McLaughlin
Recent Full Text Articles
International Journal of English and Education
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
260
| www.ijee.org
The Effects of Repeated Reading and SAFMD Cards with a 10-Year-Old
Elementary School Student with Learning Disabilities
Sydney M. Volwiler1, T. F. McLaughlin2, K. Mar k Derby3
Department of Special Education
Gonzaga University
and
Mary Everson4
Spokane Public Schools
Abstract: Our participant was a 10-year-old male with a learning disability in reading. He was
currently receiving special education instruction in the resource room at his elementary school
for reading, math and writing. The purpose of this study was to determine if repeated reading
and with SAFMED flashcards would improve reading fluency. The dependent variable was the
number of words per minute read by the participant. The independent variables were repeated
readings and error correction drills with SAFMED flashcards. Results showed that repeated
readings and the error correction drill with SAFMED flashcards increased the number of words
per minute read by tour participant.
Key Words: SAFMED Cards, Repeated Reading, Learning Disabilities,
Acknowledgements:
This research was completed in partial fulfillment for the requirements for an Endorsement in
Special Education from the State of Washington and Gonzaga University. The authors would
like to thank the participant for his cooperation and desire for learning.
Requests for reprints should be addressed to S Volwiler, Department of Special Education,
Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA 99258-0025 or via email at vowiler@zagmail.gonzaga.edu
or T. F. McLaughlin, , Department of Special Education, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA
99258-0025 or via email at mclaughlin@gonzaga.edu
Introduction
Students with learning disabilities who do not learn their basic skills tend to have a difficult time as
students and later as adults. They face issues such as chronic under or unemployment (Lloyd, 1978). The
data on adult outcomes has been very negative across a wide range of measures if one cannot read well
(Chambers, Dunn, & Rabren, 2004; Livingstone, 1998).
International Journal of English and Education
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
261
| www.ijee.org
A recent set of meta-analyses with students with learning disabilities (Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999)
indicated that there are evidence-based approaches that have been successfully employed for students
with learning disabilities. For example, Direct Instruction was found to have large effects on students
with learning disabilities performance in the basic skills (Gersten & Keating, 1987; McLaughlin & Vacha,
1992; Swanson, Harris, & Graham, 2013; Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999). However, many classrooms
are staffed with teachers have not been systematically trained in the use of Direct Instruction. Also,
Direct Instruction materials are consumable and too expensive to purchase by the typical classroom
teacher.
Students with learning disabilities often do not respond academically to regular classroom practices.
Determining strategies that work for individual students is necessary (Heward, 2013). Three strategies
are repeated readings (Sweeney, Omness, Janusz, & Cooper, 1992) use of Direct Instruction materials
(Engelmann & Carnine, 1982; Johnson, Luiten, Derby, McLaughlin, Weber, & Johnson, 2001;
Marchand-Martella, Slocum, Martella, 2004; Swanson et al., 1999), and using SAFMED to correct errors
(Casey, McLaughlin, Weber, & Everson, 2003).
An additional effective procedure for children with learning disabilities has been assisted or repeated
readings (Morgan, McLaughlin, Neyman, & Bolich, 2013). With this procedure, the child listens to the
passage and then reads the passage over until their correct rate is high and error rate is low. Repeated
reading has been shown to be effective with adolescents with learning disabilities (Sweeney, Omness,
Janusz, & Cooper, 1992) and high school students with low reading skills (Blackwell, Stookey, &
McLaughlin, 1996; Gregory McLaughlin, Weber, & Stookey, 2004). The overreaching goal of repeated
or assisted reading to expose the student to an appropriate model and to allow him to read along at the
same time (Morgan, McLaughlin Neyman, & Derby, 2013). Repeated or assisted reading has been
implemented in a variety of forms and labeled a variety of ways, such as "reading by immersion"
(Hoskisson & Krohm, 1974) "imitative reading" (Polloway & Patton, 1997), "neurological impress"
(Heckelman, 1969), "repeated reading" (Sweeney, Omness, Janusz, & Cooper, 1992), assisted reading
(Gilbert, Williams & McLaughlin, 1996) "taped words" (Freeman & McLaughlin, 1984) and "talking
books" (Carbo, 1978). Although each form may vary in degree, the general purpose of each technique is
to expose the child to accurate reading patterns either with the teacher modeling through reading or by
playing teacher made or commercially available tape recordings of the reading passage. Using flashcards
for error drill has been employed to assist children with disabilities to read with accuracy and fluency
(Gregori & McLaughlin, 1996). They found that employing both procedures was effective in increasing
oral reading fluency and decreasing errors.
