Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:39:06.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of prosodic modeling and repeated reading on poor readers' fluency and comprehension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Arlene R. Young ,
Patricia Greig Bowers  and
G. E. MacKinnon
Arlene R. Young*
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo, Ontario
Patricia Greig Bowers
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo, Ontario
G. E. MacKinnon
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo, Ontario
*
Arlene Young, Developmental Neuropsychiatry Clinic, Child and Family Studies Centre, Clark Institute of Psychiatry, 250 College St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 1R8
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Repeated reading of meaningful text has been shown to produce improvements in reading rate, fluency, and comprehension in readers of varying ability. The assisted repeated reading (ARR) method, which provides a fluent and expressive (i.e., prosodic) model, has been proposed as being particularly helpful in this regard. However, it is unclear which component of the ARR method (prosodic modeling or reading practice with intact text) is the most influential factor. The present study examined the effects of text practice and prosodic modeling on the reading rate, accuracy, expressiveness, and comprehension of 40 grade 5 disabled readers. Text practice and prosodic modeling were systematically varied to create four training conditions. Each subject read the first half of a set of stories three times under one of the four experimental conditions. Pretest and posttest measures of the dependent variables were analyzed for both the training passages and the second half of each story, on which no training occurred (transfer passages). While reading performance improved across all conditions, substantial additional gains were produced by the conditions that included the practice of intact text. Modeling of prosody did not produce significant additional gains. Transfer effects were limited, with only the ARR condition producing improved accuracy on the second half of the stories.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 59 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.Google Scholar
Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. Reading Teacher, 36, 556–561.Google Scholar
Allington, R. L., & Brown, S. (1979). Fact: A multi-media reading program. Milwaukee, WI:Raintree Publishers.Google Scholar
Bowers, P. G. (1993). Text reading and rereading: Predictors of fluency beyond word recognition. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, J. F., & Felbinger, L. (1991). Profiles of listening and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conte, R., & Humphreys, R. (1989). Repeated readings using audiotaped material enhances oral reading in children with reading difficulties. Journal of Communicative Disorders, 22, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahl, P. R. (1979). An experimental program for teaching high-speed word recognition and comprehension skills. In Button, J. E., Lovitt, T. C., & Rowland, T. D. (Eds.), Communications research in learning disabilities and mental retardation (pp. 33–65). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Dowhower, S. L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional readers' fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, J., & Morin, S. (1990). Improving reading fluency with precision teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, Spring, 38–40.Google Scholar
Faulkner, H. J., & Levy, B. A. (1994). How text difficulty and reader skill interact to produce differential reliance on word and content overlap in reading transfer. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleisher, L. S., Jenkins, J. R., & Pany, D. (1979). Effects on poor readers' comprehension of training in rapid decoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fry, E. (1977). Fry's readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21, 242–252.Google Scholar
Gambrell, L. B., Koskinen, P. S., & Kapinus, B. A. (1991). Retelling and the reading comprehension of proficient and less-proficient readers. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 356–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. A., & Jacobson, M. D. (1982). Basic reading vocabularies (pp. 19–37). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Heckelman, R. G. (1969). A neurological impress method of reading instruction. Academic Therapy, 4, 277–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, P. A. (1985). The effect of repeated readings on reading rate, speed pauses, and word recognition. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 553–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.Google Scholar
Krug, D., Davis, B., & Glover, J. (1990). Massed versus distributed repeated reading: A case of forgetting helping recall?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 366–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesgold, A. M., & Perfetti, C. A. (1981). Interactive processes in reading: Where do we stand? In Lesgold, A. & Perfetti, C. (Eds.), Interactive processes in reading (pp. 387–405). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacGinitie, W. H., & MacGinitie, R. K. (1978). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests: Canadian Edition. Toronto: Nelson Publishing.Google Scholar
Mann, V. A., Cowin, E., & Schoenheimer, J. (1989). Phonological processing, language comprehension, and reading ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 76–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMahon, M. L. (1983). Development of reading-while-listening skills in the primary grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Shea, L. J., Sindelar, P. T., & O'Shea, D. J. (1985). The effects of repeated readings and attentional cues on the reading fluency and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Shea, L. J., Sindelar, P. T., & O'Shea, D. J. (1987). The effects of repeated readings and attentional cues on the reading fluency and comprehension of learning disabled readers. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 103–109.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., & Lesgold, A. M. (1979). Coding comprehension in skilled reading and implications for reading instruction. In Resnick, L. & Weaver, P. (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 1, pp. 57–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rasinski, T. V. (1985). The study of factors involved in reader–text interactions that contribute to fluency in reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
Rasinski, T. V. (1990). Effects of repeated reading and listening-while-reading on reading fluency. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 147–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 180–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitsma, P. (1988). Reading practice for beginners: Effects of guided reading, reading-while- listening, and independent reading with computer-based speech feedback. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. Reading Teacher, 32, 403–408.Google Scholar
Schreiber, P. A. (1980). On the acquisition of reading fluency. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12, 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, P. A. (1986). On the role of prosody in children's syntactic processing (Program Report 86–11). Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.Google Scholar
Schreiber, P. A. (1987). Prosody and structure in children's syntactic processing. In Horowitz, R. & Samuels, J. (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 243–270). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spring, C., Blunden, D., & Gatheral, M. (1981). Effect on reading comprehension of training to automaticity in word-reading. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, 779–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swalm, J. E. (1972). A comparison of oral reading, silent reading, and listening comprehension. Education, 92, 111–115.Google Scholar
Taylor, N. E., Wade, M. R., & Yekovich, F. R. (1985). The effects of text manipulation and multiple reading strategies on the reading performance of good and poor readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 566–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, A., & Greene, E. (1978). The construction of a propositional text base. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8, 1–81.Google Scholar
van, Bon W. H., Boksebeld, L. M., Freide, T. A., & van, den Hurk A. J. (1991). Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 471–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodcock, R. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Young, A. R., & Bowers, P. G. (1995). Individual difference and text difficulty determinants of reading fluency and expressiveness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 428–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar