• Corpus ID: 67415835

An Analysis of "Corrective Reading" Research.

@inproceedings{PrzychodzinHavis2005AnAO,
  title={An Analysis of "Corrective Reading" Research.},
  author={Angela M. Przychodzin-Havis and Nancy E. Marchand-Martella and Ronald C. Martella and Darcy A. Miller and Lisa Warner and Beth Leonard and Susan Narelle Chapman},
  year={2005}
}

• Angela M. Przychodzin-Havis, N. Marchand-Martella, +4 authors S. Chapman
• Published 2005
• Education

This paper provides an analysis of Corrective Reading research. A research review of 28 published studies was completed. Twenty-three studies examined the effectiveness of Corrective Reading as delivered by teachers in general education (n = 4), special education (n = 12), and alternative education (n = 7) settings. Five studies examined the effects of Corrective Reading as implemented by paraprofessionals or peer instructors in general education (n = 4) and special education (n = 1) settings. Study characteristics (i.e., program[s] investigated, participants, research design, research purpose, intervention details, outcome measures, and findings) were examined for each of the 28 studies. Twenty-six of the 28 studies found positive results for students instructed with Corrective Reading, and 1 study found positive results for peer instructors who delivered Corrective Reading. Thus, 27 of the 28 studies (96.4%) found positive results for Corrective Reading. Analyses across studies including examinations of dependent measures, research designs, student populations, and instructors and settings are provided; directions for future research are discussed. Reading is absolutely pivotal to success in school and life. When students do not have appropriate reading skills, the effects are felt not only in schools but in communities and society as well. Precious resources in schools are devoted to remediating the skills of struggling readers, estimated to be as high as 70% of older students (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). Deficits in reading achievement are associated with a host of negative outcomes including below grade level performance across the curriculum, grade retention, and failure to graduate (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). Underachievement often produces social functioning difficulties and is associated with behavior problems (Bower, 1995; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). Grade retention due to poor reading is related to an array of problems including negative attitudes toward school as well as poor social and personal outcomes (Jimmerson, 1999). When students fail to graduate from high school, their chances of obtaining postsecondary education are substantially diminished. Even for those who obtain postsecondary education, often as many as 50% need remedial reading courses due to lack of literacy skills (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001). Without further education or training, employment opportunities are reduced. Even as schools, communities, and society respond to struggling readers, demands for complex literacy skills in society and the global economy are increasing (Barton, 2000). Due to its critical importance for school success, it is no surprise that reading has always been of interest to educators and parents. From the best selling book, Why Johnny Can’t Read in 1955 (Flesch), to A Nation At Risk in 1983 Journal of Direct Instruction 37 An Analysis of Corrective Reading Research Journal of Direct Instruction, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 37–65. Address correspondence to Nancy Marchand-Martella at [e-mail] ANGELA M. PRZYCHODZIN-HAVIS, NANCY E. MARCHAND-MARTELLA, and RONALD C. MARTELLA, Eastern Washington University; DARCY A. MILLER, Washington State University; LISA WARNER, BETHANY LEONARD, and SUSAN CHAPMAN, Eastern Washington University (National Commission on Excellence in Education), to the more current report by the National Reading Panel in 2000 (National Institute for Child Health and Human Development; NICHD), reading has captured the nation’s attention as a compelling topic of discussion. However, interest in reading extends beyond popular culture. In educational research, reading has been the topic of over 100,000 studies since 1966 (NICHD, 2000). Further, reading has been and continues to be the focus of educational policy initiatives at the federal, state, and local levels. However, as highlighted in No Child Left Behind (IDEA; U.S. Department of Education, 2002) and the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2004), there has been a decided shift in the emphasis on reading, from previous “calls to action” and hand wringing, to the current and more serious call for accountability. The federal focus on accountability as seen in recent legislative action is comprehensive— from the quality of teachers, to the type of instruction and curriculum used in schools. In particular, there is a decided emphasis on using research-based programs and practices. That is, schools must use programs that have been proven effective through scientifically conducted research. This emphasis on using methods that have scientific proof of effectiveness has set a new standard for K–12 education. Although the field of education has a long-standing tradition of excellence in reading research, often schools do not utilize the results of these research studies when choosing curriculum or models of instruction. The call for research-based approaches as described in IDEA (U.S. Department of Education, 2004) places an emphasis on using peer-reviewed research as well as scientifically validated programs. Additionally, the eligibility determination criteria for disabilities have been expanded to allow the use of alternative evaluation models such as Response to Intervention (RTI; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003). RTI involves using researchbased methods to teach reading while monitoring students’ progress. Students who do not progress (“respond”) to research-based programs may qualify for additional services or special education evaluation. With the RTI approach, students are first given the opportunity to succeed in reading in general education using scientifically based reading programs. Special education then becomes specially designed instruction for those students who do not respond to the general education curriculum as opposed to students who did not receive effective reading instruction. The emphasis on accountability and researchbased programs naturally leads to the search for scientifically researched reading programs. Direct Instruction is perhaps the best example of a research-based model of instructional delivery and curriculum design. As Tarver (2004) so succinctly stated, Direct Instruction is an “approach that produces success, after success, after success” (p. 1). Direct Instruction is based on the principles of explicit instruction that have garnered researchers’ attention since the early 1980s. Rosenshine (1986) outlined aspects of explicit instruction supported by research: reviewing previous instructional targets, providing explicit goals for instruction, presenting instructional content in small components, delivering explicit explanations of these components, using modeling, making many opportunities available for active student participation, giving frequent feedback, checking for understanding, providing practice opportunities, and monitoring student performance. Explicit instruction has been differentiated from other types of instruction such as guided discovery or constructivist learning by the hallmark features of direct provision of knowledge and information to students, prompting students to participate, and giving students practice and feedback on the learning targets (Harris & Graham, 1996; Stevens & Rosenshine, 1981). Explicit instruction is