of the children live over a thousand kilometres from my rooms. Others are in schools or clinics. The results have been promising with younger children as well as adolescents. Parents, therapists, teachers and children have also provided positive evaluations of the benefits improved reading

1 The approach to automaticity in reading adopted in this chapter is based on the work of the Russian neuropsychologist A.R. Luria, and the term "neurolinguistic" follows Luria's work on the physiological basis of language-based functions (Luria, A.R. (1976). Basic Problems of Neurolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton B.V.) as well as the approach suggested by Arbib and Caplan of the Center for Systems Neuroscience at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (Arbib, M.A. and Caplan, D . (1979). Neurolinguistics must be computational. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 3, pages 449- 460) in which

fluency has had on reading ability more generally, as well as on school work.

neurolinguistics draws insights from modern neuroanatomy, neurochemistry and neurophysiology.

, and the ebooks are

The text of the ebooks has been written based on neurolinguistic theory1

262 E-Learning - Instructional Design, Organizational Strategy and Management

based on a series of ebooks.

cues than the bottom of the line.

who have worked on this programme with their parents.

using the materials.

in reading.

The literature on reading is complex on a theoretical level, and it is impossible in a short literature review to do justice to this. I have thus written the first section of the literature review which deals with automaticity in reading from a functional and applied perspective, and would refer readers interested in psycholinguistic theories of reading to a good source, such as Adams [2] or Perfetti [3, 4, 5].

The definitions of the terms I am going to provide at the beginning of this chapter are functional ones for the reason that the first stage in development of 'The Tales of Jud the Rat' materials was based on applied work conducted over a number of years with one child. As these initial materials were used by a parent and a peer tutor implementer working in Europe, 6,000 miles away from my rooms in Johannesburg, the initial literature I am going to review is based on research on reading fluency programmes implemented through parent and peer-tutored paired reading. This is followed by review of the neurolinguistic literature which has provided the theoretical basis for the development of the 'The Tales of Jud the Rat' materials in their current form.

#### **2.2. Definition of terms**

Reading decoding involves a child or adult's ability to read words both individually and in sequence. This involves the ability to use sound–letter associations to sound out individual words by analysing their parts and then to link these parts together to form words. The process of analysis and synthesis of individual words then needs to be done sequentially, with sufficient fluency to comprehend both the individual words and strings of words being read.

Fluent reading involves the ability to decode individual words and join the parts together quickly and accurately, so that the words can be understood both individually and in sequence. Cognitive processes of perception, language, sequencing and working memory are involved in fluent reading, and for this reason, assessment of reading also involves side-by-side assessment of perceptual, language, working memory and sequential abilities.

Reading can be defined as a complex cognitive process of making meaning from text, which depends on adequately developed perception, language, working memory and sequential abilities. As reading comprehension is affected by reading fluency, reading fluency can be defined as:

'The ability to read phrases and sentences smoothly and quickly, while understanding them as expressions of complete ideas.' [6]

Smooth, quick reading is based on the notion of automaticity [7], which underpins the abilities to read with speed and accuracy as well as expression. Automaticity is developed in reading when there has been sufficient practice to enable a complex functional act to become fluent enough to form the basis for higher mental processing. As Logsdon [8] suggests:

'Reading fluency refers to the ability to read with adequate accuracy, speed, expression, and automaticity. Reading fluency is very important to one's overall ability to understand, or comprehend, what is read.'

#### **2.3. Automaticity in reading**

On a theoretical level, automaticity in reading is based on the suggestions made by Luria [9] concerning the development of automaticity in the hierarchical processing of information by the working brain. LaBerge and Samuels [10] were the first researchers to focus on automaticity as a function of how reading fluency develops. They proposed a model of information processing in reading, in which visual information is transformed through a series of proc‐ essing stages involving visual, phonological and episodic memory systems until it is finally comprehended in the semantic system.

LaBerge and Samuels further proposed that the processing occurring at each processing stage was learned while the degree of learning could be assessed with respect to two criteria: *accuracy* and *automaticity*. At the accuracy level of performance, attention was assumed to be necessary for processing; at the automatic level, it was not.

Again following Luria [11], who had suggested the value of repeated modelling and practice in developing automaticity in writing, Samuels suggested that automaticity in reading could be trained through procedures involving repeated reading, As Samuels commented,

'It is important to point out that repeated reading is not a method for teaching all reading skills. Rather, it is intended as a supplement in a developmental reading program. While the method is particularly suitable for students with special learning problems, it is useful for normal children as well.' [12]

Support for LaBerge and Samuels' work was provided independently by Carol Chomsky [13] at Harvard University. Chomsky concluded that the repeated reading procedure she had used with students had been facilitating for both slow and halting readers, 'increasing fluency rapidly and with apparent ease'. Other researchers such as Carbo [14], Morgan and Lyon [15] and Ashby-Davis [16] provided additional support through studies using different repeated reading methods to model and develop automaticity through repetition.

The goal of each of these different studies was the development of reading fluency, which Allington [17] pointed out was a characteristic of poor readers, but was seldom treated. The notion of fluency has then recurred in subsequent literature. Adams [18], for example, has suggested that the most salient characteristic of skillful reading is the speed with which text is reproduced into spoken language.

Fluency is thus associated with oral reading. Fuchs et al. [19] have defined oral reading fluency as the oral translation of text with speed and accuracy. On the basis of review of theoretical arguments and several studies substantiating this phenomenon, Fuchs et al. concluded that oral reading fluency is an indicator of overall reading competence.

The U.S. Congress [20] has defined the essential components of reading instruction as involv‐ ing explicit and systematic instruction in:

#### **a.** phonemic awareness;

**b.** phonics;

'Reading fluency refers to the ability to read with adequate accuracy, speed, expression, and automaticity. Reading fluency is very important to one's overall ability to understand, or

On a theoretical level, automaticity in reading is based on the suggestions made by Luria [9] concerning the development of automaticity in the hierarchical processing of information by the working brain. LaBerge and Samuels [10] were the first researchers to focus on automaticity as a function of how reading fluency develops. They proposed a model of information processing in reading, in which visual information is transformed through a series of proc‐ essing stages involving visual, phonological and episodic memory systems until it is finally

LaBerge and Samuels further proposed that the processing occurring at each processing stage was learned while the degree of learning could be assessed with respect to two criteria: *accuracy* and *automaticity*. At the accuracy level of performance, attention was assumed to be necessary

Again following Luria [11], who had suggested the value of repeated modelling and practice in developing automaticity in writing, Samuels suggested that automaticity in reading could

'It is important to point out that repeated reading is not a method for teaching all reading skills. Rather, it is intended as a supplement in a developmental reading program. While the method is particularly suitable for students with special learning problems, it is useful for normal

Support for LaBerge and Samuels' work was provided independently by Carol Chomsky [13] at Harvard University. Chomsky concluded that the repeated reading procedure she had used with students had been facilitating for both slow and halting readers, 'increasing fluency rapidly and with apparent ease'. Other researchers such as Carbo [14], Morgan and Lyon [15] and Ashby-Davis [16] provided additional support through studies using different repeated

The goal of each of these different studies was the development of reading fluency, which Allington [17] pointed out was a characteristic of poor readers, but was seldom treated. The notion of fluency has then recurred in subsequent literature. Adams [18], for example, has suggested that the most salient characteristic of skillful reading is the speed with which text

Fluency is thus associated with oral reading. Fuchs et al. [19] have defined oral reading fluency as the oral translation of text with speed and accuracy. On the basis of review of theoretical arguments and several studies substantiating this phenomenon, Fuchs et al. concluded that

The U.S. Congress [20] has defined the essential components of reading instruction as involv‐

be trained through procedures involving repeated reading, As Samuels commented,

reading methods to model and develop automaticity through repetition.

oral reading fluency is an indicator of overall reading competence.

comprehend, what is read.'

**2.3. Automaticity in reading**

children as well.' [12]

is reproduced into spoken language.

ing explicit and systematic instruction in:

comprehended in the semantic system.

for processing; at the automatic level, it was not.

264 E-Learning - Instructional Design, Organizational Strategy and Management


(SEC. 1208. DEFINITIONS).

