Cargando…

The role of feedback and differences between good and poor decoders in a repeated word reading paradigm in first grade

The direct, retention, and transfer effects of repeated word and pseudoword reading were studied in a pretest, training, posttest, retention design. First graders (48 good readers, 47 poor readers) read 25 CVC words and 25 CVC pseudowords in ten repeated word reading sessions, preceded and followed...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Gorp, Karly, Segers, Eliane, Verhoeven, Ludo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5346118/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27068186
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11881-016-0129-z
_version_ 1782513826514599936
author van Gorp, Karly
Segers, Eliane
Verhoeven, Ludo
author_facet van Gorp, Karly
Segers, Eliane
Verhoeven, Ludo
author_sort van Gorp, Karly
collection PubMed
description The direct, retention, and transfer effects of repeated word and pseudoword reading were studied in a pretest, training, posttest, retention design. First graders (48 good readers, 47 poor readers) read 25 CVC words and 25 CVC pseudowords in ten repeated word reading sessions, preceded and followed by a transfer task with a different set of items. Two weeks after training, trained items were assessed again in a retention test. Participants either received phonics feedback, in which each word was spelled out and repeated; word feedback, in which each word was repeated; or no feedback. During the training, both good and poor readers improved in accuracy and speed. The increase in speed was stronger for poor readers than for good readers. The good readers demonstrated a stronger increase for pseudowords than for words. This increase in speed was most prominent in the first four sessions. Two weeks after training, the levels of accuracy and speed were retained. Furthermore, transfer effects on speed were found for pseudowords in both groups of readers. Good readers performed most accurately during the training when they received no feedback while poor readers performed most accurately during the training with the help of phonics feedback. However, feedback did not differentiate for reading speed or for effects after the training. The effects of repeated word reading were found to be stronger for poor readers than for good readers. Moreover, these effects were found to be stronger for pseudowords than for words. This indicates that repeated word reading can be seen as an important trigger for the improvement of decoding skills.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5346118
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53461182017-03-22 The role of feedback and differences between good and poor decoders in a repeated word reading paradigm in first grade van Gorp, Karly Segers, Eliane Verhoeven, Ludo Ann Dyslexia Article The direct, retention, and transfer effects of repeated word and pseudoword reading were studied in a pretest, training, posttest, retention design. First graders (48 good readers, 47 poor readers) read 25 CVC words and 25 CVC pseudowords in ten repeated word reading sessions, preceded and followed by a transfer task with a different set of items. Two weeks after training, trained items were assessed again in a retention test. Participants either received phonics feedback, in which each word was spelled out and repeated; word feedback, in which each word was repeated; or no feedback. During the training, both good and poor readers improved in accuracy and speed. The increase in speed was stronger for poor readers than for good readers. The good readers demonstrated a stronger increase for pseudowords than for words. This increase in speed was most prominent in the first four sessions. Two weeks after training, the levels of accuracy and speed were retained. Furthermore, transfer effects on speed were found for pseudowords in both groups of readers. Good readers performed most accurately during the training when they received no feedback while poor readers performed most accurately during the training with the help of phonics feedback. However, feedback did not differentiate for reading speed or for effects after the training. The effects of repeated word reading were found to be stronger for poor readers than for good readers. Moreover, these effects were found to be stronger for pseudowords than for words. This indicates that repeated word reading can be seen as an important trigger for the improvement of decoding skills. Springer US 2016-04-11 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5346118/ /pubmed/27068186 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11881-016-0129-z Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
van Gorp, Karly
Segers, Eliane
Verhoeven, Ludo
The role of feedback and differences between good and poor decoders in a repeated word reading paradigm in first grade
title The role of feedback and differences between good and poor decoders in a repeated word reading paradigm in first grade
title_full The role of feedback and differences between good and poor decoders in a repeated word reading paradigm in first grade
title_fullStr The role of feedback and differences between good and poor decoders in a repeated word reading paradigm in first grade
title_full_unstemmed The role of feedback and differences between good and poor decoders in a repeated word reading paradigm in first grade
title_short The role of feedback and differences between good and poor decoders in a repeated word reading paradigm in first grade
title_sort role of feedback and differences between good and poor decoders in a repeated word reading paradigm in first grade
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5346118/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27068186
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11881-016-0129-z
work_keys_str_mv AT vangorpkarly theroleoffeedbackanddifferencesbetweengoodandpoordecodersinarepeatedwordreadingparadigminfirstgrade
AT segerseliane theroleoffeedbackanddifferencesbetweengoodandpoordecodersinarepeatedwordreadingparadigminfirstgrade
AT verhoevenludo theroleoffeedbackanddifferencesbetweengoodandpoordecodersinarepeatedwordreadingparadigminfirstgrade
AT vangorpkarly roleoffeedbackanddifferencesbetweengoodandpoordecodersinarepeatedwordreadingparadigminfirstgrade
AT segerseliane roleoffeedbackanddifferencesbetweengoodandpoordecodersinarepeatedwordreadingparadigminfirstgrade
AT verhoevenludo roleoffeedbackanddifferencesbetweengoodandpoordecodersinarepeatedwordreadingparadigminfirstgrade