Effect of Difficulty Levels on Second-Grade Delayed Readers Using Dyad Reading

Morgan, Alisa; Wilcox, Bradley R.; Eldredge, J. Lloyd

doi:10.1080/00220670009598749

Cited by 39 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in this approach, the identified reading level is not where you will start with a student. Research (Morgan, Wilcox, & Eldredge, ; Stahl & Heubach, ) suggests that students can read more difficult material when engaging in assisted reading, and we recommend beginning with a text approximately one year above the student's independent reading level. This is contrary to previous research on NIM that asserts the text should be easy for the students (Anderson, ), but it follows the findings of our previous research (Young, Mohr, & Rasinski, ).…”

Section: Implementing Read Two Impressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Read Two Impress

Young¹,

Rasinski²,

Mohr³

2015

The Reading Teacher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors describe a research‐based method to increase students’ reading fluency. The method is called Read Two Impress, which is derived from the Neurological Impress Method and the method of repeated readings. The authors provide step‐by‐step procedures to effectively implement the reading fluency intervention. Previous research indicates that Read Two Impress can significantly impact students’ reading fluency and overall reading achievement.

show abstract

Section: Implementing Read Two Impressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Read Two Impress

Young¹,

Rasinski²,

Mohr³

2015

The Reading Teacher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the Morgan, Wilcox, and Eldredge (2000) study that has been cited as evidence that students' achievement can be improved with more challenging texts (Shanahan, 2013) did not use a uniform measure for establishing text complexity. When we reanalyzed a representative sample of texts read by each of the three groups, the results showed that the average Lexile for the on-grade group (i.e., the group that was not receiving challenging text) was higher than that for the two-grades-above group: 443L for the former and 397L for the latter.…”

Section: Developmental and Proficiency Levelsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Third Graders’ Reading Proficiency Reading Texts Varying in Complexity and Length

Mesmer

Hiebert²

2015

Journal of Literacy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts (CCSS/ELA) focus on building student capacity to read complex texts. The Standards provide an explicit text complexity staircase that maps text levels to grade levels. Furthermore, the Standards articulate a rationale to accelerate text levels across grades to ensure students are able to read texts in college and the workplace on high school graduation. This study empirically examined how third graders at two reading proficiency levels performed with texts of differing degrees of complexity identified as the Grades 2 to 3 band within the CCSS. The study also investigated the influence on comprehension of two text lengths. Results suggest that the compounding effects of text complexity and length uniformly affected reading proficiency of third graders. Typically, when presented with two texts of the same complexity level, readers had lower comprehension in the lengthier version of the text than the shorter version. Features of the single level where performances on texts of different lengths were not statistically significant are described, as are implications for educational practice and future research.

show abstract

“…Some studies have shown that students can successfully comprehend difficult texts. For example, two studies compared young readers partner reading with texts at different difficulty levels and found that the greatest gains occurred for students who read texts two years above their current level (Brown, Mohr, Wilcox, & Barrett, 2017;Morgan, Wilcox, & Eldredge, 2000). Although some studies find no difference in terms of comprehension outcomes when students read different levels of texts (Mathes & Fuchs, 1993;O'Connor, Swanson, & Geraghty, 2010), others have shown that students grow in fluency and comprehension when teachers use difficult texts in conjunction with strong instructional support (Stahl & Heubach, 2005).…”

Section: Value Of Difficult Textsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Hard Should the Books Be in Small‐Group Reading? It Depends

Kelly¹

2019

The Reading Teacher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teachers balance many goals when selecting texts for small‐group reading. The author explored the impact of one variable that teachers consider, quantitative text difficulty, on students’ participation, discussion, comprehension, and fluency in small‐group discussions of informational science texts. Six bilingual third graders identified as reading below grade level participated. Students’ comprehension scores were the same for matched and difficult texts. Matched texts benefited three students in terms of fluency and two students in terms of participation. Difficult texts benefited three students in developing conversations around print and ideas (rather than focusing on pictures) and in having more inferential (rather than merely literal) talk. Different levels of text had drawbacks and advantages, and the findings encourage teachers to use both matched and difficult texts at different times and for different instructional purposes.

show abstract

Effect of Difficulty Levels on Second-Grade Delayed Readers Using Dyad Reading

Cited by 39 publications

References 6 publications

Read Two Impress

Read Two Impress

Third Graders’ Reading Proficiency Reading Texts Varying in Complexity and Length

How Hard Should the Books Be in Small‐Group Reading? It Depends

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About