You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Do Errors on Classroom Reading Tasks Slow Growth in Reading?
Richard C. Anderson, Ian Wilkinson, Jana M. Mason, Larry Shirey and Paul T. Wilson
The Elementary School Journal
Vol. 88, No. 3, Special Issue: Schoolwork and Academic Tasks (Jan., 1988), pp. 266-280
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001956
Page Count: 15
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Error rates, Oral reading, Children, Reading comprehension, Classrooms, Learning, Classroom activities, Reading instruction, Reading achievement, Elementary schools
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Preview not available
The purpose of this article is a close examination of the evidence on error rate on classroom tasks. The finding of a negative relationship between error rate, especially rate of oral reading errors, and gains in reading achievement is generally interpreted to mean that a low rate of error leads to growth in reading. However, we argue that this relationship may be an epiphenomenon: (1) error rate on classroom tasks is a good measure of children's level of reading development, (2) standardized tests and other one-shot assessment instruments are always imperfect measures of reading level, (3) error rate correlates negatively with end-of-year achievement because it provides additional and more reliable information, beyond that contained in previous test scores, about children's reading ability. Findings from a microanalytic study of third-grade reading lessons confirmed that oral reading errors can have a positive influence on children's comprehension. Errors facilitated comprehension of non-turn-takers when task norms emphasized accurate oral reading but not when norms emphasized story understanding. According to our theory, an oral reading error followed by feedback fits the pattern of tension followed by resolution shown by other research to improve learning and memory. When the task is accurate oral reading, a failure to read fluently produces tension, which increases attention and instigates deeper processing or a greater "effort after meaning."
The Elementary School Journal © 1988 The University of Chicago Press