- Email: [email protected]
Long-term effectiveness of remediation
Phillips, B.N. Sex, social class, and anxiety as sources of variation in school achievement. 1. edu¢. Psychol., 1962, 53, 316-322. Phillips, B.N. The Children's School Questionnaire (CSQ). 1964. Copies may be obtained from the author, c/o Dept. of Educ. Psychol., The University of Texas. This test is for research purposes only. Phillips, B.N. Preliminary analysis of the influence of school anxiety and other factors on the behavior of children in school. Paper read at Amer. Psychol. Assn. Convention, Chicago, 1965. Phillips, B.N. Conflict theory and sex differences on the CMAS. Amer. educ. Res. 1., 1966, 3, 19-25. Ruebush, B.K. Anxiety. In H.W. Stevenson, J. Kagan, and C. Spiker (]~ds.) Child Psychology. 62nd N.S.S.E. Yearbook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963, 460-516. Sarason, S.B., Davidson, K.S., Lighthall, F.F., Walte, R.R., & Ruebush, B.K. Anxiety in elementary school children. New York: Wiley, 1960. Sullivan, Elizabeth T., Clark, W.S., & Tiegs, ~..W. California Short-Form Test of Mental Maturity, 1963 S-FORM, Level 2. Monterey, Calif.: California Test Bureau, 1963. Sutton-Smith, B., & Rosenberg, B.C. Manifest anxiety and game perference in children. Ghild Develpm., 1960, 31, 307-311. Sutton-Smith, B., & Rosenberg, B.G. Age changes in the effects of ordinal position on sex-role identification. J. goner. Psychol., 1965, 107, 61-74. Sutton-Smith, B., Rosenberg, B.G., & Morgan, E.G., Jr. Development of sex differences in play choices during preadolescence. Child Develpm., 1963, 34, 119-126. Veldman, D.J. Statistical program library for the CDC 1604. (EDSTAT). (3rd ed., rev.) Austin, Texas: Personality Research Center, 1965. Witldn, H.A., Dyk, R.B., Faterson, H.F., Goodenough, D.R., & Karp, S.A. Psychological di[ferentiatlon: studies of development. New York: Wiley, 1962. LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS OF REMEDIATION Venus W. Bluestein
Questions have been raised concerning the long-term persistence of gains resulting from remedial tutoring, and whether late readers ever "catch up." The few reported studies in this area have been conducted six to 12 months following remediation, but seldom beyond this. In the present study, mean reading achievement and average yearly prograss in reading of a representative sample (33 Ss ) of elementary school reading center alumni are examined (a) at the time of placement; (b) when released; (c) one year and (d) three years following remediation. Although wide individual differences were observed, the evidence suggests that as a group these children made considerable gains in reading during remediation; gains were persistent at least three years afterwards; and they were catching up with grade peers. T h e evidence coming from studies of e l e m e n t a r y school children w h o have received r e m e d i a l instruction in r e a d i n g is inconclusive so far as long-term persistence of gains is concerned. T h e fact t h a t most disabled readers are r e p o r t e d to show i m p r o v e m e n t in r e a d i n g i m m e d i a t e l y following remediation, seems to be taken by m a n y researchers as p r i m a facie evidence of the effectiveness of such programs, a n d to lead t h e m to assume t h a t such gains are p e r m a n e n t . F u r t h e r m o r e , V e r n o n (1960) a n d Boney (1961), reflecting the opinion of other writers in t h e field, h a v e raised the question of w h e t h e r late readers ever c a t c h u p a n d become " n o r m a l readers." Lovell (1962, p. 66) concludes, in fact, t h a t "little is k n o w n a b o u t the long-term effects of remedial reading." H e f u r t h e r c o m m e n t s t h a t research in this Venus Bluestein is Assistant Professor of Psychology and Director of the School Psychology Training Program at the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. 130
area is not carried on over a long enough period of time. In support of Lovell's claim, the present investigator found that the typical follow-up study reported in the literature, with one exception (Robinson, 1962), had been conducted from six to twelve months following remediation and seldom beyond this. T h e purpose of the present study was to investigate the subsequent progress of children who had received remedial instruction at the elementary school level, one year and three years following remediation, in order to ascertain (a) whether improvement in reading was most evident at the end of remediation or at some later point; (b) whether gains in reading were maintained over a period of time, if the reading level continued to rise, or if it decreased in the years following remediation; and (c) whether these disabled readers continued to lag behind their grade peers or were subsequently able to bring their reading achievement up to expectations.
