Comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of oral and written retellings and passage review as strategies for comprehending text

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the instructional effectiveness and efficiency of oral retelling, written retelling, and passage review comprehension strategies on third-grade students' accuracy and rate of answering reading comprehension questions. A modified alternating treatment design was used to compare the effects of oral retelling, written retelling, and passage review strategies. Each strategy occurred within the context of repeated readings with phrase drill error correction. This study extended previous research findings by examining the effects of oral and written retelling as strategies for improving both literal and inferential comprehension and by investigating the efficiency of retelling procedures. Findings revealed that students' accuracy in answering reading comprehension performance was better under both retelling conditions than the passage review condition. The oral retelling coupled with repeated readings and phrase drill error correction was the most efficient instructional method for answering comprehension questions correctly. C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The Effect of Written Retelling Technique on Students’ Reading Comprehension Across Personality Learning Styles

“…The result of hypothesis 1 was in line with the success of the studies conducted by Moss (1997), Schisler (2008), Lin (2010), and Manywari (2013) that the written retelling technique could strengthen students' reading comprehension. Inevitably, the failure of the previous research described in the earlier section, e.g., Johnson (2008), and Natalie (2009) were rejected because the evidence of hypothesis 1 did not show the insignificance of the written retelling technique on students' reading comprehension.…”

“…Despite the use of written retelling technique in teaching reading for first and second language, the previous studies elaborated earlier disclose a gap. The contradiction between the significance and insignificance of the written retelling technique results has emerge The research evidences reveal that written retelling technique can give impact on students' reading comprehension (Moss, et al 1997;Schisler, 2008;Lin, 2010;Manywari, 2013), but other studies employing the written retelling technique find that the technique could not support teaching of reading comprehension (Johnson, 2008;Natalie, 2009). Studies need to be conducted to verify the insignificance of written retelling technique as some studies have indicated, and to fulfill the absence of research on the topic in EFL research context in Indonesia.…”

“…Studies on written retelling technique in the context of teaching reading comprehension have shown mixed (Moss, Leone & Dipilo, 1997;Schisler, 2008;Johnson, 2008;Natalie, 2009;Lin, 2010;Manywari, 2013). Despite the use of written retelling technique in teaching reading for first and second language, the previous studies elaborated earlier disclose a gap.…”

Arising reading patterns in understanding literary texts

“…Students must use their language skills as reading, writing, listening, speaking, summarizing, and interpreting, among others (Lapp et al, 2010). Students must read or listen to a story by using appropriate strategies for reading or listening (Schisler et al, 2010). Then, students must recall, interpret, organize, and summarize the story, extracting the main ideas and key terms (John et al, 2003).…”

Emerging Opportunities for School Psychologists to Enhance Our Remediation Procedure Evidence Base as We Apply Response to Intervention

“…Skinner, Belfiore et al () demonstrated how precisely measuring learning rates allowed researchers to establish that the rapid rates of presentation (1 second) would result in more rapid increases in Bob's word reading. Other educators and researchers have conducted similar studies and shown that strategies and procedures that appear to enhance learning rates (when researchers evaluate them using crude measures of instructional time) actually retard learning (Cates et al, ; Joseph & Nist, ; Nist & Joseph, ; Schisler, Joseph, Konrad, & Alber‐Morgan, ; Skinner et al, ). Others have compared intervention effectiveness more precisely by holding instructional time constant across competing remedial procedures (e.g., Carroll, Skinner, Turner, McCallum, & Masters, ; Grafman & Cates, ; Poncy, Skinner, & Jaspers, ; Skinner et al, ).…”