Effects of two error-correction procedures on oral reading errors. Word supply versus sentence repeat.

The teacher tested two ways to fix oral reading errors. Kids with intellectual disability read short stories aloud. Each time a child misread a word, the teacher either said the correct word or had the child repeat the word and reread the whole sentence.

The sessions alternated every day so the team could see which fix worked better. No extra rewards were given; the correction itself was the teaching tool.

Both fixes cut reading errors compared with days when no help was given. The sentence-repeat method won. Kids made fewer mistakes right after the lesson and still read better one week later.

Simply supplying the word helped a little, but having the child say the word and reread the sentence helped more.

Aravamudhan et al. (2020) used the same prompt-and-fade idea to fix speech sound errors in children with autism. Both studies show that quick, clear corrections teach new verbal forms without extra prizes.

Madsen et al. (1968) proved decades ago that teacher attention alone can improve classroom behavior. Stemmer (1990) moves that idea forward: attention tied to a specific correction rule boosts academic accuracy, not just good behavior.

Rasing et al. (1992) packaged prompts, praise, and practice to grow social words in deaf children with language delays. The reading study trims the package down to one tight step—repeat and reread—yet still gets strong, lasting gains.

You can drop this fix into any reading lesson tomorrow. When a student stumbles on a word, don’t just supply it. Ask the student to say the word and then reread the whole sentence. It takes five extra seconds and builds both accuracy and memory. No tokens, no points, no data sheets needed—just cleaner reading.