An Analysis of the Reading Mastery Program: Effective Components ...

CHERYL SCHIEFFER, NANCY E. MARCHAND-MARTELLA, RONALD C. MARTELLA,
FLINT L. SIMONSEN, and KATHLEEN M. WALDRON-SOLER, Eastern Washington University
This paper provides the first published review
An Analysis of the
of the Reading Mastery program. As such, it pro-
vides an overview of the need to teach reading
Reading Mastery
and examines three focal areas of effective
reading instruction (i.e., oral language, decod-
Program: Effective
ing, and comprehension). Additionally, an
examination of how Reading Mastery aligns with
the research on effective skill development
Components and
approaches in these areas is provided. A
research review of studies using the Reading
Research Review
Mastery program was also conducted. Various
components of the investigations were sum-
marized. Finally, recommendations for future
Abstract: This paper provides an analysis of
research on Reading Mastery are described.
the Reading Mastery program. This analysis
includes three main sections. First, an
overview of the need to teach reading is pro-
Overview of the Need
vided. Second, three focal areas (i.e., oral
language, decoding, and comprehension)
to Teach Reading
are discussed. How Reading Mastery aligns
with these focal areas is examined. Finally, a
Learning to read in the elementary years is an
comprehensive research review of 25 pub-
essential stepping stone toward successful edu-
lished studies and two large-scale research
cational performance and advancement in our
reviews are detailed. Twenty-one compara-
society. Yet the National Assessment of
tive studies were grouped according to pop-
Educational Progress (2001) reported that 37%
ulation under investigation (i.e., general
education [n = 4]; general education reme-
of fourth-grade students cannot even read at a
dial readers [n = 8]; and special education
basic level, and only 32% read at or above a
[n = 9]). Four studies investigating Reading
proficient level, defined by the National
Mastery without comparison to other reading
Assessment Governing Board as the level all
curricula were described. Study characteris-
students should reach. Further, the National
tics (i.e., program or program comparison,
Institute of Child Health and Human
participants, research design, dependent
Development (NICHD; 1996) noted that 40%
variable(s), program effectiveness or most
of the overall school population has reading
effective program, fidelity of implementation,
problems severe enough to hinder their reading
maintenance/longitudinal data, and social
validity data) were examined for each of the
enjoyment. According to the NICHD, the
25 investigations. Fourteen of the 21 studies
(67%) favored Reading Mastery/DISTAR
Reading, while other programs were favored
in three studies (14%). Nine directions for
Journal of Direct Instruction, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 87–119. Address
future investigations of the effects of Reading
correspondence to Nancy Marchand-Martella at
Mastery are discussed.
nmartella@mail.ewu.edu.
Journal of Direct Instruction
87

---

inability to decode single words is the most
• Use guided oral reading with appropriate
reliable indicator of a reading disorder. In addi-
error correction techniques and feedback
tion, the NICHD noted that “phonological
strategies to facilitate reading fluency.
awareness appears to be the most prevalent lin-
guistic deficit in disabled readers” (p. 36).
• Develop vocabulary and use systematic
Children who are classified as poor readers are
instruction to promote reading compre-
characterized by their lack of phonemic aware-
hension.
ness at the beginning of first grade (Juel,
1988). These same children have an 88%
To ensure that the goal of reading acquisition
chance of being poor readers by the end of
is realized by all students, a reading program
fourth grade. Hall and Moats (1999) noted that
that incorporates these research-validated
how reading is taught in schools is connected to
components is needed. Reading Mastery is one
the number of students who experience read-
such program. Reading Mastery is a basal read-
ing difficulty and the decline in reading scores.
ing program with multiple levels (I–VI), an
accelerated Fast Cycle program, and Plus (this
Educators have seen a steady shift over the
level includes information from Language for
last decade in how best to teach reading. At
Learning, Reading Mastery I, and Reasoning and
the beginning of the 1990s the whole language
Writing). Reading Mastery incorporates decoding,
approach was widely adopted in schools as the
comprehension, literary, and study skills
dominant model for teaching reading. With
throughout all levels. Once skills are intro-
declining reading scores, the mid-1990s gave
duced they appear repeatedly in later lessons.
way to the more “balanced” approach of pro-
This scope and sequence is intended to
viding phonics instruction within a literature-
ensure mastery of skills taught through the
based curriculum (Carnine, Silbert, &
progression of Reading Mastery.
Kameenui, 1997). In 1997, Congress asked the
NICHD to form a panel of respected profes-
sors, researchers, and educators in an effort to
Focal Areas of Effective
assess the research on reading instruction and
to formulate recommendations for the most
Reading Instruction
effective way to teach reading. This National
Reading Panel (NRP), consisting of 14 indi-
Three primary focal areas are needed for children
viduals, drew upon approximately 15,000 sci-
to become effective readers. These areas include
entific studies conducted prior to 1966 and
oral language, decoding, and comprehension.
another 100,000 between 1966 and 1998. The
panel finalized their report in February of 1999
Oral Language:
and offered these recommendations on compo-
A Reading Prerequisite
nents of effective reading instruction
Oral language skills are critical prerequisites
(Institute of Child Health and Human
for successful reading. In fact, Polloway,
Development, 2000):
Patton, and Serna (2001) noted that language
development is linked to success in and out of
• Teach phonemic awareness explicitly.
school and is a key area of intervention in
homes, schools, and communities. Oral lan-
• Provide systematically sequenced phonics
guage can be divided into two components:
instruction.
receptive and expressive. Receptive language
refers to words that are recognized or under-
• Teach synthetic phonics where letters are
stood. This type of language often is measured
converted into phonemes and then blended
by orally presenting a word and asking the stu-
to form whole words.
dent to identify the corresponding object (e.g.,
88
Summer 2002

