Parental Involvement in the Teaching of Reading: A Comparison of Hearing Reading, Paired Reading, Pause, Prompt, Praise, and Direct Instruction Methods

Leach, David J.; Siddall, Susan W.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1990.tb00951.x

Cited by 35 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The PR method teaches parents to read simultaneously with their child, and to support the child when he/she is reading independently (Toomey, 1993). Leach and Siddall (1990) compared the effects of several different programs that involved parents and their beginning readers. Their study compared PPP, PR, hearing reading (parents listen to their children read), and Direct Instruction (parents are provided with scripted lessons and books to use with children).…”

Section: Integrity Of Parent Tutoring Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parent involvement and reading: Using curriculum‐based measurement to assess the effects of paired reading

Fiala

Sheridan

2003

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the effectiveness of a paired reading intervention using curriculum‐based measurement (CBM) probes to document reading progress for one fourth‐ and two third‐grade students. These students were considered below‐average readers. Parents and children used the paired reading method in their homes for 10 minutes, four times a week. Children and parents were also provided with reading material at their instructional level. Results showed that the children's reading accuracy and rates increased from baseline to follow‐up on CBM measures and on pre/posttesting. In addition, students and parents gave favorable treatment acceptability ratings for paired reading. Implications for future research are outlined. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Psychol Schs 40: 613–626, 2003.

show abstract

Section: Integrity Of Parent Tutoring Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parent involvement and reading: Using curriculum‐based measurement to assess the effects of paired reading

Fiala

Sheridan

2003

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are, however, examples in which parents and other non-teachers have taken the lead role with great success (Baker, Gersten & Keating, 2000;Fitzgerald, 2001;Kraft, Findlay, Major, Gilberts & Hofmeister, 2001; Leach & Siddall, 1990). Kraft et al (2001) evaluated the reading skills of Kindergarten level children following a home based beginning reading program before which parents undertook two hours of instructional training.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The approach is based upon the work of Siegfried Engelmann, who achieved significant success in reading instruction with earlier programs, such as Distar Reading, Reading Mastery, and Corrective Reading (Adams & Engelmann, 1996). These are teacher presented group programs; however, one parent based direct instruction program called Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons (Engelmann, Haddox & Bruner, 1983) has been published, and has received some empirical validation (Hempenstall, 2002;Leach & Siddall, 1990). It was a parent version developed out of the Reading Mastery classroom program.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They reported that parents in the study were capable of effectively teaching important skills such as letter-sound associations and blending to their children following this limited period of instruction. Leach and Siddall (1990) compared 4 different methods of tutoring: hearing reading, paired reading, pause, prompt, praise (McNaughton, Glynn & Robinson, 1981), and Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons (Engelmann, Haddox & Bruner, 1983) taught to parents of First Grade children with reading problems. Greater progress in reading accuracy and comprehension occurred with the use of the additional instructional strategies included in the direct instruction method.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of a computer based beginning reading program on young children

Watson

Hempenstall

2008

AJET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was an evaluation of a parent delivered, computer based beginning reading program with a group of 15 Kindergarten and Grade 1 students. Completing the Funnix program at home through a CD copy was expected to produce educationally and statistically significant improvements in phonemic awareness, letter-sound fluency, non-word decoding skills, and oral reading fluency, when compared to the outcomes for a similar group of 16 students in a wait list comparison group. Data were analysed using univariate analyses of covariance incorporating effect sizes. Statistically significant treatment effects were found for Kindergarten students in the intervention group on letter-sound fluency, oral reading fluency, nonword decoding, and phonemic awareness skills. Grade 1 students in the intervention group demonstrated significant improvement over time on letter-sound fluency, letter-name knowledge, non-word decoding and oral reading fluency; however, these improvements were not significantly greater than those for the Grade 1 comparison group. It was concluded that Kindergarten students gained the most benefits, and that at risk students may represent a fruitful target audience. The Funnix program and reading skills of Kindergarten and Grade 1 studentsAn ongoing subject of debate in educational research is how the complex skills involved in learning to read should be taught to children. Perhaps the most definitive information to date regarding reading instruction was presented in the National Reading Panel report (National Reading Panel, 2000). The specific areas of reading instruction the Panel noted as crucial were phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. For children in pre-school and in their first year of formal schooling, the Panel found that training in phonemic awareness skills, such as blending and segmenting, provided the strongest benefits (National Reading Panel, 2000). It further recommended that conjoint phonemic awareness and phonics emphases should be taught directly, rather than incidentally, as effective instruction in both skills leads to early progress in reading and spelling. Computer delivered instruction was considered a potentially powerful tool for teaching these skills

show abstract

“…Leach and Siddall(1990), like Wheldall and Mettem (1985), used analyses of covariance and planned comparisons to compare their groups. Unlike Wheldall and Mettem (1985), however, Leach and Siddall(l990) found that on measures of both reading accuracy and reading comprehension, Pause, Prompt and Praise was one of the least effective procedures.…”

Section: ) Would Have Us Believementioning

confidence: 99%

Pause, Prompt and Praise: The need for more research

Goyen

McClelland²

1994

Journal Research in Reading

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the study was to evaluate Pause, Prompt and Praise as a cross‐age peer‐tutoring procedure in the primary school. The 18 tutees and 18 tutors were all poor readers, the tutees being selected from Year 4 and the tutors from Year 6. The tutor‐tutee pairs were randomly divided into three treatments: (a) tutors trained to use the Pause, Prompt and Praise procedure; (b) tutors not given any explicit training; and (c) a control group of Year 4 and Year 6 students not involved in any peer‐tutoring experience. Results varied according to the method of analysis used. Subjective interpretation of gain scores seemed to suggest that Pause, Prompt and Praise was the most effective treatment for both tutees and tutors, while the ANOVA of gain scores suggested that it was the tutoring experience that was effective, not Pause, Prompt and Praise. The more rigorous ANCOVA, on the other hand, suggested that neither tutoring condition was effective for either the tutees or tutors. The use of gain scores in previous evaluations of Pause, Prompt and Praise was questioned.

show abstract

Parental Involvement in the Teaching of Reading: A Comparison of Hearing Reading, Paired Reading, Pause, Prompt, Praise, and Direct Instruction Methods

Cited by 35 publications

References 4 publications

Parent involvement and reading: Using curriculum‐based measurement to assess the effects of paired reading

Parent involvement and reading: Using curriculum‐based measurement to assess the effects of paired reading

Effects of a computer based beginning reading program on young children

Pause, Prompt and Praise: The need for more research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About