Savannah McEntire & Emily Mangan READ 440

A COMPARISON OF TWO DIRECT INSTRUCTION READING PROGRAMS FOR URBAN MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS
I. Reference Information Shippen, M. E., Houchins, D. E., Steventon, C., & Sartor, D. (2005). A comparison of two direct instruction reading programs for urban middle school students. Remedial and Special Education, 26(3), 175-182. Summary of the Literature Review/Background This study looked at two different direct instruction (DI) reading programs, and investigated the differential effects of each. One of these programs used overt decoding strategies, while the other used covert decoding strategies. Through analyzing the results of these two programs, the study sought to evaluate these programs in order to find out the success they had with reading achievement of struggling seventh graders in urban middle schools (Shippen et al). The participants in this study were tested to be between 2 and 4 years behind their peers in reading achievement. The results of this study show that after 6 week interventions in reading using these strategies, all students made significant progress. It did not seem to matter for the most part whether overt or covert DI programs were used, with the only difference being seen in reading rate. This study also discusses implication for increasing performance in these readers. The review discusses the fact that reading intervention is important because success in reading directly effects academic success in other areas. This article looks at the use of DI reading programs, which involve an emphasis on fast paced, scripted, well sequenced, rule-based, and highly focused lessons (Swanson, Hoskyn & Lee, 1999). In addition, DI has been viewed as effective when used with older struggling readers, at-risk students, and students with disabilities according to Carnine et al., 2004. Research Questions/Purpose of Research These researchers sought to find out whether or not Direct Instruction Reading Programs were effective in helping struggling readers in a the middle school level in urban areas to make progress in reading. In addition, these researchers intend to discover if there is a difference in success rates between using overt and covert reading strategies, and if there is, which one is more effective. Specific questions were: Do urban middle school students with poor reading skills demonstrate differential skill improvement in word reading efficiency based on the type of DI reading program intervention? and Do urban middle school students with poor reading skills demonstrate differential skill improvement in oral reading performance (rate, accuracy, and fluency) based on the type of DI reading program intervention? (Shippen et al). Research Design (Independent Variables)

II.

III.

IV.

Savannah McEntire & Emily Mangan READ 440 This study was conducted in a middle school in a large south-eastern inner-city school district. The participants from this middle school were 55 seventh-grade students who performed 2-4 years behind that of their peers. 5% of these students identified as having mild disabilities (learning or intellectual). All of the students in the sample were African American, 40% female and 60% male. Ages ranged from 12-14. The treatments used on these students were Corrective Reading Decoding B2, and C (Engelmann et. al 1999), and REWARDS (Reading Excellence: Word Attack and Rate Development Strategies, (Archer et al 2000). REWARDS works with overt reading decoding strategies, B2 works with emphasis on basic sound-symbol association of letters, digraphs and blends, and C targets similar skills at a multisyllabic level. These various strategies were used in a 30 day daily instructional session (each session 55 minutes). V. Performance Measurement (Dependent Variables) There were two pre and posttests administered. These tests tested phonemic decoding efficiency, sight word reading efficiency, overall word reading efficiency reading rate, reading accuracy, reading fluency and reading comprehension. One test was scored on a scale of 35-166, and the second on a scale of 1-20. There are several variables in this study. The first variable is the two different reading levels students were separated into Corrective Reading Decoding B2 or Corrective Reading Decoding C. The next variable involves the random placement of students into treatment groups, either Corrective Reading Decoding or REWARDS. Next is the pre and post testing mentioned above as a design variable of the study. The last variable is the measure on which students were analyzed: word reading efficiency, reading rate, reading accuracy, and reading fluency. Research Results After six weeks of participating in this reading study, every group made significant gains in word reading efficiency, reading rate, reading accuracy, and reading fluency. It was proven, however, that both programs REWARDS and Corrective Reading Decoding were more beneficial for those students who ranked in the higher level group (Corrective Reading Decoding C). Those students were able to make more significant progress in a 6-week trial, but with more time, students in lower level Corrective Reading Decoding B2 group could have made similar progress. Implications of the Research What this study has really proven is the affect on structured, clear, direct instruction on middle school students reading success. The teachers that used an emphasis on signaling, error corrections, firming up, and pacing, were able to help their students progress, regardless of their reading level or DI program. This study also shows that the more capable readers made more progress over the six-week trial, proving that those struggling readers need more intense direct instruction over a longer period of time. It is imperative that teachers

VI.

VII.

Savannah McEntire & Emily Mangan READ 440 implement these direct instruction methods in order to keep students motivated and engaged; the DI program cannot do that alone.

VIII. Questions or Concerns Regarding the Reading I believe this study was implemented well an the results were clearly recorded and translated. I did, however, wonder what they were going to do with these results. The results show that higher-reading level students progressed more than the lower-reading students; and although they suggested more time with the DI program, the study never mentioned other techniques of improving those students success. The researchers behind this study conclude with the benefits of these programs but they failed to explain the teachertraining aspect of implementing these programs. Without the proper training for teachers, could these programs really have the same positive affect on struggling readers?