---

“Touch your nose”). Expressive language
nomenon as the increasing “language gap.” The
refers to the words that are produced by stu-
author concluded that direct language teaching
dents. To measure oral expressive language
that includes instruction in phoneme awareness
students are commonly asked to state the
and the experience of language simulation
appropriate word for presented objects (e.g.,
throughout the school day is necessary for chil-
point to a picture of a dog and ask, “What is
dren with linguistic differences.
this?”). Thus, “these oral language skills, both
receptive and expressive, play a vital role in
Research has shown that early reading is based
student’s progress through school” (Meese,
largely on good oral language skills (Snow,
2001, p. 256).
Good readers have been shown to differ from
Technical note:
poor readers in the speed and accuracy with
Develop strong oral language skills
which they can orally identify (both receptive-
ly and expressively) colors, numbers, and
High oral language skills are important for early
objects, as well as letters (Catts, 1991;
and fluent reading. Progress in learning to read
Olofsson & Niedersoe, 1999; Scarborough,
requires successful integration of oral language
1991; Walker, Greenwood, Hart, & Carta,
comprehension with specific literacy skills so that
1994). Further, Meese (2001) noted that
students can incorporate new words into their
expressive vocabulary, naming skills, and let-
knowledge base. For students who are mature
ter identification were associated with a
readers, oral language comprehension is the
child’s future reading skill. This research sug-
strongest predictor of written language compre-
gests that oral language skills are important to
hension (Dale & Crain-Thoreson, 1999).
the development of reading. Interestingly,
Snow et al. (1998) summarized several language
Meese (2001) and Snyder and Downey (1997)
skills studies that found high correlations between
noted the relationship between language
early preschool language and reading skill 3 to 5
development and reading disabilities.
years later.
Although the relationship was unclear, they
Senechal (1997) found that repeated readings of
speculated that difficulty with such oral lan-
a story (a receptive language activity) were asso-
guage components as syntax (word order),
ciated with greater gains in oral language for
phonology (sounds), and semantics (vocabu-
prekindergarten children.
lary for labeling objects and concepts) may
hinder the reading skills of students.
Hart and Risley (1995) examined the language
skills of 1- to 2-year-old children from 42 families
Moats (2001) investigated factors related to
(high, middle, and low SES) for 2.5 years. They
beginning reading achievement by following
found striking differences in later vocabulary
800 kindergarten and first-grade children from
growth rate, vocabulary use, and IQ test scores
classrooms in nine low performing schools
with higher vocabulary rates and IQ scores noted
through the third and fourth grades. Moats
for children who came from higher SES back-
found that as children with deficiencies in
grounds. These skills were noted to be critical
vocabulary and comprehension progress from
measures of an individual’s ability to succeed at
grade to grade, the gap in their language skills
school and in the workplace.
seems to increase and greatly affects their read-
Kuder (1991) found that students with better lan-
ing performance. Although they may be able to
guage skills such as word discrimination and sen-
understand the basics of primary text in kinder-
tence imitation, consistently demonstrated better
garten and first grade, by the fourth grade these
reading gains than their peers with poorer lan-
students are lost in the more complex text they
guage skills.
encounter in school. Moats described this phe-
Journal of Direct Instruction
89

