A Comparison of Error Correction Procedures on Word Reading Andrea L. Syrek Montcalm Area Intermediate School District Michael D. Hixson, Susan Jacob, and Sandra Morgan Central Michigan University The effectiveness and efficiency of two error correction procedures on word reading were compared. Three students with below average reading skills and one student with average reading skills were provided with weekly instruction on sets of 20 unknown words. Students’ errors during instruction were followed by either word supply error correction (the researcher said the word and the student was asked to repeat it) or a multilearning channel error correction procedure, which included four components: (a) hear word-say word, (b) see word-say letters (step repeated once), (c) think-say let- ters (spell without seeing word; step repeated once), and (d) think-write letters (write letters without seeing word). Both conditions generally improved reading performance, although one procedure was not clearly superior to the other in increasing the frequency of words read correctly. The word supply procedure was approximately twice as time efficient. DESCRIPTORS: Error correction, reading, learning channels Accurate and fluent oral reading is an es- sential skill for students to master in the elementary Error Correction grades (National Reading Panel, 2000). According Error correction has been defined as “in- to the National Research Council Committee on struction following an error that the learner fails the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young to self-correct” (Rose et al., 1982, p. 100). Hansen Children, the first through third grade curricula and Eaton (1978) and Jenkins (1979) identified the should include explicit instruction in letter-sound following error correction procedures: correspondences and common sight words, as 1. word supply—the teacher supplies the well many opportunities for independent reading, correct word and the learner repeats it, including reading aloud (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 2. review—word supply procedures are fol- 1998, p. 7). Oral reading is important because it lowed by the student reading the sentence or provides practice for students who might not read paragraph in which the error occurred, otherwise and is a means for teachers to evaluate 3. word meaning—word supply procedures the effects of their instruction on children’s reading are followed by a brief discussion of the performance (Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 2004; meaning of the incorrectly read word, Jenkins, Larson, & Fleisher, 1983). Furthermore, 4. phonic analysis—the learner is encour- by requiring students to read aloud frequently, aged to “sound out” varying portions of the those with difficulties can be identified early and incorrectly read word, and provided individualized help before their problems 5. drill—error words are compiled for review become severe. and drill at a later time (Jenkins, 1979). Teachers can use numerous strategies to help There is a greater need to use error correction pro- students achieve at an accelerated pace. Teaching cedures with students who have reading disabilities phonics, preteaching words, and using immediate error correction have been identified as helpful AUTHOR NOTE: Andrea L. Syrek conducted this research in fulfillment of the master’s thesis requirement at (Jenkins, 1979; Parker, Hasbrouck, & Denton, 2002). Central Michigan University. A big thanks to Stuart Harder Researchers have reported a positive relationship for his multicycle SCC Excel© template that we adapted to between the correcting of student errors and im- make the charts. Address correspondence to: Michael Hix- proved student performance (Carnine, 1980; Good son, Psychology Department, Central Michigan University, & Beckerman, 1978). Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859. E-mail: [email protected]. 2 JOURNAL OF PRECISON TEACHING AND CELERATION, VOLUME 23, 2007, PAGES 2-13 because their reading errors make comprehension Bronz Academy is a school for students in grades difficult (O’Shea, Munson, & O’Shea, 1984). Also, 2 through 12 with identified learning disabilities. these students are less likely to reread passages and Students enter Ben Bronz Academy with a median self-correct errors (Isakson & Miller, 1976). deficit of 3 years in reading. The academy utilizes Error correction methods that require active daily fluencies, classroom exercises, the Lindamood student responding have been shown to be more Method, and a 7-step correction procedure. As a effective than those that require only inactive at- result, phonemic awareness skills and reading