INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
Vol21 No.1 2006
THE EFFECTS OF READING RACETRACKS AND FLASHCARDS ON SIGHT WORD
VOCABULARY: A CASE REPORT AND REPLICATION
Katherine Printz
and
T. F. McLaughlin
Gonzaga University
and
Margaret Band
Spokane Pubic Schools
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of five-day sight word
reads using a Dolch word list with reading racetrack and flashcard
procedure. The participant was a third grade male with a specific learning
disability. Data were collected on his correct and error rate using Dolch
sight words. A correct was defined as reading the word without any mistakes
or self-correcting immediately after an error was made. An error was
defined as reading the word incorrectly, pausing longer than 2 seconds, or
skipping to the next word. The data were gathered in the participant’s
resource room classroom. The design employed was an ABCDE single-case
design. The overall outcomes indicated a significant increase in corrects
with a sharp decrease in errors. The procedure was easy to carry out and
data collection was straightforward. Recommendations for future research
combining Direct Instruction procedures, reading racetracks, and flashcards
were made.
Many persons ranging from educators, parents, and policy makers agree that literacy is one of the
most important skills a student can apply to functional living in a complex society (Liberman &
Liberman, 1990; National Reading Panel, 2000). The research in reading indicates that children
who read well tend to succeed in school and in later adult (Carnine, Silbert, Kameenui, & Tarver,
2004; Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989; Slavin, 1996; Slavin, Madden, Dolan, Wasik, Ross, &
Smith, 1994). If these reading skills are not acquired and mastered, children have an increased
chance of later dropping out of school as well as being incapable of performing successfully in
today's complex and global society (Hansen & Eaton, 1978; Howard, McLaughlin, & Vacha,
1996; McLaughlin & Vacha, 1992a, 1992b; National Reading Panel, 2002).
There remains a great deal of disagreement regarding how to increase the likelihood that all
students will leave our current educational system able to read fluently. This has been called by
some as the reading wars. (National Reading Panel, 2000). Unfortunately, most school districts
have adopted a somewhat laissez-faire approach to teaching reading. Often, the approach they
employ is called whole language (Carnine et al., 2004; Liberman & Liberman, 1990; Weaver,
1990). With this approach, students acquire literacy naturally, in much the same way as they
acquire oral language (Goodman, 1986, 1989). While some students learn to read from this
approach, there is an increasing population of students who appear to require a more structured
and systematic approach to learn to read (Katz-Sulgrove, McLaughlin, & Peck, 2002; National
Reading Panel, 2000). For example, recent scholarship and analysis has called into question the
efficacy of employing many of the strategies of whole language with students who are at risk for
school problems (Katz-Sulgrove et al., 2002; Klobassa, McLaughlin, & Howard, 1994; Liberman
& Liberman, 1990; National Reading Panel, 2000). An additional difficulty is that many schools
and school districts continue to employ instructional methods that lack empirical support and
validity to teach literacy to their students (Carnine et al., 2004; Katz-Sulgrove, et al., 2002).
According to the current research literature, there are several effective and efficient teaching
103
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
Vol21 No.1 2006
strategies to improve reading fluency. These include evidence-based commercially available
curricular programs such as Direct Instruction (Carnine, et al., 2004). Also various classroom
instructional strategies that allow students to: (a) actively practice literacy skills until they reach
fluency (Lindsley, 1991; West, Young, & Spooner, 1990); (b) employ teacher-managed drill and
practice (Barbetta, Heron, & Heward, 1993; Barbetta, Heward, & Bradley, 1993; Shapiro, 1996);
(c) engage in class tutoring (Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989; Greenwood, et al., 1987;
Greenwood, et al., 1984; Greenwood, Hart, Walker, & Risley, 1994); (d) use key words in their
reading (O'Donnell, Weber, & McLaughlin, 2003); (e) self-tutor and/or use copy, cover, and
compare (Conley, Derby, McGwinn-Roberts, Weber, & McLaughlin, 2004; McLaughlin &
Skinner, 1996; Skinner, McLaughlin, & Logan, 1997); and (f) use reading racetracks (Anthony,
Rinaldi, Hern, & McLaughlin, 1997; Falk, Band, & McLaughlin, 2003; Rinaldi & McLaughlin,
1996; Rinaldi, Sells, & McLaughlin, 1997).
