Research & Evidence
Research Using Great Leaps
1. Shultz Ashley, Gwendolyn, The effects of Great Leaps reading on the reading fluency of elementary students with reading and behavioral deficits., (2021). Paper 3656.
This is a multiple baseline across subjects' study, using the Great Leaps for Reading Digital software with elementary students that had both behavioral and literacy deficits. An excerpt from the study can be found below.
As there is one phase for two students with an N below the required eight data points (Jenkins & Quintana-Ascencio, 2020), I have chosen to compute slope for each phase by hand. In this way, visual analyzation can be supplemented by slope numbers to facilitate more accurate comparisons of the data.
The slope of the trend for each phase, for each child, with online and face to face differentiated, can be found in Table 23 below. Slope was determined by using the formula (y2-y1)/(x2-x1).
Even with the Lexile level increasing frequently, each child did have an increase in reading level. Table 23 shows that each child did have an increase in rate and slope of their trend during the intervention stage. The slope of the trend line for each child increased in intervention, although much greater for M.J. and T.S. than K.J. The mean words per minute increased from baseline to intervention as well. This does show a replicated effect, although not a functional relation.
The Great Leaps graph, Figure 7, shows that although the level of the reading passage increased every few sessions, as students made “leaps”, progress was continual. Visual analyzation of the Great Leaps graph, Figure 7 shows the progress of each individual student. M.J. had slow, steady, upward progress. K.J. had progress that was quicker and steeper than that of M.J., while T.S. had rapid, steep progress through the levels. When visually interpreting the graphs of both the Great Leaps words per minute and the quick read words per minute, it is important to note the similarities and differences.
M.J. had data that was wildly divergent in the beginning of the intervention, then scores began to follow a similar pattern as the intervention progressed. K.J. had intervention graphs that followed the same peaks and valleys between the two data sets. Although the numbers are not the same, the acceleration and deceleration are nearly the same each day. T.S. did not have these similarities in data sets. His data sets show nearly an inverse relationship at several points during intervention (Shultz-Ashley, 2021)
Yet another piece of evidence shows that this intervention, although facing the challenge of multiple modalities, was indeed effective for these students at this time. In order to verify reading levels and ensure that the subjects were two or more grade levels behind, a Test of Word Reading Efficiency-2 (TOWRE-2) assessment was conducted with every participant. In the table below, the gains of each student are evident.
The data shows that these students had significant gains with the use of Great Leaps, which only lasted six weeks. Students continued to use the program beyond the length of the study for their benefit.
2. Cecil D. Mercer, Kenneth U. Campbell, M. David Miller, Kenneth D. Mercer & Holly B. Lane (2000) Effects of a Reading Fluency Intervention for Middle Schoolers With Specific Learning Disabilities, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice15:4, 179-189.
49 middle school students diagnosed with specific learning disabilities were administered the Great Leaps reading program in three groups set by differing intervention duration, with the first group averaging 24 months, the second group averaging 15.5 months, and the third group averaging 7.2 months of intervention. The intervention was implemented up to 5 days a week subject to availability by a certified special education teacher in year 1, and a trained teacher assistant in years 2 and 3.
Curriculum based assessments were used in the pretest and posttest to determine grade level growth (Table 4), along with grade-level scores in the Great Leaps passages themselves (Table 3). These assessments were comprised of 200+ word reading passages graded on the Macmillan Series R. Fry's Readability Formula, where the student's highest grade-level passage successfully read in one minute with 10% or fewer errors would have its correct words per minute recorded as the fluency score in Table 4.
3. Spencer, S. A., & Manis, F. R. (2010). The effects of a fluency intervention program on the fluency and comprehension outcomes of middle-school students with severe reading deficits.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(2), 76–86.
Seeing promise in the previous Mercer et al. study, Spencer et al. chose to investigate Great Leaps with a randomized controlled design and standardized measures of fluency and reading comprehension. Taking place at two middle schools, the researchers finished the study with a total of 60 students selected from Special Day Programs which represented the most profoundly reading-delayed population at the two schools.
Paraprofessionals were to work the Great Leaps program 4 days a week though average sessions per week varied from 2.1 to 4.1 with a combined average of 2.7 sessions per week and 53.2 sessions total. The control group received 10 minutes of instruction from paraprofessionals using the Skills for School Success program, working on general classroom and study skills.
“Given that the posttest fluency scores are based on more difficult reading material, the fluency scores are outstanding.” The 1.82 year grade level improvement found in 6 to 9 months' intervention in learning disabled students corroborates what is typically found with Great Leaps use nationwide.