---

Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Recognizing that oral
Decoding: Learning to Read
language skills are a necessary prerequisite to
Decoding, or translating language from printed
learning to read, Reading Mastery addresses oral
text, is best taught using a program that
language development in prereading activities.
explicitly teaches phonemic awareness, phon-
Specifically, Reading Mastery Plus combines the
ics, and blending (NICHD, 1996; NRP, 2000;
skills taught in a language program, Language
Snow et al., 1998). This approach is referred
for Learning, with Reading Mastery I and a writ-
to as a code–emphasis approach. By contrast, a
ing curriculum, Reasoning and Writing. Reading
meaning–emphasis approach, (e.g., whole lan-
guage) relies on contextual cues such as pic-
Mastery Plus provides instruction on grammar,
tures and story themes, and structural cues
listening skills, and vocabulary in addition to
such as word types including nouns or verbs as
decoding and comprehension skills. This pro-
a means of teaching reading. Research contin-
gram provides the additional instruction in oral
ues to demonstrate the superiority of a code-
language skills needed for students who may
emphasis program in the acquisition of begin-
be struggling with reading acquisition due to
ning reading skills (Carnine et al., 1997;
language deficits.
Foorman, 1995; Salerno, 1992).
Technical note:
Focused instruction in phonics is superior to a nonphonics approach
Students should decode words by attending to their letter–sound relationships. Context and picture cues
should only be used as a secondary tool in word recognition (Snow et al., 1998).
Students receiving direct instruction in the alphabetic principle increased their word-reading skills at a
significantly faster rate than students who were taught the alphabetic principle indirectly through expo-
sure to literature (Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998).
Years of research have consistently found that good readers do not rely on context and prediction for
word recognition. Further, students need explicit instruction in alphabetic coding as some students in
whole language classrooms do not acquire the alphabetic principle through immersion in print and
writing activities (Stanovich, 1994).
Juel and Minden-Cupp (2000) analyzed word recognition instruction in 4 first-grade classrooms.
Classroom 1 had virtually no phonics or phonemic awareness instruction. Word recognition in this
classroom consisted of a “word wall” exercise where new words were introduced in front of the entire
class at the onset of language arts instruction. Blending and sounding-out were never modeled.
Classroom 2 made use of little books containing poems to teach word recognition. The class was divid-
ed into three groups, all of which received some (20%–38% of the time) phonics instruction. Classroom
3 used numerous books, poetry, writing, and discussion of texts. Little systematic phonics instruction
existed; however, the teacher capitalized on an opportunity to teach phonics when a new word was
presented in a book or poem. Peer coaching techniques were used for word recognition in reading
groups. Classroom 4 used a systematic phonics approach. The class was divided into three groups.
The lowest group received more phonics and phonemic awareness training while the highest group
spent a higher percentage of their time reading texts. Toward the end of the year, more focus on
vocabulary and text discussion was noted. Reading results at the end of the year demonstrated the
phonics approach was superior. Students in Classroom 4 were reading at a late-second grade level;
students in Classroom 3 were reading at a mid-second grade level; students in Classroom 2 were read-
ing at the end-of-the-first grade level, and students in Classroom 1 were reading at the primer level.
90
Summer 2002