There would thus be justification for incorporating the assessment of reading fluency as one aspect of psychometric measurement of reading, with implications for both research and practice based on assessment of reading ability (e.g. [21]).

### **2.4. Developing reading fluency through paired reading methods**

The literature suggests that reading fluency can be developed by paired reading methods, which have been described differently by different researchers. Carol Chomsky [22] called the technique 'repeated reading'. Carbo [23] used tape-recorded books with struggling readers to good effect and called her method 'talking books'. Morgan and Lyon [24] called their technique 'paired reading', while Ashby-Davis [25] called her method 'assisted reading'. Other terms used by researchers include 'neurological impress' [26, 27, 28] and 'reading by immersion' [29].

The use of these different terms would suggest that paired reading is an umbrella term, in which there are a number of variations in method. For this reason, I have used the term '3 × 3 oral impress method' to describe the procedure for paired oral reading I have developed, as the method I use differs from the strategies for developing reading fluency used in the studies reviewed in the rest of this section.

The earliest study indicating the value of paired reading in a classroom setting was conducted by Heckelman [30, 31], who reported that 24 students involved in using what he called 'the neurological impress method' made exceptional gains in reading ability. The mean gain in reading comprehension was 1.9 grade levels after using the method daily for 15 min (a total of seven and a quarter hours) over a 6-week period. Heckelman hypothesised that this method was 'one of the most direct and fundamental systems of reading' involving a 'combination of reflexive neurological systems'.

Hollingsworth [32] also reported positive results from the use of an impress method in teaching reading and defined impress or neurological impress techniques as the use of unison reading methods in which teacher and student read aloud simultaneously. No attention would be called to the pictures accompanying the story, nor would the teacher attempt to teach sounds of words or word recognition skills.

Morgan and Lyon [33] involved parents in the process of providing tuition for children with reading difficulties and called the technique 'paired reading'. In Morgan and Lyon's study, the paired reading tuition procedure was described as a simple and flexible remedial technique for general application, incorporating simultaneous reading and verbally reinforced individ‐ ual reading, and utilising textual material suited to the child's interests and chronological age rather than his reading age.

In Morgan and Lyon's study, the parents of four reading-retarded children were trained in how to provide paired reading tuition at home for a quarter of an hour daily. Over 12 to 13 weeks of tuition, the group's reading ages improved markedly. Marked advances in reading comprehension were also noted.

The researcher who has done most to promote and popularise paired reading methods, however, has been Topping [34–37], who has been Professor of Educational Psychology and Director of the Centre for Paired Learning at the University of Dundee. Topping's Centre has focused in particular on the development and evaluation of the effectiveness of methods for non-professionals (such as parents or peer tutors) in providing support in the acquisition of basic skills in reading, spelling, writing, science, maths and information technology. As part of this work, Topping has published widely on paired reading as well as peer tutoring and other forms of cooperative learning.

Topping [38] focused on the value of paired reading in the context of a large-scale dissemina‐ tion project, and reported on the instructional procedures and outcomes from ten different peer tutoring projects. Pre‐and post‐test data were reported for all these ten evaluative studies. Four of the studies also provided baseline data and two studies provided comparison group data. Two studies then provided follow‐up data for the short and long term respectively.

The evidence reviewed under these different conditions suggested that peer tutored paired reading accelerated children's reading progress in all these settings. All children were reported to have made progress, with peer tutors gaining more than tutees. On the basis of these positive results, Topping [39] also suggested that peer tutoring and paired reading were two potentially powerful techniques which could be combined, and that structured pair work between children of different ability had great potential for effective cooperative learning. Good organisation by the teacher was the key.

#### **2.5. Parent involvement in paired reading**

Based on the work of a number of paired reading programmes, Topping [40] suggested that paired reading methods provided an ideal way for teachers to involve parents in the process of developing reading competence. He also wrote a handbook [41] indicating ways in which parents could use paired work with their children to develop basic skills in reading, spelling and writing.

