Title

Comparison of Phonological Awareness Instruction with and without Reading to Read and Effects on Reading Skills

Advisor

Henington, Carlen

Committee Member

McCleon, Tawny E.

Committee Member

Reisener, Carmen D.

Committee Member

Morse, Linda W.

Committee Member

Eakin, Deborah K.

Date of Degree

1-1-2013

Original embargo terms

MSU Only Indefinitely

Document Type

Dissertation - Open Access

Major

Educational Psychology

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy

College

College of Education

Department

Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology

Abstract

Students at risk for reading difficulties often display skills deficits in basic reading skills (e.g., phonological awareness or PA, fluency, and comprehension). Phonological awareness instruction (PAI) and scaffolded instruction have been effective in improving reading skills for all students (National Reading Council, 1998). In relation, Reading to Read (RTR), a remedial reading program based on the methods of applied behavior analysis, direct instruction, and curriculum-based assessment, has been found to improve oral reading fluency and comprehension (e.g., Edwards, Tingstrom, & Cottingham, 1993; Tingstrom, Edwards, & Olmi, 1995). Despite the effectiveness of PAI and RTR in isolation, little research has been conducted to determine effectiveness of PAI and scaffolding combined with the RTR intervention. The purpose of this study was to investigate effectiveness of using PAI in combination with RTR as another instructional method for increasing reading fluency and comprehension. Participants included 5 elementary-aged students who have a special education diagnosis and are from rural southeastern region of the U.S. Data were collected using a single-subject research methodology and included correct words per minute (CWPM), errors per minute (EPM), and percent correct comprehension in all phases for all intervention conditions: (a) PAI, (b) RTR, and (c) PAI + RTR. Data were analyzed using visual inspection or graphical representation assessed by level, trend, and variability around level and trend between the different interventions as it relates to CWPM, EPM, and percent correct comprehension. When examining reading fluency, 1 of the 5 students who received the PAI + RTR interventions improved in reading fluency from baseline to intervention. When examining reading comprehension, all students demonstrated little to no change in percent correct comprehension questions across all conditions and phases. Implications, limitations, and future research relating to the results of this study are also discussed.

URI

https://hdl.handle.net/11668/19539

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS