The effects of different types of feedback upon the oral reading fluency (number of words read per minute) of three secondary students with learning disabilities were analyzed to determine whether feedback affected the reading rate of the students. Feedback types included verbal feedback only, visual feedback in the form of performance graphs, and feedback regarding miscue analysis in conjunction with performance graphs. Results indicated that the visual feedback only condition yielded the greatest increase in overall reading rate. However, miscue feedback in conjunction with graphic feedback led to a greater increase in accuracy of words read per minute in timed readings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bean, R.M., & Lane, S. (1990). Implementing curriculum-based measures of reading in an adult literacy program. Remedial and Special Education , 11(8), 39-46.
2.
Billingsley, B.S., & Wildman, T.M. (1990). Facilitating reading comprehension in learning disabled students: Metacognitive goals and instructional strategies. Reading and Special Education, 11(2), 18-31.
Brown, D., & Frank, A.R. (1990). "Let me do it!"-Self-monitoring in solving arithmetic problems. Education and Treatment of Children, 13, 239-248.
5.
Clay, M.M. (1993). Observation survey of early literacy achievement . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.
6.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
7.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45.
8.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1993). Performance in reading from content area text as an indicator of achievement. Remedial and Special Education , 14(6), 47-59.
9.
Espin, C.A., Foegen, A., Hoppe, W. (1994, April). Validity of three general outcome measures for predicting secondary students' performance on content area tasks. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
10.
Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11, 513-516, 575-578.
11.
Fuchs, L.S. (1989). Evaluating solutions monitoring progress and revising intervention plans. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.) Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 153-181). New York: Guilford Press.
12.
Fuchs, L.S., Butterworth, J.R., & Fuchs, D. (1989). Effects of ongoing curriculum-based measurement on student awareness of goals and progress. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 63-72.
13.
Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1992). Effects of curriculum within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 58, 232-243.
14.
Fuch, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20-28.
15.
Glor-Schieb, S., & Zigmond, N. (1993). Exploring the potential motivational properties of curriculum-based measurement in reading among middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 4(2), 35-43.
16.
Goodman, K.S. (Ed.). (1975). Miscue analysis: Applications to reading instruction. Urbana, IL: Eric Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.
17.
Goodman, K.S., & Goodman, Y.M. (1977). Learning about psycholinguistic processes by analyzing oral reading. Harvard Educational Review, 47(3), 317-333.
18.
Goodman, Y.M., Watson, D.J., & Burke, C.L. (1987). Reading miscue inventory: Alternative procedures . New York: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc.
19.
Harris, K.R. (1986). Self-monitoring of attentional behavior versus self-monitoring of productivity: Effects of on-task behavior and academic response rate among learning disabled children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 417-423.
20.
Jenkins, J.R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421-432.
21.
Marston, D.B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford Press.
22.
McCurdy, B.L., & Shapiro, E.S. (1992). A comparison of teacher-, peer-, and self-monitoring with curriculum-based measurement in reading among students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 162-180.
23.
Missouri Annual Special Education Model Compliance Plan. (1995). Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Division of Special Education.
24.
Missouri State Plan for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: 1995-97 (pp. A-19-A-21). (1994). Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Division of Special Education.
25.
Parker, R., Hasbrouck, J.E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Greater validity for oral reading fluency: Can miscues help? The Journal of Special Education, 25, 492-503.
26.
Reid, R., & Harris, K.R. (1993). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of performance: Effects on attention and academic performance. Exceptional Children, 60, 29-40.
27.
Serrailier, I. (1990). Escape from Warsaw. New York, NY: Scholastic, Inc.
28.
Shinn, M.R., Good, R.H. III, Knutson, N., Tilly, W.D. III, & Collins, V.L. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459-479.
29.
Tawney, J.W., & Gast, D.L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.