In addition, Topping reported the results of a number of studies indicating the effects of paired reading on reading ability based on reading age gains relative to increase in chronological age [42–44]. Based on analysis of results of 18 studies which focused on the effects of paired reading, Topping concluded that variables such as the duration of the intervention period and the acceleration of learning did not affect the results. In addition, based on analysis of the results of projects which included follow-up data and as there were no reports to the contrary in any of the other studies, Topping concluded that gains in reading ability appeared to be sustained. Other researchers have also indicated the value of parental involvement in children's reading. Morgan and Lyon [45] described paired reading tuition procedure as a simple and flexible remedial technique which incorporated simultaneous reading and verbally reinforced individual reading. Parents could be trained to use the method. Hewison and Tizard [46] reported that the factor which emerged as most strongly related to reading achievement was whether or not the mother regularly heard the child read. IQ differences did not account for the superior reading performance of the coached children. Maternal language behaviour also had little effect on the association between coaching and reading performance. The important variable was the amount of parental coaching received by the children, which had a highly significant positive association with reading test scores.

ual reading, and utilising textual material suited to the child's interests and chronological age

In Morgan and Lyon's study, the parents of four reading-retarded children were trained in how to provide paired reading tuition at home for a quarter of an hour daily. Over 12 to 13 weeks of tuition, the group's reading ages improved markedly. Marked advances in reading

The researcher who has done most to promote and popularise paired reading methods, however, has been Topping [34–37], who has been Professor of Educational Psychology and Director of the Centre for Paired Learning at the University of Dundee. Topping's Centre has focused in particular on the development and evaluation of the effectiveness of methods for non-professionals (such as parents or peer tutors) in providing support in the acquisition of basic skills in reading, spelling, writing, science, maths and information technology. As part of this work, Topping has published widely on paired reading as well as peer tutoring and

Topping [38] focused on the value of paired reading in the context of a large-scale dissemina‐ tion project, and reported on the instructional procedures and outcomes from ten different peer tutoring projects. Pre‐and post‐test data were reported for all these ten evaluative studies. Four of the studies also provided baseline data and two studies provided comparison group data. Two studies then provided follow‐up data for the short and long term respectively.

The evidence reviewed under these different conditions suggested that peer tutored paired reading accelerated children's reading progress in all these settings. All children were reported to have made progress, with peer tutors gaining more than tutees. On the basis of these positive results, Topping [39] also suggested that peer tutoring and paired reading were two potentially powerful techniques which could be combined, and that structured pair work between children of different ability had great potential for effective cooperative learning. Good

Based on the work of a number of paired reading programmes, Topping [40] suggested that paired reading methods provided an ideal way for teachers to involve parents in the process of developing reading competence. He also wrote a handbook [41] indicating ways in which parents could use paired work with their children to develop basic skills in reading, spelling

In addition, Topping reported the results of a number of studies indicating the effects of paired reading on reading ability based on reading age gains relative to increase in chronological age [42–44]. Based on analysis of results of 18 studies which focused on the effects of paired reading, Topping concluded that variables such as the duration of the intervention period and the acceleration of learning did not affect the results. In addition, based on analysis of the results of projects which included follow-up data and as there were no reports to the contrary in any of the other studies, Topping concluded that gains in reading ability appeared to be sustained.

rather than his reading age.

266 E-Learning - Instructional Design, Organizational Strategy and Management

comprehension were also noted.

other forms of cooperative learning.

organisation by the teacher was the key.

and writing.

**2.5. Parent involvement in paired reading**

In addition, there has been evidence of the value of paired reading programmes involving parents cross-culturally. Vanwagenen, Williams and Mclaughlin [47] reported positive effects of assisted reading on reading rate, accuracy and comprehension on three 12-year-old Spanishspeaking children learning English, while in South Africa, Overett and Donald [48] trained 29 parents from low socio-economic backgrounds to use a paired reading technique. Overett and Donald then compared their results with those of a control group composed of 32 parents. The results indicated a statistically significant increase for the experimental group, with statistically significant improvements in reading accuracy and comprehension, as well as reading attitude and involvement. A broader ecosystemic analysis was also conducted, which suggested that positive relationships between children and significant others in the family were nurtured and other children in the family were benefiting. Interactions between family and school, and school and the local community library were also enhanced.

Positive results have also been reported in other cultural contexts. In Hong Kong, Lam et al. [49] involved parents in paired reading with pre-schoolers, working with 195 preschoolers (mean age = 4.7 years) and their parents. The sample was drawn from families with a wide range of family income, and the preschoolers were then randomly assigned to experimental and control groups.

Training was provided to the parents in the experimental group, who received 12 sessions of school-based training on paired reading over a period of 7 weeks. These parents were then asked to do paired reading with their children at least four times a week in each of these 7 weeks.

At the end of the 7-week intervention, Lam et al. reported that the children in the experimental group had better performance in word recognition and reading fluency than their counterparts in the control group. The children who had been exposed to paired reading were also reported as more competent and motivated in reading by their parents.

In addition, parental changes in relationships and self-efficacy were found to mediate the impact of the intervention on some of the child's outcomes. Lam et al. reported that the parents in the experimental group had higher self-efficacy in helping their children to be better readers and learners, and that these parents also had better relationships with their children. However, family income did not moderate the effectiveness of the programme, with families with high and low income deriving similar benefits from the programme.

#### **2.6. Are parents and peer tutors effective in assisting their children to learn to read?**

Overall, the literature reviewed in this section would suggest that both practice and modelling of the reading process by a competent reader are important in paired reading. Repetition is also a crucial factor, especially in working with children with reading or reading fluency difficulties. Parents as well as peer tutors can be used to provide support to struggling readers for the reason that it is the contact, support and modelling of the reading process which are important factors as opposed to variations in implementation of paired reading procedure. Organisation and clear direction are also important factors in implementing a successful paired reading programme.

In their review of the literature on paired reading, Cadieux and Boudreault [50] concluded that paired reading is an effective means of improving reading performance and that nothing indicates that reading gains made through paired reading are not sustained over time. Those studies which have examined processes demonstrate variable levels of compliance with the paired reading technique. However, this factor does not appear to be closely linked with reading gains.

There is also a wider literature supporting parental involvement in assisting their children to read. Hannon, Jackson and Weinberger [51] reported considerable similarities between the parents' and teachers' strategies in terms of the relative frequencies with which they made different kinds of responses while hearing their children read. The most frequent responses for each group were providing words or giving directions about reading, with a greater proportion of parents' responses being made after reading mistakes or miscues, while teachers were likely to make responses both after reading mistakes or miscues, as well as at other times.

Hannon, Jackson and Weinberger reported that both parents and teachers used phonic techniques in responding to reading mistakes or miscues. For parents, this usually meant 'sounding out' words, while for teachers this meant a wider range of responses. Both parents and teachers focused on children's understanding, but for the parents this was generally in response to reading mistakes or miscues, while for teachers this was generally to establish that what the children had read had been comprehended. Hannon, Jackson and Weinberger reported differences in the pattern of positive feedback, praise and criticism between parents and teachers but suggested that these could be due to differences in the social context of reading in the parent and school settings.

Overall, Hannon, Jackson and Weinberger concluded that no justification exists for consider‐ ing that parents are incompetent in working with their children in developing reading ability. They also concluded that there was scope for reviewing the roles of both parents and teachers in developing reading competence in early childhood education, and this could be facilitated by further research.

Ellis [52] utilised a pre-test/post-test experimental design to investigate the effects of a 12-week parent and child reading intervention on the reading ability and self-perceptions of reading ability in second- and third-grade students. Twenty parents, randomly assigned to the experimental group, participated in the weekly programme sessions. The sessions emphasised simple techniques that parents could use at home to help their child in reading, such as relaxed reading, paired reading and praise and encouragement.

Ellis reported significantly greater improvements in reading as measured by the number of errors made on graded passages for the experimental group. No significantly greater im‐ provements were made by the experimental group in terms of the number of errors made on graded word lists or graded comprehension questions, or in self-perceptions of reading ability. Overall, the findings supported the notion of parental involvement in reading to improve reading ability.

### **2.7. Type and difficulty level of materials used in paired reading**

**2.6. Are parents and peer tutors effective in assisting their children to learn to read?**

268 E-Learning - Instructional Design, Organizational Strategy and Management

reading programme.

reading gains.

in the parent and school settings.

by further research.

