Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T23:12:30.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Effects of Direct Instruction in Comprehension Skills with Sixth Grade Students

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Graham Clunies-Ross
Graham Clunies-Ross*
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
*
School of Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 3052
Get access

Abstract

The Direct Instruction Corrective Reading Program Comprehension B was taught to an experimental group of 31 Year 6 students at the rate of 2 or 3 lessons per week for 8 months. A comparison group of 26 Year 6 students at an associated school were involved in a variety of literacy activities for equivalent periods of time. The ACER Tests of Learning Ability for Year 6 students were administered to all participants as a pre-test and a post-test. Analyses of the post-test data indicated that the experimental group was superior to the comparison group on the three subtests and the total score. Norm-referenced comparisons showed that the experimental group attained above average levels of performance, which contrasted with the average achievements of the comparison group. This differential was interpreted as evidence that the experimental group made educationally significant gains as a result of undertaking Corrective Reading Comprehension B.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 1990, pp. 84 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J.A., & Wilkinson, I.A.G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
Australian Council for Educational Research (1977). ACER tests of learning ability. Victoria, Australia: ACER.Google Scholar
Becker, W. (1984). Corrective reading program evaluated with secondary students in San Diego. ADI News, 3, 1, 23.Google Scholar
Becker, W.C. (1986). Applied psychology for teachers: A behavioral cognitive approach. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Becker, W.C., & Carnine, D.W. (1980). Direct instruction: An effective approach to educational intervention with the disadvantaged and low performers. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, 3, 429–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, W.C., Engelmann, S., Carnine, D.W., & Maggs, A. (1982). Direct instruction technology: Making learning happen. In Karoly, P. & Steffen, J. J. (Eds.), Improving children's competence: Advances in child behavioral analysis and therapy (Vol. 1) (pp. 151–204). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
Dixon, R., & Engelmann, S. (1979). Corrective spelling through morphographs. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S. (1970). The effectiveness of direct instruction on IQ performance and achievement in reading and arithmetic. In Hellmuth, J. (Ed.), Disadvantaged child (Vol. 3) (pp. 339–361). New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1989). DI outcomes with middle-class second graders. ADI News, 8, 2–5.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S., & Colvin, G. (1983). Generalized compliance training. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S., Osborn, S., & Hanner, S. (1978). Corrective reading series: Comprehension B. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Gersten, R., Brockway, M.A., & Henares, N. (1983). The Monterey DI program for students with limited English (ESL). ADI News, 2, 8–9.Google Scholar
Gersten, R., Woodward, J., & Darch, C. (1986). Direct instruction: A research-based approach to curriculum design and teaching. Exceptional Children, 53, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, R.P., Hackney, C., & Gregory, N. M. (1982). Corrective reading programme: An evaluation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, J., Cullinan, D., Heins, E. D., & Epstein, M. H. (1980). Direct instruction: Effectors on oral and written comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockery, L., & Maggs, A. (1982). Direct instruction research in Australia: A ten year analysis. Educational Psychology, 2, 263–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maggs, A., Hermann, G., & Croyle, L. (1986). Beginner's BASIC mastery: A problem solving approach. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Moore, J. (1986). Direct Instruction: A model of instructional design. Educational Psychology, 6, 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noon, L., & Maggs, A. (1980). Accelerating written language processes in normal and gifted children: Direct instruction strategies and sequences. Reading Education, 5, 11–26.Google Scholar
Polloway, E.A., Epstein, M. H., Polloway, C. H., Patton, J. R., & Ball, D. W. (1986). Corrective reading program: An analysis of effectiveness with learning disabled and mentally retarded students. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, E. (1986). Is DI only for low achievers? ADI News, 6, 10–11.Google Scholar
Somerville, D. E., & Leach, D. J. (1988). Direct or indirect instruction? An evaluation of three types of intervention programme for assisting students with specific reading difficulties. Educational Research, 30, 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, H. M., McConnell, S., Holmes, D., Todis, B., Walker, J., & Golden, N. (1983). The Walker Social Skills Curriculum: The Accepts Program. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar