Analyzing “Inconsistencies” in Practice: Teachers' Continued Use of Round Robin Reading

Abstract

This study analyzed in-service teachers' and literacy coaches' perceptions of Round Robin Reading to begin developing an understanding of the persistence of this practice in public schools in the United States. Surveying 80 teachers and 27 literacy coaches using an open-ended instrument, we found that many teachers continued to use Round Robin Reading for a variety of reasons. Teacher-given reasons for using Round Robin Reading included covering content, managing classroom behavior, improving fluency, and assessing students' literacy development. Distinct differences in knowledge of fluency research were identified in teachers who used and did not use Round Robin Reading in their teaching. Based on this research, we consider that professional development aimed at supplanting Round Robin Reading in instruction and focused on meeting teachers' instructional goals is essential; it appears that simply reviewing research that indicates Round Robin Reading is an ineffective practice is insufficient, in and of itself, to change practice.The purpose of this research is to study in-service teachers' and literacy coaches' perceptions of Round Robin Reading (RRR) in order to better understand the persistence of this practice in public schools in the United States.

What Really Matters When Working With Struggling Readers

“…Much of this oral reading is done in the round robin oral reading style (Allington, ; Allington & McGill‐Franzen, ). This occurs even though round robin reading has been criticized as a lesson component (Ash, Kuhn, & Walpole, ; Rasinski & Hoffman, ) and shown to be a less effective use of instructional time than other alternatives (Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, ).…”

Preservice Teacher Knowledge, Print Exposure, and Planning for Instruction

“…Incorrect answers were awarded 0 points. For example, any answers that identified round‐robin reading as a positive practice received 0 points because it has a long‐standing history as being ineffective (see Ash et al., ). Half points were allotted for incomplete answers; answers that were complete, correct, and included an appraisal of the observed teaching practice of the observation received 2 points.…”

An Examination of the Influences of a Teacher Preparation Program on Beginning Teachers' Reading Instruction

“…We noted that the two beginning teachers in this study who relied on ineffective reading practice techniques such as "popcorn" reading (see Table 3) indeed struggled with issues related to classroom management when working with the whole class, which is a common reason why teachers resort to using this ineffective (and sometimes detrimental) technique (Ash, Kuhn, & Walpole, 2009). …”

“…"Popcorn" reading was specifically discouraged in this teacher training program, and it has been discouraged by professional reading organizations (Allington, 1984;Eldredge, Reutzel, & Hollingsworth, 1996). Ash, Kuhn, and Walpole (2009) have recommended that teachers should use other instructional strategies in place of "popcorn" reading such as Fluency Oriented Reading Instruction (Kuhn et al, 2006), Wide Reading Intervention (Kuhn et al, 2006), Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Burish, 2000), Jigsaw (Aronson, Blaney, Sikes, Stephan, & Snapp, 1978), and Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). When asked to describe her use of "popcorn" reading, Annalise acknowledged that the primary purpose was to ensure classroom management.…”