Videotaped oral reading fluency lab: An alternative approach to one -on -one interventions for intermediate elementary students with learning disabilities

Abstract

The ability to read aloud fluently is a reflection of one’s ability to automatically decode words and comprehend text at the same time (Samuels, 2006), a task which may be difficult for many intermediate elementary students with learning disabilities (LD) (Ferrara, 2005). Previous research shows that audio-assisted repeated readings and goal-setting with feedback are effective methods of improving oral reading fluency (ORF) (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002; Morgan & Sideridis, 2006; Therrien, 2004) but implementing these interventions may be time-consuming for teachers and tedious for students.

The purpose of this research was to determine the impact of including repeated reading interventions within a problem-solving framework of services for individual intermediate students with LD. Specifically, this study investigated whether a videotaped delivery method of a repeated reading intervention improved ORF at the same rate as a one-on-one delivery method for four fifth-grade students with LD. Using an ABCBC alternating-phases design, the single-subject study began with a short baseline followed by two treatment phases. Phase B utilized one-on-one repeated reading interventions delivered by an experienced teacher. Phase C utilized a pre-recorded videotaped version of the same teacher following the same procedures. Both quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed to determine the preferred learning method for each participant.

The results of this research reinforced the use of repeated reading interventions for individual intermediate elementary students with LD. All four participants met or exceeded the goal of 25% improvement in reading rates. Results also suggest value in devoting time to the preparation of prerecorded videotaped ORF interventions in order to meet the needs of some struggling learners. Consideration of individual learner characteristics was discussed, as well as consideration of time constraints faced by both general and special educators.