A recent component analysis of assisted reading (Dowd, Vickers, Rosario, Peterson-Peck, & McLaughlin,
2013) found that the important components of this procedure were hearing the word being read correctly
and being able to re-read the material and being able to see the words being read were the critical
components of assisted reading. Their component analysis was replicated four times with a single
participant enrolled in a residential hospital behavior unit.
A purpose of this study was to determine and replicate the effectiveness of both repeated reading and
error correction on reading fluency with an elementary school student with learning disabilities. A second
International Journal of English and Education
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
262
| www.ijee.org
purpose to replicate and extend of earlier research employing SAFMEDS to teach basic skills in a
different skill area.
Method
Participant and Setting
The participant was a 10-year-old elementary school fourth grade student with a specific learning
disability. He was receiving special instruction in the resource room of his rural elementary school for
reading, writing and math. Based on the results of the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement
(Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2007
math fluency were all at second grade level. Therefore, he meet all of the qualifications to be diagnosed
with a specific learning disability in reading, written communication, and mathematics.
The setting for this project was a small urban elementary school located in a large public school district the
Pacific Northwest. The study took place at t
were about four to five other students in the room, along with three teachers. Sessions lasted about 20
minutes and were held three to five days a week depending on the daily schedule in the resource and
general education classrooms. The sessions were always held at the same time, which was in the afternoon
after lunch. A wide range of research has been carried out over time in this specific resource room
classroom (Erbey, McLaughlin, Derby, & Everson, 2012; Everson, M., & McLaughlin, 1996; Fjortoft,
McLaughlin, Derby, Everson, & Johnson, 2014; Hyde, McLaughlin, Derby, & Everson, 2009; Lund,
McLaughlin, Derby, & Everson, 2012; Mann, McLaughlin, Williams, Derby, & Everson, 2012; Pfaff,
McLaughlin, Neyman, Everson, 2013).
Materials
Three second- grade level passages from the website Super Teacher Worksheets used for the reading
fluency study. Notecards containing difficult words and phrases from the passages were used for the error
Dependent Variables and Measurement
For reading fluency, the dependent variable was the number of words per minute read by the participant.
For reading fluency, the participant was instructed to read the passage twice; once at the beginning of the
session and once at the end. Data were only taken on the second read of the session, after the participant
had reviewed the SAFMED cards containing difficult words and phrases from the passage. The reading
was timed. Words per minute was determined by dividing the amount of seconds need to read the passage
by the total number of words read and then dividing by 60. This was then rounded to the nearest tenth of a
minute.
Experimental Design
An ABCBDB single case design (Kazdin, 2011) was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the
SAFMED flashcards and repeated reading fluency. Each new passage was read one to three times for in
baseline.
International Journal of English and Education
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
263
| www.ijee.org
Baseline. During baseline, the participant would read the second grade level passage selected from the
Super Teacher Worksheets website (www.superteacherworksheets.com/). The researcher would time this
reading, mark any errors and not provide any feedback. After the baseline sessions, each session would
begin with the participant reading the passage. Once the participant had read through the passage, the
participant would begin a SMFED drill over any challenging or missed words and phrases that were noted
by the researcher during baseline. During each session the participant would set his own time goal in
which he wanted to complete the SAFMED cards under. Following the SAFMED drill, the participant
would have a timed reading of the passage and feedback was given. For reading fluency, baseline was the
first to third readings of a new passage. No feedback was given, the passage was timed and the errors
were counted. This condition was applied three different times across three different reading stories
selected from the Super Teacher Worksheets website (www.superteacherworksheets.com/).
