The effect of student control of course content upon achievement and attitude in a college reading improvement program

For years reading improvement programs have been part of the college curriculum. However, with the current trend toward open admissions these programs become even more vital. It is important to discover what methods best serve these students.The purpose of this study was to determine whether providing students with more freedom of choice as to course content would affect their achievement and attitudes in a college reading improvement program. A further purpose was to determine whether there was an interaction between student personality orientation and degree of student control in relationship to reading achievement.A three-group posttest, and in some cases pretest and posttest experimental design was utilized. The treatment groups represented three levels of student control: minimum, moderate and maximum. In the minimum student-controlled situation the instructor assigned all course work. The moderate student-controlled students chose their assignments from the options presented to them by their instructor. Students in the maximum student-controlled group had complete freedom as to type and amount of assignments they would complete. All groups used a weekly contract system for planning their programs. These contracts were assigned and/or chosen during a weekly conference with the instructor. The students worked independently in a laboratory-type setting.There were four major hypotheses tested. Hypotheses I and all its sub-hypotheses proposed there would be no differences in aspects of reading achievement among the three treatment groups. To measure these aspects of reading achievement the Diagnostic Reading Tests: Survey Section edited by Triggs was administered as a pretest and posttest.Hypothesis II stated there would be no differences among the treatment groups in attitude toward reading. To measure attitude toward reading a revised version of Este's Scale to Measure Attitudes Toward Reading was used. This Likert scale was administered as a pretest and posttest.Hypothesis III stated that there would be no differences among the treatment groups in attitude toward the reading improvement course. To test H othesis III a semantic differential developed by Poppen and Thompson was used. This instrument was administered as a posttest.Hypothesis IV proposed there would be no relationship between student personality orientation and reading achievement in the three treatment conditions. Students were classified as having either internal or external loci of reinforcement control based upon their Rotter I-E Scale scores.To test these hypotheses variations of the analysis of variance test were used. When an analysis of covariance was used the pretest score served as the covariate and the posttest score was the criterion measure. For Hypothesis I, total reading achievement was tested using an analysis of covariance. For the components of the total test score and the types of comprehension, two multivariate analyses of covariance were computed. For Hypothesis II two analyses of variance were computed for the pretest and posttest attitude toward reading scores. The attitude toward the course scores used to test Hypothesis III were also examined with an analysis of variance. For Hypothesis IV a two-way analysis of covariance was computed, using treatment by personality orientation, to analyze total reading achievement scores.In all cases the null hypotheses were not rejected. There were no significant differences in reading achievement, attitude toward reading or attitude toward the course among the treatment groups. There was also no relationship between student personality orientation and reading achievement in any of the treatment groups.Although all groups did improve in reading and displayed relatively positive attitudes toward reading and toward the course, the degree of student control experienced throughout the course did not result in any significant differences. Suggestions for further research include more control for the teacher effect and greater differences in treatment groups.Thesis (D. Ed.