Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Learning Disabilities
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rose, T. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rose, T. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Effects of Two Prepractice Procedures on Oral Reading

Terry L. Rose, PhD

An alternating treatments design was used to investigate the relative effects of two oral reading previewing, or prepractice, procedures: (a) silent, in which the student reads silently the assigned reading passage prior to reading the passage aloud, and (b) listening, in which the teacher reads the assigned selection aloud and the student follows along silently prior to the student reading the passage aloud. Six elementary school aged learning disabled students, three boys and three girls, participated in the study. Results indicated that systematic prepractice procedures were related to higher performance levels than was baseline (no prepractice). Differential effects were noted: the listening procedure was related to higher rates of words read correctly than was the silent procedure. Results are discussed further in terms of the implications for research and instructional procedures.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 17, No. 9, 544-548 (1984)
DOI: 10.1177/002221948401700908
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Learn DisabilHome page
D. J. Chard, S. Vaughn, and B.-J. Tyler
A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building Reading Fluency with Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities
J Learn Disabil, October 1, 2002; 35(5): 386 - 406.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Intervention in School and ClinicHome page
M. A. Mastropieri, A. Leinart, and T. E. Scruggs
Strategies to Increase Reading Fluency
Intervention in School and Clinic, May 1, 1999; 34(5): 278 - 283.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J Learn DisabilHome page
C. H. Skinner, K. L. Adamson, J. R. Woodward, R. R. Jackson Jr., L. A. Atchison, and J. W. Mims
A Comparison of Fast-Rate, Slow-Rate, and Silent Previewing Interventions on Reading Performance
J Learn Disabil, December 1, 1993; 26(10): 674 - 681.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHHome page
M. Y. Lipson and K. K. Wixson
Reading Disability Research: An Interactionist Perspective
Review of Educational Research, January 1, 1986; 56(1): 111 - 136.
[Abstract] [PDF]