|Abstract or Summary
- This study compared intensive corrective reading instruction
with less intensive corrective reading instruction at the community
college level: Group 1 students received 50 fifty- minutes of intensive
corrective reading instruction during ten weeks, while Group 2 students
received the same amount of corrective reading instruction
during 20 weeks. Reading instruction for both groups began at the
same time. After reading instruction had ceased for each group, an
additional ten-week period had been given for both groups to see if
the reading skills which were taught during intensive and less intensive
corrective reading instruction had been maintained.
Materials, techniques, and methods to be used in this study had
been initially prepared and refined in a pilot study. Through lectures
and demonstrations, through assigned reading practices and independent
reading, development and improvement of word recognition,
vocabulary, spelling, comprehension, reading rate, reading for
general and specific purposes, and study skills have been sought.
The purpose of instruction was to make each reading activity so clear
that success was assured.
The hypothesis of this study was that there will be no differences
in the total reading performance between one group of community
college students using the intensive corrective reading approach
and a second group using the less intensive corrective reading
The hypothesis was tested by 70 community college students in
two experimental groups, one group using the intensive and the other
group using the less intensive corrective reading instruction.
Findings and Conclusions
1. Mean differences and the associated t values indicated that
the results between intensive and less intensive corrective reading
instruction at the end of the 10- and 20-week periods did not appear
to be significantly different at the .05 level of confidence between
Groups 1 and 2. The Nelson-Denny Reading Test, Forms A and B,
were used as standardized instruments to measure reading improvement,
2. The single factor of time between the lessons differentiating
intensive and less intensive corrective reading instruction did not appear to be a significant influence on the effectiveness of corrective
reading instruction. Mean differences did not indicate significant
superiority of either procedure. It would appear, at least within the
10- and 20-weeks of instruction, that the intensive corrective reading
instruction is as effective as the less intensive corrective reading
instruction. However, a difference between immediate post-test
and delayed post-test for Group 2 was significant at the .01 level of
confidence in total reading. Apparently, less intensive corrective
reading instruction has produced a significantly better performance
in total reading for Group 2 at the time of the delayed post-test.
3. Corrective reading instruction carried out in this study did
appear to make a difference in students' reading performance between
pre-tests and immediate and delayed post-tests as well as between
immediate and delayed post-tests of Groups 1 and 2. The differences
which appeared for both groups between pre-tests and
immediate and delayed post-tests of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test,
Forms A and B, and A in vocabulary, comprehension, total reading,
and reading rate were all statistically significant at the .001 level
4. When immediate and delayed post-test scores were compared
for Group 1 a significant difference at the .01 level was found
in total reading and a significant difference at the .05 level was
found in vocabulary. When immediate and delayed post-test scores
were compared for Group 2 significant differences at the .001 level
were found in vocabulary and total reading and significant difference
at the .01 level was found in comprehension.
Students' individual improvement as a result of corrective
reading instruction and the retainment of the reading skills has been
assessed for both groups by using the residual gain statistics, both
the computational and the graphical method.
Reading improvement resulted apparently from teaching and
student effort regardless of the time during which intensive and less
intensive corrective reading instruction was taught.
Evidence from this study indicates that many more community
college students might be given the opportunity to participate in
reading instruction if reading courses were taught intensively as, for
example, five hours per week for ten weeks rather than extending less
intensive reading instruction over a longer period of time.