IMPLEMENTATION OF PALS

IN SECONDARY READING
INTERVENTIONS

CAMILLE COWART
EDUC 6410
V A N D E R B I LT UNIVERSITY
AGENDA

• Today we will…
– Review assessment data
– Discuss overarching topic and search process
– Review background research
– Learn about PALS
– Practice PALS
– Discuss implications of PALS
SEARCH TOPIC: FLUENCY
DEVELOPMENT AND
READING ENDURANCE IN
SECONDARY READING
INTERVENTIONS
BACKGROUND DATA

• Grade 9 MAP Results (Fall 2018)

– 85% of 9th grade students tested into the average to high ranges
– 14% of 9th grade students tested in the low to low average categories
– 11 students tested into the first quintile for literature-based questions
• FAST CBM Results (Initial findings for Tier placement—Fall 2018)
– Administered to students scoring in the first and second quintiles on MAP
– 29% of students tested below 20th percentile for fluency on Grade 8 passages
– 29% scored in the 21st-30th percentiles for fluency on Grade 8 passages
BACKGROUND DATA

• Additional data:
– While I did not measure prosody during FAST screening, I observed noticeable
gaps in prosody when reading aloud. This observation was confirmed when
speaking to the Tier III instructor.
– Many students in both interventions self-report as not reading for enjoyment.
TOPIC AND RESEARCH RATIONALE

• After further analyzing the data, I have identified that many students in Tiers II and
III have high accuracy rates according to FAST measures (most were around 97%),
but they have lower words correct per minute (WCPM).
• Additionally, it is of note that the small number of our students who fall into the
lower two quintiles have lower scores in the literature portion of MAP, according to
Fall 2018 data.
• As a result of analyzing these two factors, I have determined that implementing a
PALS model in these interventions would be beneficial for students to be exposed to
an increased volume of literature structures and to have practice reading
aloud/performing real-time comprehension assessment to develop stronger skills in
fluency (Allington, 2006; Samuels, 2006).
SEARCH QUESTIONS

• Fluency
– How can a PALS model be implemented in a secondary Tier II or III reading
intervention to improve students’ fluency skills?
• Endurance
– How does targeting reading endurance by implementing PALS simultaneously
improve skills in comprehension, fluency, and other skills as needed?
SEARCH PROCESS

• Analyzed schoolwide data for ELA

• Analyzed data of students in Tier II and III reading interventions
• Researched components of fluency for secondary students
• Researched relationship between fluency and endurance
• Researched successful literature circle formats and peer-assisted reading
structures
• Asked teachers what they think will actually work for their students and
adopted some of their current practices
FINDINGS AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
FLUENCY

• What is fluency?
– “Reading in phrases with appropriate intonation and prosody” (Allington, 2006)
– “’freedom from word identification problems that might hinder comprehension…;
automaticity and a fluent reader as ‘any person who reads smoothly, without
hesitation, and with comprehension’” (Deeney, 2010)
• Four primary components (Deeney, 2010):
– Accuracy
– Rate or speed
– Prosody
– Comprehension
A NOTE ON COMPREHENSION

• Accuracy, rate/speed, and prosody, according to The Literacy Dictionary

(Harris & Hodges, 1995), are vehicles to comprehension  if one or more of
these components of fluency is not functioning properly, comprehension will
break down.
• Accuracy: readers must be able to correctly identify the majority of words in
a text
• Rate: incorporates automaticity and appropriate speed; if students cannot
read words off the page efficiently and without too much conscious
attention, their comprehension will falter
• Prosody: a potentially reciprocal relationship exists; prosody could be
necessary for comprehension, and comprehension may lead to appropriate
prosody (Kuhn, 2009)
ENDURANCE AND FLUENCY

• “Endurance is the ability to continue reading with appropriate accuracy,

rate, prosody, and comprehension over an extended period of time”
(Deeney, 2010).
• Secondary students are asked to read a large volume of texts with
increased length and complexity throughout high school in all content
areas.
• The bottom line is that we need to immerse our high school students in rich
text during intervention time that provide them opportunities to spend a lot
of time with one text.
PALS OVERVIEW
PALS OVERVIEW

