Reading Mastery 1,2 Fast Cycle 1/2. Learning to Read. Project Follow Through Figure 6-17: Reading Percentiles Scores Across Nine Follow Through Models (From Research on Direct Instruction: 25 Years Beyond Distar by Gary L. Adams and Siegfried Engelmann: page 82). Overview of Programs.
Reading Mastery 1,2 Fast Cycle 1/2
Learning to Read
Project Follow Through Figure 6-17: Reading Percentiles Scores Across Nine Follow Through Models(From Research on Direct Instruction: 25 Years Beyond Distar by Gary L. Adams and Siegfried Engelmann: page 82)
What skills would you use to decode the word rush?
brushingand ask students, “What word?”
Sequence of introduction controlled
(In RM II modifications gradually dropped and gone by L. 86)
Only lowercase (until RM II L 83)
Teaching letter names
Equal opportunity responding – fairness
In 30 minutes up to 100 responses – efficiency
Student involvement – promotes “on-task” behavior
Signal violationsResponse errors
Adams, G.L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on Direct Instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems.
Beck, I., & McCaslin, E.S. (1978). An analysis of dimensions that affect the development of code-breaking ability in eight beginning reading programs. LRDC Report No. 1978/6. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Learning Research and Development Center.
Engelmann, S., & Bruner, E.C., (2003). Reading Mastery Teacher’s Guide. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.
O’Conner, R., Jenkins, J., Cole, K., & Mills, P. (1993). Two apporaches to reading instruction with children with disabilities: Does program design make a difference? Exceptional Children, 59, 312-323.
Schieffer, C., Marchand-Martella, N., Martella, R., & Simonsen, F. (2002). The research base for reading mastery: Direct reading instruction. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Sexton, W. (1989). Effectiveness of the DISTAR reading program. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 289-293.