**6. Discussion**

This study examined the effects of two intervention phases on a second-grade student's reading development, including word recognition automaticity (WCPM), reading prosody (expression), decoding skills, work knowledge, and reading comprehension. Overall, the researchers observed growth on all of the assessments. Thus, Read Like Me might serve other students who have difficulty with reading.

According to the results of the word recognition automaticity and prosody probes, the intervention worked best when paired with regular instruction. The intervention adheres to the gradual release of responsibility method [19], which may serve to increase the student's ability to quickly recognize words and read at an increased rate. The student first heard the story in its entirety and listened to the words read accurately. The second phase was an assisted reading approach that allowed students to practice alongside a proficient reader and then practice reading the words on their own, receiving feedback or assistance as necessary. In the end, the student has heard the words, read them with assistance, practiced the words, and essentially "performed" an oral reading of the text as a whole. In this case, multiple exposures to the words and the opportunity to learn and practice them served the student well.

It is important to note that continuation of the intervention over the break prevented the typical summer reading slide, where students often lose some of their reading gains [43]. This phenomenon is especially detrimental for struggling readers. It is also important to note that this student's reading growth was stagnant for much of his second-grade year; therefore, any amount of growth warranted

celebration. Albeit slow, Read Like Me successfully promoted, perhaps even kick-started, positive growth in reading rate and prosody.

Prosody has historically been neglected in reading instruction [44–46]. In a study [47] that employed reader theater and karaoke as reading activities, students in both the treatment and comparison groups made significant gains in word recognition automaticity, but only the treatment group made gains in reading prosody. The authors claim that this disparity was attributed to the types of instruction. Typical school instruction does, indeed, attend to reading rate but often neglects prosody. Because the interventions in the treatment (reader theater and karaoke) also focused on expressive reading, there was a much greater increase. Several components of Read Like Me focus on prosody. First, the initial read aloud provides a model of fluent and expressive reading [48]. Second, the added neurological impress component has been said to "etch" the interventionist's prosodic renderings into the mind of the reader [14,49,50], and the immediate repeated reading allows the reader to demonstrate or mimic fluent and expressive reading. Finally, the student is asked to "read like me" and independently reads aloud the text similar to the initial oral reading done by the interventionist. Therefore, increases in reading prosody as a result of the intervention are likely.

When considering the results of the GMRT-4, the student made gains in all three areas tested. There was a 63% (7 points) increase on both the decoding and word knowledge portions of the assessment. In the comprehension section, the student scored 22 points higher, which was a 1100% increase. Clearly the time spent in class and on the intervention did more than help the student become a more fluent reader; it also helped him better understand text by increasing his decoding skills, word knowledge, and most importantly, reading comprehension—which is the main goal of reading.

Previous studies have confirmed that increasing foundational skills, such as decoding and word recognition automaticity, can lead to increased reading comprehension [51,52]. Research has also indicated that systematic instructional protocols can improve students' reading ability, particularly those with ADHD [53] and dyslexia [54].

The increase in comprehension is also supported by the theoretical framework of this study, indicating that the student's increased automatic reading freed cognitive resources that could then be allocated to reading comprehension [1]. When considering other theories, admittedly there was less of an emphasis on the transactional nature of reading experiences [55] and more of an emphasis on a previous theoretical understanding of reading, namely the New Criticism literacy theory [56]. The theory promotes intense close readings and focuses on text-dependent comprehension rather than a focus on prior experiences of readers—a strategy that has dominated reading instruction for decades [10]. While Read Like Me did not have an explicit reading comprehension component, the repetitive nature likely helped the reader understand the literal meanings of text. Moreover, the GMRT-4 comprehension section arguably tests student's ability to understand text more explicitly than implicitly. Thus, the type of instruction used in the intervention closely matched the assessment employed.

#### **7. Limitations and Further Research**

Standardized tests are not without limitations, as they are snapshots taken on a single day, and they are not indicative of the precise potential of a student. However, the researchers felt that standardized tests would complement the progress monitoring measures administered throughout the study, as they added specific measures of decoding, word knowledge, and reading comprehension, which were not directly measured during the course of the intervention. Additional research should likely include some form of reading comprehension monitoring throughout the study.

There are inherent limitations in single-case experimental research, most notably the inability to generalize beyond the case. In this case, a second grader diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia benefited from the intervention. There is no guarantee that Read Like Me will work with every student who struggles with reading, but it does serve as an additional option for teachers and interventionists. A larger experimental or quasi-experimental study with treatment and control groups could further examine the utility and e ffectiveness of the intervention.