Procedure
Setting. The Cincinnati Public Schools maintain three remedial reading centers (or more appropriately, three special classes) for disabled readers, the purpose of which is to provide intensive assistance for pupils of average or superior ability with serious reading difficulties who fail to respond to regular classroom instruction. Any Cincinnati public or parochial elementary school child who meets the following criteria is eligible to be considered for placement: (a) he must be average or above in ability as estimated by some form of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale; (b) his reading level must be one full year below grade placement or two full years below his mental age, as suggested by his score on a standardized achievement test; (c) placement is recommended by a qualified psychologist and approved by the child's parents, the school principal, and the Department of Instruction. Children who are placed remain in the program until it is felt they have profited as much as possible. Each receives a thorough psychological evaluation both when he enters the center and when he is released. While enrolled in a center, the child carries an academic load appropriate for his grade assignment, but spends two 50-minute periods a day in the special class (the language arts period and one other agreed upon by the child, the remedial teacher, and the other teachers concerned). Visual, aural, kinesthetic approaches are used in helping the disabled reader, and a variety of remedial materials are provided at all levels of reading difficulty and which will appeal to many different kinds of interests. Mechanical devices, such as teaching machines, tachistoscopes, and controlled readers are also occasionally employed. In general, the specific remedial materials and techniques used in Cincinnati are typical of those found in comparable public school reading centers. Inasmuch as the Cincinnati centers do not operate in a clinical setting, little routine attempt is made to determine the etiology of or to diagnose the reading disability per se. Overt symptoms are analyzed (e.g., weak sight vocabulary, poor verbal comprehension, inadequate phrasing, etc.), and an effort is made to apply those remedial methods which seem most appro131
priate to the child's needs. If he fails to respond to one method, another is tried. In addition, the school psychologist, social worker, nurse, teacher, and other personnel work closely with the home to insure that other appropriate corrective action is taken when indicated (e.g., eye lenses fitted, psychotherapy undertaken, neurological examination conducted). Remedial teachers who serve the centers are selected on the basis of teaching experience, demonstrated classroom skills, special training in primary and remedial reading techniques, and possessing certain personality" characteristics which seem particularly important in working with disabled readers. Subiects. As the result of a larger and more intensive study of the three reading centers, covering the years since their inception in 1943 (Bluestein, 1966), it was ascertained that the typical disabled reader served by the program is a fourth grader at the time of placement and receives an average of two full school years of remedial instruction before official release. Furthermore, the reading achievement of all Cincinnati public school children is evaluated by means of standardized group tests administered in both the sixth and eighth grades. Therefore, subjects for this study were limited to those reading center alumni (a) who had been placed in a reading center as fourth graders, (b) who had met the basic criteria for admission at the time of placement, (c) who had remained in the center until released officially when it was felt they had profited as much as possible, 1 (d) to whom the city-wide reading achievement tests had been administered in the sixth and eighth grades. Subjects were limited, further, to those children placed in a reading center between 1955 and 1960, in an effort to hold constant remedial teachers, instructional procedures and methods, and tests administered. Sixty-nine reading center alumni were identified who met criteria a through c. However, 21 of the children had moved from the city or were no longer enrolled in the Cincinnati Public Schools (which suggests one difficulty in attempting follow-up studies over a period of several years); nine could not be located and were presumed to be attending schools elsewhere. One had not been tested and five others, because of failure, had not reached the eighth grade at the time of