Overall, the literature reviewed in this section would suggest that both practice and modelling of the reading process by a competent reader are important in paired reading. Repetition is also a crucial factor, especially in working with children with reading or reading fluency difficulties. Parents as well as peer tutors can be used to provide support to struggling readers for the reason that it is the contact, support and modelling of the reading process which are important factors as opposed to variations in implementation of paired reading procedure. Organisation and clear direction are also important factors in implementing a successful paired

In their review of the literature on paired reading, Cadieux and Boudreault [50] concluded that paired reading is an effective means of improving reading performance and that nothing indicates that reading gains made through paired reading are not sustained over time. Those studies which have examined processes demonstrate variable levels of compliance with the paired reading technique. However, this factor does not appear to be closely linked with

There is also a wider literature supporting parental involvement in assisting their children to read. Hannon, Jackson and Weinberger [51] reported considerable similarities between the parents' and teachers' strategies in terms of the relative frequencies with which they made different kinds of responses while hearing their children read. The most frequent responses for each group were providing words or giving directions about reading, with a greater proportion of parents' responses being made after reading mistakes or miscues, while teachers were likely to make responses both after reading mistakes or miscues, as well as at other times.

Hannon, Jackson and Weinberger reported that both parents and teachers used phonic techniques in responding to reading mistakes or miscues. For parents, this usually meant 'sounding out' words, while for teachers this meant a wider range of responses. Both parents and teachers focused on children's understanding, but for the parents this was generally in response to reading mistakes or miscues, while for teachers this was generally to establish that what the children had read had been comprehended. Hannon, Jackson and Weinberger reported differences in the pattern of positive feedback, praise and criticism between parents and teachers but suggested that these could be due to differences in the social context of reading

Overall, Hannon, Jackson and Weinberger concluded that no justification exists for consider‐ ing that parents are incompetent in working with their children in developing reading ability. They also concluded that there was scope for reviewing the roles of both parents and teachers in developing reading competence in early childhood education, and this could be facilitated

Ellis [52] utilised a pre-test/post-test experimental design to investigate the effects of a 12-week parent and child reading intervention on the reading ability and self-perceptions of reading ability in second- and third-grade students. Twenty parents, randomly assigned to the experimental group, participated in the weekly programme sessions. The sessions emphasised The literature is not as clear on the type of reading materials to use in paired reading pro‐ grammes, and also reflects different opinions on difficulty level of materials in paired reading. Carol Chomsky [53] reported that struggling readers decoded slowly and with difficulty and that, despite their hard-won decoding skills, they were also passive to reading. Chomsky recommended that what was needed was material which would engage attention and also make large amounts of textual material available.

Other researchers have used taped books in paired reading (e.g. [54]), or instructional level materials (e.g. [55]). Based on Wasik's review of volunteer tutoring programmes in reading [56], Cadieux and Boudreault gave a standard material package of instructional level material to all participants in their study of paired reading, which was based on available materials reflecting the type and progression of instruction in reading and word attack skills received in school. The package included flash cards containing phonograms (letters, consonant–vowel syllables and consonant–vowel–consonant syllables) which were used for letter reading and syllable recognition activities, as well as first-grade books containing illustrations which were used to practice reading using text. The children received two or three books at each tutoring session, chosen to suit the level of the reading abilities of the child and parent.

In contrast, Deegan [57] has suggested that the student and teacher should select a text that is near frustration level reading and around 200 words in length. Deegan has also suggested that textual characteristics influence the effectiveness of paired reading and that rhythmic and repetitive texts can increase student participation.

Given difference of opinion relating to difficulty level, Morgan, Wilcox and Eldredge's [58] study is of particular interest. These researchers investigated the effect of difficulty levels on second-grade delayed readers using dyad reading, with the aim of establishing how far above a poor reader's instructional level dyad reading should be conducted. The aim was to establish which level of difficulty was associated with the greatest improvement in reading level, word recognition, comprehension and rate. In their study, 51 poor readers were randomly assigned to three experimental groups: (a) dyad reading using materials at their instructional reading level, (b) dyad reading using materials which were two grades above their reading level and (c) dyad reading using materials which were four grades above their reading level. The research was conducted over 95 sessions, with all groups involved in paired reading for 15 min daily during their classroom reading time.

At the end of the school year, Morgan, Wilcox and Eldredge compared reading gain scores of the three groups. They also compared the post-test scores for word recognition, comprehension and reading rate for each group. No significant differences were found between classrooms. The results indicated that all three groups had made gains in reading skills regardless of the difficulty level of the materials used. The second and third groups which read material significantly above their reading level made greater gains than those reading at their instruc‐ tional level.

Morgan, Wilcox and Eldredge reported that those students who were assisted in reading material two years above their level made the greatest gains. From informal observations, it appeared that poor readers in the third group (i.e. poor readers reading difficult material) seemed to be less motivated to read books four years above their reading level. Morgan, Wilcox and Eldredge commented that these books had significantly less pictures and more words and the children did not seem ready to make the transition from picture books to chapter books. At this level of difficulty, some students appeared to be turned off and paid less attention.

Overall, while all the children improved with dyad reading regardless of the difficulty levels of materials, the results suggested that the difficulty level of materials used for dyad reading may make a difference in student progress. The researchers did not indicate the exact point at which frustration defeated the purpose of paired reading, but suggested that additional research was needed to establish this. Nevertheless, Morgan, Wilcox and Eldredge concluded that children did not have to be taught with instruction-level materials. Poor readers appeared to improve significantly more when they read with a partner at higher levels that exposed them to more unknown words and complex language structures. The results also indicated that to progress more rapidly, students need to be exposed to more difficult material.

Stahl and Heubach [59] reported the results of a 2-year project in which they re-organised the basal reading instruction provided in 14 classes so as to stress fluent reading and automatic word recognition. The reorganised reading programme consisted of three parts: a basal reading lesson which included repeated reading and partner reading, a choice reading period during the day and a home reading programme. The reorganised reading programme was then implemented over a period of 2 years.

Stahl and Heubach reported that the children in all 14 classes made significantly greater than expected growth in reading achievement. All but two children who entered second grade were reading at grade level or higher by the end of the year, while growth in fluency and accuracy appeared to be consistent, reflecting over the whole year. Students' and teachers' attitudes towards the programme were also positive.

In evaluating the contribution of the different components in their programme, Stahl and Heubach reported that self-selected reading partners appeared to work best. Children chose partners primarily out of friendship, and tended to choose books that were at or slightly below their instructional level. However, children in the study also benefited from more difficult materials, provided that scaffolding and support were provided.

### **2.8. Implications**

At the end of the school year, Morgan, Wilcox and Eldredge compared reading gain scores of the three groups. They also compared the post-test scores for word recognition, comprehension and reading rate for each group. No significant differences were found between classrooms. The results indicated that all three groups had made gains in reading skills regardless of the difficulty level of the materials used. The second and third groups which read material significantly above their reading level made greater gains than those reading at their instruc‐

270 E-Learning - Instructional Design, Organizational Strategy and Management

Morgan, Wilcox and Eldredge reported that those students who were assisted in reading material two years above their level made the greatest gains. From informal observations, it appeared that poor readers in the third group (i.e. poor readers reading difficult material) seemed to be less motivated to read books four years above their reading level. Morgan, Wilcox and Eldredge commented that these books had significantly less pictures and more words and the children did not seem ready to make the transition from picture books to chapter books. At this level of difficulty, some students appeared to be turned off and paid less attention.

Overall, while all the children improved with dyad reading regardless of the difficulty levels of materials, the results suggested that the difficulty level of materials used for dyad reading may make a difference in student progress. The researchers did not indicate the exact point at which frustration defeated the purpose of paired reading, but suggested that additional research was needed to establish this. Nevertheless, Morgan, Wilcox and Eldredge concluded that children did not have to be taught with instruction-level materials. Poor readers appeared to improve significantly more when they read with a partner at higher levels that exposed them to more unknown words and complex language structures. The results also indicated

that to progress more rapidly, students need to be exposed to more difficult material.

then implemented over a period of 2 years.

towards the programme were also positive.

materials, provided that scaffolding and support were provided.