Results of Experimental and Control Group Comparisons:
“Residualized gain scores (RGS) were used to calculate differences between the experimental and control group outcomes. RGS were chosen in order to mediate the effects of regression toward the mean that may occur when comparing raw change scores.
RGS were calculated by using regression analysis to predict posttest scores from the correlation of the pre- and posttest outcomes, then subtracting the predicted scores from the actual posttest scores (De Vaus, 2001). Mean RGS for each group were then compared through the use of independent t tests.
Outcomes on Fluency and Decoding Measures:
“Means of the RGS for the experimental and control groups are reported in Table 3. The experimental group made significantly more progress than the control group on the Phonemic Decoding Efficiency assessment (p = .025), with an effect size of 0.41 (Test of Word Reading Efficiency [TOWRE]; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999b). The experimental group also made statistically significant gains in mean RGS for GORT-III Rate (ES = 0.59), GORT-III Accuracy (ES = 0.62), and GORT-III Passage (ES = 0.61) when compared to the control group. According to Cohen (1988), effect sizes of .20 or less are considered small, .60 is considered moderate, and .80 and above is considered large. From the Discussion, “The results of the group comparisons of the reading data clearly indicate that the intervention was successful in improving reading fluency. Students in the experimental group made significantly more progress in fluency than the control group as measured by their performance on four measures:
(a) TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Efficiency, (b) GORT-III Rate, (c) GORT-III Accuracy, and (d) GORT-III Passage. In addition, these outcomes reveal that the students were able to generalize their fluency gains to novel material. The reasons for this success are likely related to the design of the Great Leaps Reading program (Campbell, 2005), which closely aligns with the recommendations of the majority of the literature on effective fluency instruction:
(a) clear performance criteria for the students, (b) systematic progression into harder material as students master each level, (c) implementation by adults, and (d) incorporation of regular error correction and feedback. These components were recommended by Chard et al. (2002), Therrien (2004), and the NRP (2000) in their meta-analyses of fluency research.”
Research & Materials Supporting Great Leaps
Dowhower, S. (1989). Repeated Reading: Research into Practice. The Reading Teacher, 42(7), 502-507.
Repeated reading is a similar concept to practice makes perfect and it is essential to the effectiveness of Great Leaps. Students stay on an exercise, reading it multiple times until a goal is made.
Johnson, K., & Street, E.M. (2012). From the Laboratory to the Field and Back Again: Morningside Academy's 32 Years of Improving Students' Academic Performance.
Morningside utilizes the precision teaching methodology that Great Leaps is built on and offers a full refund of tuition .
Adams, Marilyn J. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Center for the Study of Reading.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Heckelman, R. G. (1969). A neurological-impress method of remedial-reading instruction. Academic Therapy Quarterly,5(4),
Gave 24 students with reading difficulties 7 1/4 hr. neurological-impress reading instruction.
Osborn, J. & Lehr, F. (2004). A focus on fluency. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.
Intended for practitioners, this is the first booklet in the Research-Based Practices in Early Reading series published by the Learning.
Research & Materials Supporting Great Leaps
TEACHING METHODS
Binder, C., & Watkins, C. L. (1990). Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction: Measurably superior instructional technology in schools. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 3(4), 74-96.
Sacajawea Elementary School, where students who received 20-30 minutes daily of Precision Teaching advanced an average of 19-40 percentile points compared to their peers. “Improvements of two or more grade-levels per year of instruction are common in Precision Teaching classroom.”
Johnson, K., & Street, E.M. (2012). From the Laboratory to the Field and Back Again: Morningside Academy's 32 Years of Improving Students' Academic Performance.
Morningside utilizes the precision teaching methodology that Great Leaps is built on and offers a full refund of tuition .
Adams, Marilyn J. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Center for the Study of Reading.
This book is written for parents, teachers and administrators and speaks to the proven ways to teach reading based on a collection of research that is presented.
Heckelman, R. G. (1969). A neurological-impress method of remedial-reading instruction. Academic Therapy Quarterly, 5(4), pp. 277–282.
Gave 24 students with reading difficulties 7 1/4 hr. neurological-impress reading instruction. The mean gain in reading comprehension was 1.9 grade levels significant at the .001 and .005% levels. The results of the teaching method were discussed and it was hypothesized that this method is "one of the most direct and fundamental systems of reading" involving a "combination of reflexive neurological systems.