the study, leaving 33 subjects. However, inasmuch as mean age, IQ, preremedial achievement in reading and arithmetic, grade assignment at the time of placement, months of remediafion, and postremedial achievement, history of repeating grades prior to or during remediation, and sex were comparable to that of the typical Cincinnati reading center population, 2 the sample, although small, was considered to be representative. Method. It is anticipated that the average child will gain at least one month in reading achievement per month of instruction. Average expected lChildren are sometimes placed who do not meet the requirements for admission, discussed previously, when it is felt they might profit from the experience. Furthermore, children occasionally leave the program prematurely for various reasons. Since neither of these situations is typical, such children were eliminated from the study. 2These particular variables had been found to correlate significantly with improvement in reading in a representative sample of reading center children studied by the present investigator (Bluestein, 1966, pp. 81-111). 132
yearly gain, therefore, is 10 months (based upon a ten-month school year). In the present study mean reading achievement and average yearly gains in reading for the subjects were compared (a) at the time of placement, (b) when released from the center, (c) approximately one year following remediation (in the sixth grade), and (d) approximately three years following remediation (in the eighth grade). Achievement at each checkpoint was measured by the "Paragraph Meaning'' subtest on some form of the Stanford Achievement Test. Average yearly gains 3 were computed between each test (i.e., between admission and release, between admission and sixth grade, between admission and eighth grade, between release and sixth grade, between release and eighth grade, between sixth and eighth grades) and for total months of schooling at each checkpoint, since entering the first grade (including repeating grades).
Results Trends Observed. At the time of placement, these reading center alumni were found to be achieving at GP 2.8, or about 14 months below the expected mean GP reading level of 4.2. When released two years later, the children as a group continued to lag about 11 months behind the expected mean GP reading level of 5.9. When the sixth-grade mean reading level was checked, it had risen to GP 5.8; the eighth-grade mean reading level, to 8.1 (Table 1). When average yearly gains in reading were computed for these children, the following trends were observed: Up to the time of placement, average yearly gains in reading achievement had been approximately 7.1 months per school year (contrasted to the expected gain of 10 months). During remediation average yearly gains were better than expected, or 14.1 months per school year. Immediately following remediation, average yearly gains in reading achievement appear to drop considerably compared to those made during placement (or from 14.1 months per school year to 11.7 months) 3Average gains were computed by dividing months of achievement for a given period of time by months of schooling (instruction) for the same period and multiplying by 10. (Mean GP achievement for children not enrolled in a center is approximately commensurate with grade placement.) Table 1 Mean Grade-Level and Mean Reading Achievement of Thirty-Three Children Prior to, During, and Following Remediation Test administered
Mean grade level a
When piacad When released In the 6th grade In the 8th grade
4.2 5.9 6.6 8,6
Mean reading achievement b 2.8 4.8 5.8 8.1
a Grade placement at time of testing,
bAchievement at time of testing (mean expected reading achievement same as mean grade placement),
133
and to reach a plateau. Average yearly gains in reading achievement based upon total months of instruction at each check point show a gradual increase from 7.1 months per year in the fourth grade to 9.1 months in the eighth grade (Table 2). As might be expected, there were wide individual differences noted. For example, when examined in the eighth grade one child's achievement was found to be third-grade; another's was eleventh-grade. Children who scored near, at, or above grade level when released from the center tended to maintain the same relative position at subsequent checks. In addition, 3 0 9 of the children who had scored below grade level when released, were found to be scoring near, at, or above grade level when tested later (again suggesting that the group had continued to progress following remediation). Discussion
Two issues were raised at the beginning of the paper: Are the gains in reading made during remediafion persistent? Do disabled readers "catch up"? Whether or not disabled readers ever "catch up" may depend, in part, upon how "catching up" is defined. If children are expected to achieve "at grade level," then these children remained at least five-months retarded in reading when the final check was made. If children are expected to achieve at a level commensurate with their intellectual capacities, then considering that most of the reading center alumni were presumably of average or superior ability and that most were one or more years over-age Table 2 Mean Average Yearly Gains in Reading Prior to, During, and Following Remediation for Thirty-Thrae Children Average yearly gains
Mean gain b
From From From From From From From From From
7.1 8.9 9.0 9.1 14.1 12.4 11.8 11.7 11.7
Expected mean gain ~
School months between tests
1st to 4th 1st to 5th 1st to 6th 1st to 8th 4th to 5th 4th to 6th 4th to 8th 5th to 6th 6th to 8th
grade grade grade grade grade a grade grade grade grade
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Total months in school
68 86 16
10.9 28.6
a During remediation. bDetermined by dividing measured gain between tests by time between tests (or measured achievement by total months of schooling) and multiplying by ten. CTheoretically, children of average ability gain one month in reading achievement per month of instruction. Ten months is the average school.year. 134
for their grade placement, it would appear that they were even more retarded in reading than the final scores would indicate upon first inspection. On the other hand, it is clear that in any given group of children many will be found to score above or below the mean in achievement. Furthermore, a five-month disability in the eighth grade is not so serious a handicap as a fourteen-month disability in the fourth grade. These children at least gave evidence of beginning to "catch up" wlth their grade peers. Given the same rate of growth, measured between the fifth and sixth grades and between the sixth and eighth grades, as a group the children would be expected to be achieving nearly at grade level by the time of graduation, from high school. Furthermore, had these children continued to achieve at the same preremediation rate, their projected level of achievement in the eighth grade would have been GP 5.6 as compared to their actual observed achievement of 8.1. Finally, the evidence from the study clearly suggests that these disabled readers did make considerable gains in reading during remediafion and that these gains were persistent at least three years following remedial instruction. The study, however, should be repeated with future reading center alumni in order to determine whether the same trends hold true, in view of the small number of subjects.
Summary Questions have been raised concerning long-term persistence of gains in reading resulting from remediation, and whether late readers ever "catch up." The few reported studies in this area have been conducted six to twelve months following remediation, but seldom beyond this. In the present study, mean reading achievement and average yearly progress in reading of a representative sample (33 Ss) of elementary school reading center alumni were examined (a) at the time of placement, (b) when released, (c) one year, and (d) three years following remediation. Although wide individual differences were observed, the evidence suggests that (a) as a group these children made considerable gains in reading during remediafion, (b) gains were persistent at least three years afterwards, and (e) they were catching up with grade peers.
References Bluestein, Venus W. Factors related to and predictive of improvement in reading, and long-term effectiveness of remediation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Cincinnati, 1966. Boney, R.D. A new program for the late reader. Elem. Engl., 1961, 38, 316-319. Lovell, K., Johnson, E., & Platts, D. A summary of a study of the reading ages of children who had been given remedial teaching. Brit. ]. edue. Psyehol., 1962, 32, 66-71. Lovell, K., Byrne, C., & Richardson, B. A further study of the educational progress of children who had received remedial education. Brit. ]. edue. Psychol., 1963, 33 (I), 3-9. New Intermediate Manual. (Revised) Cincinnati, Ohio: Cincinnati Public Schools, 1962. Robinson, Helen M., & Smith, Helen K. Reading clinic clients - - ten years after. Elem. Sch. ]., 1962, 63, 22-27. Vernon, M.D. The investigation of reading problems today. Brit. ]. educ. Psyehol., 1960, 30, 146-154.
13S
EFFECTIVENESS OF REMEDIATION Venus W. Bluestein
Questions have been raised concerning the long-term persistence of gains resulting from remedial tutoring, and whether late readers ever "catch up." The few reported studies in this area have been conducted six to 12 months following remediation, but seldom beyond this. In the present study, mean reading achievement and average yearly prograss in reading of a representative sample (33 Ss ) of elementary school reading center alumni are examined (a) at the time of placement; (b) when released; (c) one year and (d) three years following remediation. Although wide individual differences were observed, the evidence suggests that as a group these children made considerable gains in reading during remediation; gains were persistent at least three years afterwards; and they were catching up with grade peers. T h e evidence coming from studies of e l e m e n t a r y school children w h o have received r e m e d i a l instruction in r e a d i n g is inconclusive so far as long-term persistence of gains is concerned. T h e fact t h a t most disabled readers are r e p o r t e d to show i m p r o v e m e n t in r e a d i n g i m m e d i a t e l y following remediation, seems to be taken by m a n y researchers as p r i m a facie evidence of the effectiveness of such programs, a n d to lead t h e m to assume t h a t such gains are p e r m a n e n t . F u r t h e r m o r e , V e r n o n (1960) a n d Boney (1961), reflecting the opinion of other writers in t h e field, h a v e raised the question of w h e t h e r late readers ever c a t c h u p a n d become " n o r m a l readers." Lovell (1962, p. 66) concludes, in fact, t h a t "little is k n o w n a b o u t the long-term effects of remedial reading." H e f u r t h e r c o m m e n t s t h a t research in this Venus Bluestein is Assistant Professor of Psychology and Director of the School Psychology Training Program at the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. 130
area is not carried on over a long enough period of time. In support of Lovell's claim, the present investigator found that the typical follow-up study reported in the literature, with one exception (Robinson, 1962), had been conducted from six to twelve months following remediation and seldom beyond this. T h e purpose of the present study was to investigate the subsequent progress of children who had received remedial instruction at the elementary school level, one year and three years following remediation, in order to ascertain (a) whether improvement in reading was most evident at the end of remediation or at some later point; (b) whether gains in reading were maintained over a period of time, if the reading level continued to rise, or if it decreased in the years following remediation; and (c) whether these disabled readers continued to lag behind their grade peers or were subsequently able to bring their reading achievement up to expectations.
Procedure
Setting. The Cincinnati Public Schools maintain three remedial reading centers (or more appropriately, three special classes) for disabled readers, the purpose of which is to provide intensive assistance for pupils of average or superior ability with serious reading difficulties who fail to respond to regular classroom instruction. Any Cincinnati public or parochial elementary school child who meets the following criteria is eligible to be considered for placement: (a) he must be average or above in ability as estimated by some form of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale; (b) his reading level must be one full year below grade placement or two full years below his mental age, as suggested by his score on a standardized achievement test; (c) placement is recommended by a qualified psychologist and approved by the child's parents, the school principal, and the Department of Instruction. Children who are placed remain in the program until it is felt they have profited as much as possible. Each receives a thorough psychological evaluation both when he enters the center and when he is released. While enrolled in a center, the child carries an academic load appropriate for his grade assignment, but spends two 50-minute periods a day in the special class (the language arts period and one other agreed upon by the child, the remedial teacher, and the other teachers concerned). Visual, aural, kinesthetic approaches are used in helping the disabled reader, and a variety of remedial materials are provided at all levels of reading difficulty and which will appeal to many different kinds of interests. Mechanical devices, such as teaching machines, tachistoscopes, and controlled readers are also occasionally employed. In general, the specific remedial materials and techniques used in Cincinnati are typical of those found in comparable public school reading centers. Inasmuch as the Cincinnati centers do not operate in a clinical setting, little routine attempt is made to determine the etiology of or to diagnose the reading disability per se. Overt symptoms are analyzed (e.g., weak sight vocabulary, poor verbal comprehension, inadequate phrasing, etc.), and an effort is made to apply those remedial methods which seem most appro131