Repeated readings + SA FMED drill. Repeated readings were used as an independent variable for
reading fluency. The participant would read the same passage two times each session until his reading
fluency measured 80 wpm or higher for three sessions in a row. The SAFMED drill was an additional
independent variable for reading fluency. A card with a word or phrase from the passage was presented to
the participant. If the word was read correctly, the card was moved to the back of the list. If the word was
not correct, or if the participant had no response within the five-second time limit, the correct answer was
given to the participant, and the card would be placed a few cards back from the front of the deck. This
would insure that missed words would be presented more frequently. At the beginning of each session the
participant would set a time goal in which he wanted to go through the SAMFED cards. Thus, the
participant was working not only on the accuracy of reading the words, but also his speed.
Reliability of Measurement
Interobserver agreement data were collected for all 21 sessions by two observers. Each of the
n divide the amount
of seconds it took the participant to read the passage by the total number of words read. Agreement for the
Results
Our data indicated improvement in oral reading fluency across all passages with the use of
participant was reading an average of 36.86 wpm (range 31.25 to 40.54). After repeated readings plus
SAFMED cards, the participant achieved an average rate of 72 wpm (range 40.54 to 84.36). During
s reading an average of 40.36 wpm
(range 39.45 to 41.27). After the implementation of repeated readings and SAFMED cards, the rate i
F igure 1. The number of words read correctly per minute across three different lessons during three
baselines and three applications of repeated reading with SAFMEDS.
International Journal of English and Education
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
264
| www.ijee.org
ncreased to an average of 71.2 wpm (range 43.74 to 87.18). For the third and final story
passage intervention was completed. After two sessions of the independent variable condition,
reading rate had increase to 47 (range 41.45 to 52.56 wpm) for the passage.
Discussion
The repeated reading
reading fluency rate. The participant enjoyed the program and was highly motivated by the
SAFMED cards. By having the participant set his own time goals in which to read through the
cards, the participant viewed the task as a game. Therefore, the SAFMED cards were very
effective for unknown and challenging words. This replicated our previous research with
repeated reading or assisted reading (Dowd et al., 2012; Morgan et al., 2013). It also extends the
positive outcomes when SAFMEDS are implement and used (Casey et al., 2003) using
flashcards and repeated reading.
The combining of the SAFMED cards with repeated reading was easy to carry out and
implement in the classroom. The exact contribution of each intervention could not be
determined. An additional research project could be carried out where the combined as well as
separate effects of each procedure could be determined. This would be a similar project to that
reported by Dowd et al. (2013).
Overall, the participant was very cooperative throughout all of the assessments and
interventions. There were times where he would get a little agitated at the fact that he had to read
International Journal of English and Education
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
265
| www.ijee.org
the passages numerous times. However, when asked if he felt more comfortable reading the
passages after having seen them multiple times, he responded yes and would continue with the
intervention. Anecdotally, one area that the participant greatly struggled with was his confidence
in reading. He did not feel comfortable reading out loud, and therefore greatly disliked any
activity that involved reading to his teachers or his peers. We felt the intervention helped to build
up the participant's confidence in his reading abilities and made him feel more comfortable
reading in a group setting. It would have been a nice touch to have assessed this in a very
systematic manner.
References
Blackwell, A., Stookey, S., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1996). The effects of using direct instruction
and a re-reading contingency with precision teaching. Journal of Precision Teaching and
Celeration, 13(2), 19-22.
Carbo, M. (1978). Teaching reading with talking books. The Reading Teacher, 32, 267-273.
Casey, J., McLaughlin, T. F., Weber, K. P., & Everson, M. (2003). The effects of five minute
practice, unlimited practice, with SAFMED cards on correct and error rate for two
elementary school children with learning disabilities. International Journal of Special
Education, 18(1), 66-72
out of school. Remedial & Special Education.25, 314-325.
Dowd, M., Vickers, D., Rosario, J., Peterson-Peck, S., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2013). A
component analysis of assisted reading with a third grade student with a reading deficit in
a psychiatric hospital setting. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science , 1(3),
530-549. Retrieved from: http://www.insikapub.com/
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction. New York: Irvington.
Erbey, R., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & Everson, M. (2011). The effects of using
flashcards with reading racetrack to teach letter sounds, sight words, and math facts to
elementary students with learning disabilities. International Electronic Journal of
Elementary Education, 3(3), 213-226. Retrieved from: http://www.iejee.com/index.html
Everson, M., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1996). Effects of self-monitoring for students with learning
disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 12(1), 85-97.
