An investigation into the effectiveness of paired reading with the incorporation of additional error corrective procedures

The aim of this literature review was to examine the effectiveness of the Paired Reading (PR) intervention, a one-to-one instruction approach to improving children\u27s fluency, accuracy, and comprehension. The effectiveness of PR in promoting a positive attitude towards reading and in increasing children\u27s sense of self-efficacy in reading was also investigated, focusing principally on children whose level of reading was below what was expected for their chronological age. It addressed the question of how well the intervention can be implemented by parents and explored the strategies used in PR to elucidate what aspects of the intervention may contribute to its success. The effectiveness of PR was also compared with other, less structured, reading methods such as Relaxed Reading and the Pause-Prompt-Praise intervention. Limitations were discussed in light of the literature and directions for future research were outlined. Children struggling to meet classroom curriculum standards due to insufficient reading mastery must receive immediate help to improve their reading skills to a viable level to prevent academic failure. The Paired Reading (PR) intervention incorporates strategies promoting enjoyable reading and numerous studies have supported its efficacy. However, research comparing PR with less structured reading methods that rely principally on positive feedback has found little difference in outcome, suggesting that it is positive feedback that accounts for PR\u27s success. Thus, this study compared PR with a variation of this intervention, Error Correction Reading (ECR), incorporating additional corrective procedures, to investigate whether these procedures would increase its efficacy, particularly in relation to reading accuracy and comprehension. Participants comprised five children who were behind in their reading, from three year three classes. As predicted, both interventions helped the children progress in their reading. However, the study failed to provide evidence for the superiority of ECR, complementing previous studies that suggest positive feedback primarily underlies PR\u27s success rather than error corrective procedures