Effects of Syllabication and
Repeated Reading in
Middle School Students with
Reading Disability
Jacquelyn Chovanes and Minyi Dennis
Lehigh University
Introduction
NAEP (2015)
scores for
eighth grade:
34%
Proficient or
Advanced,
66% Basic or
Below Basic
1/3 cannot
adequately
read and
comprehend
grade level
material,
another 1/3
only
marginally
able to do so
These students
experience:
Increasing
achievement
gap
Difficulty
learning
content area
subject
matter
Greater risk of
school failure
and dropout
Why Syllabication?
 Older struggling readers have mastered letter-sound decoding, need
intervention in separating multisyllabic words into more easily decodable
chunks to support reading fluency – the ability to accurately and rapidly
decode text leaving cognitive resources available for comprehension
(Archer, Gleason, & Vachon, 2003; Bhattacharya & Ehri, 2004, LaBerge & Samuels, 1974)
 In middle and high school, most of the grade-level text students encounter
is made up of unfamiliar, multisyllabic words, particularly in content area
texts (Spinelli, 2012)
 Research suggests that while successful readers use effective strategies to
divide and pronounce unfamiliar multisyllabic words, struggling readers do
not (Marmurek, 1988; Shefelbine & Calhoun, 1991; Tremain, Bowey, & Bourassa, 2002)
 Instead, struggling readers rely upon individual letter-sound decoding
strategies, which are less efficient and further compromised by the
tendency of struggling readers to skip letters and word parts when
decoding (Archer, et al., 2003; Ehri & Robbins, 1992)
Research on Syllabication
2 types of syllabication Interventions:
• Rules-based: learn many syllable types and dictionary-based syllabication
rules
• Disappointing results: students memorized rules, but did not apply them when
reading: Canney & Schreiner, 1976; Cunningham, Cunningham, & Rystrom, 1981
• Lack of theoretical and empirical support for rules, too many rules, rules too
complex, some infrequently used: Groff, 1971; Shefelbine, 1990
• Effect on word id and comprehension on standardized measures, none on fluency
in connected text: Diliberto et al., 2008
• Flexible: simplified strategy, only rule is one vowel sound per syllable,
allows multiple attempts to assign consonants to preceding or following
syllable
• Effect on word id, did not measure fluency: Shefelbine, 1990; Bhattacharya & Ehri, 2004
• Intervention must target fluency as well as decoding (Flynn, Zheng, & Swanson,
2012; Scammacca, Roberts, Vaughn, & Stuebing, 2013; Wanzek, et al., 2013)
Research on Repeated Reading with
Word Study Component
 Repeated Reading (RR): common, well-researched fluency
intervention, effective with students with LD/struggling readers
(Therrien, 2004)
 Struggling readers who experience deficits in word recognition and
decoding skills require both skills instruction and multiple exposures
to unfamiliar words to facilitate word reading (Ehri & Wilce, 1983; Reitsma,
1983)
 Harris, Marchand-Martella, & Martella, 2000; Marchand-Martella, Martella, Orlob,
& Ebey, 2000: decoding instruction and RR, improvement in fluency and
comprehension in adolescents*
 Strong, Wehby, Falk, and Lane, 2004: compared decoding alone to decoding
plus RR, improved fluency and comprehension in adolescents*
 *did not provide flexible syllabication instruction, used a commercial curriculum
with controlled texts
Purpose
 Syllabication shows promise in increasing word reading accuracy, and
RR with a word study component improves fluency and comprehension
in older struggling readers, but research on syllabication combined with
RR is limited.
 While multicomponent reading interventions at the Tier 2 level can improve
reading skills for middle school students with RD, some students require Tier 3
(intensified, individualized) interventions that include instruction in
decoding multisyllabic words.
 The primary purpose of this study was to examine an add-on flexible
syllabication intervention within the context of repeated reading
instruction, i.e., the syllabication/RR intervention, on the multisyllabic
word reading of middle school students with RD
 A secondary purpose of the study was to examine the effects of the
syllabication/RR intervention on the reading fluency and
comprehension of middle school students with RD
Research Questions
1. What is the effect of a syllabication/RR
intervention on the multisyllabic word reading
skills of middle school students with RD?
2. What is the effect of a syllabication/RR
intervention on the reading fluency of middle
school students with RD?
3. What is the effect of a syllabication/RR
intervention on the reading comprehension of
middle school students with RD?
Participants and Setting
Table 1
Participant Demographic Information
Gender
Ethnicity
Age
Grade
Diagnosis
Instructional
Reading Level
Anna
Female
Hispanic
12.2
7
Learning Disability
th
4 grade
Victor
Male
Hispanic
13.7
8
Learning Disability
th
4 grade
Brandy
Female
Hispanic
12.6
7
Learning Disability
th
5 grade
 Anna and Victor: WIDA maintenance
 Large, urban middle school; diverse population of 982 students (68%
Hispanic, 17% Black, 14% White, 1% Asian) in which 86% of students
qualified for free or reduced lunch; teacher’s workroom adjacent to
the students’ classroom
Measurement and dependent
variables
 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski,
2002) oral reading fluency passages: to determine student instructional
reading level
 Word list reading probes: researcher created, to determine the syllables
read correctly (SRC) in multisyllabic words pulled from the instructional
passages – syllables read correctly ➗ total syllables attempted X 100 = SRC
accuracy score
 Oral Reading Fluency Probes (ORF probes): to determine WCPM – Total
words read in 1 min ➖ errors, and WRA – words read correctly in 1 min ➗
words attempted X 100.
 Maze Probes: to determine WCC - the number of correctly chosen words
completed within the 3-min timed Maze assessment.
Measurement Tool Sources: Passages
Measurement Tool Sources: ORF and Maze http://www.interventioncentral.org
ORF
Copy and paste Readworks passages into Word, format, then paste into ORF generator
Sample ORF
Maze
Use same formatted Word document to copy and paste into Maze generator
Maze: Selecting Distractor Words
Maze: Editing Distractor Words
Maze: Readability, Save as PDF and
Print
Sample Maze
Intervention
 Syllabication Strategy: substitute
1. Separate the prefixes and suffixes.
sub/ stitute
2. Underline the vowels.
sub/ stitute
3. Divide any remaining syllables.
sub/ sti/ tu/ te
sub/ sti/ tute
4. Say each syllable.
sub/ sti/ tute
open syllable; long vowel i
sub/ stit/ ute
closed syllable; short vowel i
5. Say the whole word.
substitute
Syllabication within RR context
 Students read passage for I min, WCPM and WRA
calculated
 Student reads whole passage, examiner marks errors on
multisyllabic words
 Instructor models syllabication strategy use on first word,
student uses strategy steps to pronounce remaining
words with corrective feedback
 Student reads two unscored 1 min readings, then fourth
1 min reading is scored for WCPM and WRA
Research Design
 Multiple probe across participants
 Repeated measures: word list, first and fourth ORF
probes, maze
 After 5 baseline points, Participant 1 entered
intervention, criterion for next participants to enter was
three consecutive points showing improvement over
baseline
 10 intervention lessons, plus the initial training lesson for
each student, three weeks intervention duration
 Researcher was the interventionist
Baseline Procedures
ORF 1, WCPM and WRA calculated
Whole passage read, not scored
2 unscored 1-min readings
ORF 4, WCPM and WRA calculated
Maze
Word list
Intervention Procedures
 ORF 1, WCPM and WRA calculated
 Whole passage read, missed multisyllabic words listed
 Instructor models syllabication strategy on 1st word, student
uses strategy to pronounce remaining words, instructor
provides corrective feedback
 2 unscored 1-min readings
 ORF 4, WCPM and WRA calculated
 Maze
 Word list
 First lesson only: instructor provides review of vowels,
defines syllable, demonstrates how to syllabicate a word
using student’s name as example, defines prefix and suffix
Treatment Fidelity and Inter-scorer
Agreement
 35% of sessions rated by trained SPED doctoral students
 Treatment fidelity: 100% of 136 items
 Inter-scorer agreement (point by point):
 Overall: 97.44%
 SRC: 95.69%
 ORF 1 (WCPM, WRA): 97.62%
 ORF 4 (WCPM, WRA): 98.3%
 Maze: 98.77%
Results: SRC
Table 2
Participant Mean Performance Scores on Percentage of Syllables Read Correctly (SRC)
Participant
Anna
Victor
Brandy
Baseline
Mean (SD)
83.60 (7.47)
45.3 (14.28)
54.71 (10.39)
Intervention
Mean (SD)
95.18 (4.30)
61.7 (20.50)
76.45 (7.12)
Tau-U: .88
Percentage
Gain
11.6
16.4
21.7
Results: WRA
Table 3
Participant Mean Performance Scores on Percentage Word Reading Accuracy (WRA)
Anna
Victor
Brandy
Baseline
ORF 1
Mean (SD)
91.6 (4.62)
90 (6.96)
90.28 (4.57)
Intervention
ORF 1
Mean (SD)
97.09 (3.56)
93.18 (3.67)
91.72 (5.55)
Baseline
ORF 4
Mean (SD)
95.4 (2.5)
94.5 (2.74)
94.86 (1.89)
Tau-U: .84 4th reading
.34 1st reading
Intervention
ORF 4
Mean (SD)
98.8 (1.42)
98.18 (2.08)
98.45 (1.57)
Results: WCPM and Maze
Table 4
Mean Performance Scores on Oral Reading Fluency (WCPM)
Anna
Victor
Brandy
Baseline
ORF 1
Mean (SD)
34.4 (8.26)
45.1 (12.4)
45 (18.1)
Intervention
ORF 1
Mean (SD)
44.5(14.0)
41.5(10.7)
43.9(14.9)
Baseline
ORF 4
Mean (SD)
70.6(13.1)
65.3(15.2)
74.8(15.9)
Intervention
ORF 4
Mean (SD)
75.8(11.9)
68.3(15.9)
82.8(13.3)
Social Validity
 Adapted CIRP (Witt & Elliot, 1985)
 1) The strategy helped me to read better
 2) The strategy was understandable
 3) The strategy was simple to use
 4) I would use this strategy again
 5) I can use the strategy in other classes
 6) I would recommend this strategy to my friends.
 Anna: 4.6
 Victor: 4.3
 Brandy: 6
 preferred the syllable division strategy to “when the teacher just covers
up a part of the word and then you say that part and then you say the
whole word, because this teaches you how to break up the word
yourself.”
Discussion
 Improved decoding accuracy on word lists – supports prior syllabication studies
 Improved decoding accuracy in connected text – extended prior syllabication
studies that did not include connected text reading
 Higher WRA in intervention over baseline shows benefit of adding syllabication to RR
intervention
 Students moved from frustration or instructional level to mastery level by 4th reading
 Small improvement on 1st reading shows some generalization to novel passages
 Small effect on reading fluency; more time needed to develop fluency in older
readers (0.4-0.7 words/wk, Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006); expository vs narrative
 Anna gained 10 WCPM in 3 weeks – likely due to increasing accuracy level to
independent on the passages – allowed for fluency growth
 No effect on reading comprehension: no comprehension instruction included,
necessary for older readers (Roberts, et al., 2008)
 Students easily learned the simple syllabication strategy
 Students were motivated to read 4 times to beat prior score, use the strategy to
figure out missed multisyllabic words
Discussion
 This strategy makes instruction efficient by only teaching words/skills kids do not
know – not wasting time on known skills.
 Motivation: important for adolescents. In this study, the students were motivated
to read four times because they saw immediate improvement. This increased
after intervention (anecdotal), because they had a strategy to use to attack
unknown words.
 Students developed a personal relationship with the words they studied
because they had just experienced them as errors – they were encouraged
during the syllabication process that they could decode the previously missed
words, and then they were excited to encounter them again as they reread the
passage.
 Students were exposed to the previously unknown word multiple times during
the re-readings; affording them multiple opportunities to practice.
 Two of the three participants were ELL students, not currently receiving services,
but still participating in maintenance testing. No differences in effect were
noticed due to ELL status, suggesting that this strategy may be effective for ELLs
with RD.
Limitations
 Short duration
 Passage variability: use Lexile to improve leveling
 Lack of comprehension strategy instruction: add CSI, or
embed into ongoing content area instruction
So what?
 In spite of these limitations, this study supports the
efficacy of using syllabication strategy instruction
combined with RR to increase the word reading
accuracy of middle school students with RD on word lists
and in connected text.
 Because the syllabication strategy in Syllabication/RR
intervention is simple for students to learn and the
Syllabication/RR intervention can be easily implemented
by teachers, this approach is a promising addition to the
current array of Tier 3 interventions to improve the
multisyllabic word reading skills and reading accuracy in
connected text of middle school students with RD.