Osborn, J. & Lehr, F. (2004). A focus on fluency. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.
Intended for practitioners, this is the first booklet in the Research-Based Practices in Early Reading series published by the Regional Educational Laboratory at Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. The 31-page booklet summarizes research on fluency and fluency instruction and describes strategies for fluency instruction. It also explains various ways of conducting repeated oral reading, the use of independent silent reading, an integrated fluency instruction approach, the role of texts, and fluency assessment.
PROGRAM DESIGN
Dowhower, S. (1989). Repeated Reading: Research into Practice. The Reading Teacher, 42(7), 502-507.
Repeated reading is a similar concept to practice makes perfect and it is essential to the effectiveness of Great Leaps. Students stay on an exercise, reading it multiple times until a goal is made.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Repeated Reading: Research into Practice. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), pp. 239–256.
This evaluates the idea that oral reading fluency is a good measure of overall reading competence. Great Leaps uses oral reading instruction and gauges student reading growth off of their oral reading performance.
Hasbrouck, J. (2006). For Students Who Are Not Yet Fluent, Silent Reading Is Not the Best Use of Classroom Time. American Educator, Summer 2006, 30(2).
Teachers have often utilized ineffective reading strategies such as silent reading to improve fluency in the past. Improving fluency takes practice, support and guided out loud reading and research-based instruction.
Hasbrouck, J. (2006). Screening, diagnosing, and progress monitoring for fluency: The details. American Educator, Summer 2006, 30(2).
Gave 24 students with reading difficulties 7 1/4 hr. neurological-impress reading instruction. The mean gain in reading comprehension was 1.9 grade levels significant at the .001 and .005% levels. The results of the teaching method were discussed and it was hypothesized that this method is "one of the most direct and fundamental systems of reading" involving a "combination of reflexive neurological systems.
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. International Reading Association, 59 (7), 636–644.
In 1992, the authors collaborated to develop a set of norms for oral reading fluency for grades 2–5. Since then, interest in and awareness of fluency has greatly increased, and Hasbrouck and Tindal have collaborated further to compile an updated and expanded set of norms for grades 1–8. This article discusses the application of these norms to three important assessment activities related to improving students' reading achievement: Screening students for possible reading problems. Diagnosing deficits in students' fluency. Monitoring the progress of students receiving supplementary instruction or intensive intervention in reading. An overview of the history and purpose for developing measures of oral reading fluency is also presented.
Hudson, R. F., H. B. Lane, and P. C. Pullen. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how. Reading Teacher, 58(8), pp. 702-714.
This article explains the elements of reading fluency and ways to assess and teach them. Fluent reading has three elements: accurate reading of connected text, at a conversational rate with appropriate prosody. Word reading accuracy refers to the ability to recognize or decode words correctly. Reading rate refers to both word-level automaticity and speed in reading text. Prosodic features are variations in pitch, stress patterns, and duration that contribute to expressive reading of a text. To assess reading fluency, including all its aspects, teachers listen to students read aloud. Students' accuracy can be measured by listening to oral reading and counting the number of errors per 100 words or a running record. Measuring reading rate includes both word-reading automaticity and speed in reading connected text using tests of sight-word knowledge and timed readings. A student's reading prosody can be measured using a checklist while listening to the student. To provide instruction in rate and accuracy, variations on the repeated readings technique are useful. To develop prosody, readers can listen to fluent models and engage in activities focused on expression and meaning. Opportunities to develop all areas of reading fluency are important for all readers, but especially for those who struggle.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, pp. 292–323.
A model of information processing in reading is described in which visual information is transformed through a series of processing stages involving visual, phonological and episodic memory systems until it is finally comprehended in the semantic system. The processing which occurs at each stage is assumed to be learned and the degree of this learning is evaluated with respect to two criteria: accuracy and automaticity. At the accuracy level of performance, attention is assumed to be necessary for processing; at the automatic level it is not. Experimental procedures are described which attempt to measure the degree of automaticity achieved in perceptual and associative learning tasks. Factors which may influence the development of automaticity in reading are discussed.
Mehta, P. D., Foorman, B. R., Branum-Martin, L., & Taylor, W. P. (2005). Literacy as a unidimensional construct: Validation, sources of influence and implications in a longitudinal study in grades 1–4. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), pp. 85–116.
