Effects of Previewing on the Oral Reading of Mainstreamed Behaviorally Disordered Students

Abstract

An alternating treatments design was used to investigate the relative effects of two previewing procedures on oral reading: (a) silent previewing, which required the student to read silently the assigned passage prior to reading the passage aloud; and (b) listening previewing, in which the teacher read the assigned passage aloud while the student followed along silently prior to the student's reading the passage aloud. Five male elementary-aged behaviorally disordered learners participated in the study. Results indicated that both systematic previewing procedures were related to higher performance levels than when no previewing was provided. In addition, the listening procedure was differentially related to higher rates of words read correctly than the silent procedure. Neither previewing procedure was related to changes in error rates. Results are discussed further in terms of their implications for research and instruction.

Teacher strategies for effective intervention with students presenting social, emotional and behavioural difficulties: an international review

“…• Previewing reading material gave an effect size of 1.93 on accuracy of scores (n = 3) (Rose 1984) • Sequential prompting in a secondary-school setting resulted in an effect size of 2.04 for written sentence production (n = 3) (Schloss, Harriman, and Pfeifer 1985) • A programme designed to teach test-taking skills resulted in an effect size of 1.03 (n = 34) (Scruggs and Marsing 1987) • Personalised instruction increased the number of spelling tests passed in children between 10 and 12 years old, with a mean effect size of 0.92 for the class (n = 10) (McLaughlin 1991) • A structured instructional system, which involved teaching school survival skills to children with a mean age of 12.9 years, increased task completion with an effect size of 0.38 (n = 14) (Foley and Epstein 1993) • Incorporating the students' interest in lesson content in curriculum delivered to children aged between 5 and 11 years increased their productivity on words written and colours identified with an effect size of 1.47 (n = 4) (Clarke et al 1995) • A study of the effects of story mapping on students aged 10 and 11 years in increasing reading comprehension of text produced an effect size of 2.68 (n = 4) (Babyak, Koorland, and Mathes 2000) • Individual curricular modifications designed to promote reading skills increased academic productivity as measured by the number of words read, with a mean effect size of 1.62 (n = 2) (Kern et al 2001). …”

Putting Quality Indicators to the Test: An Examination of 30 Years of Research

“…Each practice is shown with a representative reference; multiple references for practice are not listed because of space constraints. The interventions are listed in alphabetical order as labeled by the author in each study: antecedent pausing (Hawkins, 1988), constant time delay (Wolery, Cybriwsky, Gast, & Boyle-Gast, 1991), contingent reinforcement (McEvoy & Brady, 1988), cover, copy, and compare (Skinner, Beatty, Turco, & Rasavage, 1989), error correction strategy (Grskovic & Belfiore, 1996), increased opportunities to respond (Sutherland, Alder, & Gunter, 2003), peer tutoring (Franca, Kerr, Reitz, & Lambert, 1990), personalized system of instruction (McLaughlin, 1991), phonological awareness training (Lane, O'Shaughnessy, Lambros, Gresham, & BeebeFrankenberger, 2001), positive practice plus positive reinforcement (Ollendick, Matson, Esveldt-Dawson, & Shapiro, 1980), previewing procedure (Rose, 1984), selfmonitoring (Carr & Punzo, 1993), sequential prompt technique (Schloss, Harriman, & Pfeifer, 1985), story mapping (Babyak, Koorland, & Mathes, 2000), strategy instruction: history strategy instruction, musical strategy instruction, mnemonic strategy instruction (Cade & Gunter, 2002), taped word intervention (Shapiro & McCurdy, 1989), threeterm contingency trials (Albers & Greer, 1991), trend and error analysis (Stowitschek, Lewis, Shores, & Ezzell, 1980), and written feedback (McLaughlin, 1992).…”

Effects of Peer-Previewing on LD Students' Oral Reading Skills

“…With handicapped students, all three previewing strategies have increased oral reading rates and decreased error rates (Hansen & Eaton, 1978). Rose (1984aRose ( , 1984b and Rose and Sherry (1984) compared the effects of silent and listening previewing on the oral reading skills of behaviorally disordered and learning disabled students. Their studies showed that while both strategies were effective, the listening previewing condition was superior since it led to higher rates of words read correctly.…”

“…Recording procedures paralleled those employed by Rose (1984aRose ( , 1984b. Each reading passage was photocopied, and the teacher recorded oral reading errors by circling the words that were read incorrectly.…”