Stahl and Heubach [59] reported the results of a 2-year project in which they re-organised the basal reading instruction provided in 14 classes so as to stress fluent reading and automatic word recognition. The reorganised reading programme consisted of three parts: a basal reading lesson which included repeated reading and partner reading, a choice reading period during the day and a home reading programme. The reorganised reading programme was

Stahl and Heubach reported that the children in all 14 classes made significantly greater than expected growth in reading achievement. All but two children who entered second grade were reading at grade level or higher by the end of the year, while growth in fluency and accuracy appeared to be consistent, reflecting over the whole year. Students' and teachers' attitudes

In evaluating the contribution of the different components in their programme, Stahl and Heubach reported that self-selected reading partners appeared to work best. Children chose partners primarily out of friendship, and tended to choose books that were at or slightly below their instructional level. However, children in the study also benefited from more difficult

tional level.

The literature on paired reading reviewed in this section reflects some differences in preferred methodology, as well as some difference between recommendations concerning the type of materials felt to be most appropriate for use in the process. Overall, however, there would appear to be consensus concerning the value of paired reading, with all of the studies indicating the potential of including parents as well as peer tutors as partners in the process of teaching children to read fluently.

In many of the studies reviewed in this section, paired reading showed positive results on reading fluency over a relatively short period of time. In addition to effects at the reading fluency level, transfer effects of paired reading into reading comprehension were also noted. This would suggest benefits from paired reading methods not only at the level of automaticity (i.e. on speed and accuracy of reading) but also on the higher-level cognitive processes involved in comprehension.

There are also areas of lack of clarity in the literature. Difficulty level of materials would be an important variable to consider in developing paired reading programmes. Certain authorities suggest the value of fun reading materials, others the value of instructional level reading materials and others the value of reading material chosen to be at or near frustration level. There is thus a lack of consensus in this area.

What is clear from the literature, however, is that quality of scaffolding and support in paired reading is important, especially where difficult materials are chosen for use in paired reading programmes. How reading errors are corrected would appear to be less important, as the literature suggests that a wide variety of strategies have been used for doing so, particularly by teachers. It would, however, be important that the procedures used in paired reading are clear enough to be consistently used by parents, tutors and teachers, and that recommended procedures for correcting the errors made by children are also defined.

Overall, it would also be important to stress that while paired reading methods have potential value for developing reading fluency, other methods have also produced positive results. A study by Homan, Klesius and Hite [60], for example, compared repeated reading strategies with non-repetitive strategies on students' fluency and comprehension. In their study, they focused on the transfer effects of the previously mentioned procedures on both comprehension and fluency with sixth-grade students. Homan, Klesius and Hite's results indicated equivalent benefits for repetitive and non-repetitive methods, with significant comprehension improve‐ ment over a 7-week period.

Similarly, working in a developing country context, Shah-Wundenberg, Wyse and Chaplain [61] investigated parental support for children's reading of English in an inner-city school in India. The children in the study had oral proficiency in the regional language but were beginning to acquire conventional forms of literacy in English. A quasi-experimental design involving a sample of 241 children was used to evaluate the effectiveness of two approaches to parents supporting reading: paired reading and hearing reading. Interviews and observa‐ tions with a smaller sub-sample of parents and children were also used to explore the impli‐ cations of the data more deeply.

In Shah-Wundenberg, Wyse and Chaplain's study, paired reading and hearing reading were found to be equally effective in developing children's beginning English reading skills, reading accuracy and comprehension, relative to controls. The data also indicated that parents had engaged in a variety of mediation behaviours to enhance their children's English reading development. In addition, parents reported that participating in their children's reading in both conditions had been both enriching and empowering, suggesting that parental involve‐ ment can benefit children's English reading development.

The development of the reading fluency programme described in the rest of this chapter should thus be viewed as one of a number of potential approaches to enhancing the development of reading ability. Its potential advantages to parents, therapists, teachers and schools lie in the fact that it is based on a theory of structured phonics which has been developed with children who have had reading and spelling difficulties, that the material is delivered via the internet and email, and that the programme can be used at distance. 'The Tales of Jud the Rat' thus provides a form of e-learning which has the potential to enable paired reading methods to be used in a variety of contexts to develop fluent reading. There would also be potential for combining this programme with other instructional approaches [62].
