ERIC EJ853189: Three versus Six Rereadings of Practice Passages

2009·0.38 MB·English

by  ERIC

JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2009, 42, 375–380 NUMBER2 (SUMMER2009)
THREE VERSUS SIX REREADINGS OF PRACTICE PASSAGES
SCOTT P. ARDOIN
UNIVERSITYOFGEORGIA
AND
JESSICA C. WILLIAMS, CYNTHIA KLUBNIK, AND MICHAEL MCCALL
UNIVERSITYOFSOUTHCAROLINA
Althoughtheliteratureclearlydemonstratesthatrepeatedreadingsresultinimmediateeffectson
students’ performance on the intervention materials as well as long-term benefits, data are less
promising regarding its immediate generalization effects to similar materials. Using an
alternating treatments design, the current study evaluated the effects of a multicomponent
repeatedreadinginterventionongeneralizationpassagesafterstudentshadreadapassagethree
versussixtimes.Resultsindicatedimprovementsinfluencyasaresultofbothinterventions,with
slightlygreatermaintenanceeffectswhenstudentsweregivensixopportunitiestoreadpassages.
DESCRIPTORS: generalization, reading fluency, repeatedreadings
_______________________________________________________________________________
Reading fluency is a key component of high percentage of the same words. For
effective reading instruction, because it is a instance, intervention failed to result in accept-
necessary, although not sufficient, skill for able levels of generalization on generalization
accomplishing the ultimate goal of comprehen- passagesfor3ofthe4studentsinonestudyand
sion. One instructional practice for which there 2 of the 3 students in a second study (Daly,
is substantial evidence in both the behavioral Martens, Dool, & Hintze, 1998; Daly, Mar-
and the cognitive literature for improving tens, Hamler, Dool, & Eckert, 1999, respec-
students’ reading fluency is repeated readings tively). Thus, it is not clear from these studies
(RR). The studies that have examined multi- that providingintervention on thefirsthalfof a
component RR interventions have demonstrat- story would have substantial, immediate, and
ed repeatedly that providing students with beneficial effects for the student when reading
modeling in the form of listening passage the latter half of the same story.
preview, multiple opportunities to practice Failure of multicomponent RR interventions
passages, corrective feedback, and contingencies to lead to substantial gains on generalization
for improved reading can substantially increase passages led Ardoin et al. (2007) to evaluate
students’ fluency on practice passages (e.g., alternative procedures to promote generaliza-
Ardoin, McCall, & Klubnik, 2007; Eckert, tion. Ardoin et al. compared the effects of
Ardoin, Daly, & Martens, 2002; Gortmaker, allowingstudentstoreadonepassagefourtimes
Daly, McCurdy, Persampieri, & Hergenrader, and a multiple-exemplar condition in which
2007). Unfortunately, evidence from these students read two high-word-overlap passages
studies indicates that observed effects on twice each. Results showed that although the
practice passages do not necessarily result in multiple-exemplar condition provided repeated
generalization effects on similar passages with a exposure to the same words in a different
context, four readings of one passage allowed
Address correspondence to Scott P. Ardoin, University greater generalization to new passages. This
of Georgia, Department of Educational Psychology and suggested that an increased number of reread-
Instructional Technology, 325L Aderhold Hall, Athens,
ings may be the most important independent
Georgia30622.
doi:10.1901/jaba.2009.42-375 variable for generalization to occur. The
375
376 SCOTT P. ARDOIN et al.
purpose of the current study was, therefore, to 3 s. The median number of words read
extend the literature by evaluating whether correctly in 1 min (WRCM) was used to
doubling the treatment dose of a multicompo- determine each participant’s instructional
nent RR intervention would lead to greater level. Shane and Roland received intervention
generalization and maintenance effects on on first-grade passages because their WRCM
similar generalization passages. Because we fell just below the recommended instructional
wished to evaluate differences in dosage, it was level for first-grade materials (40 to 60
important to select a set number of repeated WRCM; Shapiro, 1996). Similarly, James’s
readings, as opposed to having students reread reading of second-grade passages fell just
each passage until they met a preestablished below the instructional level for second-grade
criterion, as is sometimes done in the literature. materials (also 40 to 60 WRCM; Shapiro);
RR procedures vary, with some studies requir- thus,hereceivedinterventiononsecond-grade
ing a minimum of two readings and a passages. The survey-level assessment indicat-
maximum of four readings (Therrien, Wick- ed that Seth’s performance on third-grade
strom, & Jones, 2006) and others specifying material was just over the minimum WRCM
three or four rereadings (Ardoin, Eckert, & for the third-grade level (70 to 100 WRCM;
Pender, 2008; Daly et al., 1998; Manlanga, Shapiro) and fell far below the instructional
2003). Given this variability, we established the range for fourth-grade materials. Seth there-
single dosage to be three rereadings. fore received intervention in third-grade
materials.
Thirteenrandomlyselectedpassagesfromthe
METHOD
first-, second-, and third-grade levels of the
Participants were 4 boys who resided in and Silver Burdett Ginn (1991) basal reading series
received their education at a residential facility were selected as practice passages. Generaliza-
for troubled youth and had been identified as tion passages were developed by writing new
being likely to benefit from a fluency-based passages that contained a large portion of the
intervention (Shane was 11 years 8 months old words that were included in the practice
andinfourthgrade,Sethwas12years6months passages. Passage overlap was calculated by
old and in fifth grade, Roland was 7 years 5 dividing the total number of words that
monthsoldandinsecondgrade,andJameswas appeared in both passages by the total number
7 years 10 months old and in second grade). of words in the generalization passage (Daly &
Shane had been identified with an educational Martens, 1994). Practice passages ranged in
disability (learning disabled, language). All length from 95 to 179 words across grades
sessions were conducted at a desk placed in a (first-gradeM5115,range,95to154;second-
quiet hallway outside the participants’ class- grade M 5 117, range, 90 to 153; third-grade
rooms. One intervention session was conducted M 5 152, range, 124 to 179), and generaliza-
per day. tion passages ranged in length from 83 to 161
across grades (first-grade M 5 99, range, 83 to
Materials 128; second-grade M 5 98, range, 85 to 130;
A survey-level assessment was conducted to third-grade M 5 102, range, 82 to 161).
determine the appropriate instructional level at Percentage overlap between generalization and
which to implement the intervention. This practice passages ranged from 78% to 95%
involved administering sets of three passages at across grades (first-grade M 5 87%, range,
successive levels of difficulty for 1 min while an 78% to 98%; second-grade M 5 86%, range,
examiner recorded reading errors and provided 78% to 98%; third-grade M 5 89%, range,
words to students on which they hesitated for 83% to 95%).
THREE VERSUS SIX REREADINGS 377
Given the failure of readability formulas to thestudentrepeatthesyllableasmodeledbythe
account for passage difficulty (Ardoin, Suldo, examiner, repeat the syllables at a faster pace,
Witt, Aldrich, & McDonald, 2005), practice and finally blending the syllables so that they
passages were assigned to conditions based on read the word at a normal pace (Ardoin et al.,
their level of difficulty, as determined by each 2007).
student’s preassessment reading of the passages WRCM was assessed during each practice
(Christ & Ardoin, 2009). Across 3 days, reading. During each reading, the experimenter
students read 13 practice passages at their counted a word as read correct if it was
instructional level. Students read each passage
pronounced correctly given the context of the
for 1 min without error correction. A student’s
passage within 3 s or incorrect if pronounced
WRCM on each passage was used to match
incorrectly and not self-corrected within 3 s.
passages according to difficulty. Then, one
Althoughstudentswereallowedtoreadpractice
passage from each pair was randomly assigned
passages for 2 min, WRCM was assessed only
to a condition. During this preassessment,
during the first minute of reading. Students
students earned a token for exceeding a
were allowed to read the passage for 2 min
predetermined score. Every two tokens were
insteadofonly1 mintoincreasetheprobability
exchangeable for a tangible reward.
that they would be able to read the entire
passage during each practice reading. Immedi-
Procedure and Design
ately following three or six rereadings (depend-
Using a rapid reversal design, differences in
ing on condition), the participant was prompt-
students’ fluency on practice and generalization
ed to read the corresponding generalization
passages were evaluated as a function of two
passage. One week later, the participant was
multicomponent RR interventions. The inter-
prompted to read the same generalization
ventions differed only in whether students
passage. Data were collected on WRCM as
reread passages three (RR3) or six (RR6) times.
described above. Participants read generaliza-
Components of the interventions included (a)
tion passages for only 1 min, and error-
the passage being read to the student, (b) the
correction procedures were not implemented.
studentgiveneitherthreeorsixopportunitiesto
Participants were given a token each time they
read the passage aloud for 2 min, (c) the
exceeded their preassessment WRCM score on
studentbeingtoldaftereachreading howmany
the corresponding practice passage and each
words he read correctly in 1 min and incor-
time they exceeded their WRCM on a
rectly during the 2-min period, and (d) error-
generalization passage from the first reading of
correction procedures at the end of each
the corresponding practice passage. Every two
reading. Error-correction procedures involved
tokens were exchangeable for a tangible reward
phrase drill error correction and syllable
(e.g., pencil, eraser).
segmenting and blending. Phrase drill error
correction involved the experimenter correctly Using the identical procedural checklists
reading the word misread by the student, the employed by experimenters, independent ob-
student correctly reading the word, and then servers listened to an audio recording of over
reading the three- to five-word phrase contain- 33% of all session types to assess procedural
ing the misread word. Syllable segmenting and integrity. Mean procedural integrity across
blending were provided on words that students participantswas100%.Interobserveragreement
misread in two separate readings of the practice was also examined by independent experiment-
passage. Syllable segmenting and blending ers who listened to audiotapes of the same
involved the experimenter modeling the indi- sessionsassessedforproceduralintegrity.Agree-
vidualsyllables of the missed word, then having ment was calculated by dividing the number of
378 SCOTT P. ARDOIN et al.
Figure1. Wordsreadcorrectlyin1min(WRCM)forShane,Seth,Roland,andJamesoneachsuccessivereadingof
thepractice passages during theRR3andRR6conditions (represented bythedata points connected withlines). Data
also illustrate students’ WRCM on corresponding generalization passages on intervention days (represented by the
disconnected data points).The horizontallinesrepresent students’ mean preassessment WRCM onRR3(dashed line)
andRR6(solidline) practice passages.
words agreed on as correct and incorrect by the tion passages was not as high as the final
total number of words read times 100%. Mean performancesonrespectivepracticepassages,it
agreement across participants was 99% (range, was substantially higher than preassessment
83% to 100%). performanceonthepracticepassages.Withthe
exception of three sessions for Roland, both
interventions resulted in all participants read-
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
ing all generalization passages in the instruc-
Both multicomponent RR interventions tional range (40 to 60 WRCM), with Seth’s
resultedinsubstantialincreasesinparticipants’ fluencyongeneralizationpassagesoccasionally
WRCMonpracticepassagescomparedtotheir approaching mastery (.100 WRCM). Nota-
preassessment performances on these passages bly, performances on the generalization pas-
(seeFigure 1).Witheachsuccessivereadingof sagesadministeredimmediatelyafterinterven-
a practice passage, participants’ WRCM on tion did not differ as a function of condition,
that passage increased. Doubling the number suggesting that doubling the number of
of reading opportunities usually resulted in reading opportunities did not provide greater
students reading practice passages with greater generalization of fluent reading to new but
fluency. Although performance on generaliza- similar passages.
THREE VERSUS SIX REREADINGS 379
Table 1
Mean WordsReadCorrectly in1 Min(WRCM) on PracticePassages at Prereading, Across Greatest WRCM per
Session,andAcrossLastReadingperSession;andMeanWRCMonHighWordOverlapPassagesonInterventionDay
andat 1-WeekMaintenance
Practicepassages Generalizationpassages
GreatestWRCM Lastreading
Prereading persession (Reading3or6) Interventionday Maintenance
Shane
RR3 37.4 81 80.6 52.8 72.2
RR6 38 98 98 57.6 77.2
Seth
RR3 76.75 102.2 100.2 87.8 95
RR6 76.2 118.60 118.6 87.2 104.25
Roland
RR3 27.33 58.17 58.17 47.83 44.17
RR6 27.66 66.17 66.17 46 49
James
RR3 39.33 81.5 86.5 64 66.67
RR6 38.67 99.17 99.17 65.17 78
Shane’s, Seth’s, and James’s performances on words shared between practice and generaliza-
generalization passages read 1 week after tion passages resulting in greater generalization
intervention exceeded their performances on and maintenance effects. However, there are
generalization passages administered immedi- many skills necessary for fluent reading (e.g.,
ately after intervention. Interestingly, in two phonemic awareness, sophisticated decoding
cases (Shane and Seth), performances on skills), and more research on stimulus control
generalization passages read 1 week after intheacquisitionofreadingfluencyisnecessary
intervention approached performances on the before any conclusions can be drawn.