• Students go through training for each of the three processes prior to the
first official PALS session.
• The lower-performing reader starts as the tutor/coach, while the higher-
performing reader reads aloud to model good reading skills. After 5
minutes, they switch roles.
• The teacher consistently circulates around the room to ensure the process
is being followed.
PARTNER READING WITH RETELL
Partner Reading has been
shown to improve reading
accuracy and fluency and—with
its story retelling component—
to enhance reading
comprehension.
PARAGRAPH SHRINKING
Paragraph Shrinking helps students monitor their own comprehension
and focus on the main idea of each paragraph, pay attention to
important details, and elaborate on content.
PREDICTION RELAY
The ability to make accurate predictions is associated with
improvements in reading comprehension.
IMPLEMENTATION

• Pairing: students should be paired on ability based on your class data.

Fuchs recommends partners in high school switch as frequently as every
day, but they can stay consistent for up to 4 weeks.
• Preparation: prepare folders for groups with cue cards, explanations, etc.
• Training: this training schedule assumes students will meet every other
idea, so it can be expedited.
PRACTICE AND DISCUSS

• To get a feel for the flow of this lesson, we are going to practice this with an abbreviated
timeline. Everyone will be in a pair, and you will complete the following steps:
– 1) Partner Reading with Retell: Partner 1 will read for 1 minute, and Partner 2 will read for
1 minute. Then, you will have 1 minute for retell.
– 2) Paragraph Shrinking: Partner 1 will read for 1 minute, and Partner 2 will read for 1
minute. At the end of each paragraph, whoever is reading will identify the main character and
summarize the paragraph in 10 words or less. Partner 2 will do the same in their time.
– 3) Prediction Relay: Partner 1 makes a prediction about what will happen in the next half of
the page, reads that portion of the text, determines whether their prediction was correct, and
then identifies and summarizes the main idea of the half page in 10 words or less. Partner 2
will repeat this process with the next half of the page.
• Discuss: How did your reading change from your “normal” way of reading during this
process? How does being paired with someone affect your reading? What do you think
are the pros and cons of this model?
IMPLICATIONS FOR
TIER II AND III
INTERVENTIONS AT
THE SECONDARY
LEVEL
INSTRUCTIONAL IMPLICATIONS
SUMMARY
• The PALS process stands in contrast to many popular computerized reading
intervention programs, prioritizing high-interest texts and collaboration.
• Students are placed at the center of the model and are building multiple
skills simultaneously.
• Proper modeling of the process is required for full effectiveness.
• The PALS process can be supplemented with other skills-targeted activities
as needed.
ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

• Progress monitoring can still occur in the PALS model. Since this targets
fluency, one-minute oral fluency measures can still provide accurate
progress monitoring. Teachers can also implement more formal writing
and/or formative assessment into this process to gauge specific skills.
• Teacher can perform running records while students are reading aloud in
the partner read sections as a quick assessment.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES

• Allington, R., McCuiston, K., & Billen, M. (2006). What research says about text complexity and learning to read. The Reading
Teacher, 68(7), 491-501.
• Deeney, T. (2010). One-minute fluency measures: mixed messages in assessment and instruction. The Reading Teacher,
63(6), 440-450.
• Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: Making classrooms more
responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 174–206. 
• Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Svenson, E., Yen, L., Al Otaiba, S., Yang, N., McMaster, K., Prentice, K., Kazdan, S., &
Saenz, L. (2001). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies in reading: Extensions for kindergarten, first grade, and high
school. Remedial and Special Education, 22(1), 15–2.
• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D. & Kazdan, S. (1999). Effects of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies on high school students with serious
reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 20(5), 309–318. 
• Harris, T.L., & Hodges, R.E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
• Kuhn, M.R. (2009). The hows and whys of fluency instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• The IRIS Center. (2008). PALS: A reading strategy for high school. Retrieved from https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/palshs/