A Mixed Method Study Examining Corrective Reading Implementation Models in an Urban Midwest School District

In this mixed methods study, the researcher analyzed three school years of third through fifth-grade students’ reading scores on the NWEA MAP reading test to determine possible differences in students’ reading growth relative to the instructional delivery model used to provide Corrective Reading as supplemental reading intervention. Students received Corrective Reading intervention with the classroom teacher, the afterschool teacher (both large groups), or in small-groups with the Title I Reading Teacher. Five elementary school principals and 15 teachers answered interview questions related to experiences with Corrective Reading, perceptions of student academic and behavioral outcomes, and perceptions of the three instructional delivery models. Teachers and principals agreed Corrective Reading improved students’ academic and behavioral outcomes. Classroom and after-school teachers believed students demonstrated greater reading growth in small groups. Title I Reading Teachers agreed, but desired the ability to show academic gains with a larger number of students. The researcher conducted an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test on reading growth scores from the three groups. The p-value of 0.0026 indicated a significant difference among the means, so the researcher rejected the null hypothesis. Students in all the reading intervention groups showed some reading growth. However, both the Tukey and Scheffe post hoc analyses revealed the mean of the Title I Reading Teacher group was significantly higher than the mean of the after-school group. As a result of the findings, the researcher recommends educational leaders staff buildings with reading intervention specialists to provide small-group intervention to struggling readers