Display options
Cite
Berninger VW, Vermeulen K, Abbott RD, et al. Comparison of Three Approaches to Supplementary Reading Instruction for Low-Achieving Second-Grade Readers. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2003;34(2):101-116doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2003/009).
Berninger, V. W., Vermeulen, K., Abbott, R. D., McCutchen, D., Cotton, S., Cude, J., Dorn, S., & Sharon, T. (2003). Comparison of Three Approaches to Supplementary Reading Instruction for Low-Achieving Second-Grade Readers. Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 34(2), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2003/009)
Berninger, Virginia W, et al. "Comparison of Three Approaches to Supplementary Reading Instruction for Low-Achieving Second-Grade Readers." Language, speech, and hearing services in schools vol. 34,2 (2003): 101-116. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2003/009)
Berninger VW, Vermeulen K, Abbott RD, McCutchen D, Cotton S, Cude J, Dorn S, Sharon T. Comparison of Three Approaches to Supplementary Reading Instruction for Low-Achieving Second-Grade Readers. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2003 Apr 01;34(2):101-116. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2003/009). PMID: 27764491.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2003 Apr 01;34(2):101-116. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2003/009).

Comparison of Three Approaches to Supplementary Reading Instruction for Low-Achieving Second-Grade Readers.

Language, speech, and hearing services in schools

Virginia W Berninger, Karin Vermeulen, Robert D Abbott, Deborah McCutchen, Susanna Cotton, Jennifer Cude, Susan Dorn, Tod Sharon

Affiliations

  1. University of Washington, Seattle.

PMID: 27764491 DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2003/009)

Abstract

PURPOSE: This research evaluated the relative effectiveness of three instructional approaches to supplementing the regular reading program for second graders with low word reading and/or pseudoword reading skills.

METHOD: In the instructional experiment, 96 second graders with low reading achievement were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (a) explicit and reflective word recognition, (b) explicit and reflective reading comprehension, (c) combined explicit word recognition and explicit reading comprehension, or (d) treated control that only practiced reading skills without any instruction. In the extension study, these conditions were compared to an untreated control group of 29 second graders.

RESULTS: In the instructional experiment, combined word recognition and reading comprehension treatment increased phonological decoding (pronouncing pseudowords) significantly more than the treated control or word recognition only treatment and had the highest effect size. The comprehension only treatment was not significantly different from the treated control. In the extension study, (a) the treated children receiving supplemental instruction improved significantly more in phonological decoding and reading real words than did those in the regular program, and (b) the combined word recognition and reading comprehension treatment, which was explicit, had the highest effect sizes for both pseudoword and real-word reading.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The most effective supplemental instruction for increasing phonological decoding was combining explicit word recognition and explicit reading comprehension training.

Publication Types