|
| Sometimes if it Quacks Like a Duck it Isn't a Duck: An Analysis of Behavior Taught During Reading Instruction |
| Monday, May 31, 2004 |
| 10:30 AM–11:50 AM |
| Clarendon |
| Area: EDC/VBC; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Sara C. Ernsbarger (Mercy College) |
| Discussant: Ralph Gardner III (The Ohio State University) |
| Abstract: . |
| |
| Reading as Textually or Intraverbally Controlled Behavior: A Conceptual Analysis for Practice and Research in Beginning Reading Instruction |
| SARA ERNSBARGER (Mercy College), David Bicard (Hawthorne Country Day School), William L. Heward (The Ohio State University) |
| Abstract: Reading can be conceptualized as textually controlled verbal behavior. The behavior of proficient readers is controlled primarily by the printed word. Proficient readers rapidly decode text at the word-by-word level. Poor readers, by contrast, often use contextual cues (e.g., repetitiveness of text elements, ability to sight read some of the words in a sentence) to “figure out” the meaning of text. Although topographically similar to the verbal behavior of the textually controlled decoder, the verbal behavior of a “reader” using context cues comprises a functionally different response class (i.e., intraverbal behavior) if it is evoked by the context cues. Various instructional approaches and text structures commonly used with beginning readers will be discussed in terms of their likelihood of promoting textually and/or intraverbally controlled behavior. |
| |
| A Description of the Verbal Behavior of Students during Two Reading Instruction Methods |
| PATRICIA M. DALY (Ohio Dominican University) |
| Abstract: The responses of students during two reading methods, the language experience approach and two Mastery Learning programs, were analyzed using verbal operants. A description of student responding was generated for these methods. The purpose of the study was to answer the questions: What are the major controlling variables determining student reading behavior during the language experience approach and two Mastery Learning programs, and how do these controlling variables change across story reading sessions and across stories in the first method? Student responses by verbal operant were compared for both reading methods. Findings indicated higher frequencies of textual operants occurred in responses during the Mastery Learning programs. A greater reliance on intraverbal control was evident in responses during the language experience approach. It is suggested that students who can generate strong intraverbal responses and who may have visual discrimination problems during early reading instruction may benefit from the use of the language experience approach at this stage. |
| |
| Faux Fonics: A Behavioral and Instructional Analysis of Phonics Activities that Aren't |
| WILLIAM L. HEWARD (The Ohio State University), Charles L. Wood (The Ohio State University), Mary Damer (Rockford Public Schools) |
| Abstract: A large and unassailable body of research has found that explicit instruction in phonics-the relationship between printed text and the sounds of spoken English-imparts knowledge and skills that enable students to read new text fluently with comprehension. Consistent with that knowledge, millions of children each school day participate in instructional activities their teachers believe are helping to develop critical phonics skills. Unfortunaterly, many so-called phonics based activities and curricula used in classrooms today do not teach children the sounds of printed text. For example, a popular "phonics lesson" for begining readers features work sheets that require students to circle words that begin or end with the same sounds as the objects in the pictures. Such lessons are faux phonics because students can complete such work sheets without speaking or hearing the words and key letter-sounds depicted by the pictures. Attempting to teach phonics with soundless activities is "like trying to teach math without numbers" (Dixon, 2003). The authors will (a) identify requisit components of all genuine phonics activites, (b) show examples of faux phonics, (c) explain how to detect false phonics, and (d) suggest ways to turn fake phonics into genuine phonics instruction that will help students become better readers. |
|
| |