Increasing Fluency in Middle School Readers
An NWEA Research Study conducted through a grant from Reading Reimagined, an Inclusive Research
and Development Program with Advanced Education Research and Development Fund (AERDF)—July
2023
Laura Hansen; Tiffany Peltier, PhD; Cindy Jiban, PhD; Greg King, PhD; Jessica Stamp; Meg Guerreiro, PhD;
Kellie Schmidt; Sean Bangs; and Miah Daughtery, EdD
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
1
Abstract
This study examines the effects of a newly developed fluency protocol on historically marginalized
students in three Grade 6 classrooms in a large urban school district. The protocol combines Repeated
Reading, a practice proven to be effective in fluency work, with opportunities to focus on specific
reading strategies for building language and meaning through word and sentence analysis. The protocol
also includes a student engagement aspect, asking students to set goals around fluency and to have a
say in which texts are used during the study. The protocol was designed for ease of use and does not
require that educators have prior knowledge of reading instruction. The intervention was especially
effective for students falling below the 50
th
percentile on the reading assessment used. The qualitative
component of the study—teacher interviews and surveys—provided rich feedback that can inform
future application of the protocol as well as inform future research.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
2
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Scope of the Challenge ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Study Significance ............................................................................................................................... 5
2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Project Information ............................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Objectives............................................................................................................................................ 6
2.3 Revised Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Participants ......................................................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Modifications and Consistencies with Original Design ....................................................................... 7
2.5.1 Quantitative Changes ................................................................................................................... 7
2.5.2 Qualitative Changes ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.7 Fluency Protocol Intervention ............................................................................................................ 9
2.8 Instruments ....................................................................................................................................... 11
2.8.1 Capti Assess ................................................................................................................................ 11
2.8.2 Student Engagement Instrument (SEI) ...................................................................................... 12
2.9 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................. 12
3. Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Quantitative Findings ........................................................................................................................ 13
3.2 Qualitative Findings .......................................................................................................................... 16
3.3 Discussion of Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 17
3.4 Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................................... 19
References .................................................................................................................................................. 20
Appendix A: Fluency Protocol ..................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix B: Reading Reimagined Interview Protocol ................................................................................ 28
Appendix C: Student Goal-Setting Worksheet ............................................................................................ 30
Appendix D: Mini-Lessons ........................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix E: Summary Document for Passage Voting ................................................................................ 35
Appendix F: NWEA Internal Fidelity Rubric for Reading Reimagined Study—Fluency Protocol ................ 37
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
3
Acknowledgements
The NWEA Reading Reimagined team wishes to thank the following:
• Reading Reimagined and Advanced Education Research and Development Fund (AERDF), for
awarding us the opportunity to investigate how to improve student outcomes in reading. We
appreciate your faith in us, as we were not a typical research team!
• NWEA Leadership, for allowing us to embark on a journey that did not fit tidily into current
workstreams. Your commitment to partnering to help all kids learn shone through.
• NWEA colleagues Adam Withycombe, for his guidance about English Language Learners; Mary
Woo, for her work on scoring teacher audio files for fidelity of implementation; Kristi Helzer, for
her work to secure permissions for high-quality, high-interest passages; and Treva Adams, for
making sure those passages were free of errors for students.
• District Leadership of Gwinnett County Public Schools, for ensuring we conformed to the IRB
process; specifically, Christina Kim, for helping us to work through logistic issues and to find the
perfect school with whom to partner.
• The middle school staff with whom we worked. We’re grateful for the administrators who
rearranged the school schedule to accommodate the needs of the study; the participating
teachers, who administered the protocol with both enthusiasm and fidelity; and the students,
who tolerated additional testing and an experimental fluency protocol, knowing that what we
learned from them would help students in the future.
• The University of Minnesota, for allowing us to use the Student Engagement Instrument as one
of our measures, free of charge, and letting us use our own platform for delivery, making data
gathering easy.
The research reported here was supported by the Reading Reimagined program of the Advanced
Education Research and Development Fund (AERDF) through funds provided to NWEA. The opinions
expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent views of Reading Reimagined or
AERDF.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
4
Executive Summary
This study investigates the effects of an enhanced reading fluency intervention using a fluency protocol
(Repeated Reading, language strategies at the word and sentence level, and student engagement via
culturally relevant passages and goal setting) with Grade 6 students from historically marginalized
populations. The key quantitative measure used was Capti Assess with ETS® ReadBasix™, which was
administered pre- and postintervention as well as several weeks later during a delayed/lagged test.
The study provided teachers with a reading fluency protocol and with professional learning about its
implementation. Although the study is too limited to produce generalizable results, and the sample size
does not allow for a causal relationship to be determined, findings for some students are positive.
Students who scored below the 50
th
percentile on the Capti Assess Reading Efficiency subtest
demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the pre- and posttests. The student sample
size was not robust enough to make determinations about the impact of the protocol on multilingual
learners.
These findings are strengthened and further contextualized by teacher interviews. Teachers noted
observing a positive impact from the protocol on students’ reading abilities, specifically for those
students who previously performed below the grade-level expectations for reading. Teachers identified
that the practice of Repeated Reading improved reading fluency, also noting that the practice of
Repeated Reading was not a common occurrence outside of the study.
Fluency, essential to reading comprehension, deserves continued attention for students in need at any
age.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
5
1. Introduction
1.1 Scope of the Challenge
According to 2019 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) data, only 32% of eighth-grade
students performed at or above the level of “proficient” in reading. Scores for historically marginalized
student groups (e.g., Black, Latinx) are significantly lower than the national average. Research indicates
that reading fluency is a significant contributing variable to low reading performance among adolescents
(Clemens et al., 2017). Improving fluency is made more challenging by two factors. First, some
historically marginalized students report a sense of disenfranchisement in school settings (Huang, 2018).
Second, teacher-preparation programs typically train only elementary teachers on how to teach reading,
leaving little opportunity for secondary teachers to learn the skills needed to improve fluency (Drake &
Walsh, 2020).
1.2 Study Significance
Our hypothesis was that the intervention strategy of Repeated Reading could be improved by directly
targeting student engagement and teacher capability to support underlying reading skills at the word
and sentence level (e.g., morphology, syllabication, and sentence analysis) (Bhattacharya, 2020; Kim et
al., 2017; Toste et al., 2017). Additionally, we believed the enhanced Repeated Reading fluency protocol
would directly support student engagement through an emphasis on cultivating a growth mindset and
engaging with purpose (goal setting and oral reading performance) and relevance (student input on
passage selection) (Christ et al., 2018; Clark, 2017; Didion & Toste, 2022).
Our objective was to find an effective method for improving fluency outcomes for historically
marginalized middle school students who struggle to read. We approached this objective by
investigating a method of adapting and accelerating an evidence-based fluency intervention.
Our study was designed to empower Grade 6 educators with an easily administered fluency protocol
(Appendix A)—accompanied by a short training session on use—to address reading fluency with simple
instruction that would not require extensive training in teaching foundational reading skills. The study
was also designed to make the student a partner in the work through goal setting, passage selection,
and reflection. We designed the protocol to be scalable, so that it could be administered easily outside
of the original study, and for use with other middle- and high-school grades. We also plan to make it free
for educators to access to improve student reading fluency outcomes. While the protocol was designed
for teachers to use with older students still in need of fluency instruction, we focused solely on Grade 6
for the purposes of this initial study.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
6
2. Methodology
2.1 Project Information
For this project, we developed an enhanced fluency protocol that includes Repeated Reading, word
recognition and language comprehension strategies, and a student engagement component with
culturally relevant passages and goal setting.
2.2 Objectives
There were three key objectives to the study:
• Our experimental Fluency Protocol intervention was intended to improve upon the standard
Repeated Reading protocol that targets oral reading fluency, including automaticity with word
recognition and prosodic reading that supports comprehension. We began by implementing a
standard Repeated Reading protocol, which included practicing reading a passage over the
course of five instructional days via modeled reading, echo reading, choral reading, and partner
reading to a level of automaticity and prosody. Please see Section 2.5 for a more detailed
explanation of the Fluency Protocol.
• Our goal-setting activities were designed to improve student engagement and agency. The
student engagement and agency constructs supported in the Fluency Protocol intervention
included the following: (a) growth mindset through ability-validation goals and guided
reflection; and (b) increased purpose and relevance for school learning through student choice,
performance (for family, caregivers, or community), and guided reflection.
• Our protocol was designed to provide educators who likely had not received training on how to
teach the foundational skills of reading with an easy-to-use tool to improve their students’
fluency rates—and thus, their students’ comprehension.
2.3 Revised Research Questions
We approached the study with four questions in mind:
• After receiving the Fluency Protocol intervention, is there a significant difference in students’
reading fluency scores between pretest, posttest, and delayed/lagged test, as measured by the
Capti Assess Reading Efficiency subtest?
