Title

A comparison of listening previewing and oral previewing within Reading to Read: Effects on oral reading fluency

Date of Award

2005

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

Psychology

First Advisor

Daniel H. Tingstrom

Advisor Department

Psychology

Abstract

This investigation consisted of a comparison between two different previewing approaches used prior to the Reading to Read intervention. Participants included 5 elementary students in the third and fourth grade. Four of the students were Caucasian and one was African American. One of the students had been diagnosed with a Specific Learning Disability in the area of reading. An alternating treatments design (ATD) was implemented. There were two conditions: (a) LPV as a component of RTR and (b) OPV as a component of RTR. All conditions were sequenced randomly except that there was a limit of three consecutive occurrences of any particular condition (Barlow, Hayes, Nelson, 1984). This study supports the use of RTR as an effective technique to increase reading fluency. When comparing the rate of progress during the LPV and OPV conditions, both LPV and OPV resulted in notable progress in oral reading fluency, resulting in a 2 to 3 year gain. Although results evidenced some variability, the OPV condition was superior for three of the students and slightly less so for a fourth student. Based upon the results of the reading probes from the school curriculum, generalization appeared to be successful. It is also noted that, for 4 of the students, the intervention resulted in an improvement of the teacher's perception of the student's classroom performance. RTR has been shown to be a successful reading intervention to improve the reading ability of struggling readers. Both the OPV and LPV previewing conditions were successful, supporting the use of either. LPV might be more beneficial in a classroom setting, because this condition can be administered in a group setting, and therefore could be more easily administered than OPV, which entails the presence of an intervention agent. In addition, for 4 of the 5 students, OPV resulted in fewer trials to mastery. LPV could be easily incorporated into a reading curriculum and would not require any significant change in the curriculum itself. The teacher could add LPV as a technique to facilitate reading instruction without any significant time requirement for preparation.