Fjortoft, A., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., Everson, M., & Johnson, K. (2014). The effects of
two direct instruction teaching procedures to basic skills to two students with disabilities.
Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 234-264. . Retrieved from:
http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/ejemplar?codigo=349991
International Journal of English and Education
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
266
| www.ijee.org
Freeman, T. J. & McLaughlin, T. F. (1984). The effects of a taped words treatment procedure on
sight-word reading of high school learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities
Quarterly, 7, 49-54.
Gersten R., & Keating, T. (1987). Long term benefits from direct instruction. Educational
Leadership, 44(6), 28-31.
Gilbert, L., Williams, R. L., & Williams, R. L. (1996). Use of assisted reading to increase
correct reading rates and decrease errors of students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 255-257.
Gregori, A., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1996). Effects of error drill and assisted reading on oral
reading. Journal of Precision Teaching and Celeration, 13(2), 23-27.
Gregory, A., McLaughlin, T. F., Weber, K. P., & Stookey, S., (2005). The effects of using direct
instruction and a re-reading contingency with a high school student. International Journal
of Special Education, 20(1), 50-54.
Heward, W. L. (2013). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (10th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall/Merrill.
Heckelman, R. (1969). A neurological-impress method of remedial reading instruction.
Academic Therapy, 4, 277-282.
Hoskisson, K., & Krohm, B. (1974). Reading by immersion: Assisted reading. Elementary
English, 51, 832-836.
Hyde, C. A., McLaughlin, T. F., & Everson, M. (2009). The effects of reading racetracks on the
sight word fluency and acquisition for two elementary students with disabilities: A further
replication and analysis. The Open Social Science Journal, 2, 1-4.
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tosscij/
Johnson, J. J., Luiten, L. M., K. M Derby, T. F. McLaughlin, K. P. Weber, & Johnson, M.
(2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons
using graded word lists. Proven Practice: Prevention and Remediation Solutions for
Schools, 3, 68-74.
Kazdin, A. E., (2011). Single case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied setting
(2nd. ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Livingstone, D. W. (1998). The education-jobs gap: Underemployment or economic democracy.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Lloyd, D. N. (1978). Prediction of school failure from third grade data. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 38, 1193-1200.
International Journal of English and Education
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
267
| www.ijee.org
Lund, K., McLaughlin, T. F., Neyman, J., & Everson, M. (2012). The effects of DI flashcards
and math racetrack on multiplication facts for two elementary students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1(1) 1-15.
http://josea.info/index.php?page=vol1no1.
Mann, Z., McLaughlin, T. F., Williams, R. L., Derby, K. M., & Everson, M. (2012). The effects
of direct instruction flashcards and rewards with math facts at school and in the home:
acquisition and maintenance. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1(2).
Retrieved from: http://josea.info/index.php?page=archives.
Marchand-Martella, Slocum, T., & Martella, R. (2004). Introduction to direct instruction.
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McLaughlin, T. F., & Vacha, E. F. (1992). School programs for at-risk children and youth: A
review. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 112-120.
Morgan, K., McLaughlin, T. F., Neyman, J., & Bolich, B. (2013). An evaluation of the
effectiveness of repeated reading for two elementary students in a resource room.
International Journal of English and Education, 2(4), 244-260. Retrieved from:
http://www.ijeorg/
Pfaff, E., McLaughlin, T. F., Neyman, J., & Everson, M. (2013). The effects of direct instruction
flashcards with math racetrack with addition facts for an elementary school student with
ADHD. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 2(1), 124-130. Retrieved
from: http://www.insikapub.com/
Polloway, E. & Patton, J. (1997) Strategies for teaching learners with special needs. Columbus,
OH: Merrill
Swanson, H. L., Harris, K. & Graham, S. (2013) (Eds.) Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Guildford.
Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning
disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York, NY: Guilford.
