Overcorrection of oral reading errors. A comparison of individual- and group-training formats.
Group overcorrection gives the same reading-error drop as solo work while freeing teacher minutes and sparking peer learning.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The teacher tried two ways to fix oral reading errors in students with intellectual disability.
One way was one-to-one: the teacher worked with a single student.
The other way was small-group: three students took turns while the others listened.
The study used an alternating-treatments design.
Each child got both formats across different days so the team could compare results.
What they found
Both formats cut reading errors the same amount compared with no help.
The group format took half the teacher time.
Students who watched their peers also showed extra learning.
They began to self-correct before the teacher spoke.
How this fits with other research
Jones et al. (1977) showed the same time-saving edge in picture-naming drills ten years earlier.
Two-to-one beat one-to-one for speed and peer learning.
Richman et al. (2001) later extended the idea to preschoolers with autism.
They ran discrete-trial groups and still saw strong gains, proving the pattern holds across ages and skills.
Boudreau et al. (2015) looked at different error-correction styles, not group size.
They found each child had a favorite style, but did not test group delivery.
Together the papers say: group formats save time without hurting accuracy, yet individual tweaks may still matter for some learners.
Why it matters
You can cut direct teaching time in half by using small-group overcorrection.
Keep the same error-reduction power and gain free peer modeling.
Try three students per group, one reader at a time.
Watch for self-corrections from the listeners.
If a child stalls, shift to a brief solo trial, then return to the group.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run tomorrow’s oral reading drill with three students at a table; have each read aloud in turn while the others follow along and earn group points for every self-correction.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Overcorrection procedures have been found to be effective in increasing the reading proficiency of mentally retarded children. Evidence for the efficacy of overcorrection as a remediation procedure has been derived from studies using an individualized 1: 1, teacher-student, training format. In this study, an alternating-treatments design was used to measure the differential impact of an overcorrection procedure on the oral reading of four moderately mentally retarded children under individual-and group-training formats and a no-remediation control condition. During overcorrection, the teacher supplied the correct word when the child made an error and the child was then required to say the correct word five times before rereading the sentence in which it had occurred. Children made fewer oral reading errors under the two training formats when compared with the no-remediation control condition, but all children performed equally well under individual-and group-training formats. However, the generalization probe data suggest that the group-training format may increase the children's word recognition skills through incidental learning.
Behavior modification, 1987 · doi:10.1177/01454455870112003