• After receiving the Fluency Protocol intervention, is there a significant difference in students’
overall reading scores between pretest, posttest, and delayed/lagged test, as measured by Capti
Assess (including these subtests: Word Recognition and Decoding, Vocabulary, Morphology,
Sentence Processing, Reading Efficiency, and Reading Comprehension)?
• Does emergent bilingual status or other demographic characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status,
age of student) moderate students’ growth in fluency scores from the pretest to the posttest, as
measured by the Capti Assess Reading Efficiency subtest? In our sample, all but one student in
the group of students who scored below the 50
th
percentile (according to the Capti Assess
Reading Efficiency subtest) on the pretest had emergent bilingual status; therefore, we were not
able to run this analysis.
• After receiving the Fluency Protocol intervention, which includes students selecting passages for
engagement, is there a significant difference in students’ engagement in learning from the
pretest to the posttest, as measured by the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI)?
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
7
2.4 Participants
The study took place in Gwinnett County Public Schools, Georgia. Per the district’s Data Governance
Division, data from school year 2022–2023 show that approximately 83% of students enrolled with the
district are from historically marginalized populations (34.5% Hispanic, 32.5% Black, 11.7% Asian or
Asian/Pacific Islander, 0.2% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 4.2% identifying as two or more
races). Other important district demographics include an approximately equal balance of gender
between female and male (49% female vs. 51% male), approximately 26% of district students identifying
as English Language Learners, and approximately 56% of the district qualifying for free or reduced lunch.
For the Gwinnett County Public School’s middle school with which we worked directly, the
demographics for 2022–2023 show that 98% of students are from historically marginalized populations
(78% Hispanic, 12% Black, 7% Asian, and 1% identifying as two or more races). Female students
comprise 49% of the student population of the school, and male students comprise 51%. A majority of
students (91%) qualify for free lunch or reduced lunch.
In the three classrooms we studied, the 72 students are evenly split between female and male, and 97%
of the students are from historically marginalized populations (74% Hispanic, 13% Asian, 10% Black, and
1% identifying as two or more races). Approximately 69% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch
plans, and 76% identify as English Language Learners.
At the beginning of the Capti Assess pretest, our potential pool was 72 students. Of those, all
72 students successfully completed both parts of the test. For the Capti Assess posttest, 63 of the
72 eligible students completed the test. Of the 63 students who completed the pre- and
postintervention tests, 56 students completed the delayed/lagged assessment. The total number of
cases in the data section will show slight variance due to some students finishing a test section but not
inputting enough data for a valid score on that section.
2.5 Modifications and Consistencies with Original Design
2.5.1 Quantitative Changes
Due to the recruitment of a smaller sample size than originally planned (n = 3 teachers, 3 classes,
72 Grade 6 students), our methods changed from the original design. We no longer could separate
classes into three groups (Group 1, control/business as usual; Group 2, Repeated Reading only; Group 3,
Repeated Reading + Fluency Protocol) with enough statistical power to determine causality between
three intervention groups within a hierarchical linear model, so we changed to a pretest/posttest
quantitative research design. We also added teacher interviews for a mixed-methods study. The
duration of the study remained the same, with students receiving 30 days of instruction using the
enhanced protocol.
We investigated effects at the individual student level, across time. There was no randomization at the
class or teacher level:
• All students received a Capti Assess pretest, the Fluency Protocol intervention, then a posttest
and a delayed/lagged posttest two or three months later. Students also received the SEI before
the first intervention and at the time of the posttest.
• We added an interview (Appendix B), conducted virtually, to further explore teachers’
perceptions of the experience.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
8
2.5.2 Qualitative Changes
The smaller sample allowed us to supplement quantitative data with qualitative data. The shift in the
study’s design to include qualitative data allowed for additional rich and contextualized insight from
teachers about the impact of the intervention. The qualitative addition to the study focused on
interviewing teachers, who discussed student changes before, throughout, and after the Fluency
Protocol intervention. Interviews occurred at the end of the intervention and were reflective in nature.
The qualitative approach was rooted in theory where themes emerge from the statements provided by
teachers. These themes provided context to the quantitative scores and are useful to guide next steps in
future studies. These themes also provide information about why the Fluency Protocol intervention may
have impacted student growth. These interviews were conducted virtually. Teachers were interviewed
individually in 45-minute time slots. The audio of the interviews was recorded and digitally transcribed.
The interview questions focused on three main areas—effects on fluency, changes in overall reading,
and student engagement:
• Area 1: Effects on fluency
o How, if at all, have you seen this method of instruction impact students’ fluency for your
group of students who struggle with reading?
o What behaviors did you observe that would serve as evidence of the impact on
students?
o Can you provide an example of a student who has made noteworthy progress in fluency
as a result of the fluency protocols?
o Have you seen this intervention being applied outside intervention time?
• Area 2: Overall reading
o How did you address any emotional or social needs of students while engaging in the
Fluency Protocol intervention?
o How has this intervention impacted students’ attitudes toward reading?
• Area 3: Student engagement
o Was student engagement improved by the practice of voting for the passages students
would focus on?
o What makes you believe students were more engaged, demonstrated the same level of
engagement as normal, or were less engaged?
o What major observation have you made of the behavior of your students (e.g., body
language and other observable behaviors) that provides evidence of this engagement?
o Has this intervention impacted students’ engagement during reading (outside the
intervention time)?
Many aspects of the original design carried forward to the revised model:
• Educators received a two-hour training on the study and the Fluency Protocol.
• Educators worked with students to create buy-in, discussing with students the meaning of
fluency and why it is important, and emphasizing the connection between reading and
comprehension. Teachers also explained the study and the students’ role in it. Parents were
notified, with an option to deny participation. Students then completed a goal-setting activity
(Appendix C).
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
9
• Educators taught two mini-lessons (Appendix D), which focused on strategies students would
use during the study: using affixes and syllables to assist with the decoding of multisyllabic
words. Each lesson was designed to last 15 minutes and to require no prior knowledge from
educators for teaching foundational skills.
• Students were able to vote, by class, for the passages they wanted to focus on throughout the
study. NWEA carefully chose these passages to align both quantitatively (readability indices) and
qualitatively (human analysis of grade-level appropriateness) to the needs of Grade 6 students.
The passages were identified as likely being of high interest to students from historically
marginalized populations. Students were able to select from a pool of 18 passages to narrow
down the pool to the six passages per class that would be read as part of the study.
2.7 Fluency Protocol Intervention
We have attached the Fluency Protocol intervention for this work as Appendix A. The same protocol was
used in all three classes. Each class’s work featured student buy-in, teacher support and modeling, peer
engagement, and direct practice of specific reading skills. We designed the steps in the protocol to make
students feel comfortable and supported (e.g., by specifying the use of choral reading rather than
singling out students to read in front of an entire class).
Teachers received a two-hour training session on the purpose and design of the study (one hour) and
then on the Fluency Protocol itself (one hour), including opportunities to engage in each of the
strategies that are included in the protocol. The session covered the following:
• Explanation of involved parties, including AERDF, Reading Reimagined, and NWEA
• The reasons AERDF issued an RFP focused on improving student outcomes for historically
marginalized students post Grade 3, and an explanation of why NWEA had a strong desire to
help with the issue
• Purpose and overview of the study
• A detailed explanation of the Fluency Protocol—Steps in the study, timing of each session, and
detailed descriptions of strategies used each day, along with time for educators to step into the
student role by practicing each of the strategies
• A question-and-answer period
The training session PowerPoint® was then provided as a resource for teachers to reference as they
administered the protocol.
It is important to note that the training was purposely brief to align to the objective we set for an
easy-to-use tool that did not require deep expertise in how to teach the fundamentals of reading. The
teachers who kindly participated in the study varied in experience, enabling us to understand how the
Fluency Protocol resonated with an audience of mixed backgrounds.
For the sake of privacy, the teachers in the participating classrooms have been given the pseudonyms of
Mrs. Carter, Mr. Patel, and Ms. Williams.
• Mrs. Carter, a highly experienced educator with more than 26 years of teaching, has
experienced numerous educational policy shifts from the federal government. Though she
currently teaches middle school, she has gained a wealth of experience by teaching students
across different age groups.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
10
• Mr. Patel, an active participant in the English Language Learner team, is a novice teacher
specializing in teaching language arts to sixth-grade students. His students have recently tested
out of ESOL and are experiencing a transitional phase, requiring his expertise to help them in
their language acquisition journey.
• Ms. Williams, a seasoned educator in her third year at a middle school, is responsible for
teaching sixth-grade language arts. She started her career as an ESOL teacher before moving on
to teach gifted students accelerated in general education classes. She engaged in the study with
her gifted class.