priate to the child's needs. If he fails to respond to one method, another is tried. In addition, the school psychologist, social worker, nurse, teacher, and other personnel work closely with the home to insure that other appropriate corrective action is taken when indicated (e.g., eye lenses fitted, psychotherapy undertaken, neurological examination conducted). Remedial teachers who serve the centers are selected on the basis of teaching experience, demonstrated classroom skills, special training in primary and remedial reading techniques, and possessing certain personality" characteristics which seem particularly important in working with disabled readers. Subiects. As the result of a larger and more intensive study of the three reading centers, covering the years since their inception in 1943 (Bluestein, 1966), it was ascertained that the typical disabled reader served by the program is a fourth grader at the time of placement and receives an average of two full school years of remedial instruction before official release. Furthermore, the reading achievement of all Cincinnati public school children is evaluated by means of standardized group tests administered in both the sixth and eighth grades. Therefore, subjects for this study were limited to those reading center alumni (a) who had been placed in a reading center as fourth graders, (b) who had met the basic criteria for admission at the time of placement, (c) who had remained in the center until released officially when it was felt they had profited as much as possible, 1 (d) to whom the city-wide reading achievement tests had been administered in the sixth and eighth grades. Subjects were limited, further, to those children placed in a reading center between 1955 and 1960, in an effort to hold constant remedial teachers, instructional procedures and methods, and tests administered. Sixty-nine reading center alumni were identified who met criteria a through c. However, 21 of the children had moved from the city or were no longer enrolled in the Cincinnati Public Schools (which suggests one difficulty in attempting follow-up studies over a period of several years); nine could not be located and were presumed to be attending schools elsewhere. One had not been tested and five others, because of failure, had not reached the eighth grade at the time of the study, leaving 33 subjects. However, inasmuch as mean age, IQ, preremedial achievement in reading and arithmetic, grade assignment at the time of placement, months of remediafion, and postremedial achievement, history of repeating grades prior to or during remediation, and sex were comparable to that of the typical Cincinnati reading center population, 2 the sample, although small, was considered to be representative. Method. It is anticipated that the average child will gain at least one month in reading achievement per month of instruction. Average expected lChildren are sometimes placed who do not meet the requirements for admission, discussed previously, when it is felt they might profit from the experience. Furthermore, children occasionally leave the program prematurely for various reasons. Since neither of these situations is typical, such children were eliminated from the study. 2These particular variables had been found to correlate significantly with improvement in reading in a representative sample of reading center children studied by the present investigator (Bluestein, 1966, pp. 81-111). 132
yearly gain, therefore, is 10 months (based upon a ten-month school year). In the present study mean reading achievement and average yearly gains in reading for the subjects were compared (a) at the time of placement, (b) when released from the center, (c) approximately one year following remediation (in the sixth grade), and (d) approximately three years following remediation (in the eighth grade). Achievement at each checkpoint was measured by the "Paragraph Meaning'' subtest on some form of the Stanford Achievement Test. Average yearly gains 3 were computed between each test (i.e., between admission and release, between admission and sixth grade, between admission and eighth grade, between release and sixth grade, between release and eighth grade, between sixth and eighth grades) and for total months of schooling at each checkpoint, since entering the first grade (including repeating grades).
Results Trends Observed. At the time of placement, these reading center alumni were found to be achieving at GP 2.8, or about 14 months below the expected mean GP reading level of 4.2. When released two years later, the children as a group continued to lag about 11 months behind the expected mean GP reading level of 5.9. When the sixth-grade mean reading level was checked, it had risen to GP 5.8; the eighth-grade mean reading level, to 8.1 (Table 1). When average yearly gains in reading were computed for these children, the following trends were observed: Up to the time of placement, average yearly gains in reading achievement had been approximately 7.1 months per school year (contrasted to the expected gain of 10 months). During remediation average yearly gains were better than expected, or 14.1 months per school year. Immediately following remediation, average yearly gains in reading achievement appear to drop considerably compared to those made during placement (or from 14.1 months per school year to 11.7 months) 3Average gains were computed by dividing months of achievement for a given period of time by months of schooling (instruction) for the same period and multiplying by 10. (Mean GP achievement for children not enrolled in a center is approximately commensurate with grade placement.) Table 1 Mean Grade-Level and Mean Reading Achievement of Thirty-Three Children Prior to, During, and Following Remediation Test administered
Mean grade level a
When piacad When released In the 6th grade In the 8th grade
4.2 5.9 6.6 8,6
Mean reading achievement b 2.8 4.8 5.8 8.1
