Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T04:50:45.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Feedforward Video Self-Modelling on Reading Fluency and Comprehension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2015

Cathy Robson ,
Neville Blampied  and
Lawrence Walker
Cathy Robson*
Affiliation:
Ministry of Education, Christchurch, New Zealand University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Neville Blampied
Affiliation:
Ministry of Education, Christchurch, New Zealand University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Lawrence Walker
Affiliation:
Ministry of Education, Christchurch, New Zealand University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
*
Address for correspondence: Cathy Robson, Ministry of Education, PO Box 2522, Christchurch, 8140, NZ. Email: cathyrobson@hotmail.co.nz
Get access

Abstract

Being able to read at a fluent rate confers many advantages on an individual in both educational and wider social contexts throughout life. To be a fluent reader means that the individual can sustain high accuracy while reading at a rate appropriate to the material and the setting, and implies the development of automaticity in the cognitive processes involved in reading. Fluency has not, however, been the focus of much research. In this study, an observational learning technique — feedforward video self-modelling (FFVSM) — was used to improve children's reading fluency. Eleven primary (elementary) school children aged between 72 and 108 months, four girls and seven boys, viewed edited video footage of themselves seemingly reading a difficult text at a fluent rate six times over a 2-week period. Reading performance (accuracy, comprehension and rate) was measured at pre- and post-test using the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability, and fluency and comprehension scores were measured across the intervention period using the Science Research Associates Reading Laboratory (SRA) graded reading texts. The results showed that the majority of the children improved their reading fluency, comprehension and accuracy as well as reader self-perception (a proxy measure of self-efficacy). These positive results suggest that FFVSM could be a rapid, cost-effective intervention to be used within educational settings to promote fluent reading.

Keywords

video self-modellingreadingfluencyfeedforwardcomprehensionprimary schooliPads

Information

Type
Standard Papers
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , April 2015 , pp. 46 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2015 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Allington, R.L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 36, 556–561.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bilias-Lolis, E., Chafouleas, S.M., Kehle, T.J., & Bray, M.A. (2012). Exploring the utility of self-modeling in decreasing disruptive behavior in students with intellectual disability. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 82–92.Google Scholar
Blampied, N.M. (2007, August). Single-case research: Adaptations for the analysis of group data. Paper presented at the Association for Behavior Analysis International Conference, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Blampied, N.M. (2014). Using modified Brinley plots to analyse behavior change in individuals within groups. (Under review).Google Scholar
Buggey, T. (2007). A picture is worth . . .: Video self-modeling applications at school and home. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 151–158.Google Scholar
Buggey, T., & Ogle, L. (2012). Video self-modeling. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 52–70.Google Scholar
Burns, M.K. (2007). Reading at the instructional level with children identified as learning disabled: Potential implications for response-to-intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 297–313.Google Scholar
Collier-Meek, M.A., Fallon, L.M., Johnson, A.H., Sanetti, L.M.H., & Delcampo, M.A. (2012). Constructing self-modeling videos: Procedures and technology. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 3–14.Google Scholar
Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
Daly, E.J., & Kupzyk, S. (2013). Teaching reading. In Madden, G.J. & Dube, W.V. (Eds.), APA handbook of behavior analysis: Vol. 2. Translating principles into practice (pp. 405–443). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Deeney, T.A. (2010). One-minute fluency measures: Mixed messages in assessment and instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63, 440–450.Google Scholar
Dowrick, P.W. (1999). A review of self modeling and related interventions. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowrick, P.W. (2012). Self-modeling: Expanding the theories of learning. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 30–41.Google Scholar
Dowrick, P.W., & Raeburn, J.M. (1977). Video editing and medication to produce a therapeutic self-model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 1156–1158.Google Scholar
Dowrick, P.W., & Raeburn, J.M. (1995). Self-modeling: Rapid skill training for children with physical disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 7, 25–37.Google Scholar
Dowrick, P.W., Kim-Rupnow, W.S., & Power, T.J. (2006). Video feedforward for reading. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 194–207.Google Scholar
Edl, H. (2007). Examining the impact of video self-modelling on the reading fluency of upper elementary and middle school students with significant reading disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, IN.Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Yates, G.C. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hempenstall, K. (2009). Research-driven reading assessment: Drilling to the core. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 14, 17–52.Google Scholar
Henk, W.A., & Melnick, S.A. (1995). The reader self-perception scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48, 470–470.Google Scholar
Hersen, M., Barlow, D.H., & Kazdin, A.E. (1976). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. New York, NY: PergamonPress.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, C.H., Prater, M.A., & Dowrick, P.W. (2004). Reading comprehension and fluency: examining the effects of tutoring and video self-modeling on first-grade students with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 89–103.Google Scholar
Hudson, R.F., Lane, H.B., & Pullen, P.C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58, 702–714.Google Scholar
Jacobson, N.S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 59, 12–19.Google Scholar
Johnson, K.R., & Layng, T.V. (1996). On terms and procedures: Fluency. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 281–288.Google Scholar
Kuhn, M.R., & Stahl, S.A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21.Google Scholar
Logan, G.D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspectives from the instance theory of automatization. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 13, 123–146.Google Scholar
Mastropieri, M.A., Leinart, A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1999). Strategies to increase reading fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 278–283.Google Scholar
National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: Author.Google Scholar
New Zealand Department of Education Reading Advisory Service. (1984). Informal Prose Inventory. Wellington, NZ: Author.Google Scholar
Neale, M.D. (1999). Neale analysis of reading ability: Manual (3rd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.Google Scholar
Parker, D.H., Scannell, G., & Science Research Associates. (1973). SRA Reading Laboratory: 1a. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Schunk, D.H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19, 159–172.Google Scholar
Skinner, C.H., & Shapiro, E.S. (1989). A comparison of taped-words and drill interventions on reading fluency in adolescents with behavior disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 123–33.Google Scholar
Smith, A., & Randell, B., (2002). PM benchmark kit: An assessment resource for emergent-12 years R.A. Southbank [Vic.]: Thomson Nelson.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Welsch, R.G. (2006). Increase oral reading fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 180–183.Google Scholar
Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T.V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral reading fluency. Theory into Practice, 30, 211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar