The effects of dyad reading and text difficulty on third-graders’ reading achievement

References

• Abbott, M., Willis, H., Miller, A., & Kaufman, J. (2012). The relationship of error rate and comprehension in second and third grade oral reading fluency. Reading Psychology, 33, 104–132.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, T., & Brignone, E. (2016). Furniture: Furniture for health, behavioral, and social scientists. R package version 1.1.0 , available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=furniture.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamin, R. G., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2010). Text complexity and oral reading prosody in young readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 388–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.15598/RRQ.45.4.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, L. T., Mohr, K. A. J., & Wilcox, B. (2016, December). Implementing dyad reading with challenging texts. Annual Conference of the Literacy Research Association (LRA), Nashville, TN.
   Google Scholar
• College and career readiness anchor standards for reading. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/R/
   Google Scholar
• Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers.
   Google Scholar
• Eldredge, J. L. (1988). Improving the reading comprehension skills of poor readers. Reading Horizons, 29(1), 35–42.
   Google Scholar
• Eldredge, J. L. (2005). Foundations of fluency: An exploration. Reading Psychology, 26, 161–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702710590930519
   Google Scholar
• Eldredge, J. L., & Butterfield, D. D. (1986). Alternatives to traditional reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 40(1), 32–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eldredge, J. L., & Quinn, W. D. (1988). Increasing reading performance of low-achieving second graders with dyad reading groups. The Journal of Educational Research, 82(1), 40–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1988.10885863
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flood, J., Lapp, D., & Fisher, D. (2005). Neurological impress method plus. Reading Psychology, 26(2), 147–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702710590930500
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 92–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0503_3
   Google Scholar
• Hall, D., & Kennedy, S. (2006). Primary progress, secondary challenge: A state-by-state look at student achievement patterns. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, T. J., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Heckelman, R. G. (1969). A neurological-impress method of remedial-reading instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 4(4), 277–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105345126900400406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollingsworth, P. M. (1970). An experiment with the impress method of teaching reading. The Reading Teacher, 24(2), 112–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaşkaya, A. (2016). Improving reading fluency and reading comprehension with NIM-assisted teaching: An activity research. Education and Science, 41(185), 281–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.4949
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klvacek, M. L. (2015). Dyad reading experiences of second-grade English learners with fiction and nonfiction texts (Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Teacher Education). Brigham Young University.
   Google Scholar
• Knutson, K. A. (2011). Growth expectations: Setting achievable goals. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Meisinger, E. B., Levy, B. A., & Rasinski, T. V. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2) 230–251.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspectives from the instance theory of automatization. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 13(2), 123–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1057356970130203
   Google Scholar
• MacGinitie, W., MacGinitie, R., Cooter, R., & Curry, S. (1989). Assessment: Gates-MacGinitie reading tests, third edition. The Reading Teacher, 43(3), 256–258.
   Google Scholar
• McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 445–463.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, A. (1997). Effect of various difficulty levels on reading achievement of second-grade delayed readers using dyad reading (Unpublished master's thesis). Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, A., Wilcox, B., & Eldredge, J. L. (2000). Effect of difficulty levels on second-grade delayed readers using dyad reading. Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 113–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Reading Panel (U.S.), & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (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: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
   Google Scholar
• Paquette, K. R. (2009). Integrating the 6+1 writing traits model with cross-age tutoring: An investigation of elementary students’ writing development. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(1), 28–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070802226261
   Google Scholar
• Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510–519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• Rasinski, T. (2004). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 46–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasinski, T. V., Reutzel, D. R., Chard, D., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2011). Reading fluency. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 286–319). New York, NY: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203840412.ch13
   Google Scholar
• Rasinski, T., Rikli, A., & Johnston, S. (2009). Reading fluency: More than automaticity? More than a concern for the primary grades. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(4), 350–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070802468715
   Google Scholar
• Scholastic, Inc. (2006). Scholastic reading inventory: Educator's guide. New York, NY: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Scholastic Inc. (2007). Scholastic reading inventory technical guide. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. Education Group.
   Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T. (2005). The national reading panel report: Practical advice for teachers. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). The challenge of challenging text. Reading: The Core Skill, 69(6), 58–62.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl, K. D. (2012). Complex text or frustration-level text: Using shared reading to bridge the difference. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 47–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stahl, S. A., & Kuhn, M. R. (2002). Center for the improvement of early reading achievement—Making it sound like language: Developing fluency. The Reading Teacher, 55(6), 582–584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steck, S. K., Roser, N. L., & Martinez, M. G. (1998). Toward understanding oral reading fluency. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 47, 295–310.
   Google Scholar
• Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral reading fluency, Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 211–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405849109543502
   Google Scholar