Publication Date

1999

Document Type

Dissertation/Thesis

First Advisor

Dickson, Shirley

Degree Name

M.S. Ed. (Master of Education)

Department

Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education

LCSH

Reading--Remedial teaching||Reading (Primary)--Language experience approach||Reading--Phonetic method||First grade (Education)||Literacy programs--Evaluation

Abstract

A comparative two-group experiment was conducted in this thesis to examine two modifications to Reading Recovery, an early reading intervention program for firstgrade students. Explicit and implicit instruction were evaluated against measures of early reading acquisition to determine which modification was more effective for students at risk for early reading failure. The objectives of this comparative experiment were: (a) discuss research support for phonemic awareness, letter/sound correspondence, spelling, and sight-word fluency and how they facilitate beginning reading acquisition; (b) discuss the effectiveness of explicit instruction with first-grade students at risk for reading failure; (c) describe Reading Recovery and its components; and (d) compare two modifications to Reading Recovery. The first modification adds explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, letter/sound correspondence, spelling, and word fluency. The second adds embedded instruction in letter/sound correspondence and sight-word fluency and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness. It does not add spelling. A two-group experimental study was performed on 23 first-grade students in a Midwestern town. These students were at risk for early reading failure. Twelve students received the Explicit Instructional Program, and 11 students received the Implicit Instructional Program. The students were taught in their classrooms 3 days a week for 12 weeks. Preand posttest data were collected to measure reading fluency. At the conclusion of the experiment, it was determined that the Explicit Instructional group significantly outperformed the Implicit Instructional group in nonsense reading fluency. There was no significant difference between groups in oral reading fluency.

Comments

Includes bibliographical references (pages [47]-52).

Extent

vi, 59 pages

Language

eng

Publisher

Northern Illinois University

Rights Statement

In Copyright

Rights Statement 2

NIU theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from Huskie Commons for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without the written permission of the authors.

Media Type

Text

Share

COinS