Faculty Publications


Comparison of meaning and graphophonemic feedback strategies for guided reading instruction of children with language delays

Document Type



Feedback cues, Guided reading, Language impaired children, Literacy instruction, Oral reading cues

Journal/Book/Conference Title

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology





First Page


Last Page



Purpose: Guided reading is a common practice recommended for children in the early stages of literacy development. While experts agree that oral reading facilitates literacy skills, controversy exists concerning which corrective feedback strategies are most effective. The purpose of this study was to compare feedback procedures stemming from 2 different theoretical perspectives on literacy development. Method: Fourteen children with specific language impairment (SLI) and 21 with typically developing language read aloud 2 stories to an adult examiner who presented corrective feedback prompts when reading miscues (errors) occurred. One type of feedback based on whole language principles emphasized meaning aspects of a text. The other type consisted of graphophonemic (GP) word-decoding strategies. Before reading, participants were provided instruction on 5 key words taken from each story text. This instruction emphasized either meaning or GP aspects of specific key words. Story comprehension questions followed readings. Results: Findings indicated that more miscued words were corrected overall through the use of GP feedback cues; however, some meaning-based instructional advantages were indicated for key word identifications for children with SLI. Higher story comprehension scores were yielded in the GP condition for both groups. Conclusions: Both meaning-based and phonemic key word reviews, prior to oral reading, appear to be effective strategies for children with SLI. The use of GP word-decoding cues may be more effective than meaning-based cues for facilitating correction of reading miscues during children's oral readings. Further research findings are discussed along with clinical implications for using corrective feedback procedures. © American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.

Original Publication Date


DOI of published version