Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:47:04.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corrective Feedback in Whole Language Teaching: Implications for Children with Learning Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Barry A. Fields  and
Ann Kempe
Barry A. Fields*
Affiliation:
School of Education, University of Southern Queensland
Ann Kempe
Affiliation:
School of Education, University of Southern Queensland
*
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Dr Barry A Fields, Head of Program, Graduates Studies, School of Education, University of Southern Queensland.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Corrective feedback has long been regarded as an essential element in the teaching-learning process. There is, however, little agreement among educators as to what constitutes appropriate feedback. In reading instruction, views on error correction differ in relation to the perspective on reading adopted.

In this study, the corrective feedback of whole language teachers was examined. The responses of teachers to a set of oral reading miscues were compared to recommended practices for whole language practitioners and to ideal feedback behaviour based on a review of the literature on effective teaching. This information was then used as a basis for examining both the strengths and limitations of whole language instruction for children who experience difficulty in learning to read.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , 1992 , pp. 22 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulik, C.C., Kulik, J.A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213–238.Google Scholar
Brady, M.P. & Taylor, R.D. (1989). Instructional consequences in maintstreamed middle school classes: Reinforcement and corrections. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 31–36.Google Scholar
Cambourne, B. (1988). The Whole Story: Natural learning and the acquisition of literacy in the class room. Auckland: Ashton Scholastic.Google Scholar
Carnine, D. & Gilbert, J. (1979). Direct instruction reading. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.Google Scholar
Chan, L. K. S. (1991). Metacognition and remedial education. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 23, 4–10.Google Scholar
Clark, R.E., Aster, D. & Hession, M.A. (1987, April). When teaching kills learning: Types of mathemathantic effects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp 392–431). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Englert, C. (1983). Measuring special education teacher effectiveness. Exceptional Children, 50, 247–254.Google Scholar
Fields, B.A. (1991, September). The appropriateness of whole language instruction for mildly handicapped children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Association of Special Education, Brisbane.Google Scholar
Gable, R. & Hendrickson, J.M. (1979). Teacher feed back: Its use and impact on learner performance. Journal of Special Education Technology, 3, 29–35.Google Scholar
Goodman, K.S. (1970). Behind the eye: What happens in reading. In National Council of Teachers of English, Reading: Process and program . Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Goodman, K.S. (1986). What’s Whole in Whole Language? Ontario: Scholastic.Google Scholar
Goodman, K.S. (1973). Comprehension - centred reading, in Eckwall, E.G. (Ed.), Psychological factors in the teaching of reading. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.Google Scholar
Gray, B. (1987). How natural is ‘natural’ language teaching - employing wholistic methodology in the classroom. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 12, 3–19.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, J.M., Roberts, M. & Shores, R.E. (1978). Antecedent and contingent modelling procedures to teach reading to learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 524–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, J.V. (1979). On providing feedback to reading miscues. Reading World, 18, 342–350.Google Scholar
Hoffman, J.V. & Clements, R. (1984). Reading miscues and teacher verbal feedback. The Elementary School Journal, 84, 423–439.Google Scholar
Kameenui, E.J. & Simmons, D.C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.Google Scholar
Kemp, M. (1987). Watching children read and write: Observational records for children with special needs. Melbourne: Nelson.Google Scholar
Kulhavy, R.W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47, 211–232.Google Scholar
LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.Google Scholar
Larrivee, B. (1986). Effective teaching for mainstreamed students is effective teaching for all students. Teacher Education and Special Education, 9, 173–179.Google Scholar
Maguire, M.H. (1989). Understanding and implementing a whole-language program in Quebec. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 143–159.Google Scholar
McCoy, M. & Pany, D. (1986). Summary and analysis of oral reading corrective feedback research. The Reading Teacher, 39, 548–555.Google Scholar
Meyer, L.A. (1986). Strategies for correcting students wrong responses. The Elementary School Journal, 87, 228–241.Google Scholar
Palinscar, A.S. (1986). Metacognitive strategy instruction. Exceptional Children, 53, 118–124.Google Scholar
Palinscar, A.S. & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of Leanting Disabilities, 25, 211–225.Google Scholar
Pany, D. & McCoy, M. (1988). Effects of corrective feedback on word accuracy and reading comprehension of readers with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 546–550.Google Scholar
Pearson, P.D. (1989). Reading the whole-language movement. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 231–241.Google Scholar
Reith, H., Polsgrove, L. & Semmel, M. (1981). Instructional variables that make a difference: Attention to task and beyond. Exceptional Children Quarterly, 2, 61–71.Google Scholar
Reutzel, D.R. & Hollingsworth, P.M. (1988). Whole language and the practitioner. Academic Therapy, 23, 405–406.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, M.S. (1986). Error-correction during oral reading: A comparison of three techniques. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 182–192.Google Scholar
Schumm, J.S. & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General class room teachers’ perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scruggs, T.E. & Mastropieri, M.A. (1992). Effective Mainstreaming strategies for mildly handicapped students. The Elementary School Journal, 92, 389–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slaughter, H.B. (1988). Indirect and direct teaching in a whole language program. The Reading Teacher, 41, 30–34.Google Scholar
Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading. New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Wong, B.Y.L. (1987). How do the results of metacognitive research impact on the learning disabled individual? Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 189–195.Google Scholar