The effects of preteaching key words on accuracy and fluency in connected text were examined with three fifth-grade participants identified with learning disability and reading two grade levels below their same age peers. Researchers incorporated a multiple baseline design (i.e., Baseline and Wordlist Intervention) and found that preteaching increased accuracy in connected text overall and increased fluency to some extent. The technique required minimal instructional support while providing participants with access to general education curriculum. Words that were pretaught generalized to unfamiliar passages that contained the key words 14 days after the intervention concluded.
Barger-AndersonR.DomarackiJ. W.Kearney-VakulickN.KubinaR. M. (2004). Multiple baseline designs: The use of a single-case experimental design in literacy research. Reading Improvement, 41, 217–225.
2.
BarthA.TolarT.FletcherJ.FrancisD. (2013). The effects of student and text characteristics on the oral reading fluency of middle-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 162–180. doi:10.1037/a0033826
3.
BeckM.BurnsM. K.LauM. (2009). The effect of preteaching reading skills on the on-task behavior of children identified with behavioral disorders. Behavior Disorders, 34, 91–99.
4.
BegenyJ. C.SilberJ. M. (2006). An examination of group-based treatment packages for increasing elementary-aged students’ reading fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 183–195. doi:10.1002/pits.20138
5.
BurkeM. D.CrowderW.Hagan-BurkeS.ZouY. (2009). A comparison of two path models for predicting reading fluency. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 84–95.
6.
BurnsM. K. (2007). Reading at the instructional level with children identified as learning disabled: Potential implications for response-to-intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 297–313.
7.
BurnsM. K.DeanV. J.FoleyS. (2004). Preteaching unknown key words with incremental rehearsal to improve reading fluency and comprehension with children identified as reading disabled. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 303–314. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2004.04.003
8.
CoulterG. A.LambertM. C. (2015). The relationship of decoding and fluency: A general education strategy. Manuscript submitted for publication.
9.
DahlP. R. (1979). An experimental program for teaching high speed word recognition and comprehension skills. In ButtonJ. E.LovittT. C.RowlandT. D. (Eds.), Communications research in learning disabilities and mental retardation (pp. 33–65). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
10.
DalyE.MartensB.HamlerK.DoolE. (1999). A brief experimental analysis for identifying instructional components needed to improve oral reading fluency. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 83–94. doi:10.1901/jaba.1999.32-83
11.
EckertT. L.ArdoinS. P.DaiseyD. M.ScarolaM. D. (2000). Empirically evaluating the effectiveness of reading interventions: The use of brief experimental analysis and single case designs. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 463–473. doi:10.1002/1520-6807(200009)37:5<463::AID-PITS6>3.0.CO;2-X
12.
EhriL. C.WilceL. S. (1983). Development of word identification speed in skilled and less skilled beginning readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 3–18.
13.
FleisherL. S.JenkinsJ. R.PanyD. (1979). Effects on poor readers’ comprehension of training in rapid decoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 30–48.
14.
GallagherT. L.FazioX.GunningT. (2012). Varying readability of science-based text in elementary readers: Challenges for teachers. Reading Improvement, 49, 93–112.
15.
HasbrouckJ.TindalG. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. Reading Teacher, 59, 636–644. doi:10.1598/RT.59.7.3
16.
HoffmanM. A. (2009). Scientific inquiry in action chemical reaction!New York, NY: Rosen.
17.
JenkinsJ. R.FuchsL. S.van den BroekP.EspinC.DenoS. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719–729. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.719
18.
JonesK. M.WickstromK. F. (2002). Done in sixty seconds: Further analysis of the brief assessment model for academic problems. School Psychological Review, 31, 554–568.
19.
KamhiA. G.CattsH. W. (2012). Language and reading disabilities (3rd ed.). Boston, MD: Allyn & Bacon.
20.
KuceraJ.AxelrodS. (1995). Multiple-baseline design. In NeumanS. B.McCormickS. (Eds.), Single-subject experimental research: An application for literacy (pp. 47–63). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
21.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2
22.
LevyB. A.AbelloB.LysynchukL. (1997). Transfer from word training to reading in context: Gains in reading fluency and comprehension. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 20, 173–188.
23.
LoY.CookeN. L.StarlingA. P. (2011). Using a repeated reading program to improve generalization of oral reading fluency. Education & Treatment of Children, 34, 115–140.
24.
ManisF. R.CustodioR.SzeszulskiP. A. (1993). Development of phonological and orthographic skill: A 2-year longitudinal study of dyslexic children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 64–86.
25.
Martin-ChangS.LevyB. A. (2005). Fluency transfer: Differential gains in reading speed and accuracy following isolated word and context training. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 343–376.
26.
MeyerM. S.FeltonR. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new direction. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283–306.
27.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (Report of the National Reading Panel, NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
28.
O’ConnorR. E.SwansonH. L.GeraghtyC. (2010). Improvement in reading rate under independent and difficult text levels: Influences on word and comprehension skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 1–19. doi:10.1037/a0017488
29.
ParkerD. C.BurnsM. K. (2014). Using the instructional level as a criterion to target reading interventions. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 30, 79–94. doi:10.1080/10573569.2012.702047
30.
ParkerR. I.Hagan-BurkeS.VannestK. (2007). Percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 194–204.
31.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. (2009). An improved effect size for single-case research: Nonoverlap of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40, 357–367.
32.
PikulskiJ. J.ChardD. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. Reading Teacher, 58, 510–519.
33.
RaabeE. (2006). Vampire bats. New York, NY: Rosen.
34.
ReitsmaP. (1983). Printed word learning in beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 36, 321–329. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(83)90036-X
35.
RousseauM. K.TamB. K. Y. (1991). The efficacy of previewing and discussion of keys words on the oral reading proficiency of bilingual learners with speech and language impairments. Education & Treatment of Children, 14, 199–209.
36.
SpeeceD. L.RitcheyK. D. (2005). A longitudinal study of the development of oral reading fluency in young children at risk for reading failure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 387–399.
37.
SweeneyW. J.RingM. M.MalangaP.LambertM. C. (2003). Using curriculum-based assessment and repeated practice instructional procedures combined with daily goal setting to improve elementary students oral reading fluency: A teacher training approach. Journal of Precision Teaching and Celeration, 19, 2–19.
38.
TanA.NicholsonT. (1997). Flashcards revisited: Training poor readers to read words faster improves their comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 276–288.
39.
TherrienW. J.HughesC. (2008). A comparison of repeated reading and question generation on students’ reading fluency and comprehension. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 6, 1–16.
40.
TorgesenJ. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55–64.
41.
TorgesenJ. K. (2004). Lessons learned from research on interventions for students who have difficulty learning to read. In McCardleP.ChhabraV. (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 355–382). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
42.
WoodcockR. W.JohnsonM. B. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III: Tests of Achievement. Chicago, IL: Riverside.
