A Multi-Component Approach: Repeat Readings, Error Correction, and Performance Feedback

     Researchers have found that repeated reading combined with systematic error correction results in higher reading rates with lower error rates. (Nelson, Alber, & Gordy, 2004; Alber-Morgan, Ramp, Anderson, & Martin, 2007).  Studying the effects of repeated readings with systematic error correction and performance feedback, Alber-Morgan et al. (2007) found that the combined effects of these interventions resulted in increased reading fluency. This study followed middle school students with emotional behavior disorders in a day treatment facility. During repeated readings of a passage, when a student made an error, the data collector re-read the word correctly, then the student was prompted to repeat the correct work, and this was followed by praise if the student was correct.
     In addition to gains in fluency, the number of errors decreased and comprehension improved. The researchers recommended that repeated readings be used to supplement an evidence-based program, and that repeated readings be accompanied by systematic error correction and performance feedback. One limitation of the study was that it used one to one instruction.  The researchers suggested involving parents, paraprofessionals, volunteers, or peer tutors to oversee the one on one repeated readings and error correction.  Although effective, it was a labor-intensive intervention requiring many people to run it.
     In my practice, I find repeated readings effective and incorporate error correction with the readings. I see positive progress from immediate error correction that is provided when the error is made instead of going back at the end of a reading and reviewing errors. I naturally use performance feedback without a conscious effort to do so.  It helps struggling students to have reinforcement and encouragement when they read correctly.

Citation to the article:

Alber-Morgan, S. R., Matheson Ramp, E., Anderson, L. L., & Martin, C. M. (2007). Effects of repeated readings, error correction, and performance feedback on the fluency and comprehension of middle school students with behavioral problems. The Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 17-30.

Research in Real Life

       Beginning in mid-January, I have been studying a combination of fluency interventions with five students at my school.  The students range in age from 8 to 10 years old.  All five are on IEPs and are on READ Plans or had well below benchmark DIBELS Next scores at the beginning of the school year. Three students have a diagnosis of ADHD which impacts their attention to reading.  Two students have specific learning disabilities in basic reading skills.
        My study was proceeding on schedule with each student receiving the interventions in a small group 3 times per week.  The nice tidy schedule worked for one week and then the reality of the second semester hit. I am at the half way point and wishing I had built an extra week into my study to complete the planned 18 intervention sessions. Due to a variety of factors, I am challenged to see the students an average of 3 times per week as stated in my research proposal. First, there are the 4 day school weeks due to holidays.  Combined with the short weeks are class field trips, school assemblies, and now Acuity testing has started. One student missed all last week due to illness and another student went to Disneyland for 5 days. In three weeks, PARCC testing begins and, although some of my students are too young for state assessments, I will be tied up with proctoring tests for older students.
        I am learning that research studies have factors impacting the results beyond my control.  I see progress with my students, but I suspect it would be greater without all of the typical school year distractions.  Then again, this experience teaches me that there can be success and I have to make the most of every instructional minute available.