Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:32:35.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntactically cued text facilitates oral reading fluency in developing readers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2006

VALERIE MARCIARILLE LEVASSEUR ,
PAUL MACARUSO ,
LAURA CONWAY PALUMBO  and
DONALD SHANKWEILER
VALERIE MARCIARILLE LEVASSEUR
Affiliation:
Haskins Laboratories and University of Connecticut
PAUL MACARUSO
Affiliation:
Haskins Laboratories and Community College of Rhode Island
LAURA CONWAY PALUMBO
Affiliation:
Haskins Laboratories
DONALD SHANKWEILER
Affiliation:
Haskins Laboratories and University of Connecticut
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Can fluency in oral reading be facilitated by formatting text to preserve major syntactic boundaries? Seven-, 8-, and 9-year-old children read aloud passages under two text format conditions. In the structure-preserving condition, the ends of lines coincided with ends of clauses; in the phrase-disrupting condition, line breaks always interrupted a phrasal unit. Experiment 1 showed that oral reading fluency, as indexed by skill in phrasal reading, was rated higher when children were reading in the structure-preserving condition. In addition, the structure-preserving condition resulted in significantly fewer false starts at the beginning of lines following a return sweep. The results of Experiment 2, in which texts of varying levels of difficulty were read by slightly older readers, confirmed both findings. Measures of fluency were correlated with other language and reading measures; however, no effects of format were obtained on oral reading rate (words correct per minute). Taken as a whole, these findings indicate a benefit of keeping clausal units intact in promoting fluent reading by facilitating the transition from one line to the next.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , July 2006 , pp. 423 - 445
Copyright
2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almada P.1997 Oscar and Tatiana. Crystal Lake, IL: Rigby Education.
Bever T. G., Jandreau S., Burwell R., Kaplan R., & Zaenen A.1990. Spacing printed text to isolate major phrases improves readability. Visible Language, 25, 74– 87.Google Scholar
Blommers P., & Lindquist E. F.1944. Rate of comprehension of reading: Its measurement and its relation to comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 35, 449– 473.Google Scholar
Cartwright P.1995. The week of the jellyhopper. Auckland, New Zealand: Shortland Publications.
Carver R. P.1970. Effect of a “chunked” typography on reading rate and comprehension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 288– 296.Google Scholar
Chall J. S.1983. Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw–Hill.
Chomsky C.1976. After decoding: What? Language Arts, 53, 288– 296.Google Scholar
Cohen J.1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Critchlow D. E.1996. Dos Amigos Verbal Language Scales. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
Dowhower S.1987. Effects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional readers' fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 389– 406.Google Scholar
Dugan M.1988. It's just a trick. Crystal Lake, IL: Rigby Education.
Fletcher J. M., Shaywitz S. E., Shankweiler D. P., Katz L., Liberman I. Y., Stuebing K. K., et al. 1994. Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6– 23.Google Scholar
Fodor J. D.2002. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In M. Hirotani (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS 32. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.
Foorman B. R., Francis D. J., Novy D., & Liberman D.1991. How letter-sound instruction mediates progress in first-grade reading and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 456– 469.Google Scholar
Fuchs L. S., Fuchs D., Hosp M. K., & Jenkins J. R.2001. Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239– 256.Google Scholar
Fuchs L. S., Fuchs D., & Maxwell. 1988. The validity of informal measures of reading comprehension. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20– 28.Google Scholar
Ganske K.1999. The Developmental Spelling Analysis: A measure of orthographic knowledge. Educational Assessment, 6, 41– 70.Google Scholar
Gough P. B.1985. One second of reading. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddel (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 661– 686). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Graf R., & Torrey J. W.1966. Perception of phrase structure in written language. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 74, 83– 84.Google Scholar
Jandreau S., & Bever T.1992. Phrase-spaced formats improve comprehension in average readers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 143– 146.Google Scholar
Just M. A., & Carpenter P. A.1987. The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Klein R.1995. Glumly. USA. Auckland, New Zealand: Mimosa Publications.
Krueger C.1997. The midnight pig. Crystal Lake, IL: Rigby Publications.
Laberge D., & Samuels S. J.1985. Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 689– 718). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
LeVasseur V. M. M.2004. Promoting gains in reading fluency by rereading phrasally cued text. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
MacGinitie W. H., MacGinitie R. K., Maria K., & Dreyer L.G.2000. Gates–MacGinitie Reading Tests (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Marciarille-LeVasseur V. M., Shankweiler D., & Macaruso P. (2001, April). Piecemeal reading. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Mason J. M., & Kendall J. R.1979. Facilitating comprehension through text structure manipulation. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 25, 68– 76.Google Scholar
Meyer M. S., & Felton R.1999. Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283– 306.Google Scholar
National Center for Education Statistics. 1995. Listening to children read aloud. Retrieved August 7, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/web/95762.asp#tab1.
National Reading Panel. 2000. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Odgers S. F.1987. What a day! Auckland, New Zealand: Shortland Publications.
O'Shea L. J., & Sindelar P. T.1983. The effects of segmenting written discourse on the reading comprehension of low- and high-performance readers. Reading Research Quarterly 18, 458– 465.Google Scholar
Rasinski T. V.1994. Developing syntactic sensitivity in reading through phrase-cued texts. Intervention in School and Clinic, 29, 94– 97.Google Scholar
Rayner K.1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372– 422.Google Scholar
Rayner K., Kambe G., & Duffy S. A.2000. The effect of clause wrap-up on eye movements during reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 1061– 1080.Google Scholar
Rumelhart D. E.1985. Toward an interactive model of reading. In H. Singer & R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 722– 750). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Schnick T., & Knickelbine M.2000. The lexile framework: An introduction for educators. Durhan, NC: MetaMetrics, Inc.
Schreiber P. A.1980. On the acquisition of reading fluency. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12, 177– 186.Google Scholar
Schreiber P. A.1991. Understanding prosody's role in reading acquisition. Theory into Practice, 30, 158– 164.Google Scholar
Schreiber P. A., & Read C.1980. Children's use of phonetic cues in spelling, parsing, and—maybe—reading. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 209– 224.Google Scholar
Shankweiler D., Lundquist E., Katz L., Stuebing K. K., Fletcher J. M., Brady S., et al. 1999. Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 69– 94.Google Scholar
Stanovich K. E., Cunningham A. E., & Feeman D. J.1984. Intelligence, cognitive skills, and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 278– 301.Google Scholar
Stanovich K. E., & Siegel L.1994. Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24– 53.Google Scholar
Torgesen J. K., Rashotte C. A., & Alexander A. W.2001. Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 333– 355). Parkton, MD: York Press.
Weiderholt J. L., & Bryant B. R.2001. Gray Oral Reading Tests, 4th edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Weiss D. S.1983. The effects of text segmentation on children's reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 6, 77– 89.Google Scholar
Wood C. T.1975. Processing units in reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 46– 99.Google Scholar
Woodcock R., & Johnson M. B.1993. Woodcock–Johnson Psychoeducational Battery. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Young A., & Bowers P. G.1995. Individual differences and text difficulty determinants of reading fluency and expressiveness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 428– 454.Google Scholar