In total, students received 20 minutes of intervention each day. A single intervention cycle lasted five
days, and teachers administered six cycles, resulting in 600 minutes of intervention time. The
administration of Repeated Reading took approximately 10 minutes per day, with teachers scaffolding
each session to help students become more independent as they read (e.g., the teacher modeled in
Sessions 1 and 2, shifted to choral reading in Sessions 3 and 4, and culminated with independent reading
at the start of the lesson in Session 5). The second component—the specific reading skills practice—took
approximately 10 minutes each session given, and, depending on the day, it included: (a) word meaning
study; (b) morpheme analysis to support multisyllabic word recognition; (c) syllable analysis to support
multisyllabic word recognition; and (d) sentence-level analysis to support both syntactic and semantic
understanding at the sentence level and understanding of important ideas in the text. Student choice
played a key role in the protocol, as students voted for the passages that would be used in their work.
Students were provided with a summary document (Appendix E) outlining titles, authors, and
descriptions for 18 passages. In each class, each student cast 5 votes for the passages they were most
interested in, and the top 6 passages became the focus for the intervention. Table 1 indicates the
passages students selected, by class (using teacher pseudonyms).
Table 1
Class Selection of Passages
Passage title
Class(es)
God Is God Because He Remembers
Carter, Patel
Try Something New for 30 Days
Patel
Robots
Patel, Williams
TikTok has changed music . . .
Carter, Patel, Williams
The Elephant and the Crocodile
Carter, Patel
Long Walk to Freedom
Patel
What It’s Like to Be the Child of Immigrants
Williams
The Creativity and Community behind Fanfiction
Williams
The Man, the Boy, and the Donkey
Williams
Memories of a Former Migrant Worker
Williams
How You See Yourself
Carter
At the Head of Her Class, and Homeless
Carter
Photos from a Storm Chaser
Carter
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
11
Great care was taken to ensure comparability across the passages regarding quantitative and qualitative
appropriateness for Grade 6 readers, and these passages were selected for their high quality and high
interest, particularly to students from historically marginalized populations.
Teachers read the selected passages aloud to their classes, modeling fluent reading through clear
pronunciation, good pacing, and expression. Students had their own copies of the passages, and they
were able to follow along while the teachers read. The next step was echo reading, in which teachers
read one sentence of the passage at a time, pausing after each sentence to allow students to read the
sentence aloud. Students then engaged in choral reading, in which the entire class read the passage
aloud together. Students also worked in pairs to practice their reading, allowing students to give and
receive peer feedback.
NWEA conducted implementation fidelity checks using a rubric (Appendix F) after Session 1 of Cycles 1,
4, and 6. Teachers submitted recordings of the work they did with their students, being careful to
respect privacy by not including any student faces. Had issues been discovered with the teachers’
modeling of fluency (pacing, expression, and accuracy), teachers would have been retrained; however,
all teachers received a rating of at least 85% fidelity at all three checkpoints.
2.8 Instruments
2.8.1 Capti Assess
Capti Assess is a web-based, adaptive reading assessment comprised of six subtests that evaluate six key
reading skills: (a) Vocabulary; (b) Sentence Processing; (c) Word Recognition and Decoding;
(d) Morphology; (e) Reading Efficiency; and (f) Reading Comprehension. The first five subtests take
5–10 minutes to complete and are measured using multiple choice response. The Word Recognition and
Decoding, Vocabulary, and Morphology subtests have 30 items each; the Sentence Processing subtest
has 25 items; and the Reading Efficiency subtest has 32–41 items. The Reading Comprehension subtest
takes 20–30 minutes to complete and is comprised of 31–32 items. Subtests are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Capti Assess Subtest Names and Definitions
Subtest definition
The ability to understand the meaning of individual words
The ability to comprehend sentences of varying levels of syntactic
complexity
The ability to identify and understand words from the page accurately
and efficiently
The ability to understand that many words are made up of several
meaningful parts
The ability to read the test accurately and at an appropriate rate for
comprehension
The ability to understand text by building an accurate mental model
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
12
Reliability of Capti Assess is measured for each of the six subtests and for Grade 6, which was the focal
grade for this study. All subtests measure a reliability of a = .8 to .9, except for the Reading
Comprehension subtest, which measures a = .706. As reported in the technical manual, “These values
are at acceptable levels given the number of items for each subtest” (Sabatini et al., 2019, p. 12).
Validity was measured through subtest correlations, of which each were moderately to strongly
correlated. Yet, dependency between subskills is expected, given the related aspects of reading ability
(Sabatini et al., 2019).
2.8.2 Student Engagement Instrument (SEI)
The SEI, a questionnaire developed by the University of Minnesota, is composed of 35 items on a
four-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” It takes approximately
18–22 minutes to complete. The questionnaire was originally created to be administered via paper and
pencil, but it was digitally imported onto the Alchemer platform for the purposes of this study. The SEI
measures six domains of engagement broken down into affective (psychological) engagement
(teacher-student relationships, peer support at school, family support for learning) and cognitive
engagement (control and relevance of schoolwork, future aspirations and goals, intrinsic motivation).
Reliability (internal consistency) measures estimate a = .72 to .88 (Appleton et al., 2006, p. 438). Content
validity was obtained through item specification frameworks and online reviews of the literature, and
concurrent validity was obtained through correlational analyses (positive with academic variables,
negative with punitive values) (Appleton et al., 2005).
Note: The SEI questionnaire cannot be included in the appendices due to permissions issues.
2.9 Data Collection
After accounting for parental consent and other program commitments by the students, the sample
included three Grade 6 classrooms with 28, 28, and 16 students, respectively. The study used passive
parental consent. Two critical foci of the project were student engagement and agency. In particular, the
student engagement and agency constructs supported in the Fluency Protocol intervention included
growth mindset through ability-validation goals and guided reflection; increased purpose and relevance
for school learning through student choice of passages read; and performance for family, caregivers, or
community. Our measure of the student experience was a broad, psychometrically sound, commonly
used survey of student engagement—the SEI (Appleton et al., 2006). The data collection summary is as
follows:
• Quantitative data for reading was gathered via Capti Assess (pretest, posttest, and
delayed/lagged test), which was administered via computer.
• Quantitative data for student engagement was gathered via the SEI, which was placed on the
Alchemer platform and administered via computer at two time points (pre- and posttest).
• Qualitative data was via pre- and poststudy teacher surveys, as well as via one-on-one
interviews with each teacher.
• Data about implementation of protocols with fidelity was gathered via recordings of teachers
administering Session 1 of the Fluency Protocol during the beginning of Cycles 1, 4, and 6, and
was measured using a fidelity rubric (Appendix F).
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
13
3. Findings
3.1 Quantitative Findings
Q1: After receiving the Fluency Protocol intervention, is there a significant difference in students’
reading fluency scores between pretest, posttest, and delayed/lagged test, as measured by the Capti
Assess Reading Efficiency subtest?
At pretest, the mean score for students (n = 50, students who completed all three Capti Assess Reading
Efficiency subtest events) was 240.21 points, with a standard deviation of 14.03 points. At posttest, the
mean score on the Reading Efficiency subtest was 241.56 points, with a standard deviation of
13.11 points. After a delay of seven weeks, Capti Assess was readministered to all students. At
delayed/lagged test, the mean score was 234.85 points, with a standard deviation of 14.35 points. A
repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of the Fluency Protocol intervention
on students’ reading efficiency subtest score at pretest, posttest, and delayed/lagged test. Overall, there
was a statistically significant decrease across time (p = .02) with a large effect size (η2 = .16). There was
not a statistically significant difference between pretest and posttest (p = .49); however, there was a
statistically significant difference between pretest and delayed/lagged test (p = .03), and posttest and
delayed/lagged time points (p < .01).
Figure 1
Estimated Marginal Means of Reading Efficiency
When selecting only the students scoring below the 50
th
percentile according to the Reading Efficiency
subtest national norms at pretest (235 points), the mean score for students (n = 22) at pretest on the
Capti Assess Reading Efficiency subtest was 227.22 points, with a standard deviation of 6.47 points. At
posttest, the mean score on the reading efficiency subtest was 236.04 points, with a standard deviation
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
14
of 10.91 points. At delayed/lagged test, the mean score was 233.24 points, with a standard deviation of
13.90 points. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of the Fluency Protocol
intervention on students’ Reading Efficiency subtest score at pretest, posttest, and delayed/lagged test.
Overall, there was a statistically significant increase across time (p = .007) with a very large effect size
(η2 = .39). There was a statistically significant difference between pretest and posttest (p < .01), and
pretest and delayed/lagged test (p = .04). There was not a statistically significant difference between
posttest and delayed/lagged test (p = .37).
Q2: After receiving the Fluency Protocol intervention, is there a significant difference in students’
overall reading scores between pretest, posttest, and delayed/lagged test, as measured by Capti
Assess (including these subtests: Word Recognition and Decoding, Vocabulary, Morphology, Sentence
Processing, Reading Efficiency, and Reading Comprehension)?
The mean aggregated score for students (n = 47) at pretest was 1449.20 points, with a standard
deviation of 65.34 points. At posttest, the mean aggregated score was 1450.91 points, with a standard
deviation of 59.35 points. After a delay of seven weeks, Capti Assess was readministered to all students.
At delay, the mean aggregated score was 1430.79 points, with a standard deviation of 70.24 points. A
repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of the Fluency Protocol intervention
on students’ aggregated score at pretest, posttest, and delayed/lagged test. Overall, there was a
statistically significant decrease across time (p = .02) with a medium to large effect size (η2 = .15). There
was not a statistically significant difference between pretest and posttest (p = .74), or pretest and
delayed/lagged test (p = .05); however, there was a statistically significant difference between the
posttest and delayed/lagged test time points (p < .01).
Figure 2
Estimated Marginal Means of Capti Assess (all subtests)
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
15
When selecting only the students scoring below the 50
th
percentile according to the Reading Efficiency
subtest national norms at pretest (235 points), the mean aggregated score for students (n = 21) at
pretest on Capti Assess was 1398.73 points, with a standard deviation of 50.29 points. At posttest, the
mean aggregated score was 1410.71 points, with a standard deviation of 48.90 points. At
delayed/lagged test, the mean aggregated score was 1409.49 points, with a standard deviation of
69.38 points. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of the Fluency Protocol
intervention on students’ aggregated score at pretest, posttest, and delayed/lagged test. Overall, there
was not a statistically significant difference across time (p = .22) with a medium to large effect size
(η2 = .15).
Q3: Does emergent bilingual status or other demographic characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status,
age of student) moderate students’ growth in fluency scores from the pretest to the posttest, as
measured by the Capti Assess Reading Efficiency subtest?
In our sample, all but one student in the group of students who scored below the 50
th
percentile
(according to the Capti Assess Reading Efficiency subtest) on the pretest had emergent bilingual status;
therefore, we were not able to run this analysis.
Q4: After receiving the Fluency Protocol intervention, which includes students selecting passages for
engagement, is there a significant difference in students’ engagement in learning from the pretest to
the posttest, as measured by the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI)?
At pretest, the mean score for students (n = 26) on the SEI was 73.73 points, with a standard deviation
of 19.54 points. At posttest, the mean score on the SEI was 72.62 points, with a standard deviation of
15.69 points. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of the Fluency Protocol
intervention on students’ SEI score at pretest and posttest. There was not a statistically significant
difference between the two time points (p = .74).
Figure 3
Estimated Marginal Means of SEI
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
16
3.2 Qualitative Findings
NWEA staff conducted postintervention interviews with the three intervention teachers. Major themes
emerging from the interviews include the following:
• Positive impact of the protocol on students’ reading abilities and attitudes toward reading,
particularly for those who were considered to be reading below grade level (based on teacher
perception and non-Capti-related data) and who lacked confidence in their abilities
• Improvement in reading fluency attributed to repeated practice of reading aloud, which
students did not do often outside of the intervention
• Challenges faced by teachers in finding time to complete the activity and in engaging
high-achieving students, and suggestions on how to address these challenges
The qualitative findings complement the quantitative findings by providing contextual information. The
results suggest that the implemented protocol had a positive impact on certain aspects of students’
reading abilities and attitudes toward reading. Notably, repeated readings with peers were found to
increase students’ confidence levels. However, it was observed that the protocol appeared to be more
effective for students who were below grade level and who lacked confidence in their abilities, as
reflected by our quantitative measure falling below the 50
th
percentile. Furthermore, some students
expressed hesitancy in reading aloud in front of others, which posed challenges for teachers when
grouping them for the paired reading activity.
Mr. Patel in the study noted an improvement in fluency when students were paired and read aloud:
When they were reading with their partners, they were taking a long time. But then towards the
end, they were reading just a lot more fluently, and they were getting through it. They were able
to get through the text faster than they did before and without stopping as many times.
This improvement was attributed to the repeated practice of reading aloud, which students did not do
often outside of the intervention. Mr. Patel plans to implement more opportunities in the future for
students to read aloud, based on the positive outcomes observed during this study. The protocol is also
seen as a valuable tool for gauging students’ fluency, and Mrs. Carter suggested having “a more targeted
group of students who would need fluency versus those that do not need fluency support.”
Regarding student engagement, teachers observed that some students became more engaged in the
classroom activity than they normally would have been. This engagement was deeper in relation to the
text and the reading task for those students. Though two of the three teachers reported higher
engagement, one teacher—Ms. Williams, who implemented the study in her gifted class with
high-achieving students—reported higher levels of disengagement. Citing prior experiences with
interventions, Ms. Williams’s students remained disengaged in the reading material. Ms. Williams used
incentives to encourage engagement among gifted students who expressed they had completed tasks
like the tasks in the protocol in the past, but in lower grades. This made some gifted students feel that
the study was beneath them. Ms. Williams reported, “I’m sorry, because this interview is probably
gonna sound kind of jaded because my gifted kids thought they were above the study. They kept saying
stuff like, ‘We did this in elementary school. Why are we doing this now?’” Despite some students’ lack
of positive engagement, teachers observed significant improvements in reading fluency.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
17
The study had a positive impact on teachers’ confidence in their teaching abilities, particularly for
Mr. Patel, who said, “I feel like it’s given me a little bit more confidence too. Just having such a good
script and having such a good guideline.” Though teachers reported higher levels of confidence, they
also expressed concerns with the time it took to implement the protocol. Some teachers struggled to
find time to complete the activity, and the intervention took away from English language training
classes. Ms. Williams suggested that this type of intervention should not be conducted during a regular
class block, as there are many skills embedded in the protocol that take time to be discussed.
Overall, interviews suggest the intervention had a positive impact on students’ reading abilities and
attitudes toward reading, and the findings suggest that incorporating repeated readings with peers can
increase students’ confidence levels. The protocol was also seen as a valuable tool for gauging students’
fluency, and teachers may consider targeting students who would benefit more from fluency support.
3.3 Discussion of Conclusions
Despite the limitations of a small sample size, it was evident that teachers observed a positive effect of
the Fluency Protocol intervention with students who began with a score below the 50
th
percentile on
the Capti Assess Reading Efficiency subtest. This supports the findings of previous research showing
significant effects of repeated readings on fluency (National Reading Panel, 2000; Therrien, 2004) and of
multicomponent interventions inclusive of repeated readings (Shelton & Wexler, 2022; Stevens et al.,
2017). Of particular interest in this study was whether a brief, easily trained protocol administered
across only 30 instructional days could effect similar improvements. It is noteworthy that teachers
observed a positive effect for lower-performing students, even if that impact was not shown to be
sustained after the third Capti Assess administration.
Our modified research design did not allow for parsing of the effects of repeated readings alone in
comparison to the protocol with additional multicomponent supports. In interviews, some teachers
offered a view that attributed growth in reading to the repeated readings, which teachers reported
increased students’ confidence levels. However, the intervention was more effective for students who
were below grade level and who lacked confidence in their abilities. A design comparing the Fluency
Protocol to a simple Repeated Reading intervention is clearly warranted to follow up on the views
teachers offered.
That no statistically significant effects between pretest and posttest were found when higher initial
performers were included in the analysis bears further investigation, as teachers reported perceived
improvements in reading fluency. Previous research has found repeated readings to be effective for
students with and students without reading difficulties (Therrien, 2004). Possible explanations for the
lack of significant effect in the study include sample size limitations, lack of necessity of the intervention
for students with higher initial reading fluency, fluency measurement limitations, and shifts in what
improves reading most effectively as students become more proficient decoders.
Teachers noted that they struggled to find time to complete the activities and that they worried the
intervention took time away from the English language training classes. Although we could not discern
the impact of the protocol in ELLs due to lack of a comparison group, the results suggest that many of
those students benefitted from the intervention, with large effect sizes for students in the lower
50
th
percentile. So, while students did not receive the English language training, the study overall
increased outcomes for the students.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
18
No improvement in student engagement was found on the SEI, when comparing pretest and posttest.
The research literature has expressed a broad concern about middle school students’ engagement, so it
is unfortunate that the design of the present study did not allow a comparison to a control group also
taking the SEI twice. The simple fact of repeated administration of the same assessment may be a factor
in the nonsignificant—even slightly declining—score change.
The SEI was chosen as the measure of engagement for this study due to its prevalence in the field,
availability, and alignment with school-based engagement. Some of the survey items align with
curriculum components and overall engagement and were aimed to serve as a proxy for specific content
engagement within the scope of this research. However, upon post hoc exploration, the SEI may not
have been the appropriate tool to use for the current research study. The current research aimed to
measure student cognitive engagement of curricula and subject-specific content, yet SEI items are very
nuanced and single faceted, which may not translate into intervention and subject-specific connections.
The SEI measurement subscales (i.e., attendance, relationships with teachers, courses taken) do not
adequately measure the engagement goals of the current study, which aimed to explore student
interest in content, intervention involvement, expended effort, and perceived value.