---

When students are learning how to read, three
lesson on phonemic awareness taken from
essential components should be taught in an
Reading Mastery I:
explicit manner. First, students should be
taught that words are comprised of a sequence
Teacher: “Listen. Ham-burg-er. Say it fast.”
of isolated sounds or phonemes. This step is
Hamburger.
commonly referred to as the acquisition of
phonemic awareness. Second, students must
Then later the task becomes more focused on
learn the sounds that correspond to individual
blending phonemes:
and combinations of letters (phonics). The
Teacher: “Listen. sss-lll-aaa-mmm. Say it
final step in beginning reading acquisition is
fast.” Slam.
the blending of these individual sounds to
form meaningful whole words that are said fast
These phonemic awareness skills are an
so they form real words (e.g., mmmaaannn =
essential precursor to decoding new and unfa-
man). In explicit instruction, teachers provide
miliar words.
clear modeling and guided practice to stu-
dents, thereby demonstrating exactly what
students must know. In implicit instruction
Technical note: Teach phonemic
teachers do not directly state the relationships
awareness explicitly
between what is being taught and what stu-
Compelling evidence shows that explicit training
dents should know, but rather assume the stu-
in phonemic awareness is invaluable toward the
dents will naturally arrive at the desired out-
goal of efficient and effective reading instruction.
comes based on their own unique interactions
Further, the key to acquisition of phonemic aware-
with the reading immersion process.
ness involves explicit instruction rather than age
or natural development (Adams, 1990; Snow et
Phonemic Awareness Skills
al., 1998).
Must Be Taught Explicitly
“First grade instruction should be designed to pro-
Numerous researchers have shown a consistent
vide explicit instruction and practice with sound
link between phonemic awareness skills and
structures that lead to phonemic awareness”
reading acquisition (Cunningham, 1990;
(Snow et al., 1998, p. 194).
Foorman et al., 1998; McGuinness,
According to the Institute of Child Health and
McGuinness, & Donohue, 1995; Smith et al.,
Human Development (2000), the research to date
2001; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992; Troia,
strongly supports the concept that explicitly and
1999; Vandervelden & Siegel, 1997).
systematically teaching children to manipulate
Phonemic awareness skills include perceiving
phonemes significantly improves children’s read-
words as a sequence of various sounds, isolat-
ing and spelling skills. One study by Davidson
ing and segmenting individual phonemes,
and Jenkins (1994) found that students taught
blending phonemes into whole words, and
both segmenting and blending skills showed sig-
rhyming. Snow et al. (1998) concluded that
nificant transfer to word-reading and spelling
good phonemic awareness skills are the most
tasks. A similar conclusion that decoding requires
successful predictor of future superior reading
both the skill to segment and blend phonemes,
performance. These skills are not natural for
plus some skill to manipulate phonemes was
most students; therefore, they must be taught
reached by Lenchner, Gerber, and Routh (1990).
in an explicit manner. The importance of
Several instructional design features were among
these skills is recognized through the early
those recommended for phonemic awareness
emphasis in Reading Mastery on phonemic
continued on next page
awareness training. The following is a sample
Journal of Direct Instruction
91

---

correspondence looks like this in Reading
continued from previous page
Mastery:
interventions. These include: explicit instruction in
blending and segmenting as auditory tasks, par-
Write m on the blackboard. Point to m. “This
ticularly at the phoneme level; systematically
sound is mmm. What sound?”
sequencing tasks; increasing opportunities to pro-
duce sounds at the phoneme level; and providing
(Students say the sound, “mmm”).
explicit instruction to increase the conspicuous-
ness of strategies that allow children to perceive
By contrast, implicit instruction is ambiguous
phonemes. These features are accomplished
and requires students to draw their own con-
directly by teacher modeling of specific sounds,
clusions.
having students produce specific sounds, and
having students form mental manipulations of
Forty letter–sound correspondences are taught
sounds given a concrete representation (Smith et
in Reading Mastery. The letter–sounds (e.g., c
al., 2001).
= /k/, s = /sss/) and letter–sound combina-
tions (e.g., qu = /koo/, er = /er/) are taught in
In a study involving 84 kindergarten and first-
isolation based on high utility and frequency
grade children, Cunningham (1990) found that
in print. Only the most common sounds for
explicit instruction in phonemic awareness was
each letter or letter combination are taught
superior to implicit instruction in helping children
apply the components of phonemic awareness to
initially. Letters that look and/or sound similar
the actual act of reading.
are separated and sequenced carefully to
decrease confusion (e.g., b and d are separated
Children who were taught explicit manipulation
by 94 lessons).
of sounds demonstrated significantly higher
phonemic awareness skills than children who
Reading Mastery aligns decodable text by pre-
were not taught sound manipulation (Wise, Ring,
senting only the letter–sound correspondences
& Olson, 1999).
already taught in previous lessons.
Children who do not demonstrate phonemic
Letter–sound correspondences are carefully
awareness are unable to decode words with accu-
sequenced to allow for meaningful words and
racy and fluency (i.e., the distinguishing character-
stories to appear in print as soon as possible.
istics of persons with reading difficulties). Further,
For example, by lesson 80 of Reading Mastery I
phonemic awareness skills should be taught explic-
and lesson 40 of Fast Cycle I/II, students are
itly at an early age (NICHD, 1996).
reading a series of meaningful sentences that
contain words with both long and short vowel
sounds. Decodable text provides students an
avenue to practice their new knowledge of let-
Letter–Sound Correspondence
ter–sound relationships in the context of real
Must Be Taught Explicitly
reading. Less decodable text requires students
In Reading Mastery, letter–sound correspon-
to guess, predict, or use contextual cues to fig-
dence is introduced before letter–name corre-
ure out words. These strategies have been
spondence. Focusing on letter–sound corre-
shown to be ineffective and inefficient
spondence has been shown to facilitate blend-
(NICHD, 1996).
ing, thereby accelerating reading acquisition.
This emphasis on letter–sound correspon-
Reading Mastery incorporates the use of special-
dence results in more efficient reading instruc-
ized orthography. Some letters are connected
tion (NICHD, 1996). Letter–name instruction
(e.g., sh, wh, qu, th) to prompt only one
is not introduced until Reading Mastery II.
sound, while others have lines over them to
Explicit instruction in teaching letter–sound
signal a specific pronunciation (e.g., ing and
92
Summer 2002

---

vowels). Letters that are present in words but
introduced until later, once mastery has been
are not heard are printed in a smaller font
reached on the lower-case letters.
(e.g., the e on CVCe words). The Reading
Mastery orthography reduces the number of
Blending Must Be Taught Explicitly
letter–sound correspondences that students
Once phonemic awareness skills and
must learn initially, allowing for more decod-
letter–sound correspondences have been
able sounds to be used earlier in meaningful
taught, a final component in beginning reading
and interesting stories. This orthography is
acquisition is sounding-out or blending.
faded in Reading Mastery I and is completely
Decoding unfamiliar words requires the blend-
eliminated in Reading Mastery II.
ing of letter–sound correspondences into
meaningful whole words. Readers approximate
Reading Mastery does not incorporate the use of
the word by sounding-out its phonemes and
then match that approximation to a real word
capital letters initially in the program. Capital
from their oral vocabulary that fits the context
letters are less often seen in everyday print,
of the passage. A recommendation for begin-
making them a lower priority for beginning
ning reading instruction from the NICHD
instruction of letter–sound relationships.
(1996) suggests teaching students to blend
Letters with visually similar upper and lower-
sounds together by moving left to right, saying
case counterparts (e.g., Ss, Cc, and Pp) are
the sounds for each letter. Words composed
introduced at the same time. The capital let-
only of the letter–sound relationships that stu-
ters that are not visually similar to their lower-
dents already have learned should be included
case counterparts (e.g., Gg, Rr, and Aa) are not
in this practice.
Technical note: Teach letter–sound correspondences explicitly
An optimal reading program is one that teaches phonemic awareness skills such as segmentation and
blending in combination with letter–sound correspondence (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Byrne & Fielding-
Barnsley, 1991; Murray, 1998; Spector, 1995; Stanovich, 1994).
Studies have consistently shown that programs incorporating systematic instruction on letter–sound cor-
respondence promote higher achievement in both word recognition and spelling in early grades and
for children who are lower performers or are from lower socioeconomic status groups (Adams, 1990).
The NICHD (1996) reported that all phonics instructional methods were not equal. Explicit instruction in
which letter–sound correspondences were taught in isolation (e.g., “This letter says /sss/”), not in the
context of words or stories (e.g., “Sun starts with an s”), was most effective.
According to the Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000) the greatest improvements in
reading were seen from a program that combined systematic (i.e., carefully sequenced) and synthetic
(explicit conversion of letters into sounds and then blended into whole words) phonics. These gains were
noted for typical and high achievers as well as lower achievers and students with learning disabilities.
Students who receive explicit training in letter–sound correspondence were more accurate on word
recognition tests consisting of regular and irregular words than students who received whole word train-
ing or no training (Haskell, Foorman, & Swank, 1992).
Students with more letter–sound instruction demonstrated a significant increase in accurate reading rate
of both regular and irregular words over students with less instruction in letter–sound correspondence
(Foorman, Francis, Novy, & Liberman, 1991).
Journal of Direct Instruction
93

---

In Reading Mastery, teachers model the blend-
decoding during oral reading. Finally, providing
ing skill, then students repeat the process.
an appropriate placement within the series
Letters are blended together without stopping
should enable students to be both challenged
between the sounds; referred to as the
and successful with their reading curriculum.
“Engelmann Blending Strategy” (Hastings,
Tangel, Bader, & Billups, 1995). The blending
Build accuracy and fluency. Accuracy is the skill to
strategy is initiated once students have learned
identify sounds and words correctly while
the first two sounds presented in the program.
reading fluency is the skill to read text with
ease, efficiency, and expression. Students must
Additional Design Features
first be accurate decoders before fluency can
Many other research-validated features are
become the focus of instruction. As readers
incorporated in Reading Mastery. These include
become more fluent, decoding becomes more
accuracy and fluency instruction, specific and
automatic, with less time and effort required
immediate feedback and error corrections, and
for word recognition (Carnine et al., 1997;
an appropriate placement within the program.
Levy, Nicholls, & Kohen, 1993).
Accuracy and fluency instruction is intended
to develop proficient readers who can focus
Comprehension is associated with faster read-
their attention to the comprehension of text.
ing rates (Lane & Mercer, 1999; Mastropieri,
Specific feedback and error corrections are
Leinart, & Scruggs, 1999; Reutzel &
incorporated to help promote accuracy in
Hollingsworth, 1993; Slocum, Street, &
Technical note: Teach blending explicitly
An analysis of first-grade reading programs showed only 20% of basal reading programs included
explicit blending instruction at high levels, and an additional 10% included this instruction at minimal
levels (Snow et al., 1998).
A study by Weisberg and Savard (1993) demonstrated that students who were taught to blend
words without pausing between the sounds (e.g., mmmaaannn) led to word recognition, whereas
pausing between the sounds (e.g., mmm/aaa/nnn) did not lead to word recognition. The
letter–sound correspondences and other prerequisite skills such as reading left to right were explicitly
taught to all students in the same manner. Groups were then divided into a 1-second pause interval
and a 0-second pause interval between sounds. All children could produce the sounds for each letter
with equal accuracy. However, this did not lead to word recognition for the students in the 1-second
pause interval group.
Once students learn the precursory strategy skills of letter–sound correspondence, sounding-out, and
blending, these strategies can be generalized to activities that require decoding of unfamiliar words
(Stein, Carnine, & Dixon, 1998). By contrast, when students learn specific sight words, they do not
have a strategy to apply to other words that have not previously been encountered.
Teaching students a strategy to identify new words was very successful in a study by Walton, Walton,
and Felton (2001). First-grade students with weak prereading skills were taught a strategy where they
sounded-out and blended individual letters to form words. These students caught up to their higher per-
forming peers in word reading and maintained these results 4 months later.
Phonemic segmentation and blending skills have been found to differentiate successful and unsuccessful
readers. In addition, students who received extra attention in the act of blending were found to make
superior gains on beginning reading achievement tests (Taylor, Harris, Pearson, & Garcia, 1995).
94
Summer 2002

---

Gilberts, 1995). With automaticity in decod-
tions. If students make a decoding error, they
ing, readers are able to attend more to the
are asked to return to the beginning of the
meaning of text. Recent recommendations
sentence and read it again allowing extra prac-
from the Institute of Child Health and
tice toward the goals of accurate and fluent
Human Development (2000) and Snow et al.
decoding through repeated readings. Partner
(1998) emphasize the importance of develop-
readings involve students reading the daily
ing and achieving fluency. Despite these rec-
passage to each other prior to rate-and-accura-
ommendations, a survey of first-grade basal
cy checkouts with the teacher or completing
reading programs showed only 40% of the pro-
independent seatwork.
grams provided activities at high levels specifi-
cally labeled as opportunities to build reading
Provide specific and immediate feedback on oral read-
fluency (Snow et al.).
ing errors. Although Reading Mastery incorporates
the use of silent reading throughout all levels
Reading Mastery includes techniques to devel-
during independent student activities, the pri-
op accurate and fluent oral reading through
mary focus remains on guided oral reading.
the use of repeated readings and partner read-
Carnine et al. (1997) noted that when students
ings. In early levels, the stories are first read
are learning new, complex material, immediate
by students to work on decoding skills and
feedback is preferred. Student oral reading
then again to answer comprehension ques-
allows educators to identify errors effectively
Technical note: Build accuracy and fluency
Neely (1995) compared the effects of whole language, precision teaching, and Reading Mastery on
the fluency achievement of first-grade students over 3 years. First graders in Years 1 and 2 were taught
via the whole language approach of Silver Burdett-Ginn World of Reading Series. The Year 3 first
graders were taught using the combination of precision teaching and Reading Mastery. This latter
group demonstrated a fluency rate of 1.8 and 2.0 times faster than Year 1 and 2 students, respectively.
Neely concluded that a combination of precision teaching and Reading Mastery was superior to whole
language in facilitating reading fluency.
“If fluency building is not emphasized, students may remain disfluent readers indefinitely” (Carnine et
al., 1997, p. 226). Carnine et al. cited two studies (Sindelar, Monda, & O’Shea, 1990; Weinstein &
Cooke, 1992) demonstrating positive effects of repeated readings on student reading fluency. Those
findings suggest that multiple readings of story passages would benefit all types of students in the class-
room. In addition, Mastropieri et al. (1999) found that repeated readings of text enhanced fluency.
Fluency is one of several critical factors necessary for comprehension of text. If decoding is laborious
and inefficient, it will be difficult for students to remember what they are reading. In general, reading
practice is recognized as a contributing factor to fluency acquisition. The Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (2000) named two variations of practice to be used in instruction: (a) oral read-
ing with systematic and explicit guidance and feedback from the teacher, and (b) silent reading which
encourages students to read on their own out of the classroom setting.
Aside from repeated readings, timed readings also can enhance reading rate. Short 100–300 word
passages should be read and timed with a graph marking the results and progress in words per
minute. These passages should not be above a student’s instructional level (i.e., the highest level at
which a student can read with few errors and satisfactory comprehension) so that decoding is not a
struggle (Taylor et al., 1995).
Journal of Direct Instruction
95

---

and efficiently, and to provide appropriate
“Starting over.” (at the beginning of the sen-
feedback or correction procedures. Providing
tence or column)
specific and immediate feedback to students
Provide a delayed test for the individual stu-
during guided oral reading enables them to
dent who made the error.
read more accurately and consequently facili-
tates comprehension of text (Institute of Child
For Reading Mastery II–VI (after lesson 90 in
Health and Human Development, 2000).
Level II)
“That word is _____.”
In Reading Mastery, every error is corrected.
These corrections are directed to all students,
“What word?”
even if only one student makes the error. Error
“Spell _____.”
correction procedures in Reading Mastery are
specific to the error. For example, the follow-
“What word did you spell?”
ing is the correction procedure for a word
“Starting over.” (at the beginning of the sen-
identification error:
tence)
Provide appropriate placement and regular assess-
For Reading Mastery I:
ment of progress. To ensure appropriate place-
“That word is ______.”
ment in the program, Reading Mastery contains
a placement test in every level that should be
“Everybody, sound it out. Get ready.” (Loop
given to all students at the beginning of each
under the letters.)
school year. These placement tests provide
“What word?” “Yes, ______.”
information about the appropriate level and
Technical note: Provide immediate feedback on errors
Heubusch and Lloyd (1998) analyzed 24 studies of error correction procedures completed from
1979–1994. Their analysis yielded a strong recommendation for the use of correction procedures dur-
ing oral reading. Although one particular correction procedure was not found to be superior, they
offered the following guidelines:
1. The appropriate technique depends on the reading goal. If fluent, accurate reading is the goal,
word supply (i.e., teacher provides the correct word) should be used. If letter–sound correspondence
is being learned, or if time for practice exists, a phonetic emphasis correction (i.e., sounding-it-out)
should be used.
2. The timing of corrective feedback should be immediate and direct.
3. Correction procedures should require an active, correct response by the student.
4. Interruptions during the reading process do not hinder comprehension.
Pany and McCoy (1988) studied the effects of providing feedback on every oral reading error, provid-
ing feedback only on errors that changed the meaning of the text, and no feedback on any errors.
They found that when corrective feedback was given after every oral error, students made significantly
fewer overall errors, fewer errors that changed the meaning of passage reading, fewer errors in word
lists, and fewer errors on comprehension questions. In addition, only when corrective feedback was
given after every oral error did students demonstrate a further reduction of errors on delayed tests.
96
Summer 2002

---