Examining the Impact of QuickReads' Technology and Print Formats on Fluency, Comprehension, and Vocabulary Development for Elementary Students

References

• Adams, M. J. (2006). The promise of automatic speech recognition for fostering literacy growth in children and adults. In M. McKenna, L. Labbo, R. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology (Vol. 2, pp. 109–128). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77–117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Omanson, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1984). Improving the comprehensibility of stories: The effects of revisions that improve coherence. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(3), 263–277.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Fisher, P. J. L., Ogle, D., & Watts-Taffe, S. (2006). Vocabulary: Questions from the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4), 524–539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, J. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 631–658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervetti, G. N., Jaynes, C. A., & Hiebert, E. H. (2009). Increasing opportunities to acquire knowledge through reading. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 79–100). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S., Goodman, M. J., & Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute of Education Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, F. B. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading. Psychometrika, 9, 185–197.
   Google Scholar
• Deeney, T. (2010). One-minute fluency measures: Mixed messages in assessment and instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63(6), 440–450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorph, R., Goldstein, D., Lee, S., Lepori, K., Schneider, S., & Venkatesan, S., (2007). The status of science education in the Bay area. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science, UC-Berkeley.
   Google Scholar
• Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
   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, 239–256.
   Google Scholar
• Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). DIBELS: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services.
   Google Scholar
• Good, R. H., Wallin, J., Simmons, D. C., Kame'enui, E. J., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Systemwide percentile ranks for DIBELS benchmark assessment (Technical Report No. 9). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
   Google Scholar
• Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Bocian, K. M. (1997). Teachers as “tests”: Differential validity of teacher judgments in identifying students at-risk for learning difficulties. School Psychology Review, 26, 47–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and achievement in reading. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 601–644). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636–644.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayden, H. E. (2011). “How will it help my students?” What teachers consider when they consider participating in classroom intervention research. Research in the Schools, 18(2), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Hiebert, E. H. (2006). QuickReads: A research-based fluency program. Parsippany, NJ: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Hiebert, E. H., & Mesmer, H. A. E. (2013). Upping the ante of text complexity in the Common Core standards: Examining its potential impact on young readers. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 44–51. doi:10.3102/0013189×12459802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiebert, E. H., Samuels, S. J., & Rasinski, T. V. (2014). Comprehension-based silent reading rates: What do we know? What do we need to know? TextProject Article Series. Santa Cruz, CA: TextProject.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 719–729.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., Wagner, R. K., & Lopez, D. (2012). Developmental relations between reading fluency and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from grade 1 to grade 2. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 93–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. A. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J., Grigg, W. S., & Donahue, P. L. (2007). The nation's report card: Reading 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdes, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to next generation science standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Kelley, J. G., & Harris, J. R. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1159–1194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin, J. R. & Pressley, M. (1985). Mnemonic vocabulary instruction: What's fact, what's fiction? In R. F. Dillon (Ed.), Individual differences in cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 145–172). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests manual for scoring and interpretation. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Mostow, J., Aist, G., Huang, C., Junker, B., Kennedy, R., Lan, H., … Wierman, A. (2008). 4-month evaluation of a learner-controlled reading tutor that listens. In V. M. Holland & F. P. Fisher (Eds.), The path of speech technologies in computer assisted language learning: From research toward practice (pp. 201–219). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading (Report of the National Reading Panel). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Paige, D. D., Rasinski, T., Magpuri-Lavell, T., & Smith, G. S. (2014). Interpreting the relationships among prosody, automaticity, accuracy, and silent reading comprehension in secondary students. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(2), 123–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Educational Psychologist, 21(1–2), 73–98.
   Google Scholar
• Palincsar, A. S., & Duke, N. K. (2004). The role of text and text-reader interactions in young children's reading development and achievement. Elementary School Journal, 105(2), 183–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K. K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., & Beatty, A. S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Delaney, H. D. (1982). The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational Research, 52, 61–92. doi:10.2307/1170273
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Reutzel, D. R., Fawson, P. C., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Reconsidering silent sustained reading (SSR): An exploratory study of scaffolded silent reading (ScRC). Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 37–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roehrig, A. D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S. M., Hudson, R. F., & Torgesen, J. K. (2008). Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudd, L. L., & Dunn, K. (2011). “Dudes don't read, Ms. Rudd”: The voices behind the statistics. In R. J. Dunston, L. B. Gambrell, K. Headley, S. K. Fullerton, P. M. Stecker, V. R. Gillis, & C. C. Bates (Eds.), 60th yearbook of the Literacy Research Association (pp. 279–288). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Shanahan, C., & Shanahan, T. (2014). Does disciplinary literacy have a place in elementary school? The Reading Teacher, 67(8), 636–639.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 7–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin, N., Sutherland, L. M., Norris, C. A., & Soloway, E. (2012). Effects of game technology on elementary student learning in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 540–560. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01197.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Smolkin, L., & Donovan, C. (2001). The context of comprehension: The information book read aloud. Elementary School Journal, 102(2), 97–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Solis, M., Miciak, J., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2014). Why intensive interventions matter: Longitudinal studies of adolescents with reading disabilities and poor reading comprehension. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 37(4), 218–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stahl, S. (2005). Four problems with teaching word meanings (and what to do to make vocabulary an integral part of instruction). In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 95–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, S. E., Frankenpohl, H., & Pettee, J. L. (1960). Grade level norms for the components of the fundamental reading skills (EDL Research and Information Bulletin #3). New York, NY: EDL/McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1991). A theory of teaching as assisted performance. In P. Light, S. Sheldon, & M. Woodhead (Eds.), Learning to think (pp. 42–62). New York, NY: The Open University.
   Google Scholar
• Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students' self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2), 379–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trainin, G., Andrzejczak, N., & Poldberg, M. (2005). Visual arts and writing a mutually beneficial relationship. Journal of Arts and Learning, 21, 139–156.
   Google Scholar
• Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2008). Benefits of repeated reading intervention for low-achieving fourth- and fifth-grade students. Remedial and Special Education, 29(4), 235–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valencia, S. W., Smith, A. T., Reece, A. M., Li, M., Wixson, K. K., & Newman, H. (2010). Oral reading fluency assessment: Issues of construct, criterion, and consequential validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 270–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar