|
Description
Abstract. This study assessed the efficacy of experimental analysis for determining a best intervention program for improving oral reading fluency for students with learning disabilities. Following a two-session baseline condition, four treatments to increase reading fluency (repeated reading, listening passage preview, repeated reading with easier material; and listening passage with easier materials) were administered in one session each for the purpose of briefly assessing which method was most effective for each student. The methods producing the highest response rate for each student were then subjected to an extended analysis. Finally, the best interventions for each student were implemented and their effectiveness was monitored across time. Functional relationships among the number of words read correct per minute and best intervention programs determined through brief experimental analysis were shown for all students in instructional passages. Generalized outcomes were consistent only when a reinforcement criterion for generalization was applied. Additionally, the best intervention program had an effect on the number of recalls for instructional passages. The results suggest that experimental analysis is an effective procedure for determining the comparative usefulness of instructional methods to increase oral reading fluency, especially within the context of a thorough educational assessment.
**********
Many learners with disabilities are not proficient in reading. In fact, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services reports that 50% or more of students with disabilities (excluding speech and visual impairments) score at or below the 20th percentile on measures of reading (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). Among children identified with learning disabilities (LD), an estimated 80-90% are referred for special education services because of reading problems (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Lyon & Moats, 1997). For these reasons, the type of instruction most likely to assist students with reading problems has become a major focus of research (National Reading Panel, 2000).
Learning to read is a complex process. Success involves decoding and comprehending text, and doing so quickly. Reading fast and effortlessly is known as fluency, and reading fluency is critical to being a successful reader because less fluent readers have poorer comprehension. Thus, fluency has been viewed as a bridge that readers must cross to get from word recognition to comprehension (Carnine, Silbert, Kameenui, & Tarver, 2004).
Researchers have worked towards unraveling the complexities of how reading fluency is developed and how it can be assessed. For example, the National Reading Panel (NRP) chose fluency as one of five topics for intensive study, signaling its importance in the reading process. The panel stated that instructional procedures that improve fluency also have a positive impact on word recognition and comprehension (NRP, 2000). Educators must take the lead to develop both accuracy and fluency. An emphasis on accuracy in early reading will help students develop habitual accuracy, which will in turn contribute to reading accurately without great effort (Carnine et al., 2004).
Strategies to Increase Oral Reading Fluency
Many skills lead to reading fluency (e.g., word attack, knowledge of vocabulary), and many strategies have been proposed to improve fluency. A number of them fall into two categories: academic teaching strategies and instructional planning (Daly, Martens, Kilmer, & Massie, 1996).
Academic teaching strategies. This category consists of strategies designed to determine how reading fluency is presented or taught, and has received considerable attention in the literature. They include repeated reading, guidance and feedback, reading time, and reinforcement. In repeated reading, learners practice reading one passage, at an appropriate instructional level, until some predetermined level of fluency is attained. Research into repeated readings methods has consistently confirmed the efficacy of this approach (Dowhower, 1987; Polk & Miller, 1994; Rasinski, 1990).
Another way to improve reading fluency is to focus the guidance and feedback students receive while reading. Here the teacher's feedback and praise change explicitly to respond to students' reading performance. Programs in this category include guided reading, assisted reading, error correction, and contingent rewards. Research in guidance and feedback has produced mixed results in terms of improving reading fluency (Gregori & McLaughlin, 1996; Noell et al., 1998).
Still another methodology used to improve reading fluency involves increasing the amount of time students are engaged directly in reading. Thus, the value and efficacy of reading experience and practice in developing better readers is widely recognized. Experimental analysis has validated the method of providing students more reading experiences and measuring the effect on reading fluency (Eldredge, Reutzel, & Hollingsworth, 1996; Rasinski, Padak, Linek, & Sturtevant, 1994). Programs in this category include shared reading, choral reading, modeling, and passage previews.
Instructional planning. The second category of factors that may affect students' reading is instructional planning variables. These determine what is to be taught and when it is taught. For example, matching reading passage difficulty (i.e., readability) with student ability can foster oral reading fluency. Hence, the reading material itself plays a role in fluency development. Reading researchers have identified several textual factors. For example, Levy, Abello, and Koenig (1997) found that students read faster and more accurately when the stories contained words that had been previously trained, as opposed to stories containing untrained words. Dowhower (1987) noted that if one half of the words were shared between texts, reading speed of the subsequent text improved. Extending this idea, Daly et al. (1996) manipulated the overlap between what was taught and what was tested and how closely a student's skills matched the difficulty of the reading material. Results indicated that reading fluency was enhanced when assessment materials matched the student's skill level and were similar to those used during instruction.
Strategic Approach to Determining Academic Interventions
Because of the variety of interventions available, choosing the most efficient and effective strategy to improve reading fluency for each student can be difficult. Applications that extend functional analysis procedures to basic academic skills provide a link between academic difficulties and the interventions designed to address them (Lawry, Storey, & Danko, 1993). An experimental analysis of academic behaviors can provide information regarding the relative effects of different teaching strategies (Daly, Martens, Witt, & Dool, 1997). Using this method, educators combine direct measures of academic performance with the manipulation of treatment applications. In doing so, the treatment conditions or teaching strategies that produce the highest level of student performance can be identified.
The experimental analysis approach has been used, albeit only on an emerging basis, for identifying effective interventions for math (Hendrickson, Gable, Novak, & Peck, 1996), spelling (McComas et al., 1996), reading comprehension (McComas et al., 1996), and reading fluency (Daly, Martens, Dool, & Hintze, 1998; Daly, Martens, Hamler, Dool, & Eckert, 1999; Eckert, Ardoin, Daly, & Martens, 2002; VanAuken, Chafouleas, Bradley, & Martens, 2002).
Often, clinical circumstances warrant time-limited conditions (e.g., limited time and resources in schools) that demand brief assessment strategies. Brief experimental analysis refers to how long an assessment is scheduled (Wacker et al., 1994). Here, experimental probe sessions are conducted in controlled and counterbalanced presentations. Brief multielement designs alternate conditions rapidly (usually with only one session per condition) and a mini-reversal is implemented by returning to baseline followed by one or more intervention conditions, to confirm initial findings (Martens, Eckert, Bradley, & Ardoin, 1999).
Several... |
More articles from Learning Disability Quarterly
Embedded learning strategy instruction: story-structure pedagogy in he..., March 22, 2007
Looking for additional articles?
Click here
to search our database of over 3 million articles.
|
(report)%20%20&position=1)