Variations in Practice Reading Aloud: Ten Versus Twenty Minutes

Abstract

In this study we compared effects of practice time reading aloud to an adult on improvement in reading rate and comprehension. Eighty-one poor readers in 2nd and 4th grade, including 38 English Learner students (ELs), served as their own controls by participating in two practice conditions, each 3 times per week for 7 weeks: (a) 10 min reading aloud one-to-one to an adult listener and (b) 20 min reading aloud one-to-one. Repeated measures analysis of variance showed that 20 min of practice was better than 10 min for 4th graders, but not for 2nd graders, and gains in rate accelerated across the 14 weeks of practice. We found no differences in rate gains across conditions between ELs and native English speakers. After controlling for pretests, reading rate at posttest, along with vocabulary, contributed significant variance to reading comprehension outcomes.

The effects of age and sublexical automaticity on reading outcomes for students with reading disabilities

“…There is agreement that fluent reading depends on well‐established orthographic representations and that these representations are influenced by reading practice (for review, see Cunningham, Nathan, and Raher, ). The current study adds to several strands of previous research that supports a role for sublexical orthographic representations in fluency development (see also, O'Connor et al, ). These strands of previous research include: i) short‐term studies that suggest a connection between training sublexical units and reading words with those units (e.g., Hintikka et al, ); ii) studies that show a relationship between sublexical automaticity defined as speed at individual grapheme‐phoneme correspondences and/or phonogram speed and oral‐reading fluency (Hudson et al, ; Speece and Ritchey, ); and iii) multidimensional interventions that include teaching sublexical units and show improvement in standardized reading fluency scores (e.g., Morris et al, ).…”

College Students’ Cognitive Learning Outcomes in Technology-Enabled Active Learning Environments: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature

“…These results are consistent with parallel research topics. For instance, a meta-analysis regarding the effectiveness of online and blended learning, conducted by Means et al (2013), indicated that the social context was a moderator variable of the online and blended learning effect size. Another meta-analysis regarding the effectiveness of flipped classroom instruction, conducted by Shi et al (2019), also indicated that the social context was a moderator variable of the flipped classroom instructional effect size.…”

“…Cognitive learning is a clear indicator for evaluating the quality of education (Michaelowa, 2010), and it is commonly measured either through examinations or through continuous assessments. Inspired by the framework proposed by Means, Toyama, Murphy, and Baki (2013) and a review of the moderator variables included in other recent meta-analyses (Hew & Lo, 2018;Shi, Ma, MacLeod, & Yang, 2019), the conceptual framework for this study was guided both by data extraction of the studies included in the meta-analysis and a follow-up moderator analysis, as shown in Figure 1. The framework comprises three categories: (a) instructional experiences of TE-ALEs, including social context, information and communication technology (ICT) features, and treatment duration; (b) the conditions of the studies, including the year of publication and subject matter; and (c) features of the research methodology, including study design, sample size, and instructor equivalence.…”

“…Thereafter, the full text of each of the articles in the preliminary set was screened to confirm the relevance of the assessed studies. This two-stage approach has proven to be an efficient way to avoid losing any potentially relevant and high-quality studies (Means et al, 2013).…”

“…Previous meta-analyses have been criticized for not providing sufficient information about features considered to be potential moderator variables (Bernard et al, 2004), and the moderator analysis for a certain variable had to exclude such studies. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the identified variable should have at least two contrasting subsets of studies and that each subset contains six or more study effects (Means et al, 2013). Instructional experiences, study conditions, and research methodology variables, of which study subsets met the size criterion, were included in the search for moderator variables.…”