Reading racetracks have shown promise in assisting students with their reading. Several
components if these methods were incorporated in the present case report. Reading racetracks
employ the model, lead, test, and retest and the instructional principle of not introducing words
which are auditorily and visually similar in the same lesson (Carnine et al., 2004; Rinaldi et al.,
1997). The reading racetrack procedure also employs the precision teaching techniques of timed
readings, fluency building, probe sheets, student self-graphing, and drill and practice procedures
(Rinaldi et al., 1997; West et al., 1990).
The purpose of this case report was to increase accuracy and fluency of sight words with a single
student with learning disabilities. A second purpose was to, again, replicate and extend our
previous work with reading racetracks with a different student, words, and teacher developed and
constructed student racetrack.
Method
Participant and Setting
The participant was an eight-year-old male diagnosed with a specific learning disability. The
participant was selected for this study he read at the first grade level, and was two years below his
current grade level. The student received services for 60 minutes each morning.
The research took place in the special education resource room. The resource room was housed in
an elementary school in a large urban setting in the Pacific Northwest. The school was located in a
low socioeconomic area where over 70% of the students qualified for free and reduced lunch. This
classroom has been employed in one of our previous studies (Falk et al., 2003).
Dependent Variables and Measurement Procedures
The dependent variable was the number of correct or error Dolch words from flashcards taken
from a one-minute timing. When data for the student were gathered at 9:30 a. m., there were
usually three adults and from three to eight children in the room. Data were recorded every day on
a raw data sheet, a corrects and errors sheet, and plotted on a graph (Rinaldi et al., 1997).
During the baseline phase, the student read words on flashcards that were new. While he read the
words, corrects and errors were recorded for one minute. In the first session, the student read the
flashcards from the first intervention without having to do the racetrack. In the second and third
session, the student also read his new sets of words without using a racetrack. During
interventions, he completed the racetrack for a 1-minute timing and engaged in error drill with the
words he missed. Immediately following, he read the same flashcards he did for baseline while
corrects and errors were measured again. These were replicated each time a new racetrack and set
of flashcards were employed. Finally, each day the student engaged in the racetrack activity,
where he moved a toy race car up one square on a felt-board racetrack.
Experimental Design and Condition
An ABCDE single case replication design (Kazdin, 1982) was employed to evaluate the
effectiveness of the reading racetracks and flashcard procedure.
104
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
Vol21 No.1 2006
Baseline. During baseline, the student was timed for one minute on flashcards based on words that
were not in his immediate sight-word vocabulary. The baseline was in effect for three days with
flashcards with words that the student did not practice. On the first day, the student read the
flashcards from his first baseline and on the second and third day, he read a new set of flashcards
that included the words on his new racetrack. This was in effect for 3 school days.
Reading racetracks and flash cards 1 though 4. The student was told the words that he missed
during the racetrack. The first author pointed to the word again and asked what word? After that
was done with every word, the researcher randomly pointed to all words missed and asked the
child to say them until firm (Falk et al., 2003). The second, third, and fourth reading racetrack and
flash card phases employed these same, except that new words were placed on the racetrack and
the flashcards. However, a review of all words was carried out during the last day in each phase
for one minute. The number of school days that were employed per racetrack ranged from 4 to 5.
Reliability of Measurement
Reliability of measurement was taken during once during each of conditions.. The classroom
teacher and/or Para educator recorded number of corrects and errors during the 1-minute flashcard
drill. These data were gathered so that a simultaneous but independent record could be made.
Each of the five reliability checks generated 100% reliability as to the two dependent measures.
Results
Correct Rate
The mean correct rate during baseline 1 was 7.0. The correct rate during the first reading
racetracks and flashcards condition increased to 35 words per minute (range 21 to 50 words). His
average correct rate during the second reading racetrack and flashcard decreased, M = 19 words
per minute (range 3 to 34). The participant’s correct rate during the third reading racetrack and
flashcard phase further declined (M = 15.75; range 6 to 33 words). The mean correct rate during
the fourth reading racetrack and flashcard phase increased (M = 22.8; range 5 to 37).
Error rate
The mean error rate for the participant was 21.0. The mean error rate for the first reading
racetracks and flashcards decreased to 0.8 with a range of 0 to 2. The mean error rate for the
second reading racetracks and flashcards increased (M = 2.2; range 0 to 5). The mean error rate
for the third reading racetracks and flashcard phase was 1.75; (range 0 to 4 error words per
minute). The average error rate for the fourth reading racetracks and flashcard phase was declined
to 0.04 (range of 0 to 1).
Pre and Posttest Scores
A pretest of first grade Dolch sight words was given and the participant had 12 corrects and 28
errors. A second pretest with second grade Dolch sight words was also administered. He had 5
corrects and 39 errors. At the end of data collection a posttest was given using the Dolch first
grade list. His corrects on the posttest improved to 31 words with only 9 errors.
Statistical Analyses
A repeated analysis of variance (Siegel, 1956) was carried out for corrects. There was a
significant treatment effect (F = 11.098; df = 4; p = .0024). Follow up comparisons between the
various conditions using a Fisher PLSD test (Siegel, 1956) only found three comparisons that were
significantly different (baseline vs. reading racetracks and flashcards 1, reading racetracks and
flashcards 1 vs. reading racetracks and flashcards 2 and reading racetracks and flashcards 1, vs.
reading racetracks and flashcards 3).
A repeated analysis of variance was also calculated for errors. There was a statistically significant
treatment effect (F = 112.303; df = 4; p = .0001). Follow-up tests using the Fisher PLSD test
found significant differences between baseline and each of reading racetracks and flashcard
conditions. Comparisons between each of reading racetrack phases were significant for reading
racetrack and flashcards 1 and 2, and between reading racetrack and flashcards 2 and 4 for errors.
105
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
Vol21 No.1 2006
Discussion
This study indicated that the reading racetrack is and remains effective in improving fluency of
sight words for the student with a mild disability. This replicates our earlier work with reading
racetracks (Anthony et al., 1998; Rinaldi & McLaughlin, 1996; Rinaldi et al., 1997). The
participant improved his correct and decreased his errors for sight words when reading racetracks
and flashcards were both employed.
The student enjoyed being timed and seeing how many words he could say correctly in a minute.
He was always excited to move his race car up one square on the felt race board. He also
improved his corrects and errors for each phase change. On the first session, he improved from 21
words correct per minute to 50 words correct His errors decreased from 2 words per minute to 0.
On the last session, he increased his correct rate from 5 words correct per minute to 37. His error
rate declined from 1 error per minute to 0.0 errors.
At the end of data collection we carried out a review session using all of the 28 words taught using
reading racetracks and flashcards. His corrects were 23, and his errors were 2. We wished that we
could have had more time to complete the review for a week as suggested by the guidelines listed
in our previous research (Rinaldi et al., 1997). However, due to the ending of the first author’s
student teaching, these data were not gathered. It was our view that he would have improved
according to the previous data. The participant’s improvement could be attributed to several
factors. First, the student had a feeling of accomplishment after each session. At times his
performance was below standard, however it improved greatly every time we made a phase
change. When the student passed the finish line on the felt-board racetrack, he received a small
trophy and play money to spend at the Company Store. He was very excited about the event and
proud of his hard work.
The use of flashcards was also easy to implement in the classroom setting. The cost is minimal.
The time it takes is minimal. If flash cards are not available, the instructor needs only to type them
and fasten them on a card for use. The combining of reading racetracks with flash cards appears to
also be a productive area for future classroom research.
There were some weaknesses in the present case study. We were unable to return to baseline. We
also did not employ a posttest with the second grade Dolch list. Finally, we were unable to gather
follow up data due to the ending of student teaching. These issues will have to addressed in
additional research.
The present outcomes, again, extend and replicate our previous work with reading racetracks
(Anthony et al., 1997; Falk et al., 2003; Newman, McLaughlin Weber, & Kendall, 2005; Rinaldi
& McLaughlin, 1995 Rinaldi et al., 1997) using different materials, and a different participant.
The combining of precision teaching with the procedures of Direct Instruction was worthy of note
and expands our previous work. We would urge that additional research and evaluations be
conducted with these two evidence-based approaches.
References
Anthony, C., Rinaldi, L., Hern, C., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1997). Reading racetracks: A direct
replication and analysis with three elementary students. Journal of Precision Teaching and
Celeration, 14(2), 31-36.
Barbetta, P. M., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1993). Effects of active student response during
error correction on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of sight words by students
with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 111-120.
Barbetta, P. M., Heward, W. L., & Bradley, D. M. (1993). Relative effects of whole-word and
phonetic-prompt error correction on the acquisition and maintenance of sight words by students
with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 99-110.
Carnine, D., & Silbert, J., Kameenui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2004). Direct Instruction reading
(4th ed.). New York: Merrill.
106
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
Vol21 No.1 2006
Conley, C., Derby, K. M., Roberts-Gwinn, M., Weber, K. P. & McLaughlin. T. F. (2004). An
analysis of initial acquisition and maintenance of sight works following picture matching and
copy, cover, and compare teaching methods. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 339-349.
Falk, M., Band, M., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2003). The effects of reading racetracks and flashcards
on sight word vocabulary of three third grade students with a specific learning disability: A further
replication and analysis. International Journal of Special Education, 18(2), 51-57.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C. Carta, J. J. (1988). Classwide peer tutoring (CWPT). Seattle,
WA: Educational Achievement Systems.
Greenwood, C. A., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer
tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371-383.
Greenwood, C. A., Dinwiddie, G., Bailey, V., Carta, J. J., Dorsey, D., Kohler, F. W., Nelson, C.,
Rotholz, D., & Schulte, D. (1987). Field replication of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 151-160.
Greenwood, C. A., Dinwiddie, G., Terry, B., Wade, L., Stanley, S. O., Thibadeu, S., & Delquadri,
J. C. (1984). Teacher-versus peer-mediated instruction: An ecobehavioral analysis of achievement
outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 521-538.
Greenwood, C. R., Hart, B., Walker, D., & Risley, T. R. (1994). The opportunity to respond and
academic performance revisited: A behavioral theory of developmental retardation and its
prevention. In R. Gardner III, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, W. L. Heward, J. W.
Eshelman, & T. A. Grassi (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior
instruction (pp. 213-223). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Goodman, K. S. (1986). What's whole in whole language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, K. S. (1989). Research and whole language. Elementary School Journal, 90, 207-221.
Hansen, C. L., & Eaton, M. (1978). Reading. In N. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. Eaton, & C. L.
Hansen, (Eds.), The fourth r: Research in the classroom (pp. 41-92). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Howard, V. F., McLaughlin, T. F., & Vacha, E. F. (1996). Educational capital: A proposed model
and its relationship to academic and social behavior of students at risk. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 6, 135-152.
Katz-Sulgrove, M., Peck, S. M., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2002). The effects of code- and meaning
emphasis in beginning reading for students with mild disabilities. International Journal of Special
Education, 17(1), 65-83.
Kazdin, A. E. (12982). Single case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Klobassa, J. B., McLaughlin, T. F., & Howard, V. F. (1994). Teaching reading with direct
instruction. Canadian School Executive, 14 (2), 28-32.
Liberman, I. Y., & Liberman, A. M. (1990). Whole language vs. code emphasis: Underlying
assumptions and their implications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 40, 51-76.
Lindsley, O. R. (1991). Precision teaching's unique legacy from B. F. Skinner. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 1, 253-266.
McLaughlin, T. F., & Vacha, E. F. (1992a). School programs for at-risk children and youth: A
review. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 112-120.
McLaughlin, T. F., & Vacha, E. F. (1992b). The at-risk student: A proposal for action. Journal
of Instructional Psychology, 19, 66-68.
National Reading Panel (2000). Research-based approaches to reading instruction. Washington
DC: Author.
Newman, N., McLaughlin, T. F., Weber, K. P., & Kendall, C. (2005). The effects of a reading
racetrack procedure on the accuracy and fluency of reading of sight words for two students with
learning disabilities. Manuscript Submitted for Publication.
O'Donnell, P., Weber, K. P., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2003). Improving correct and error rate and
reading comprehension using key words and previewing: A case report with a language minority
student. Education and Treatment of Children, 26, 237-254.
Rinaldi, L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1996). The effects of reading racetracks on the fluency of seeto-say words in isolation by a student with learning disabilities. Journal of Precision Teaching
and Celeration, 13(2), 44-52.
Rinaldi, L., Sells, D., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1997). The effects of reading racetracks on sight word
acquisition of elementary students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 219-234.
Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Academic skill problems: Direct assessment and intervention. New York:
107
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
Vol21 No.1 2006
Guilford.
Siegel, S. (1957). Non parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGrawHill.
Slavin, R. E. (1989). Students at-risk for school failure: The problem and its dimensions. In R.
E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, & N. A. Madden (Eds.), Effective programs for students at-risk (pp. 319). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Education for all. Exton, PA: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994).
Whenever and where ever we choose: Replication of success for all. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 639647.
Weaver, C. (1990). Understanding whole language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
West, R. P., Young, K. R., & Spooner, F. (1990). Precision teaching: An introduction. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 22(3), 4-8.
108