a Grade placement at time of testing,
bAchievement at time of testing (mean expected reading achievement same as mean grade placement),
133
and to reach a plateau. Average yearly gains in reading achievement based upon total months of instruction at each check point show a gradual increase from 7.1 months per year in the fourth grade to 9.1 months in the eighth grade (Table 2). As might be expected, there were wide individual differences noted. For example, when examined in the eighth grade one child's achievement was found to be third-grade; another's was eleventh-grade. Children who scored near, at, or above grade level when released from the center tended to maintain the same relative position at subsequent checks. In addition, 3 0 9 of the children who had scored below grade level when released, were found to be scoring near, at, or above grade level when tested later (again suggesting that the group had continued to progress following remediation). Discussion
Two issues were raised at the beginning of the paper: Are the gains in reading made during remediafion persistent? Do disabled readers "catch up"? Whether or not disabled readers ever "catch up" may depend, in part, upon how "catching up" is defined. If children are expected to achieve "at grade level," then these children remained at least five-months retarded in reading when the final check was made. If children are expected to achieve at a level commensurate with their intellectual capacities, then considering that most of the reading center alumni were presumably of average or superior ability and that most were one or more years over-age Table 2 Mean Average Yearly Gains in Reading Prior to, During, and Following Remediation for Thirty-Thrae Children Average yearly gains
Mean gain b
From From From From From From From From From
7.1 8.9 9.0 9.1 14.1 12.4 11.8 11.7 11.7
Expected mean gain ~
School months between tests
1st to 4th 1st to 5th 1st to 6th 1st to 8th 4th to 5th 4th to 6th 4th to 8th 5th to 6th 6th to 8th
grade grade grade grade grade a grade grade grade grade
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Total months in school
68 86 16
10.9 28.6
a During remediation. bDetermined by dividing measured gain between tests by time between tests (or measured achievement by total months of schooling) and multiplying by ten. CTheoretically, children of average ability gain one month in reading achievement per month of instruction. Ten months is the average school.year. 134
for their grade placement, it would appear that they were even more retarded in reading than the final scores would indicate upon first inspection. On the other hand, it is clear that in any given group of children many will be found to score above or below the mean in achievement. Furthermore, a five-month disability in the eighth grade is not so serious a handicap as a fourteen-month disability in the fourth grade. These children at least gave evidence of beginning to "catch up" wlth their grade peers. Given the same rate of growth, measured between the fifth and sixth grades and between the sixth and eighth grades, as a group the children would be expected to be achieving nearly at grade level by the time of graduation, from high school. Furthermore, had these children continued to achieve at the same preremediation rate, their projected level of achievement in the eighth grade would have been GP 5.6 as compared to their actual observed achievement of 8.1. Finally, the evidence from the study clearly suggests that these disabled readers did make considerable gains in reading during remediafion and that these gains were persistent at least three years following remedial instruction. The study, however, should be repeated with future reading center alumni in order to determine whether the same trends hold true, in view of the small number of subjects.
Summary Questions have been raised concerning long-term persistence of gains in reading resulting from remediation, and whether late readers ever "catch up." The few reported studies in this area have been conducted six to twelve months following remediation, but seldom beyond this. In the present study, mean reading achievement and average yearly progress in reading of a representative sample (33 Ss) of elementary school reading center alumni were examined (a) at the time of placement, (b) when released, (c) one year, and (d) three years following remediation. Although wide individual differences were observed, the evidence suggests that (a) as a group these children made considerable gains in reading during remediafion, (b) gains were persistent at least three years afterwards, and (e) they were catching up with grade peers.
References Bluestein, Venus W. Factors related to and predictive of improvement in reading, and long-term effectiveness of remediation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Cincinnati, 1966. Boney, R.D. A new program for the late reader. Elem. Engl., 1961, 38, 316-319. Lovell, K., Johnson, E., & Platts, D. A summary of a study of the reading ages of children who had been given remedial teaching. Brit. ]. edue. Psyehol., 1962, 32, 66-71. Lovell, K., Byrne, C., & Richardson, B. A further study of the educational progress of children who had received remedial education. Brit. ]. edue. Psychol., 1963, 33 (I), 3-9. New Intermediate Manual. (Revised) Cincinnati, Ohio: Cincinnati Public Schools, 1962. Robinson, Helen M., & Smith, Helen K. Reading clinic clients - - ten years after. Elem. Sch. ]., 1962, 63, 22-27. Vernon, M.D. The investigation of reading problems today. Brit. ]. educ. Psyehol., 1960, 30, 146-154.
13S