Sweeney, W. J., Omness, C. K., Janusz, K. L., & Cooper, J. O. (1992). Adult literacy and
precision teaching: Repeated readings and see/ cover/ write practice to improve reading and
spelling. Journal of Precision Teaching, 9(1), 6-11.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, W. S., & Mather, N. (2008). Woodcock Johnson Tests of
Achievement (WJ III). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
260
| www.ijee.org
The Effects of Repeated Reading and SAFMD Cards with a 10-Year-Old
Elementary School Student with Learning Disabilities
Sydney M. Volwiler1, T. F. McLaughlin2, K. Mar k Derby3
Department of Special Education
Gonzaga University
and
Mary Everson4
Spokane Public Schools
Abstract: Our participant was a 10-year-old male with a learning disability in reading. He was
currently receiving special education instruction in the resource room at his elementary school
for reading, math and writing. The purpose of this study was to determine if repeated reading
and with SAFMED flashcards would improve reading fluency. The dependent variable was the
number of words per minute read by the participant. The independent variables were repeated
readings and error correction drills with SAFMED flashcards. Results showed that repeated
readings and the error correction drill with SAFMED flashcards increased the number of words
per minute read by tour participant.
Key Words: SAFMED Cards, Repeated Reading, Learning Disabilities,
Acknowledgements:
This research was completed in partial fulfillment for the requirements for an Endorsement in
Special Education from the State of Washington and Gonzaga University. The authors would
like to thank the participant for his cooperation and desire for learning.
Requests for reprints should be addressed to S Volwiler, Department of Special Education,
Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA 99258-0025 or via email at vowiler@zagmail.gonzaga.edu
or T. F. McLaughlin, , Department of Special Education, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA
99258-0025 or via email at mclaughlin@gonzaga.edu
Introduction
Students with learning disabilities who do not learn their basic skills tend to have a difficult time as
students and later as adults. They face issues such as chronic under or unemployment (Lloyd, 1978). The
data on adult outcomes has been very negative across a wide range of measures if one cannot read well
(Chambers, Dunn, & Rabren, 2004; Livingstone, 1998).
International Journal of English and Education
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
261
| www.ijee.org
A recent set of meta-analyses with students with learning disabilities (Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999)
indicated that there are evidence-based approaches that have been successfully employed for students
with learning disabilities. For example, Direct Instruction was found to have large effects on students
with learning disabilities performance in the basic skills (Gersten & Keating, 1987; McLaughlin & Vacha,
1992; Swanson, Harris, & Graham, 2013; Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999). However, many classrooms
are staffed with teachers have not been systematically trained in the use of Direct Instruction. Also,
Direct Instruction materials are consumable and too expensive to purchase by the typical classroom
teacher.
Students with learning disabilities often do not respond academically to regular classroom practices.
Determining strategies that work for individual students is necessary (Heward, 2013). Three strategies
are repeated readings (Sweeney, Omness, Janusz, & Cooper, 1992) use of Direct Instruction materials
(Engelmann & Carnine, 1982; Johnson, Luiten, Derby, McLaughlin, Weber, & Johnson, 2001;
Marchand-Martella, Slocum, Martella, 2004; Swanson et al., 1999), and using SAFMED to correct errors
(Casey, McLaughlin, Weber, & Everson, 2003).
An additional effective procedure for children with learning disabilities has been assisted or repeated
readings (Morgan, McLaughlin, Neyman, & Bolich, 2013). With this procedure, the child listens to the
passage and then reads the passage over until their correct rate is high and error rate is low. Repeated
reading has been shown to be effective with adolescents with learning disabilities (Sweeney, Omness,
Janusz, & Cooper, 1992) and high school students with low reading skills (Blackwell, Stookey, &
McLaughlin, 1996; Gregory McLaughlin, Weber, & Stookey, 2004). The overreaching goal of repeated
or assisted reading to expose the student to an appropriate model and to allow him to read along at the
same time (Morgan, McLaughlin Neyman, & Derby, 2013). Repeated or assisted reading has been
implemented in a variety of forms and labeled a variety of ways, such as "reading by immersion"
(Hoskisson & Krohm, 1974) "imitative reading" (Polloway & Patton, 1997), "neurological impress"
(Heckelman, 1969), "repeated reading" (Sweeney, Omness, Janusz, & Cooper, 1992), assisted reading
(Gilbert, Williams & McLaughlin, 1996) "taped words" (Freeman & McLaughlin, 1984) and "talking
books" (Carbo, 1978). Although each form may vary in degree, the general purpose of each technique is
to expose the child to accurate reading patterns either with the teacher modeling through reading or by
playing teacher made or commercially available tape recordings of the reading passage. Using flashcards
for error drill has been employed to assist children with disabilities to read with accuracy and fluency
(Gregori & McLaughlin, 1996). They found that employing both procedures was effective in increasing
oral reading fluency and decreasing errors.
A recent component analysis of assisted reading (Dowd, Vickers, Rosario, Peterson-Peck, & McLaughlin,
2013) found that the important components of this procedure were hearing the word being read correctly
and being able to re-read the material and being able to see the words being read were the critical
components of assisted reading. Their component analysis was replicated four times with a single
participant enrolled in a residential hospital behavior unit.
A purpose of this study was to determine and replicate the effectiveness of both repeated reading and
error correction on reading fluency with an elementary school student with learning disabilities. A second
International Journal of English and Education
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
262
| www.ijee.org
purpose to replicate and extend of earlier research employing SAFMEDS to teach basic skills in a
different skill area.
Method
Participant and Setting
The participant was a 10-year-old elementary school fourth grade student with a specific learning
disability. He was receiving special instruction in the resource room of his rural elementary school for
reading, writing and math. Based on the results of the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement
(Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2007
math fluency were all at second grade level. Therefore, he meet all of the qualifications to be diagnosed
with a specific learning disability in reading, written communication, and mathematics.
The setting for this project was a small urban elementary school located in a large public school district the
Pacific Northwest. The study took place at t
were about four to five other students in the room, along with three teachers. Sessions lasted about 20
minutes and were held three to five days a week depending on the daily schedule in the resource and
general education classrooms. The sessions were always held at the same time, which was in the afternoon
after lunch. A wide range of research has been carried out over time in this specific resource room
classroom (Erbey, McLaughlin, Derby, & Everson, 2012; Everson, M., & McLaughlin, 1996; Fjortoft,
McLaughlin, Derby, Everson, & Johnson, 2014; Hyde, McLaughlin, Derby, & Everson, 2009; Lund,
McLaughlin, Derby, & Everson, 2012; Mann, McLaughlin, Williams, Derby, & Everson, 2012; Pfaff,
McLaughlin, Neyman, Everson, 2013).
Materials
Three second- grade level passages from the website Super Teacher Worksheets used for the reading
fluency study. Notecards containing difficult words and phrases from the passages were used for the error
Dependent Variables and Measurement
For reading fluency, the dependent variable was the number of words per minute read by the participant.
For reading fluency, the participant was instructed to read the passage twice; once at the beginning of the
session and once at the end. Data were only taken on the second read of the session, after the participant
had reviewed the SAFMED cards containing difficult words and phrases from the passage. The reading
was timed. Words per minute was determined by dividing the amount of seconds need to read the passage
by the total number of words read and then dividing by 60. This was then rounded to the nearest tenth of a
minute.
Experimental Design
An ABCBDB single case design (Kazdin, 2011) was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the
SAFMED flashcards and repeated reading fluency. Each new passage was read one to three times for in
baseline.
International Journal of English and Education
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
263
| www.ijee.org
Baseline. During baseline, the participant would read the second grade level passage selected from the
Super Teacher Worksheets website (www.superteacherworksheets.com/). The researcher would time this
reading, mark any errors and not provide any feedback. After the baseline sessions, each session would
begin with the participant reading the passage. Once the participant had read through the passage, the
participant would begin a SMFED drill over any challenging or missed words and phrases that were noted
by the researcher during baseline. During each session the participant would set his own time goal in
which he wanted to complete the SAFMED cards under. Following the SAFMED drill, the participant
would have a timed reading of the passage and feedback was given. For reading fluency, baseline was the
first to third readings of a new passage. No feedback was given, the passage was timed and the errors
were counted. This condition was applied three different times across three different reading stories
selected from the Super Teacher Worksheets website (www.superteacherworksheets.com/).
Repeated readings + SA FMED drill. Repeated readings were used as an independent variable for
reading fluency. The participant would read the same passage two times each session until his reading
fluency measured 80 wpm or higher for three sessions in a row. The SAFMED drill was an additional
independent variable for reading fluency. A card with a word or phrase from the passage was presented to
the participant. If the word was read correctly, the card was moved to the back of the list. If the word was
not correct, or if the participant had no response within the five-second time limit, the correct answer was
given to the participant, and the card would be placed a few cards back from the front of the deck. This
would insure that missed words would be presented more frequently. At the beginning of each session the
participant would set a time goal in which he wanted to go through the SAMFED cards. Thus, the
participant was working not only on the accuracy of reading the words, but also his speed.
Reliability of Measurement
Interobserver agreement data were collected for all 21 sessions by two observers. Each of the
n divide the amount
of seconds it took the participant to read the passage by the total number of words read. Agreement for the
Results
Our data indicated improvement in oral reading fluency across all passages with the use of
participant was reading an average of 36.86 wpm (range 31.25 to 40.54). After repeated readings plus
SAFMED cards, the participant achieved an average rate of 72 wpm (range 40.54 to 84.36). During
s reading an average of 40.36 wpm
(range 39.45 to 41.27). After the implementation of repeated readings and SAFMED cards, the rate i
F igure 1. The number of words read correctly per minute across three different lessons during three
baselines and three applications of repeated reading with SAFMEDS.
International Journal of English and Education
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
264
| www.ijee.org
ncreased to an average of 71.2 wpm (range 43.74 to 87.18). For the third and final story
passage intervention was completed. After two sessions of the independent variable condition,
reading rate had increase to 47 (range 41.45 to 52.56 wpm) for the passage.
Discussion
The repeated reading
reading fluency rate. The participant enjoyed the program and was highly motivated by the
SAFMED cards. By having the participant set his own time goals in which to read through the
cards, the participant viewed the task as a game. Therefore, the SAFMED cards were very
effective for unknown and challenging words. This replicated our previous research with
repeated reading or assisted reading (Dowd et al., 2012; Morgan et al., 2013). It also extends the
positive outcomes when SAFMEDS are implement and used (Casey et al., 2003) using
flashcards and repeated reading.
The combining of the SAFMED cards with repeated reading was easy to carry out and
implement in the classroom. The exact contribution of each intervention could not be
determined. An additional research project could be carried out where the combined as well as
separate effects of each procedure could be determined. This would be a similar project to that
reported by Dowd et al. (2013).
Overall, the participant was very cooperative throughout all of the assessments and
interventions. There were times where he would get a little agitated at the fact that he had to read
International Journal of English and Education
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
265
| www.ijee.org
the passages numerous times. However, when asked if he felt more comfortable reading the
passages after having seen them multiple times, he responded yes and would continue with the
intervention. Anecdotally, one area that the participant greatly struggled with was his confidence
in reading. He did not feel comfortable reading out loud, and therefore greatly disliked any
activity that involved reading to his teachers or his peers. We felt the intervention helped to build
up the participant's confidence in his reading abilities and made him feel more comfortable
reading in a group setting. It would have been a nice touch to have assessed this in a very
systematic manner.
References
Blackwell, A., Stookey, S., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1996). The effects of using direct instruction
and a re-reading contingency with precision teaching. Journal of Precision Teaching and
Celeration, 13(2), 19-22.
Carbo, M. (1978). Teaching reading with talking books. The Reading Teacher, 32, 267-273.
Casey, J., McLaughlin, T. F., Weber, K. P., & Everson, M. (2003). The effects of five minute
practice, unlimited practice, with SAFMED cards on correct and error rate for two
elementary school children with learning disabilities. International Journal of Special
Education, 18(1), 66-72
out of school. Remedial & Special Education.25, 314-325.
Dowd, M., Vickers, D., Rosario, J., Peterson-Peck, S., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2013). A
component analysis of assisted reading with a third grade student with a reading deficit in
a psychiatric hospital setting. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science , 1(3),
530-549. Retrieved from: http://www.insikapub.com/
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction. New York: Irvington.
Erbey, R., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & Everson, M. (2011). The effects of using
flashcards with reading racetrack to teach letter sounds, sight words, and math facts to
elementary students with learning disabilities. International Electronic Journal of
Elementary Education, 3(3), 213-226. Retrieved from: http://www.iejee.com/index.html
Everson, M., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1996). Effects of self-monitoring for students with learning
disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 12(1), 85-97.