This study examined the extent to which literacy is a unitary construct, the differences between literacy and general language competence, and the relative roles of teachers and students in predicting literacy outcomes. Much of past research failed to make a distinction between variability in outcomes for individual students and variability for outcomes in the classrooms students share (i.e., the classroom level). Utilizing data from 1,342 students in 127 classrooms in Grades 1 to 4 in 17 high-poverty schools, confirmatory factor models were fit with single- and two-factor structures at both student and classroom levels. Results support a unitary literacy factor for reading and spelling, with the role of phonological awareness as an indicator of literacy declining across the grades. Writing was the least related to the literacy factor but the most impacted by teacher effects. Language competence was distinct at the student level but perfectly correlated with literacy at the classroom level. Implications for instruction and assessment of reading comprehension are discussed.
Moyer, S.B. (1982). Repeated reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 619-623.
The last two topical reviews focused on individual differences in the cognitive processes related to reading. The topic of this month's review is again reading, but the focus is on educational technology rather than individual differences. Dr. Moyer's paper makes at least two important contributions to the literature on remedial reading techniques. First, it provides a thorough discussion and review of the empirical evidence related to the use of a relatively new remedial technique, multiple oral rereading. Second, it establishes a theoretical context for the potential effectiveness of this technique with problem readers. This latter contribution seems vital because of its potential to add to our understanding of both the reading process itself and the difficulties learning disabled children experience in learning to read.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC.
This report summarizes the work and findings of the National Reading Panel, charged by Congress to assess the status of research-based knowledge, including the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to read.
Neddenriep, C. E., Fritz, A. M., Carrier, M.E., (2011). Assessing for generalized improvements in reading comprehension by intervening to improve reading fluency. Washington, DC.
The relationship between reading fluency and comprehension was evaluated in five 4th‐grade students. These students were identified as being at risk of not meeting yearly goals in reading fluency and comprehension based on fall benchmark assessment data. A brief intervention assessment was used to determine which intervention components would be essential to improving reading fluency across the five participants. As a result, the combination of repeated practice with performance feedback and error correction was implemented using instructional‐level reading materials twice per week for 30‐minute sessions with progress monitored weekly using AIMSweb measures of oral reading fluency and comprehension. Empirical, single‐case designs were used to evaluate the impact of the program across these five students with assessed, generalized improvements in comprehension. Results indicated increased rate of words read correctly per minute with generalized increases in comprehension for four of five participants. Implications for practice and directions for future research are discussed. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc
Pikulski, J. J. & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510–518.
A deep, developmental construct and definition of fluency, in which fluency and reading comprehension have a reciprocal relationship, is explicated and contrasted with superficial approaches to that construct. The historical development of fluency is outlined, along with conclusions of the U.S. National Reading Panel, to explore why fluency has moved from being "the neglected aspect of reading" to a popular topic in the field. A practical, developmental instructional program based largely on the theoretical framework and research findings of Linnea Ehri is delineated. The nine essential components of that program include building the graphophonic foundations for fluency; building and extending vocabulary and oral language skills; providing expert instruction and practice in the recognition of high-frequency vocabulary; teaching common word parts and spelling patterns; teaching, modeling, and providing practice in the application of a decoding strategy; using appropriate texts to coach strategic behaviors and to build reading speed; using repeated reading procedures as an intervention approach for struggling readers; extending growing fluency through wide independent reading; and monitoring fluency development through appropriate assessment procedures. The position taken throughout the piece is that teaching, developing, and assessing fluency must always be done in the context of reading comprehension.
Rashotte, C.A., & Torgeson, J.K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 180-188.
This study investigated whether improved fluency and comprehension across different stories in repeated reading depend on the degree of word overlap among passages and whether repeated reading is more effective than an equivalent amount of nonrepetitive reading. Non-fluent, learning disabled students read passages presented and timed by a computer under three different conditions. Results suggest that over short periods of time, increases in reading speed with the repeated reading method depend on the amount of shared words among stories, and that if stories have few shared words, repeated reading is not more effective for improving speed than an equivalent amount of nonrepetitive reading.
Rasinski, T. (2006). Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 704–706.
Three key elements of reading fluency are accuracy in word decoding, automaticity in recognizing words, and appropriate use of prosody or meaningful oral expression while reading. These three components are a gateway to comprehension. Readers must be able to decode words correctly and effortlessly (automaticity) and then put them together into meaningful phrases with the appropriate expression to make sense of what they read.
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated reading. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403-408.
Describes the method of repeated readings, discussing the procedure, comprehension, and theoretical rationale. Compares it with music and sports and notes how versions of this method were used in early schooling.
Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Yale neuroscientist Shaywitz demystifies the roots of dyslexia (a neurologically based reading difficulty affecting one in five children) and offers parents and educators hope that children with reading problems can be helped. Shaywitz delves deeply into how dyslexia occurs, explaining that magnetic resonance imaging has helped scientists trace the disability to a weakness in the language system at the phonological level. According to Shaywitz, science now has clear evidence that the brain of the dyslexic reader is activated in a different area than that of the nonimpaired reader. Interestingly, the dyslexic reader may be strong in reasoning, problem solving and critical thinking, but invariably lacks phonemic awareness-the ability to break words apart into distinct sounds-which is critical in order to crack the reading code. The good news, Shaywitz claims, is that with the use of effective training programs, the brain can be rewired and dyslexic children can learn to read. She walks parents through ways to help children develop phonemic awareness, become fluent readers, and exercise the area of the brain essential for reading success. Early diagnosis and effective treatment, the author claims, are of utmost importance, although even older readers can learn to read skillfully with proper intervention. Shaywitz's groundbreaking work builds an important bridge from the laboratory to the home and classroom.
Sindelar, P.T., Monda, L.E., & O’Shea, L.J. (1990). Effects of repeated reading on instructional and mastery level readers. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 220-226.
25 3rd–5th graders with learning disabilities were matched on fluency and comprehension with 25 nondisabled students, as determined by performance on 2 screening passages. In both groups, 17 Ss read the screening passages at instructional level and 8 Ss read them at mastery level. All the Ss read one additional passage once and another 3 times. In final readings, measures of fluency and accuracy were obtained, and after each final reading, measures of recall were derived. Significant main effects were obtained for number of readings on all 3 measures, and for level on fluency and accuracy. Results indicate that regardless of classification or level of functioning, repeated readings constituted more fluent reading and greater recall.
Therrien, W.J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4) 252-261.
Repeated reading is an evidenced-based strategy designed to increase reading fluency and comprehension. The author conducted a meta-analysis to ascertain essential instructional components of repeated reading and the effect of repeated reading on reading fluency and comprehension. This analysis indicates that repeated reading can be used effectively with nondisabled students and students with learning disabilities to increase reading fluency and comprehension on a particular passage and as an intervention to increase overall fluency and comprehension ability. Essential instructional components of repeated reading varied as a function of the type of repeated reading (i.e., whether effectiveness was evaluated reading the same passage or different passages). Implications for future research are also presented.
Young, A.R., Bowers, P.G., & MacKinnon, G.E. (1996). Effects of prosodic modeling and repeated reading on poor readers’ fluency and comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17, 59-84.
Repeated reading of meaningful text has been shown to produce improvements in reading rate, fluency, and comprehension in readers of varying ability. The assisted repeated reading (ARR) method, which provides a fluent and expressive (i.e., prosodic) model, has been proposed as being particularly helpful in this regard. However, it is unclear which component of the ARR method (prosodic modeling or reading practice with intact text) is the most influential factor. The present study examined the effects of text practice and prosodic modeling on the reading rate, accuracy, expressiveness, and comprehension of 40 grade 5 disabled readers. Text practice and prosodic modeling were systematically varied to create four training conditions. Each subject read the first half of a set of stories three times under one of the four experimental conditions. Pretest and posttest measures of the dependent variables were analyzed for both the training passages and the second half of each story, on which no training occurred (transfer passages). While reading performance improved across all conditions, substantial additional gains were produced by the conditions that included the practice of intact text. Modeling of prosody did not produce significant additional gains. Transfer effects were limited, with only the ARR condition producing improved accuracy on the second half of the stories.
Ashby J. Phonemic Awareness Contributes to Text Reading Fluency: Evidence From Eye Movements. School Psychology Review [serial online]. June 2013; 42(2):157-170.
Although phonemic awareness is a known predictor of early decoding and word recognition, less is known about relationships between phonemic awareness and text reading fluency. This longitudinal study is the first to investigate this relationship by measuring eye movements during picture matching tasks and during silent sentence reading. Time spent looking at the correct target during phonemic awareness and receptive spelling tasks gauged the efficiency of phonological and orthographic processes. Children’s eye movements during sentence reading provided a direct measure of silent reading fluency for comprehended text. Results indicate that children who processed the phonemic awareness targets more slowly in Grade 2 tended to be slower readers in Grade 3. Processing difficulty during a receptive spelling task was related to reading fluency within Grade 2. Findings suggest that inefficient phonemic processing contributes to poor silent reading fluency after second grade.