Effects of oral and echoic responses in beginning reading.

Neville, Mary H.

doi:10.1037/h0026235

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings of the present study support previous findings (Dahl 1979, Lovitt, Schaaf, & Sayre 1970, Neville 1968) that previewing procedures are related to improved performance on oral reading tasks. Further, the current findings clearly demonstrate the relative superiority of the listening procedure to silent previewing procedures.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…Of perhaps more significance to those engaged in providing efficient instruction to learning disabled students is the extension of research on previewing procedures to an LD population. Not only were differential effects found with LD students, the listening procedure was found to be relatively superior with LD students, as was the case with nonhandicapped students (Neville 1968).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Among non-handicapped populations, oral previewing (Dahl 1979, Neville 1968) and listening (Neville 1968) were found to be effective procedures for beginning readers and second grade students. Eaton, Lovitt, Sayre, and Lynch (cited in Hansen & Eaton 1978, pp.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effects of Two Prepractice Procedures on Oral Reading

Rose¹

1984

J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An alternating treatments design was used to investigate the relative effects of two oral reading previewing, or prepractice, procedures: (a) silent, in which the student reads silently the assigned reading passage prior to reading the passage aloud, and (b) listening, in which the teacher reads the assigned selection aloud and the student follows along silently prior to the student reading the passage aloud. Six elementary school aged learning disabled students, three boys and three girls, participated in the study. Results indicated that systematic prepractice procedures were related to higher performance levels than was baseline (no prepractice). Differential effects were noted: the listening procedure was related to higher rates of words read correctly than was the silent procedure. Results are discussed further in terms of the implications for research and instructional procedures.T he value of oral reading as a viable instructional procedure has been the center of controversy for a number of years (e.g., Goodman 1967, Smith 1973). Critics of oral reading have charged that oral reading is not a functional adult skill, is slower than silent reading, and may conflict with efficient silent reading (e.g., Kirk, Kleibhan, & Lerner 1978). Proponents of oral reading suggest that its diagnostic capabilities, relationship to comprehension, and enhancement of word recognition skills are legitimate reasons to continue the use of oral reading as an integral part of early reading instruction (e.g., Kirk, et al. 1978, Perfetti & Hogoboam 1975, Strang 1969.Regardless of the merits and ultimate resolution of the controversy over oral reading as an instructional objective, it is apparent that oral reading continues to be a widely used instructional procedure (Austin & Coleman 1963, Jenkins 1979). The amount of time devoted to oral reading in non-special education settings plus additional evidence that most learning disabled students experience reading difficulties (Mercer 1979) lead to the conclusion that oral reading is an important academic skill for LD students who are mainstreamed to non-special education classes. These LD learners must be proficient in academic tasks required in mainstreamed settings in order to avoid failure of the student, as well as the mainstreaming placement. In effect, oral reading should perhaps be viewed as a survival skill for LD learners because of the frequent demands placed on them to demonstrate proficient oral reading performance.Learners who demonstrate deficient oral reading skills must acquire these skills at an accelerated pace if they are to approach the performance levels of their nonhandicapped peers. Efficient instructional practices are critical to an accelerated learning pace. Several oral reading instructional procedures have been identified which appear to enhance instructional efficiency, including phonics, preteaching words, error corrections, and previewing (e.g., Hansen & Eaton 1978, Jenkins 1979).Previewing (i.e., any method that provides an opportunity for a learner to r...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effects of Two Prepractice Procedures on Oral Reading

Rose¹

1984

J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, both oral and listening previewing have been successful in promoting the reading skills of nonhandicapped beginning readers (Dahl, 1979;Neville, 1968). With handicapped students, all three previewing strategies have increased oral reading rates and decreased error rates (Hansen & Eaton, 1978).…”

Section: Sherrymentioning

confidence: 96%

Effects of Peer-Previewing on LD Students' Oral Reading Skills

Salend

Nowak²

1988

Learning Disability Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experimental research based explicitly on this framework has emerged only in recent years, however. This sparse body of work has included research on the verbal operant classes of mands and tacts (Hall & Chase, 1986;Lamarre & Holland, 1985;Simac & Bucher, 1980), echoics (Boe & Winokur, 1978a, 1978b Neville, 1968), and intraverbals (Braam & Poling, 1983;Chase, Johnson, & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1985;Poon & Butler, 1972). In addition, research on the independence ofspeaking and listening (Lee, 1981) and on self-editing (Hyten & Chase, 1986) has been based on Skinner's work.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%