Corrective Reading
Mixed Evidence of Relative Effectiveness:
Summary: Corrective Reading has been the subject of a number of intervention studies. So far I have reviewed 10 studies. Of these, 60% had at least one measure where Corrective Reading had a statistically significant positive result. However 20% had at least one measure where the program performed worse than controls. So the results are somewhat mixed, albeit mostly positive.
I still have more studies to review.
Corrective Reading Research
Corrective Reading is a Direct Instruction phonics and reading comprehension program designed for Grades 3-12. Direct Instruction approaches (note the capitalization) are also known as the “DI” or “Engelmann" approaches. These are explicit, highly scripted, fast-paced phonics programs structured for high levels of student engagement via call-and-response. Of the intervention studies I have reviewed thus far, the programs are of middling length for a phonics program. The interventions ranged from 35 to 200 hours, spanning 1-3 years.
Below is a summary of the research on the Direct Instruction program Corrective Reading: Gunn et al. 2000 did a study with 256 students. After about 130 hours of intervention, they compared the progress of struggling students who received intervention with Reading Mastery or Corrective Reading with those who did not. Intervention students had significantly higher gains in word reading, nonsense word reading, vocabulary, and passage comprehension, and a near-significant gain in ORF. Effect sizes were not calculated. McCollum-Rogers 2004 analyzed data from several schools to compare Direct Instruction (Reading Mastery or Corrective Reading, depending on age of student) to the reading program Success for All, as well as a basal reader control group. After 3 years of intervention, students who received intervention via DI programs had the lowest reading test scores (as measured by the WRAT assessment). The effect size was small, but statistically significant. Conversely, Benner 2005 studied the use of Corrective Reading as an intervention for middle-schoolers in special education programs. After 30+ hours of intervention, students who received Corrective Reading demonstrated higher gains in Letter and Word Identification, Nonsense Word Reading, and ORF. Gains were statistically significant and effect sizes were moderate to large. Torgesen et al. 2007, in a fairly large scale study of 779 struggling readers, compared four reading interventions to controls. The four interventions were Corrective Reading, Failure Free Reading, Spell Read PAT, and Wilson Reading System. After 80-93 hours of 1:3 intervention, impacts were assessed one year after the intervention year. For 3rd Graders, there were significant positive impacts on Nonsense Word Reading, Nonsense Word Fluency, Word Identification. Compared to the other four interventions, Corrective Reading had the highest impact of any of them on Nonsense Word Fluency, but ranked second lowest for effects on Nonsense Word Reading, Word Reading Fluency, Oral Reading Fluency, and Passage Comprehension. There were no significant effects on standardized test reading scores for the Third Grade cohort. There were also no significant impacts compared to controls at the Fifth Grade level on any reading measures. Unfortunately, most of the impacts were negative. For the Fifth Grade cohort, the impact on standardized test reading scores was significant and negative. At the fifth grade level Corrective Reading had the more negative impacts of any of the programs studied except Failure Free Reading (though many of these negative effects were not statistically significant). For the students who entered the study with the lowest decoding scores, Corrective Reading had mixed impacts, with several negative but statistically insignificant effects. Jackson 2010 carried out a small study of 30 students that examined the impact of approximately 180 hours (1 year) of intervention via Corrective Reading. Those who received Corrective Reading had slightly higher scores than controls on the STAR reading test following treatment. The calculated p-value (0.18) indicates that the results were not significant. Note, however that the researcher stated that the results were significant. So there is a discrepancy in interpretation here. Reid 2010 compared a group of 110 special education students who received Corrective Reading to a control group. After one year of instruction, those who received Corrective Reading saw more improvement in reading scores than controls. The difference in gains was statistically significant. Effect size was not calculated. Joseph 2011 compared Corrective Reading to an HMH Reading intervention for a group of 180 ELL students. After 80-90 hours of intervention, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of ORF and STAR reading scores. Note that the group of students studied in this case was ELL students, and not specifically struggling readers. Young 2012 analyzed data from a few schools with students who had received Corrective Reading vs those who had not. Those who received Corrective Reading had significantly higher reading scores on a standardized test (small effect size). Sawyer 2015 examined the impact of Corrective Reading as compared to a control group. After one year, those who received Corrective Reading had no significant differences in letter and word identification, nonsense word fluency, or reading comprehension as measured on the WRMT, but there was a significant and positive effect on standardized test reading scores. Fritts 2016 looked at students identified as having learning disabilities and compared Wilson Fundations and Wilson Reading System to the Direct Instruction program Corrective Reading, as well as a Business-As-Usual condition. After ten weeks (30 hours) of intervention, the study showed no significant differences between the three programs, but those receiving DI: Corrective Reading saw the best gains on the NWEA MAP test, though the effect size was small. When adjusted for pre-test scores, those receiving Corrective Reading had the highest average score on the NWEA post-test, though the difference was very small.
PedagogyNonGrata has a meta-analysis of Corrective Reading. Also, in a 2002 meta-analysis in the Journal of Direct Instruction, the authors found that out of 17 older studies comparing DI to other programs for struggling readers: 10 studies found DI to have the best outcomes, 3 had higher results for another program, while the remaining 4 were inconclusive.
The IEC What Works Clearinghouse has reviewed one study of Corrective Reading and found the effectiveness to be "Potentially Positive" Evidence for ESSA rated the Corrective Reading program based on one study and determined it to have a positive but "Weak" effect.
My Takeaway? The evidence on the effectiveness of Corrective Reading is somewhat mixed. I have reviewed 10 studies so far. In two studies it did have some negative results, which is not a great sign. However, it also has more studies (6) with statistically significant positive results than many others on this list. The program can also be delivered more rapidly than most and is scripted, which can be a bonus for some. I am still reviewing some literature, so I'll withhold final judgement until then, but at the moment, while this might not be the first intervention I'd reach for, I might try it if I couldn't get results with another.
Research Studies:
Benner, G. J., Kinder, D., Beaudoin, K. M., & Stein, M. (2005). The Effects of the. Journal of Direct Instruction, 5(1), 67-80. Google Scholar | National Institute for Direct Instruction (pdf)
Fritts, J. L. (2016). Direct instruction and Orton-Gillingham reading methodologies: Effectiveness of increasing reading achievement of elementary school students with learning disabilities. Northeastern University. Google Scholar
Gunn, B. K. (1996). An investigation of three approaches to teaching phonological awareness to first-grade students and the effects on word recognition. University of Oregon. Google Scholar
Jackson, S. D. (2010). Direct instruction in reading in special education: Evaluation of an innovation. Lindenwood University. Google Scholar | ProQuest
Joseph, K. C. (2011). Comparison of Houghton Mifflin Core Reading Program and Corrective Reading Program Effects on English Language Learners' Reading Fluency and Comprehension in Grades 4-6. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, PO Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Google Scholar |
McCollum-Rogers, S. A. (2004). Comparing Direct Instruction and Success for All with a basal reading program in relation to student achievement. The University of Southern Mississippi. Google Scholar | ProQuest
Reid, S. D. (2010). Effect of a reading program, consisting of Corrective Reading and the support of an external consultative agency, on achievement scores of students served through an Early Intervention Program. Capella University. Google Scholar | ProQuest
Sawyer, S. (2015). The effects of direct instruction's corrective reading program on the reading proficiency of students in a self-contained special education school (Doctoral dissertation, Tennessee State University). Google Scholar
Torgesen, J., Schirm, A., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D., ... & Haan, C. (2007). National Assessment of Title I. Final Report. Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap--Findings from a Randomized Trial of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers. NCEE 2008-4013. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. IES (pdf) | Google Scholar
Young, S. K. (2012). The Efficacy of the Scientific Research Associates Corrective Reading Program for Students with Reading Disabilities. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, PO Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Google Scholar
Return to the Know Your Options Table of Contents
This Research Summary is a work in progress.
Leave me a comment if you know of other studies that I could include!
No comments:
Post a Comment