Given the potential misalignment between the SEI and the engagement goals of the current research,
results should be interpreted with caution.
Some evidence of disengagement with the schedule of repeated assessments (pretest, posttest, and
delayed/lagged test) by higher performers is also present. Models of reading development generally do
not support a phenomenon of widespread and short-term regression in skills or decreases in fluency, so
it is unlikely that this occurred in this study. Instead, considering this is middle school, the decrease in
score over time by higher performers is more likely explained by a degree of student disengagement, as
described by teachers. In interviews, some teachers mentioned a feeling shared by higher achieving
students: that the intervention was too remedial for them. Teachers also noted their own hesitation
about taking time away from regularly planned whole-class instructional targets. That said, some of the
students whom teachers described as higher achieving and probably benefiting less from the protocol
were, in fact, students who grew in their reading fluency across the study. Additional research should be
designed to shed light on whether whole-class instructional time is the best use of the Fluency Protocol,
and if so, under what circumstances.
The study’s sample size precluded finding statistical significance in small effects. While we observed
positive growth in mean pretest and posttest scores on both the Reading Efficiency subtest and the
overall Capti Assess across the 53 students who ended up participating in all three Capti Assess testing
events required by the study, this growth did not overcome the overlap in confidence intervals. To
detect small effects in future research on the Fluency Protocol, a larger sample size is needed.
While the studied intervention targeted oral reading fluency, the pre- and postintervention measures
did not elicit oral reading. Instead, the measures used a maze silent reading approach to gauge
improvements in text reading efficiency. Maze and oral reading tend to correlate more strongly for
elementary grades, but they diverge in secondary grades, with oral reading proving a stronger indicator
of overall reading comprehension across grades (Shin & McMaster, 2019). In future research targeting
oral reading fluency improvements, it is worth investigating whether an oral reading measure may
better capture improvements in middle school years.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
19
For students with greater proficiency at word decoding, improvements in reading fluency may center
less on greater rate or reading efficiency and more on prosody, an important component of
contemporary understandings of reading fluency (Kuhn et al., 2010). Prosody constitutes an important
indicator of reading comprehension rather than of automaticity of word recognition (Wade-Woolley
et al., 2022). For students with higher initial reading efficiency, it may be enlightening to examine
growth effects in reading prosody. However, models of prosody suggest that such improvements are
supportive of increases in overall reading comprehension, an effect not detected across the full sample
in this study.
Converging research evidence indicates that for students with stronger word decoding automaticity,
language comprehension explains more variance in reading comprehension (García & Cain, 2014). While
the multicomponent Fluency Protocol included support for language comprehension within selected
texts, future research should investigate whether a stronger emphasis on comprehension components
might constitute an important lever for overall reading growth for students with stronger initial reading
efficiency.
3.4 Recommendations for Future Research
Three areas for future study may be important: defining best application of the Fluency Protocol;
investigating effects added by the Fluency Protocol over and above a simple Repeated Reading method;
and improving the capture of intervention effects through expanded sample size and refined
instrumentation.
Defining best application of the Fluency Protocol: Teachers in this study were clear that the use of the
well-designed protocol increased their confidence in helping their students become more fluent, and
student data demonstrated an increase in efficacy. However, teachers had mixed feelings about using
whole-class instructional time for the protocol. Given feedback from participant teachers and the lack of
significant improvement effects for higher-performing students in this short study, future research
should aim to clarify whether the Fluency Protocol is more effective as a targeted small-group
intervention than it is as a whole-class practice. However, because the protocol is designed to be simple
to train and implement in whole-class instruction, which bore out in this study, future whole-class trials
with changes to duration and instrumentation are worth investigating. Those who benefit from the
protocol may be revealed to be a broader group, given such changes.
Investigating effects added by the Fluency Protocol over and above a simple Repeated Reading
method: The significant positive effect on oral reading fluency for students with lower initial
performance shows that something worked. However, teachers tended to attribute this growth to the
repeated readings rather than to the full Fluency Protocol, inclusive of the additional literacy and
engagement-support components. While the initial design of this study sought to parse the effect of
these additional components, sample size limitations precluded this group comparison design. In future
research, a comparison should be undertaken of the growth effected by repeated readings alone versus
the growth effected by the multicomponent Fluency Protocol. This will require a substantially larger
sample size to detect the kind of small effects we saw in this study for the full group of students.
Improving the capture of intervention effects through expanded sample size and refined
instrumentation: Instrumentation in future studies may benefit from refinement. Because the target of
growth is oral reading fluency, it is worth investigating whether an oral reading measure may better
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
20
capture improvements than a silent cloze-measure approach can capture. An advantage to oral reading
fluency assessment is its ability to bring reading prosody into view. It may be enlightening to examine
growth effects in reading prosody deriving from either the Fluency Protocol or from simple repeated
readings, particularly for students with higher initial reading efficiency. The measure of engagement in
this study was not ideally aligned either; future studies should aim to incorporate an engagement
measure that explores cognitive engagement more broadly across various subscales of engagement
metrics (e.g., processing, persistence, importance, effort) that align more specifically with
curricular-based interventions.
Extensions of the Fluency Protocol to additional content areas should certainly be explored. How might
a similar simple, fluency-focused protocol be fitted to outcomes of interest in science and social studies
classes, for example, where comprehension and knowledge building may also be of great interest to
teachers?
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
21
References
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological
engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5),
427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
Bhattacharya, A. (2020). Syllabic versus morphemic analyses: Teaching multisyllabic word reading to
older struggling readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63(5), 491–497.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.984
Christ, T., Chiu, M. M., Rider, S., Kitson, D., Hanser, K., McConnell, E., Dipzinski, R., & Mayernik, H.
(2018). Cultural relevance and informal reading inventory performance: African-American primary and
middle school students. Literacy Research and Instruction, 57(2), 117–134.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2018.1424274
Clark, K. F. (2017). Investigating the effects of culturally relevant texts on African American struggling
readers’ progress. Teachers College Record, 119(5), 1–30.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900503
Clemens, N. H., Simmons, D., Simmons, L. E., Wang, H., & Kwok, O. (2017). The prevalence of reading
fluency and vocabulary difficulties among adolescents struggling with reading comprehension. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(8), 785–798. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916662120
Didion, L., & Toste, J. R. (2022). Data mountain: Self-monitoring, goal setting, and positive attributions to
enhance the oral reading fluency of elementary students with or at risk for reading disabilities. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 55(5), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211043482
Drake, G., & Walsh, K. (2020). 2020 teacher prep review: Program performance in early reading
instruction. National Council on Teacher Quality. www.nctq.org/publications/2020-Teacher-Prep-
Review:-Program-Performance-in-Early-Reading-Instruction
García, J. R., & Cain, K. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which
reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of
Educational Research, 84(1), 74–111. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499616
Huang, H. (2018). How do students feel about their schools? WCPSS student survey results: 2017–18.
DRA Report No. 18.07. Wake County Public School System. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED606980.pdf
Kim, J. S., Hemphill, L., Troyer, M., Thomson, J. M., Jones, S. M., LaRusso, M. D., & Donovan, S. (2017).
Engaging struggling adolescent readers to improve reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(3),
357–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.171
Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading
fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230–251.
https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.45.2.4
National Reading Panel (US). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the
scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the
subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
22
Sabatini, J., Weeks, J., O’Reilly, T., Bruce, K., Steinberg, J., & Chao, S. F. (2019). SARA reading components
tests, RISE forms: Technical adequacy and test design, 3rd edition. ETS Research Report Series, 2019(1),
1–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12269
Shelton, A., & Wexler, J. (2022). The development of reading comprehension in adolescents with literacy
difficulties. In T. W. Farmer, E. Talbott, K. McMaster, D. Lee, & T. C. Aceves (Eds.), Handbook of special
education research (Vol. I, pp. 272–284). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003156857-23
Shin, J., & McMaster, K. (2019). Relations between CBM (oral reading and maze) and reading
comprehension on state achievement tests: A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 73, 131–149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.03.005
Stevens, E. A., Walker, M. A., & Vaughn, S. (2017). The effects of reading fluency interventions on the
reading fluency and reading comprehension performance of elementary students with learning
disabilities: A synthesis of the research from 2001 to 2014. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(5), 576–
590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416638028
Student Achievement Partners. (2022) Juicy sentence guidance.
https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/Juicy Sentence Guidance.pdf (Original work published 2018)
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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250040801
Toste, J. R., Capin, P., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G. J., & Kearns, D. M. (2017). Multisyllabic word-reading
instruction with and without motivational beliefs training for struggling readers in the upper elementary
grades: A pilot investigation. The Elementary School Journal, 117(4), 593–615.
https://doi.org/10.1086/691684
University of Minnesota. (n.d.). Student Engagement Instrument (SEI).
http://checkandconnect.umn.edu/sei/default.html
Wade-Woolley, L., Wood, C., Chan, J., & Weidman, S. (2022). Prosodic competence as the missing
component of reading processes across languages: Theory, evidence and future research. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 26(2), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1995390
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
23
Appendix A:
Fluency Protocol
The following steps must be taken:
1. Teacher takes presurvey about fluency teaching practices and student fluency level, including
prosody.
2. Create student buy-in (after parental notification).
a. Define fluency: It is the ability to quickly read a text accurately and with proper
expression.
b. Explain why fluency is important: If a person struggles to read fluently, they must focus
on each word in a text, one at a time. This means the person has less time to focus on
the MEANING of the text. Reading is important in every part of life. Reading fluently will
make school easier. Reading fluently will prepare a person for whatever they want to do
once they finish school. Reading fluently enables them to learn more about our world
and be able to fully participate.
c. Explain that fluency is a key component in increasing comprehension, but there is no
correlation between intelligence and reading fluency.
d. Tell students they will be participating in a study to help researchers understand how to
help students improve their reading, and to that end, they will be taking a couple of
assessments now and then again in a few weeks to help gather some data for a study. In
between those assessments, you will work together on a practice called Repeated
Reading and some strategies to help them improve their reading fluency.
3. Students take presurvey (SEI).
4. Complete the goal-setting activity found in the SFTP folder online.
5. Administer Capti Assess.
6. Set up pairs of students for working groups. Some sessions (independent reading sessions) will
require students to be put in pairs. (Note that if there is an uneven number of students, a triad
can be formed, but time would need to be added for that group for some sessions.) You should
use the Capti Assess data in conjunction with your knowledge of students’ reading ability to
establish groups. Each pair of students should include one student who has stronger fluency
scores and one who could benefit from that student’s fluency.
7. Select passages of focus for the study. Work with the whole class to select six passages that will
be the focus of the fluency work over the next several weeks. You will use a list of summaries,
found in the SFTP folder online, rather than have them read all the passages. Students should be
encouraged to select passages based on their interests, texts that they feel are relatable. Each
student is assigned five votes to cast, with the six most popular passages from the votes being
moved forward for repeated reading.
8. Gather materials needed.
a. Copy of the focus text that will be the subject of the protocol. The teacher will need one
copy of each passage to use when they read aloud to the whole class.
b. Each student will need two copies of the text, one so they can mark up the text and then
later have a clean version to read to their caregivers after completion of Session 5.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
24
9. Teach mini-lessons, found in the SFTP folder online, to prepare students for decoding work that
occurs during the Fluency Protocol.
a. Affixes—Lesson will be provided by NWEA for educator to teach.
b. Syllables—Lesson will be provided by NWEA for educator to teach.
10. Administer the series of the Fluency Protocol.
a. Preread the passage each week prior to reading to students to ensure the passage can
be read fluently, with accuracy and correct pronunciation. One text will be the focus of
each application of the protocol, Sessions 1–5.
b. Implement Sessions 1–5.
11. After Session 5, the next cycle will use a different previously selected text. This process will
continue until the full protocol has been administered for six passages.
Note: Any student who transfers in later and does not take the two assessments, does not
receive mini-lesson instruction, or is unable to participate starting with the first administration
of the protocol should not be included in the data set but can certainly participate in the
classroom activities.
12. After the full series of the Fluency Protocol has been administered (all six passages), complete
the project wrap-up.
a. Conduct an informal class discussion regarding the overall experience. Focus on:
i. I feel like my reading ability (e.g., did not improve yet/slightly
improved/moderately improved/improved a lot) over the course of this study.
ii. I think the thing that helped me the most over time was (e.g., being able to vote
on what I would read/hearing the passage read aloud many times/learning how
to use prefixes, suffixes, and syllables to figure out hard words/tracking which
words got easier for me as I practiced/working in pairs on reading
aloud/focusing on one sentence/keeping the goals I set for myself in
mind/other, and if so, what?).
iii. Something interesting I learned from the topics of the passages was
___________________________________________.
b. Administer posttests.
i. Give the Capti Assess.
ii. Give the postintervention (SEI) survey.
c. Conduct a class discussion about the project.
i. How much did students’ reading fluency improve over the project?
ii. What aspect of the project did they find most helpful (e.g., having a voice in
passage selection, hearing the passage modeled by the educator, repeated
readings, practice on decoding or sentences)?
d. Teacher completes the online educator postsurvey.
e. Teacher participates in a virtual interview with researchers (not to exceed 45 minutes in
length).
13. Two to three months after the final administration has been completed, students will take a
third Capti Assess.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
25
Fluency Protocol
The Fluency Protocol consists of five sessions, approximately 20 minutes each, with embedded
intervention strategies
To implement this protocol with fidelity and in accordance with research on promoting fluency, ALL
sessions should be completed in the order provided. The same text should be used throughout the
protocol, only switching to a new text when the protocol begins again.
Fluency Protocol Session Design
Adapted from the Student Achievement Partners (2018) protocol
Length
Learning Activity
Session 1 (Total time: 20 minutes)
3 minutes
Modeling: Passage is read aloud by the teacher to the whole class, with attention to
proper pacing, expression, and accuracy. Students will actively listen and follow
along with a copy of text in hand. Tell students your goal for them this week is to be
able to read the text fluently to someone outside of school.
6 minutes
Echo Reading: Teacher reads one sentence at a time, with students then reading
the sentence aloud, mirroring the teacher’s pacing, expression, and accuracy.
11 minutes
Noting Challenging Words: On their own paper copy of text, students circle words
that were difficult to read. Have students write the words on sticky notes and put
on the board. The educator reads the words aloud, one at a time, pronouncing
carefully, and students repeat the words as they are read. Then the educator reads
the words again, providing simple definitions aloud. (Note: Some potentially
challenging words have been provided for you with each text as a starting point,
along with short definitions. If those words are not problematic for students, focus
on which words are.)
Teacher only
For Session 1, first, fourth, and sixth administration, please video record the entire
session using your phone. (Note: Please do not show the students’ faces, for privacy
reasons. Instead, focus on your role during the session.)
Session 2 (Total time: 20 minutes)
3 minutes
Modeling: Same passage from previous day is read aloud by teacher, with attention
to proper pacing, expression, and accuracy. Students will actively listen and follow
along in the text.
3 minutes
Choral Reading: Teacher and students read the text one time in unison as a whole class.
7 minutes
Independent Reading: In pairs, each student reads aloud the text while their partner
monitors for pace, accuracy of words and punctuation, and appropriate expression, and
then provides feedback. Students should be allowed to struggle with some words,
sounding out if needed, but group partner or teacher should intervene with guidance at
points to avoid student frustration.
7 minutes
Decoding Using Affixes: Still in pairs, students will work together to determine which
words in the passage have a prefix or suffix. Special attention should be paid to the
challenging words identified in Session 1. You may need to remind students of the
mini-lesson they had on affixes prior to beginning the Fluency Protocol, redefining what
a prefix is and what a suffix is. Students should circle prefixes and suffixes throughout
the passage to better understand the variety that exists so they can better identify them
as chunks that can be easily read.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
26
Length
Learning Activity
Session 3 (Total time: 20 minutes)
3 minutes
Choral Reading: Teacher and students read the text one time in unison as a whole class.
7 minutes
Independent Reading: In pairs, each student reads aloud the text while their partner
monitors for pace, accuracy of words and punctuation, and appropriate expression, and
then provides feedback. Students should be allowed to struggle with some words,
sounding out if needed, but group partner or teacher should intervene with guidance at
points to avoid student frustration.
3 minutes
Check for Understanding: In pairs, each student will discuss one text-based question
(teacher will select from the questions provided with the passage) to check for
understanding of the text that students have been reading.
7 minutes
Decoding Using Syllables and Vowel Sounds: Still in pairs, using some of the
prefix/suffix words identified in Session 2, students should underline each vowel that
they believe makes a sound. Remind them of the syllable mini-lesson taught prior to
starting the Fluency Protocol, noting that every syllable will always have a vowel sound,
and that sometimes vowel combinations make a single sound.
Ask students to divide the word into syllables. These syllables will also include the
prefixes or suffixes. Next, they should read each syllable independently from others.
Then, they should blend the syllables together to sound out the whole word. Students
should discuss the meaning of the root word and how it changes based on the addition
of the prefix or suffix.
Session 4 (Total time: 20 minutes)
3 minutes
Choral Reading: Teacher and students read the text one time in unison as a whole class.
7 minutes
Independent Reading: In pairs, each student reads aloud the text while their partner
monitors for pace, accuracy of words and punctuation, and appropriate expression, and
then provides feedback. Students should be allowed to struggle with some words,
sounding out if needed, but group partner or teacher should intervene with guidance at
points to avoid student frustration.
10 minutes
Juicy Sentence Analysis: Whole class instruction—To help students better comprehend
the meaning of the text, help students dig into one juicy sentence in the text, focusing
on sentence structure, word choice, and meaning. Follow the Juicy Sentence Guidance.
