Within the same passage, treatment students' fluency increased from Monday cold reads to Friday reads each week¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Design limits · Still 2012: the intervention came bundled with another change (read from the study by two models, 2026-11-01)
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? The treatment group's average fluency on weekly charts increased from the Monday cold read to the Friday read, and the group average rose each week. → Still 2012
Evidence¶
Still 2012¶
Still, K. L., & Flynt, C. A. (2012). Does Repeated Reading Improve Reading Fluency and Comprehension for Struggling Adolescent Readers? JAASEP, Winter 2012. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1135781
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Weekly Monday/Friday progress-monitoring fluency charts for the treatment group across the 12-week intervention, shown in Graph 1 and Appendix C. The article reports "major increases in reading fluency from Monday (cold read) to the Friday read"; no effect size printed.
"there were major increases in reading fluency from Monday (cold read) to the Friday read. The total treatment group’s average fluency increased each week when given the cold read"
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Reading and Language — outcome: instruction changes it
- Reading Fluency — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Students with LD made statistically significant gains in oral reading fluency on off-grade-level passages but no significant gains on word reading or comprehension standard scores — related
- Both RT and regular remedial instruction significantly improved underachievers' oral reading fluency over 15 weeks — related
- Repeated peer reading did not produce transferable fluency gains on the AIMSweb posttest for most struggling adolescent readers — related
- Treatment group participants showed larger comprehension gains than control group participants, with six increasing by at least 50 lexiles — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.