Three instructional procedures were compared to assess their effects on reading comprehension and word recognition. One approach emphasized comprehension, i.e., students were regularly questioned about the reading content and were not corrected when they made oral reading errors. A second approach consisted of word emphasis, whereby subjects were corrected for all reading errors and received error-word drills each day. They were not questioned about the content of their reading selection. The third approach combined aspects of the other two, including error-word corrections and drill along with comprehension questions. No differences were found among treatment effects on comprehension and oral reading; however, on an isolated word-recognition measure the approaches which included error-word drill produced higher scores.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
NilesJ.GrahamR. T.WinsteadJ. C.The effects of teacher feedback responses on children's oral reading performancePaper presented at the International Reading Association Convention, Miami, FL, 1977.
2.
AllenP. D.Implications for reading instruction. In AllenP. D.WatsonD. J. (Eds.), Findings of research in miscue analysis: Classroom implications. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, National Institute of Education, 1976.
3.
BradleyJ. M.AmesW. S.The influence of intrabook readability variation in oral reading performance. Journal of Educational Research, 1976, 70, 101–105.
4.
CarnineD.SilbertJ.Direct instructional reading. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1979.
5.
CarrollJ. B.The nature of the reading process. In SingerH.RudellR. B. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1976.
6.
DahlP. R.An experimental program for teaching high speed word recognition and comprehension. In ButtonJ.LovittT.RowlandT. (Eds.), Communications research in learning disabilities and mental retardation. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1979.
7.
EngelmannS.Preventing failure in the primary grades. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1969.
8.
FleisherL. S.JenkinsJ. R.Effects of contextualized and decontextualized practice conditions on word recognition. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1978, 1, 39–57.
9.
FleisherL. S.JenkinsJ. R.PanyD.Effects on poor readers' comprehension of training in rapid decoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 1979, 15, 1, 30–48.
GoodmanK. S.Miscues: Windows on reading. In GoodmanK. S. (Ed.), Miscue analysis: Applications to reading instruction. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, National Council of Teachers of Education, 1976.
12.
GoodmanK. S.Revaluing readers and reading. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 1982, 1 (4), 87–93.
13.
GoodmanY. A.BurkeC. L.Reading miscue inventory manual: Procedures for diagnosis and evaluation. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1972.
14.
GuthrieJ. T.Models of reading and reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 65, 9–18.
15.
GuthrieJ.SiefertM.BurnhamN.CaplanR.The maze technique for assessing and monitoring reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 1974, 28, 161–168.
JenkinsJ.LarsonK.Evaluating error-correction procedures for oral reading. Journal of Special Education, 1979, 13, 145–156.
18.
JenkinsJ. R.LarsonK.FleisherL. S.Effects of oral reading error corrections on word recognition and reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1983, 6 (2), elsewhere in this issue.
19.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. J.Towards a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 1974, 6, 293–323.
20.
LovittT. C.HansenC. L.Round one — Placing the child in the right reader. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1976, 9, 347–353.
21.
MarksC. B.DoctorowM. J.WittrockH. C.Word frequency and reading comprehension. The Journal of Educational Research, 1974, 67, 259–262.
22.
OakanR.WienerM.CromerW.Identification, organization, and reading comprehension for good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 62, 71–78.
23.
PanyD.McCoyK.PetersE.Effects of corrective feedback on comprehension skills of remedial students. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1981, 13, 131–143.
24.
PerfettiC. A.HogoboamT.Relationship between single word decoding and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67, 461–469.
25.
PowellW. R.Reappraising the criteria for interpreting informal inventories. In DeBoerD. (Ed.), Reading diagnosis and evaluation. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1970.
26.
SamuelsS. J.Attentional processes in reading: The effects of pictures in the acquisition of reading responses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1967, 58, 337–342.
27.
SingerH.SamuelsS. J.SpiroffJ.The effect of picture cues and contextual conditions on learning responses to printed words. Reading Research Quarterly, 1973, 9, 555–567.
28.
SmithF.Twelve easy ways to make learning to read difficult and one difficult way to make it easy. In SmithF. (Ed.), Psycholinguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.
29.
SmithF.Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1971.
30.
SpiroR.The etiology of reading comprehension styles Technical Report No. 124. Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois, 1979.
31.
StanovichK.Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 1980, 16, 32–71.
32.
StichtT.BeckL.HaukeR.KleinmanG.JamesJ.Auding and reading: A developmental model. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization, 1974.