corresponding practice passages on intervention A limitation inherent in this and other
day (see Table 1). These results are consistent studies of repeated readings is the variability
with those of Martens et al. (2007). Greater of passage difficulty within and across condi-
fluency on generalization passages administered tions. Unfortunately, procedures do not cur-
1 week after intervention compared to imme- rently exist by which passage difficulty can be
diatelyfollowinginterventionmaybeanartifact assessed to ensure that passages are exactly
of fatigue after having already read practice equivalent in level of difficulty (Christ &
passages multiple times. However, the upward Ardoin, 2009). A large portion of the variance
trend in WRCM across sessions during RR3 in student performance within and across
and RR6 suggests that students were not conditions could be a function of variation in
fatigued. Therefore, it is unclear why perfor- passage difficulty. In an attempt to control
mance at maintenance exceeded performance variability in the difficulty of passages, we
on same-day generalization probes. preassessed passage difficulty to assign passages
Interestingly, mean WRCM on generaliza- to the two intervention conditions. Unfortu-
tion passages 1 week after intervention was nately, preassessment of passage difficulty was
greater overall for the generalization passages conducted only on practice passages. One
associated with the RR6 condition (Table 1). It cannot be certain of the equivalence between
is possible that the RR6 condition promoted practice and generalization passages within
the development of greater stimulus control for conditions or of the equivalence of generaliza-
380 SCOTT P. ARDOIN et al.
tion passages across conditions. Although exact Daly,E.J.III,&Martens,B.K.(1994).Acomparisonof
threeinterventionsforincreasingoralreadingperfor-
equivalence between practice passages and
mance: Application of the instructional hierarchy.
corresponding generalization passages cannot JournalofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 27,459–469.
be assumed, an overlap of 78% to 98% of the Daly, E. J. III, Martens, B. K., Dool, E. J., & Hintze, J.
M. (1998). Using brief functional analysis to select
words between corresponding passages suggests
interventions for oral reading. Journal of Behavioral
a high degree of correspondence in passage
Education,8, 203–218.
difficulty. Other factors that could influence Daly,E.J.III,Martens,B.K.,Hamler,K.R.,Dool,E.J.,
passage difficulty (e.g., sentence length) were &Eckert,T.L.(1999).Abriefexperimentalanalysis
for identifying instructional components needed to
not controlled, however. Although the lack of
implement oral reading fluency. Journal of Applied
preassessment on the generalization passages BehaviorAnalysis,32,83–94.
may be viewed as a limitation of the study, Eckert,T.L.,Ardoin,S.P.,Daly,E.J.III,&Martens,B.
K. (2002). Improving oral reading fluency: A brief
assessing passage difficulty on generalization
experimental analysis of combining an antecedent
passages would have resulted in the potential of intervention with consequences. Journal of Applied
practice effects as an explanation for the gains BehaviorAnalysis,35,271–281.
Gortmaker,V.J.,Daly,E.J.,McCurdy,M.,Persampieri,
on generalization passages. Future studies could
M.J.,&Hergenrader,M.(2007).Improvingreading
compare generalization performance both with outcomesforchildrenwithlearningdisabilities:Using
and without a preassessment of generalization briefexperimentalanalysistodevelopparent-tutoring
interventions.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,40,
passagestoallowtheevaluationoftheimpactof
203–221.
preassessment on performance when generaliza-
Manlanga, P. (2003). Using repeated readings and error
tion passages are read. correction to build reading fluency with at risk
elementarystudents.JournalofPrecisionTeachingand
Celeration, 19(2),19–27.
REFERENCES Martens,B.K.,Eckert,T.L.,Begeny,J.C.,Lewandowski,
L. J., DiGennaro, F. D., Montarello, S. A., et al.
Ardoin, S. P., Eckert, T. L., & Pender, C. A. S. (2008). (2007).Effectsofafluency-building programonthe
Promotinggeneralizationofreading:Acomparisonof reading performance of low-achieving second and
twofluency-basedinterventionsforimprovinggeneral thirdgradestudents.JournalofBehavioralEducation,
education students’ oral reading rate. Journal of 16,39–54.
Behavioral Education,17,237–252. Shapiro,E.S.(1996).Academicskillsproblems.NewYork:
Ardoin, S. P., McCall, M., & Klubnik, C. (2007). Guilford.
Promoting generalization of oral reading fluency: Silver Burdett Ginn. (1991). World of reading. Morris-
Providing drill versus practice opportunities. Journal town,NJ:Author.
ofBehavioral Education, 16,55–70. Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006).
Ardoin, S. P., Suldo, S. M., Witt, J. C., Aldrich, S., & Effect of a combined repeated reading and question
McDonald, E. (2005). Accuracy of readability generation intervention on reading achievement.
estimates’ predictions of CBM performance. School Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2),
Psychology Quarterly,20,1–22. 89–97.
Christ, T. J., & Ardoin, S. P. (2009). Curriculum-based
measurement of oral reading: Passages equivalence Received October 8,2007
andprobe-setdevelopment.JournalofSchoolPsychol- Final acceptance October15,2008
ogy,47,55–75. Action Editor,Stephanie Peterson