flu- tendance to each word (e.g., Barbetta, Heron, & ency are improved. Nine out of 10 students who Heward, 1993; Singh, 1990). Immediate error cor- attend Ben Bronz Academy return to or exceed rection is more effective than delayed correction normal reading growth during their first year of (Barbetta, Heward, Bradley, & Miller, 1994). Cor- enrollment (see www.learningincentive.com). The rections after every error are more effective than present study seeks to utilize a multilearning chan- intermittent corrections (Iwata, Dozier, Johnson, nel procedure using 6 of the 7 steps. The shorter Neidert, & Thomason, 2005). Drill procedures, procedure used in the current study differed only in which involve multiple practice trials in reading that each student was required to look at the word the words, are more effective than single-step and spell it aloud once rather than twice (Table 1). procedures (Iwata, Dozier, Johnson, Neidert, & The relative effectiveness of the procedure with Thomason, 2005; Jenkins et al., 1983; O’Shea et al., 6 steps was compared to a more common word 1984; Rosenberg, 1986). Additionally, research on supply error correction method (Carnine, Silbert, learning channels indicates that including a writing & Kameenui, 2004). output may produce better retention than those that involve only a say output (e.g., Spence et al., 2000; METHOD Uhry & Shepherd, 1993; Zanatta, 2000). Finally, teaching the spelling (hear-write) of words leads to Participants and Setting better word reading than reading the words alone The participants were three third-grade boys (Uhri & Shepherd, 1993). It is therefore proposed and one second-grade girl who attended a summer that an error correction procedure that includes program to improve academic skills and provide multiple components and learning channels (what enrichment opportunities. The research took place some educators call “multisensory” procedures, in the computer lab at an elementary school in e.g., Combley, 2001; Gillingham & Stillman, 1997) Michigan. At the request of the experimenter, the may be more effective than one that involves only principal selected participants who were below av- one learning channel (i.e., word supply). erage readers. Selected students were administered The present study investigated the use of a three oral reading fluency (ORF) passages from the procedure similar to Ian Spence’s 7-step error cor- Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills rection procedure (see www. learningincentive. (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 2002) at their grade com) because of its effectiveness with students at level. The median words read correctly per min- the Ben Bronz Academy (Spence et al., 2000). Ben ute and percentile rank (PR) scores were: Student Table 1 Seven-step Procedure vs. Multilearning Channel Procedure Seven-step Procedure Mulitlearning Channel Procedure 1. Look at word, say word 1. Look at word, say word 2. Look at word, spell it aloud 2. Look at word, spell it aloud 3. Look at word, spell it aloud 3. Cover word, spell it aloud, uncover, check 4. Cover word, spell it aloud, uncover, check 4. Cover word, spell it aloud, uncover, check 5. Cover word, spell it aloud, uncover, check 5. Cover word, write word 6. Cover word, write word 6. Look at word, check spelling 7. Look at word, check spelling 3 JOURNAL OF PRECISON TEACHING AND CELERATION, VOLUME 23, 2007, PAGES 2-13 1: ORF = 115, PR = 45; Student 2: ORF = 47, PR = 5; aloud, and uncovered the word to check Student 3: ORF = 0, PR = <1; and Student 4: ORF = the spelling. The researcher said, “Cover 57, PR = 7. Students 2 and 3 were eligible for special _____ and spell it out loud.” If the word was education services as cognitively impaired. spelled incorrectly, this step was repeated. 4. Step #3 was repeated. Procedure 5. The student covered the word and wrote The main portion of the study occurred over the word on a sheet of paper. The researcher a 3-week period. The first day of each week, the said, “Cover _____ and write it.” students were presented with words on flashcards 6. The student checked the spelling. If the spell- until 20 words were misread two times. Words ing was incorrect, this step was repeated. used with students 2 and 3 were generated from An alternating-treatments design was used the Fry (1980) and Dolch (1936) word lists, which to compare the effectiveness of the two error cor- are frequently used in schools. Students 1 and 4 rection procedures on the sight-word reading of were presented with additional words found in a flashcards. The presentation of the words in each reading improvement textbook (Shanker & Ekwall, condition was alternated daily to control for order 1998). Incorrect words were defined as any mis- effects. At the beginning of each teaching session, match between the word on the card and an oral the researcher showed each of the 10 unknown response to that word, including substitutions, words on flashcards to the participant and read omissions, and mispronunciations. Furthermore, them aloud one at a time. Next, the researcher said, the word was counted as incorrect if it was not read “I am going to show you some cards with words within 3 seconds. The following two or three days on them. When I ask, ‘What word?’ please say the of the week, the students were taught to read the word aloud.” The researcher shuffled the cards words. The 20 words were randomly assigned to and re-presented each card to the student. Correct either a word supply or a multi-learning channel responses were followed by verbal praise, such as error correction procedure. “good!” or “right!” Incorrect responses were fol- lowed by either the word supply procedure or the Word supply error correction condition. multi-learning channel error correction procedure. When a student made an error in this condi- The researcher continued through the stack of cards tion, the researcher said the word and asked the stu- two times. After the researcher had gone through dent to repeat it. Specifically, the teacher said, “This each set of words two times using the appropriate word is [teacher says correct word]. What word?” error correction, the flashcards were shuffled and The student then repeated the word or the error re-presented to the student. At this time, no con- correction procedure was repeated. This is a com- sequences were provided (i.e., no praise or error mon correction format used in direct instruction correction). The number of words out of 10 read cor- programs (Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 2004). rectly was recorded. Next, the researcher showed the student a sheet that contained each of the 10 Multilearning channel correction condition. words randomized and repeated to form 100 words Errors in this condition were followed by a in five columns. The examiner said, “Try to read multilearning channel error correction procedure each word. Read the words down [the researcher very similar to the one used at Ben Bronz Academy. demonstrated by pointing down the first column]. The correction procedure consisted of the follow- If you come to a word you don’t know, I will tell it ing: to you.” If students were stuck on a word for 3 sec- 1. The researcher told the student the word and onds, they were told the word. The students were the student repeated the word. This step was given one minute to read the words. The number identical to the word supply error correction of words read correctly and incorrectly per minute procedure. was recorded. 2. The student was asked to spell the word out loud, while looking at the word. The Maintenance researcher said, “Spell _____.” Four to 5 weeks after the final instruction, 3. The student covered the word, spelled it three of the students were retested on all of the 4 JOURNAL OF PRECISON TEACHING AND CELERATION, VOLUME 23, 2007, PAGES 2-13 words from each condition. One of the students errors in both conditions. was not available for the maintenance test. The re- searcher randomly determined whether the word RESULTS supply or the multilearning channel words would be presented first. All of the words from the condi- The number of words learned over the tion were printed in columns on a page. The student course of the study based on the word card as- was asked to read each word. The researcher had an sessments in the word supply procedure versus identical sheet and marked those words that were the multilearning channel procedure was 18 vs. 20 misread. The percentage of correctly read words (Student 1), 29 vs. 29 (Student 2), 12 vs. 14 (Student was recorded. Next, the examiner presented a sheet 3), and 30 vs. 29 (Student 4). One procedure was with the same words as those just tested, but the not clearly superior to the other in the number of words were randomized and repeated to fill the words learned. entire page. The student read the words for one Figures 1-4 show each student’s performance minute, and the number of words read correctly on frequency of words read correctly and errors on and incorrectly per minute was recorded. the fluency sheets. Within a week’s set of words, the number of words read correctly increased and Interobserver Agreement errors decreased for all students except Student A second trained independent observer 3. Student 3 had a much greater number of errors recorded each student’s performance on all depen- than the other students and performed at a much dent measures, that is, percent of word cards read slower frequency. A “jaws” pattern of increasing correctly and number of words read correctly on correct responses and decreasing errors is evident random word sheets for 54% of the sessions. This for students 1, 2, and 4, indicating that they were observer sat near the student and in full view of the learning the sets of words with daily practice. As presented word cards and random word sheets. with the word cards, the students’ performances Percentage of agreements was calculated by using on the fluency sheets were not significantly better a word-by-word method, dividing the total number using either procedure. The performances often of agreements by the total number of agreements overlapped or one procedure was more effective plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%. The one week but not the next. For Students 1, 2, and overall agreement for the word cards was 99.8%. 4, the acceleration of corrects was high across stu- The overall agreement for the random word sheets dents and weeks. Decelerations usually divided was 99.4%. at a similar rate, except that errors accelerated for Student 2 in Week 1 of the multilearning channel Treatment Integrity condition. Given the variability within and across A trained observer recorded the occurrence students, neither procedure appears more effective or nonoccurrence of critical instructional proce- than the other. dures on 14 trials (4 trials for three students and Students 1, 2, and 3 were available for the 2 trials for one student). The observer recorded maintenance test. Each student was tested on the whether or not the researcher (a) waited 3 seconds word cards and fluency sheets. Considering the before correcting a student error, (b) provided results across all three students, one procedure verbal praise following all correct responses, and was not superior to the other in terms of either (c) properly implemented the error correction percentage of words read correctly (Table 2) or the procedure for each word. When students did not frequency of words read correctly or incorrectly initially respond correctly to a sight-word card, the per minute (Figures 1-4). researcher waited for 3 seconds before providing The average amount of time per session error correction on 100% of all observed trials under teaching the words in the word supply and multi- both error correction conditions. The researcher learning channel procedures was recorded for praised 100% of all correct responses in both the each student. For all four students, the multilearn- word supply and the multi-learning channel error ing channel procedure was more time consuming correction conditions. The researcher correctly pro- than the word supply procedure (average across vided error correction on 98.2% of the total student all students equaled 11 minutes vs. 5 minutes). 5 JOURNAL OF PRECISON TEACHING AND CELERATION, VOLUME 23, 2007, PAGES 2-13 RY hrs l° 2° 4° 8° l6° 24° rd o OMYAD O SEMIT GNITNUOC seclO"l5"2O"3O" l'min 2' 5' lO' 2O' 5O' lOO' 2OO' 5OO' lOOO' O d / Say WUNTED 2 4 rO l WoC e e S 6 2 RY l O M DAILY per minute Standard Celeration Chart - Dpmin-12EC © 2007 BEHAVIOR RESEARCH CO. vm 913.362.5900BOX 3351 KANSAS CITY KS 66103-3351WWW.BEHAVIORRESEARCHCOMPANY.COM RYOMYYAAarningChannelDD l2l6WEEKSorCondition ecnanetniaM 9884ll2DAYS Student 1PERFORMER CHARTER er ultilREr R TER MDA DA OUN N ON C E 7E RY L L A A OM C C ™ E YAD V T 6 8 I R 5S R ecnanetniaM S E A M H VE CE TI C I C S e S U t E 2S u C 4 n RY C i m OM ySUon ER Y per YASupplD 4onditi 28 MANAG ROOM C s L d e AI Worror ngniti D Er niu ts earport 4 RY ec LOp l ER ON O orr VIS VISI M NUS C AD DI F YAD W y OM O sit Dpmin-12EC lOOO 5OO lOOET5OUNIM RlOEP5 TNUOlC .5Standardceleration X16.lX 4X 2 .O5X 1.4 X 1.0 .Ol/ 1.4 / 2.OO5/ 4/ 16 perweek ™ .OOl O SUPERVISOR al Michigan UniverORGANIZATION r nt6 JOURNAL OF PRECISON TEACHING AND CELERATION, VOLUME 23, 2007, PAGES 2-13 e C RY hrs l° 2° 4° 8° l6° 24° d OMYAD O SEMIT GNITNUOC seclO"l5"2O"3O" l'min 2' 5' lO' 2O' 5O' lOO' 2OO' 5OO' lOOO' O Say WorNTED 2 4 d / OU l orC W e e S ecnanetniaM 6 2 RY l O M DAILY per minute Standard Celeration Chart - Dpmin-12EC © 2007 BEHAVIOR RESEARCH CO. vm 913.362.5900BOX 3351 KANSAS CITY KS 66103-3351WWW.BEHAVIORRESEARCHCOMPANY.COM RYOMYYAADDMultilearningChannell2l6WEEKSErrorCondition 9884ll2AYS Student 2PERFORMER CHARTER D R R R TE A A N D D OU N ON C E 7E RY L L A A OM C C ™ E YAD ecnanetniaM V T 6 8 I R 5S R S E A M H VE CE TI C I C S e S U t E 2S u C 4 n RY C i m OM SU ER Y per YADpply4dition 28 MANAG ROOM un L So I C A d D oror Wr r E s s t e 4 RYOM NUS Correc arningortuniti l ADVISER DIVISION F ep YAD W Lp OM O O sity Dpmin-12EC lOOO 5OO lOOET5OUNIM RlOEP5 TNUOlC .5Standardceleration X16.lX 4X 2 .O5X 1.4 X 1.0 .Ol/ 1.4 / 2.OO5/ 4/ 16 perweek ™ .OOl O SUPERVISOR al Michigan Univer ORGANIZATION r nt e7 JOURNAL OF PRECISON TEACHING AND CELERATION, VOLUME 23, 2007, PAGES 2-13 C RY hrs l° 2° 4° 8° l6° 24° ord c W OMYAD O SEMIT GNITNUOC selO"l5"2O"3O" l'min 2' 5' lO' 2O' 5O' lOO' 2OO' 5OO' lOOO' O d / Say UNTED 2 4 rO l WoC e e S 6 2 RY l ecnanetniaM O M DAILY per minute Standard Celeration Chart - Dpmin-12EC © 2007 BEHAVIOR RESEARCH CO. vm 913.362.5900BOX 3351 KANSAS CITY KS 66103-3351WWW.BEHAVIORRESEARCHCOMPANY.COM RYOMYYAADDMultilearningChannell2l6WEEKSErrorCondition 9884ll2AYS Student 3PERFORMER CHARTER D R R R TE A A N D D OU N ON C E 7E RY L L A A OM C C ™ E T YAD ecnanetniaM 6V 8 I R 5S R S E A M H VE CE TI C I C S e S U t E 2S u C 4 n RY C i m OM SU ER Y per YADpply4dition 28 MANAG ROOM L Suon es DAI WordErrorC arningortuniti orrects ep C 4 RY LOp l ER ON S SI O VI VI M NUS AD DI F YAD W y OM O sit Dpmin-12EC lOOO 5OO lOOET5OUNIM RlOEP5 TNUOlC .5Standardceleration X16.lX 4X 2 .O5X 1.4 X 1.0 .Ol/ 1.4 / 2.OO5/ 4/ 16 perweek ™ .OOl O SUPERVISOR al Michigan Univer ORGANIZATION r nt e8 JOURNAL OF PRECISON TEACHING AND CELERATION, VOLUME 23, 2007, PAGES 2-13 C RY hrs l° 2° 4° 8° l6° 24° ord c W OMYAD O SEMIT GNITNUOC selO"l5"2O"3O" l'min 2' 5' lO' 2O' 5O' lOO' 2OO' 5OO' lOOO' O d / Say UNTED 2 4 orO l WC e e S 6 2 RY l O M DAILY per minute Standard Celeration Chart - Dpmin-12EC © 2007 BEHAVIOR RESEARCH CO. vm 913.362.5900BOX 3351 KANSAS CITY KS 66103-3351WWW.BEHAVIORRESEARCHCOMPANY.COM RYOMYYAADD l2l6WEEKS 9884ll2AYS Student 4PERFORMER CHARTER D R R R TE A A N D D OU N ON C E 7E RY L L A A ™ OM nelC C E T YADanon 6V R Ch8diti 5SSI ER nute CHA RY MultilearningCCESSIVEErrorCon 42SUCCE TIM i m OM SU ER per YAD 4 8 ANAG ROOM Y 2 M L n AI yo D pplditi s un e RYOM WordSNUSErrorCo Corrects Learningpportuniti l4 ADVISER DIVISION F O YAD W y OM O sit Dpmin-12EC lOOO 5OO lOOET5OUNIM RlOEP5 TNUOlC .5Standardceleration X16.lX 4X 2 .O5X 1.4 X 1.0 .Ol/ 1.4 / 2.OO5/ 4/ 16 perweek ™ .OOl O SUPERVISOR al Michigan Univer ORGANIZATION r nt e C9 JOURNAL OF PRECISON TEACHING AND CELERATION, VOLUME 23, 2007, PAGES 2-13 The average time spent within the multi-learning cedure. The current findings indicate that word channel versus the word supply procedure was 8 supply is a more time-efficient teaching procedure vs. 4 minutes (Student 1), 8 vs. 5 minutes (Student than the multi-learning channel procedure. It may 2), 18 vs. 6 minutes (Student 3), and 10 vs. 5 minutes also be more useful and motivating for students (Student 4). who tend to be distractible. With respect to motivation, it would have DISCUSSION been interesting to explore each student’s accep- tance of each of the error correction procedures. In The results show that both the word sup- addition, the role of metacognition could be inves- ply and the multilearning channel error correction tigated. For example, when a student is asked to procedures helped to increase the percentage and learn a new word, is the student able to identify a frequency of words read correctly by each student. strategy for learning? What steps does the student However, the multi-learning channel correction take, and do these steps include multi-learning condition, which included the hear word-say word, channel methods such as spelling the word aloud see word-say letters (step repeated once), think-say or writing the letters? letters (spell without seeing word; step repeated The inclusion of more learning channels (or once), and think-write letters (write letters without more “senses”) in the error correction did not im- seeing word) learning channels, was no more effec- prove performance over a single learning channel tive than the single learning channel, hear word-say error correction. Past research has focused on the word. importance of a drill component, which was not di- In general, Students 1, 2, and 4 learned the rectly included in the present study. It is suspected words better on both the word cards and the ran- that the multi-learning channel procedure would dom word sheets than Student 3. The fluency sheet be enhanced by the requirement that the word be data show an open “jaws” pattern for Students 1, repeated aloud following Steps 2 through 6. 2, and 4, in which correct responses increase and Past research has examined the importance incorrect responses decrease over the course of the of interspersing known words and unknown words week. It is hypothesized that Student 3 was less when teaching vocabulary or spelling (Burns, Tuck- proficient because she lacked necessary prerequisite er, Frame, Foley, & Hauser, 2000; Cooke, Guzaukas, reading skills. She had an oral reading fluency score Pressley, & Kerr, 1993; Gickling & Havertape, 1981; of 0, so it was difficult to judge whether she was able Neef, Iwata, & Page, 1980; Roberts & Shapiro, to demonstrate mastery of letter names and sounds 1996; Roberts, Turco, & Shapiro, 1991). Gickling and whether she had any prior sight word knowl- and Havertape (1981) suggested a 70% known to edge. It would make sense that with deficiencies 30% unknown ratio for improving performance. in these skills, Student 3 would struggle with the Roberts and Shapiro (1996) and Roberts et al. multi-learning channel error correction procedure. (1991) found the 70:30 ratio to improve retention, Additionally, Student 3 was frequently off-task and although a more frustrating ratio of 50% known to inattentive. For all four students, the time required 50% unknown and 10% known to 90% unknown, to implement the multilearning channel procedure respectively, improved acquisition. In 2000, Burns et was considerably more than the word supply pro- al. were also able to provide studies that supported Table 2 Percentage of Word Supply and Multi-learning Channel Words Read Correctly in the Maintenance Test Student Word Supply Multilearning Channel 1 90% 70% 2 50% 57% 3 13% 10% 10 JOURNAL OF PRECISON TEACHING AND CELERATION, VOLUME 23, 2007, PAGES 2-13 the reliability of Gickling and Havertape’s (1981) REFERENCES 70:30 ratio. The current study used all unknown words. Thus, interspersal methods, or “incremental Barbetta, P.M., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (1993). rehearsal” (Burns et al., 2000), may have improved Effects of active student response during the reading performance and retention of words for error correction on the acquisition, main- students in the current study. tenance, and generalization of sight words Implications from the present study suggest by students with developmental disabilities. the need for future research involving error cor- Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 111- rection. The effects of a multistep procedure could 119. be evaluated in terms of its impact on the reading Barbetta, P.M., Heward, W.L., & Bradley, D.M.C. improvement of multisyllable words versus short, (1993). Relative effects of whole-word and single-syllable words. There may have been benefits phonetic-prompt error correction on the of using the multilearning channel procedure that acquisition and maintenance of sight words were not evaluated in this study. For example, the by students with developmental disabilities. multi-learning channel procedure may have helped Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 99- students spell the words better than the word sup- 110. ply procedure. Barbetta, P.M., Herward, W.L., Bradley, D.M., & The present results may be relevant to mul- Miller, A.D. (1994). Effects of immediate and tisensory teaching methods that are often recom- delayed error correction on the acquisition mended in the teaching of reading (Uhri & Shep- and maintenance of sight words by students herd, 1993). These methods should be evaluated with developmental disabilities. Journal of against methods that use fewer learning channels Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 177-178. to systematically determine whether they produce Beck, R., Conrad, D., & Anderson, P. (1995). Basic more rapid or better learning. skill builder’s handbook. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Burns, M.K., Tucker, J.A., Frame, J., Foley, S., & Hauser, A. (2000). Interscorer, alternate- form, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability of Gickling’s model of curricu- lum-based assessment for reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 353-360. Carnine, D. (1980). Relationship between teaching method and correction procedure for initial word recognition skills. Education and Treat- ment of Children, 3, 93-98. Carnine, D., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, D. (2004). Direct instruction reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Combley, M. (Ed.). (2001). The Hickey multisensory language course. London: Whurr. Cooke, N.L., Guzaukas, R., Pressley, J.S., & Kerr, K. (1993). Effects of using a ratio of spell pro- grams with low-achieving students. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 362-369. Dolch, E.W. (1936). A basic sight vocabulary. The Elementary School Journal, 36, 456-460. Ehri, L.C. (1997). Learning to read and spell are one and the same, almost. In C.A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages 11 JOURNAL OF PRECISON TEACHING AND CELERATION, VOLUME 23, 2007, PAGES 2-13