Fjortoft, A., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., Everson, M., & Johnson, K. (2014). The effects of
two direct instruction teaching procedures to basic skills to two students with disabilities.
Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 234-264. . Retrieved from:
http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/ejemplar?codigo=349991
International Journal of English and Education
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
266
| www.ijee.org
Freeman, T. J. & McLaughlin, T. F. (1984). The effects of a taped words treatment procedure on
sight-word reading of high school learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities
Quarterly, 7, 49-54.
Gersten R., & Keating, T. (1987). Long term benefits from direct instruction. Educational
Leadership, 44(6), 28-31.
Gilbert, L., Williams, R. L., & Williams, R. L. (1996). Use of assisted reading to increase
correct reading rates and decrease errors of students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 255-257.
Gregori, A., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1996). Effects of error drill and assisted reading on oral
reading. Journal of Precision Teaching and Celeration, 13(2), 23-27.
Gregory, A., McLaughlin, T. F., Weber, K. P., & Stookey, S., (2005). The effects of using direct
instruction and a re-reading contingency with a high school student. International Journal
of Special Education, 20(1), 50-54.
Heward, W. L. (2013). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (10th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall/Merrill.
Heckelman, R. (1969). A neurological-impress method of remedial reading instruction.
Academic Therapy, 4, 277-282.
Hoskisson, K., & Krohm, B. (1974). Reading by immersion: Assisted reading. Elementary
English, 51, 832-836.
Hyde, C. A., McLaughlin, T. F., & Everson, M. (2009). The effects of reading racetracks on the
sight word fluency and acquisition for two elementary students with disabilities: A further
replication and analysis. The Open Social Science Journal, 2, 1-4.
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tosscij/
Johnson, J. J., Luiten, L. M., K. M Derby, T. F. McLaughlin, K. P. Weber, & Johnson, M.
(2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons
using graded word lists. Proven Practice: Prevention and Remediation Solutions for
Schools, 3, 68-74.
Kazdin, A. E., (2011). Single case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied setting
(2nd. ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Livingstone, D. W. (1998). The education-jobs gap: Underemployment or economic democracy.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Lloyd, D. N. (1978). Prediction of school failure from third grade data. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 38, 1193-1200.
International Journal of English and Education
ISSN: 2278-‐4012, Volume:5, Issue:1, January 2016
267
| www.ijee.org
Lund, K., McLaughlin, T. F., Neyman, J., & Everson, M. (2012). The effects of DI flashcards
and math racetrack on multiplication facts for two elementary students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1(1) 1-15.
http://josea.info/index.php?page=vol1no1.
Mann, Z., McLaughlin, T. F., Williams, R. L., Derby, K. M., & Everson, M. (2012). The effects
of direct instruction flashcards and rewards with math facts at school and in the home:
acquisition and maintenance. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1(2).
Retrieved from: http://josea.info/index.php?page=archives.
Marchand-Martella, Slocum, T., & Martella, R. (2004). Introduction to direct instruction.
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McLaughlin, T. F., & Vacha, E. F. (1992). School programs for at-risk children and youth: A
review. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 112-120.
Morgan, K., McLaughlin, T. F., Neyman, J., & Bolich, B. (2013). An evaluation of the
effectiveness of repeated reading for two elementary students in a resource room.
International Journal of English and Education, 2(4), 244-260. Retrieved from:
http://www.ijeorg/
Pfaff, E., McLaughlin, T. F., Neyman, J., & Everson, M. (2013). The effects of direct instruction
flashcards with math racetrack with addition facts for an elementary school student with
ADHD. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 2(1), 124-130. Retrieved
from: http://www.insikapub.com/
Polloway, E. & Patton, J. (1997) Strategies for teaching learners with special needs. Columbus,
OH: Merrill
Swanson, H. L., Harris, K. & Graham, S. (2013) (Eds.) Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Guildford.
Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning
disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York, NY: Guilford.
Sweeney, W. J., Omness, C. K., Janusz, K. L., & Cooper, J. O. (1992). Adult literacy and
precision teaching: Repeated readings and see/ cover/ write practice to improve reading and
spelling. Journal of Precision Teaching, 9(1), 6-11.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, W. S., & Mather, N. (2008). Woodcock Johnson Tests of
Achievement (WJ III). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.