VIDBE-Q Volume 68 Issue 4
72
Results
Both Laura and Teagan demonstrated progress in their reading fluency going
through the steps of the Read Naturally process with adaptations. Laura met her
15% fluency improvement goal from baseline in the first two of the three stories.
On the third story, she reached a 14% increase. Although the percentage for
improvement for story two came out to 41%, this needs to be interpreted with
caution. During story two, Laura repeated a line during her cold read. While the
repetition was not counted as an error, it added to the length of time it took to read
the passage, which affected her initial fluency score. This impacted her percentage
improvement calculation with her hot read. Teagan met his 30% fluency
improvement goal from baseline in the three stories. For story three, Teagan's
fluency improvement jumped to 41%. While the data from this initial pilot study
did not extend across more than three repetitions of the Read Naturally process, it
provides a starting point from which future studies could use the same adaptations
for students with visual impairments to compare percentage improvement in
fluency across a longer period of intervention and when compared to fluency
measured on materials other than Read Naturally. Table 2 displays the percent
improvement in reading fluency for both participants over the three passages.