(Note: A juicy sentence has been provided for you with each text as a suggestion.)
Session 5 (Total time: 20 minutes)
7 minutes
Independent Reading: Explain to students that this is their final practice session
with this particular passage. They will be expected to read the text aloud that
evening to their chosen audience (e.g., caregiver, sibling, pet, friend) at home. In
pairs, each student reads aloud the text while their partner monitors for pace,
accuracy of words and punctuation, and appropriate expression, and then provides
feedback. Students should be allowed to struggle with some words, sounding out if
needed, but group partner or teacher should intervene with guidance at points to
avoid student frustration. Charge them with reading to someone outside of school.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
27
Length
Learning Activity
13 minutes
Final Feedback and Reflection for This Week: Have students lightly cross through
previously troublesome words that are no longer problematic. Next, each student in
the pairing should provide oral feedback on overall progress, what step(s) in the
protocol seemed most helpful, and what was learned overall about both improving
reading and the text itself. (Note: Teacher should post these sentence frames and
sample responses in the classroom and read them aloud. Students can reference as
needed.)
Sentence frames:
I feel like my reading of this passage (did not improve yet/slightly
improved/moderately improved/improved a lot) this week.
I think the thing that helped me the most this week was (hearing the passage read
aloud many times/learning how to use prefixes, suffixes, and syllables to figure out
hard words/tracking which words got easier for me as I practiced/working in pairs
on reading aloud/focusing on one sentence/keeping the goals I set for myself in
mind/other, and if so, what?).
One thing I learned from reading about the topic this week is
_________________________________________________________________.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
28
Appendix B:
Reading Reimagined Interview Protocol
Purpose
Our objective is to improve reading fluency outcomes for historically marginalized middle school
students who struggle to read. We approached this objective by investigating a method of accelerating
an evidence-based fluency intervention.
Research Questions
1. After receiving the Fluency Protocol intervention, is there a significant difference in students’
reading fluency scores between pretest, posttest, and delayed/lagged test, as measured by the
Capti Assess Reading Efficiency subtest?
2. After receiving the Fluency Protocol intervention, is there a significant difference in students’
overall reading scores between pretest, posttest, and delayed/lagged test, as measured by Capti
Assess (including these subtests: Word Recognition and Decoding, Vocabulary, Morphology,
Sentence Processing, Reading Efficiency, and Reading Comprehension)?
3. Does emergent bilingual status or other demographic characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status,
age of student) moderate students’ growth in fluency scores from the pretest to the posttest, as
measured by the Capti Assess Reading Efficiency subtest? (In our sample, all but one student in
the group of students who scored below the 50
th
percentile—according to the Capti Assess
Reading Efficiency subtest—on the pretest had emergent bilingual status; therefore, we were
not able to run this analysis.)
4. After receiving the Fluency Protocol intervention, which includes students selecting passages for
engagement, is there a significant difference in students’ engagement in learning from pretest
to posttest, as measured by the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI)?
Key Interview Areas to Cover That Address Research Questions
• Effects on fluency
• Overall reading
• Student engagement
Interview Questions by Key Areas for Teachers
• Area 1: Effects on fluency
o How, if at all, have you seen this method of instruction impact students’ fluency for your
group of students who struggle with reading?*
o What behaviors did you observe that would serve as evidence of the impact on
students?
o Can you provide an example of a student who has made noteworthy progress in fluency
as a result of the fluency protocols?
o Have you seen this intervention being applied outside intervention time?
• Area 2: Overall reading
o How did you address any emotional or social needs of students while engaging in
Fluency Protocol intervention?
o How has this intervention impacted students’ attitudes toward reading?*
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
29
• Area 3: Student engagement
o Was student engagement improved by the practice of voting for the passages students
would focus on?
o What makes you believe students were more engaged, demonstrated the same level of
engagement as normal, or were less engaged?
o What major observation have you made of the behavior of your students (e.g., body
language and other observable behaviors) that provides evidence of this engagement?
o Has this intervention impacted students’ engagement during reading (outside the
intervention time)?
• Additional questions
o Can you discuss any challenges (if any) you have faced while implementing this
intervention and how you have addressed them?
o Do you plan to continue using this intervention in the future? If so, do you plan to
improve and refine this method (and if so, how)?
o How did this intervention compare to your previous teaching strategies?*
o How has participating in this study impacted you as a teacher?*
o In your opinion, was the time spent working on the intervention—taking away from
regular instruction time—worth it to both you and your students? Why or why not?
Draft Protocol
• Interview Opener: “Hi. My name is Jessica Stamp. I’m happy to be talking with you today. Thank
you for taking the time to speak with me. I’m going to ask you a few questions that will help us
understand your experience with the Fluency Protocol intervention. Are you comfortable with
me recording and transcribing this interview so that I don’t miss anything you share? This should
take only between 30 and 45 minutes.”
• Order of Questions: Prioritize the most relevant questions from each section. Questions marked
with an asterisk have been identified as questions whose answers are of great interest.
• Interview End: “Thank you so much for taking the time today! Have a good day!”
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
30
Appendix C:
Student Goal-Setting Worksheet
This worksheet is not to be submitted, but rather to be retained by educator so student can revisit prior
to SEI administered at the end of the study.
Student Name: _____________________________
What is reading fluency?
It is the ability to quickly read a text accurately and with proper expression.
Why is reading fluency important?
If a person struggles to read fluently, they must focus on each word in a text, one at a time. This means
the person has less time to focus on the MEANING of the text.
Reading is important in every part of life. Reading fluently will make school easier. Reading fluently will
prepare you for whatever you want to do once you finish school. Reading fluently enables you to learn
more about our world and be able to fully participate.
Step 1: Assess your own reading fluency.
A. On a scale from 0 to 10, with 10 being the best, tell me how you feel about your ability to read a
text quickly, accurately, and with proper expression. Put a circle around the number that best
describes how you would describe your reading fluency.
B. Explain why you rated yourself the way you did. What are you good at already? What is difficult
for you?
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
31
Step 2: Brainstorm ideas for short-term and long-term goals.
Short-term goal: What is your goal for the next 10 weeks as you take part in this study meant to help
you improve your reading fluency?
Long-term goal: What is your goal for what you want to do after you finish high school?
How will being a fluent reader help you meet your post-high-school goal?
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
32
Appendix D:
Mini-Lessons
Affixes Mini-Lesson (15 minutes)
Length
Learning Activity
2 min
Define the new terms: Tell students they will be learning a new strategy to read long words.
Specifically, they’ll learn more about three words today—affixes, prefixes, and suffixes.
Write these words on the board. Have students read each word. Explain that an affix is a
part of a word that sticks onto a base word. These word parts, or affixes, carry meaning and
can make the meaning of the base words change. An affix at the front of a base word is
called a PREFIX. An affix at the end of a base word is called a SUFFIX. Check for student
understanding of new terms.
2 min
Model PREFIXES: Pass out the two-sided handout for Common Prefixes and Common
Suffixes. Instruct students to bring their attention to the Common Prefixes side of the
handout. Tell students the first column is of prefixes by themselves, the second column
shows the definition of each prefix, and the third column shows the prefix in example
words. Demonstrate the first row, drawing a box around the prefix in the example words.
Ask them to repeat after you as you read across the first-row columns. Demonstrate how to
break apart the example words into the prefix and the rest of the word and read them part
by part. (Note: The handout is not included in the appendices due to copyright restrictions.)
4 min
Practice PREFIXES: Tell students they will work with their partner to read the prefix in the
first column, then to box the prefix in the last column, and finally to read the word part by
part. Ask them to try it for the next three rows. Once most partners have completed the
three rows, have students read chorally with you as you read across the three rows they
have completed to check their work. Ask for questions. Then have students complete the
page, completing as many as possible until the time is up.
1 min
Review PREFIXES: Review what a prefix is. Read chorally with students through some of the
rows that were challenging.
2 min
Model SUFFIXES: Tell students to bring their attention to the Common Suffixes side of the
handout. Tell students the first column is of suffixes by themselves, the second column
shows the definition of the suffix, and the third column shows the suffix attached to
example words. Demonstrate the first row, drawing a box around the suffix in the example
words. Ask them to repeat after you as you read across the first-row columns. Demonstrate
how to break apart the example words into the suffix and the rest of the word and read
them part by part.
3 min
Practice SUFFIXES: Tell students they will work with their partner to read the suffix in the
first column, box in the suffix in the last column, and read the word part by part. Have them
read chorally with you as you read across the three rows they have completed to check
their work. Ask for questions. Then have them complete the page, completing as many as
possible until time is up.
1 min
Review SUFFIXES: Review what a suffix is and how it is different from a prefix. Read chorally
with students through some of the rows that were challenging. Tell students that they will
be working to box prefixes and suffixes in future fluency lessons to help them read longer
words with more accuracy.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
33
Syllables Mini-Lesson (15 min)
Length
Learning Activity
1 min
Define the new terms: Tell students they will be learning another strategy for reading
longer words today. Specifically, they will learn more about two concepts: syllables and
vowels. Write these words on the board. Have students read each chorally three times.
