The purpose of this study was to explore a user-friendly method to increase the reading fluency of four elementary students with low vision. An analysis of the effects of repeated readings on the students’ reading rates, error rates, and comprehension found that the intervention was successful in improving all four students’ reading fluency and did not adversely affect their error rates or comprehension. The results from generalized readings indicated that the students’ improved reading rates were generalized to classroom reading.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertoP.A. & TroutmanA.C. (1990). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
CarverR.P. (1990). Reading rate: A review of research and theory.San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4.
CarverR.P. & HoffmanJ.V. (1981). The effect of practice through repeated reading on gain in reading ability using a computer-based instructional system. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 374–390.
5.
ChomskyC. (1976). When you still can't read in third grade: After decoding, What? In SamuelsS. J. (Ed.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 13–30). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
6.
ChristieJ.F. (1979). The qualitative analysis system: Updating the IRI. Reading World, 18, 396–399.
7.
DahlP.J. (1974). An experimental program for teaching high speed word recognition and comprehension skills. (Final report of Project No. 3–1154). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, Office of Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 099 812).
DowhowerS.L. (1987). Effects of repeated readings on second-grade transitional readers’ fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 389–406.
11.
FridalG., JanseL., & KlindtM. (1981). Courses in reading development for partially sighted students. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 75, 4–7.
12.
FuchsL.S., FuchsD., & MaxwellL. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measure. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20–28.
13.
HarrisT.L. & HodgesR.E. (Eds.). (1981). A dictionary of reading and related terms.Newark: DE: International Reading Association.
14.
IrwinPA. & MitchellJ.N. (1983). A procedure for assessing the richness of retellings. Journal of Reading, 26, 391–396.
15.
JohnstonP.H. (1992). Constructive evaluation of literate activity.New York: Longman.
16.
KalmbackJ.R. (1986). Getting at the point of retellings. Journal of Reading, 29, 326–333.
17.
LaytonC.A. (1994). Effects of repeated readings for increasing reading fluency in elementary students with low vision. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(01), 70.
18.
LeggeG.E., RossJ.A., MaxwellK.T., & LuebkerA. (1989). Psychophysics of reading, VII: Comprehension in normal and low vision. Clinical Vision Sciences, 4, 51–60.
19.
SamuelsS.J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 33, 403–408.
20.
TawneyJ.W. & GastD.L. (1984). Single subject research in special education.Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
21.
WatsonG.R., WrightV., & De l'AuneW. (1992). The efficacy of comprehension training and reading practice for print readers with macular loss. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 86, 37–43.
22.
WhittakerS.G. & Lovie-KitchinJ.V. (1993). Visual requirements for reading. Optometry and Vision Science, 70, 54–65.
23.
WrightV. & WatsonG. (1991). Readability as a criterion for selecting reading materials for adult readers with low vision. Journal of Vision Rehabilitation, 5, 23–35.
