Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
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
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
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 Roberts, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Shapiro, E. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
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?

Differential Effects of Fixed Instructional Ratios on Students' Progress in Reading

Maura L. Roberts

Lehigh University

Timothy L. Turco

Lehigh University

Edward S. Shapiro

Lehigh University

The impact of differential instructional ratios of known/unknown vocabulary words during a drill procedure in reading was investigated. A total of 42 average to low-average children between second and fifth grade participated in the study. Based on the model of Curriculum-based Assessment described by Gickling and Havertape (1981), a flashcard drill intervention was employed that presented known and unknown words under one of four treatment conditions: (a) 90% known to 10% unknown words; (b) 80% known to 20% unknown words; (c) 60% known to 40% unknown words; and (d) 50%o known to 50% unknown words. Pre-and posttest data were obtained on oral reading fluency, comprehension, and reading from grade-level vocabulary word lists. Additionally, bi-weekly CBM reading probes were obtained. Differences across the four conditions were evaluated at the end of an 8-week daily drill intervention. The results tended to provide partial support for Gickling's suggested drill ratios.

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Vol. 9, No. 4, 308-318 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/073428299100900402
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
 Remedial and Special EducationHome page
M. K. Burns
Empirical Analysis of Drill Ratio Research: Refining the Instructional Level for Drill Tasks
Remedial and Special Education, June 1, 2004; 25(3): 167 - 173.
[Abstract] [PDF]