Contributing Effects of Immediate Corrective Feedback and Previewing In the Reading to Read Intervention

Date of Award


Degree Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)



First Advisor

Daniel H. Tingstrom

Advisor Department



The contributing effects of immediate corrective feedback and a listening preview strategy to Reading to Read (RTR), a remedial reading intervention developed to improve oral reading fluency, were evaluated with 4 age-appropriate fourth-grade general education students (i.e., 2 males from a Southwestern suburban public elementary school, 1 female & 1 male from a small Southern public elementary school) whose assessed instructional reading level was two or more years below that appropriate for grade placement. Generalization of fluency gains acquired during RTR intervention to content within the target students' basal reading program was also assessed. Assessment of contributing effects of the two procedures (i.e., corrective feedback, previewing) was conducted using an Alternating Treatments Design in which two feedback conditions (i.e., corrective vs. no corrective feedback) were alternated randomly across two preview phases (i.e., previewing, no previewing). A crossover design was employed with regard to preview phase sequences. One of the two students from each participating school was assigned randomly to begin intervention with a preview phase with intervention initiated with a no-preview phase for the remaining two students. Results do not support immediate corrective feedback as a significant contributor to RTR though positive previewing effects are indicated, particularly in regard to a general measure of oral reading fluency (i.e., Correct Words per Minute). Data also suggest RTR intervention gains generalize to nonintervention passages from the same basal reading series with regard to error reduction and increased oral reading fluency. Although results did not reflect that immediate corrective feedback contributes significantly to the overall effectiveness of RTR, there were no clear, pervasive data to warrant withholding error correction. Rationales are presented for continued use of the type corrective feedback procedure currently used in RTR (i.e., word supply). Implications for future research are also discussed.