Explain that a syllable is a word or part of a word with ONE vowel SOUND. Explain that a
vowel sound is a sound that is open (not blocked by your lips, tongue, or teeth) and voiced
(your voice box is turned on).
2 min
Model dividing words into syllables: Pass out the handout and call students’ attention to
List 1. Point to the first word and tell them you will be looking for vowels. If two vowels are
together, they usually stick to each other to make one sound and can be underlined
together. Underline the vowels in “volcano” as you think aloud with students. Have them
copy: volcano. Tell them each vowel you underlined will make a separate part of the word.
Tell them, “Let’s try to figure out some parts we can say together.” Think aloud and model,
then have students echo: “Vol-can-o . . . vol-ca-no . . . volcano!”
4 min
Practice dividing words into syllables: Have students try the next two words with their
partner. Remind them to underline each vowel, and if two vowels are together, they usually
stick to each other and make one sound. After most students are finished, have students
check work by modeling on the board and reading words chorally with you. Finally, have
students complete the list with their partner, then read chorally with you.
1 min
Review dividing words into syllables: Review what to do (look for vowels, underline vowels,
break word into parts to sound out, and say the word together). Review any challenging
words.
3 min
Model dividing words with affixes into syllables: Now call students’ attention to List 2. Tell
students they will now combine what they learned from the syllables lesson today and the
previous affix lesson to read longer words more efficiently. Ask students to recall the
meaning of affix, prefix, and suffix. Then remind students to use their list to read down the
prefix and suffix columns to refresh their memories. Finally, remind students to box in any
affixes they find in words. Model this on the first word in List 2, “effortless,” by boxing in
the suffix -ish. Then remind students to underline vowels that are left (effort), divide the
word into parts to read, and read it all together.
3 min
Practice dividing words with affixes into syllables: Have students try the next two words
with their partner. Remind them to box any affixes, then underline each vowel; and if two
vowels are together, they usually stick to each other and make one sound. After most
students are finished, have students check work by modeling on the board and reading
words chorally with you. Finally, have students complete the list with their partner, then
read chorally with you.
1 min
Review dividing words with affixes into syllables: Review what to do (box in affixes,
underline leftover vowels, break word into parts to sound out, and say the word together).
Review any challenging words.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
34
HANDOUT FOR SYLLABLES MINI-LESSON
List 1
volcano
rainstorm
binocular
fingernail
evaporate
establish
volume
dandelion
irregular
avocado
List 2
effortless
execution
accountability
discontinuation
unimaginable
organism
disinfectant
indecisive
persecution
disqualification
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
35
Appendix E:
Summary Document for Passage Voting
As part of your work, you get to have a say in which passages you will focus on. Put an X next to the
5 passages you would like to read. Then all student votes will be tallied, and the 6 passages with the
highest number of votes will be the passages used to improve your reading fluency.
Passage Title
Author
Description
Your Vote
(CHOOSE
ONLY 5)
God Is God Because
He Remembers
Elie Wiesel
A Jewish survivor of the Holocaust explains why
he chooses to share his extremely painful
experience with others.
Long Walk to
Freedom
Nelson
Mandela
A leader for Black equality in South Africa,
Mandela explains how he came to lead the fight
and what is left to do.
The Elephant and the
Crocodile
H. Berkeley
Score
This story is a fable that teaches a lesson about
how each of us is special in our own way.
The Man, the Boy,
and the Donkey
Aesop
This story is a fable that teaches a lesson about
trying to please everyone.
Try Something New
for 30 Days
Matt Cutts
The author explains how his life changed when he
experimented with new habits.
Robots
Josh Gregory
This passage provides information about robots.
The Ink-Keeper’s
Apprentice
Allen Say
In this fictional story, a Japanese teenager
describes learning how to draw cartoons.
Photos from a Storm
Chaser
Camille
Seaman
A Shinnecock Indian woman explains how storms
make her feel connected to nature and the larger
universe.
National Address to
America’s
Schoolchildren
Barack
Obama
The first Black president of the United States
explains his view of each student’s role in
education.
Why Celebrate
Juneteenth?
Resilience
and Racial
Equity, City
of Boston
This article explains the origin and meaning of
Juneteenth, as it relates to Black culture.
TikTok has changed
music—and the
industry is hustling to
catch up
Mia Venkat
This article explains how TikTok has helped some
people get their music in front of others without
having to sign a contract with a record company.
What It’s Like to Be
the Child of
Immigrants
Michael Rain
The author relates his experience growing up in
the United States with parents who had moved to
the US from Ghana.
The Creativity and
Community behind
Fanfiction
Cecilia
Aragon
A Latina woman describes how writing fanfiction
can create a sense of belonging and can build
skills and confidence in writing.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
36
Passage Title
Author
Description
Your Vote
(CHOOSE
ONLY 5)
The Comet
W. E. B. Du
Bois
This fictional story, written by an influential Black
author and activist, describes events that happen
the day a comet is expected to be seen from
Earth.
At the Head of Her
Class, and Homeless
National
Public Radio
(NPR) Staff
This interview introduces Rashema Melson, a
teenager who earned a full scholarship to college
even as she fought the challenges of
homelessness.
Memories of a
Former Migrant
Worker
Felix
Contreras
A Latino man explains what it was like growing up
as a child who worked in the fields, moving to
follow crops to harvest.
Remarks by the First
Lady at International
Women’s Day
Reception
Michelle
Obama
Michelle Obama, the wife of the first Black
president of the United States, celebrates
progress made by women in the United States
and describes areas in which progress still needs
to be made.
How You See Yourself
The JED
Foundation
This article explains how humans form what they
believe about themselves and why these beliefs
are important.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
37
Appendix F:
NWEA Internal Fidelity Rubric for Reading Reimagined Study—Fluency
Protocol
Educator name: _______________________________ District: _________________________________
Grade level: __________________________________ Checkpoint (1, 4, or 6): _____________________
NWEA evaluator initials: ________________________________________________________________
Session 1 will be the session recorded and rated for each of the checkpoints.
Criteria
Rating (yes or no)
Comment
MODELING
During Modeling, does educator
follow the timing outlined (i.e.,
3 minutes) plus or minus
30 seconds?
During Modeling, does educator
read the passage with proper
pacing, slow enough for students
to understand and stay engaged?
During Modeling, does the
educator read the passage with
proper expression, modeling pitch
changes and pauses related to
punctuation?
During Modeling, does the
educator read the passage with
accuracy, pronouncing the words
correctly 100% of the time?
ECHO READING
During Echo Reading, does
educator follow the timing
outlined (i.e., 6 minutes) plus or
minus 1 minute?
During Echo Reading, does
educator read the passage with
proper pacing, slow enough for
students to understand and stay
engaged?
During Echo Reading, does the
educator read the passage with
proper expression, modeling pitch
changes and pauses related to
punctuation?
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
38
During Echo Reading, does the
educator read the passage with
accuracy, pronouncing the words
correctly 100% of the time?
During Echo Reading, does the
educator allow students sufficient
time to repeat the sentences back,
one at a time?
INTERVENTION
During Noting Challenging Words,
does educator ensure all students
are actively identifying words that
are challenging for them and then
posting them on the board?
During Noting Challenging Words,
does educator pronounce the
posted words loudly and slowly
with the class so they can hear the
words pronounced accurately?
During Noting Challenging Words,
does educator provide simple,
easily understood definitions for
words read aloud?
GENERAL
Were all three components
performed in the order shown in
the protocol (Modeling followed
by Echo Reading followed by
Noting Challenging Words)?
Did the educator refrain from
offering additional interventions or
guidance during the session (e.g.,
did educator focus only on
pronunciation and definition
rather than working on decoding
skills)?
Overall rating: X/14
(Teacher must have “yes” in
12 out of 14 of the ratings to
ensure 85% fidelity.)
Final comments, if any:
If the fidelity rating is less than 85%, please notify Laura Hansen so she can set up additional training for
the educator.
INCREASING FLUENCY IN MIDDLE SCHOOL READERS
39
© 2023 NWEA. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be modified or further distributed without
written permission from NWEA.
NWEA is a trademark of NWEA in the US and in other countries. The names of other companies and their products
mentioned are the trademarks of their respective owners.
We are providing links to the third-party website(s) contained in this material only as a convenience, and the
inclusion of links to the linked site does not imply any endorsement, approval, investigation, verification, or
monitoring by us of any content or information contained within or accessible from the linked site. NWEA does not
control the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or appropriateness of the content or information on the linked
site. If you choose to visit the linked site, you will be subject to its terms of use and privacy policies, over which
NWEA has no control. In no event will NWEA be responsible for any information or content within the linked site
or your use of the linked site. By continuing to the linked site you agree to the foregoing.