The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
THE INSTRUCTIONAL COHERENCE OF READING LESSONS IN SEVEN BASAL READER SERIES
Abstract
This study was conducted to determine the instructional coherence of randomly selected reading lessons in seven basal reading series. Instructional coherence was described as “a structure which logically links instructional components of a reading lesson to one another in an organized manner.” For the analyses, 210 instructional units were randomly selected from seven basal reading series from grades 1‐6. A procedure and instrument were developed by the researchers to analyze the basals. Three raters were trained to analyze the basals. Initially, 10 units were analyzed by the three raters to check for agreement. Regression analyses and least square mean differences in the ratings for each item were checked. More training and conferencing was conducted until significant differences among raters’ ratings were eradicated. The basals were examined for explicit links in the teachers’ manuals among the traditionally accepted lesson parts: vocabulary introduction, story introduction, the story, story questions, skill lessons and enrichment. Findings indicated that each instructional unit was composed of several self‐contained mini lessons rather than representing an integrated and related unit for instruction organized around a central purpose. Lesson parts failed to make logical connections to previous or following lesson parts. It was concluded that the nature of reading lessons could be a contributing factor to the instructional “flitting” observed by Durkin (1984) in her classroom observational studies. Implications stemming from the findings were delinated for teachers, text adoption committees and publishers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 8 · Cited by 2
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Armbruster B., 1985, Reading Education: Foundations for a Literate America, 47
- 10.2307/747566 · DOI
- Daines D., 1982, Reading in the Content Areas: Strategies for Teachers
- Duffy G. G., 1981, Theory into practice: How does it work in real classrooms?
- 10.1598/RRQ.14.4.2 · DOI
- 10.2307/747314 · DOI
- Durkin D., 1984, The Reading Teacher, 37, 734
- Durkin D., 1985, Reading Education: Foundations for a Literate America, 3
- 10.1080/10862968009547385 · DOI
- Moe A. J., 9186, Understanding and Teaching Cohesion Comprehension, 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Reutzel, D. R., & Daines, D.
- Affiliations
- Brigham Young University (US)
- ORCID
- Reutzel, D. Ray
- Venue
- Reading Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1987-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 33-44
- ISSN
- 0270-2711 (ISSN-L)
- 1521-0685
- OpenAlex
- W2053084076
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Reading Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Methods and Analysis
- Keywords
- basal readers, reading lessons, instructional coherence, lesson structure, mini-lessons, vocabulary teaching, teacher's guide, early reading instruction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: THE INSTRUCTIONAL COHERENCE OF READING LESSONS IN SEVEN BASAL READER SERIES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/0270271870080105
- The paper
- Reutzel, D. R., & Daines, D. (1987). THE INSTRUCTIONAL COHERENCE OF READING LESSONS IN SEVEN BASAL READER SERIES. Reading Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/0270271870080105