Direct Instruction

<<I was wondering if anyone has used the SRA Direct Intruction program Reading Mastery or Corrective Reading I am looking at using the programs with second or fourth grade LD studnets. Also, what their thoughts were on the program and how it worked. I was taught how to do it during my college training by an LD teacher who used it and swore by it. I think it might help my studnets. Thank you.>>

I personally have never used RM below the third grade level, but have used all levels of Corrective Reading. If a student is truly LD at the primary level, Reading Mastery is not an effective program. My school is a Direct Instructioin school, and the regular ed. classes use it. Usually, our LD kids need more of a multisensory approach in order to succeed.. However, Corrective Reading works quite well for mildly LD students, but again, students with severe phonological sequencing deficits need a multisensory programs by companies such as Lindamood-Bell or Orton Gillingham based programs. Other teachers and parents recommend Phonographics quite highly as well.

I’ve always found that those students who have participated in the Corrective Reading programs and have had great difficulty, are good candidates for Special Ed. referrals.

I used to use Corrective Reading in the resource room, but found that too many of the kids were too severe to benefit from the program.

Marilyn

I will confirm that Reading Mastery is not a good choice for true LD children. My school also uses RM in regular ed. and it is not enough for a child with a phonological processing disorder.

Janis

My school is currently adopted the SRA series for our 7th and 8th grade LD resource classroom. Currently, the teachers feel that it is working but that the studetnts are not really into it. It is very repetitive and you have to follow the guide exactly. It sure doesn’t leave much room for creativity. It is not a good program to use one-on-one because it does need to be in at least a small group. Some of the students do not like it because it requires them to have to repeat exactly what the teacher is saying or answer orally as a group when the teacher “cues’ them. I have thought about incorporating it into my 6th grade resource room, but I am waiting to see what the results are of the 7th and 8th grade.

Hope this helps a little bit!

Christy

I also used Corrective Reading and it was great — but my kiddos were not severely LD. Many just hadn’t been taught to sound out words (they had no earthly idea what I was talking about at first) — dyspedagogia — and a few had some LD issues.
It is repetitive; I foudn the best thing to do was to be really really strict and hold to the line … and after a week or so “breaking in” the kiddos realized it was faster and more pleasant to Just Do It. In another week, they were into it. (I did this all of 3 times, and these were groups that were not too burned out and still could “get into” school stuff once they trusted; I suspect other groups would be a lot more challenging.)
The Orton-GIllingham methods I learned later were also very “direct instruction” but were not scripted; however, they required a lot more training.

My experience with Reading Mastery/Corrective Reading is at variance with others’ observations. For 6 years I used it in a segregated LD program for *severe* LD kids in the primary/junior grades (they had to be the “lowest of the low” except cognitively, and have multiple processing issues to qualify). When I moved to a middle school segregated program I used Corrective Reading (the student profiles were similar but more severe due to increased gap between skills and curriculum expectations).
I also used Reading Mastery with P/J kids when I was in a K-8 school as a resource teacher; SOME of the kids were severe LD but most were milder cases.

The version of RM that I used (and recommend to others) is “Fast Cycle” which covers the skills for K-1-2 (exactly what grade level it corresponds with depends on local standards) in one year. I found that ALL students progressed and met criteria, some with astounding speed and proficiency, others at a slower rate. There were no kids who did not learn to read and learn to transfer their skills to other text. At the time, standards in the district were high and kids in the program were expected to make a *minimum* of two years’ measurable progress in all core areas each school year. With Reading Mastery (and Corrective Reading) I found it easy to meet and usually exceed this expectation in reading.

The caveat here is that either program must be supplemented for those kids with severe phonological processing problems, and fluency building needs to be emphasized for kids with memory and lexical access difficulty. The fluency criteria in both RM and CR are really much too low — I raised the bar 25-50%, depending on the kid. For kids who were progressing well I demanded they meet fluency targets 150% of those set by the program guidelines. When they were able to meet these, they were frequently also able to accelerate (“skip”) ahead and progress faster. These students (Gr. 4-7) were frequently able to close the gap completely within 18 months. Younger students had fewer “grade levels” to make up but often ended up above level (not in written language, I hasten to add — a much harder nut to crack).

What I most appreciated was that the programs were like a framework — the organizational part was taken care of with an empirically verified sequence and instructional outline & materials. I did not have to try to reinvent the wheel every day. However, it was up to me to pace instruction appropriately, notice what difficulties kids were having, provide supplementary practice, instruction, reinforcement etc. as needed and find interesting materials for kids to read that tied in with what they were learning.

When I was transferred to a school that did not have any DI resources (or much of anything for that matter), I took PG training and used Phono-Graphix with the severe LD students as well as general resource kids. I observed that there was insufficient practice to achieve mastery (or emphasis on it) and not enough co-ordinated reading material for kids to use to apply their decoding skills in real text. While the students made some progress, it was far less than what I was used to.

My next transfer, to another school with no DI, I determined I was never going to be without what I needed again. I got my own set of Fast Cycle off Ebay and had a chance to put it to the test right away with some low-IQ kids as well as severe-ld kids in an inclusion setting. This time I used the PG word building and auditory processing activities along with Reading Mastery. These kids did better than ever (even better than with RM alone). One kid with a language and speech impairment went up 32 levels on the DRA!! He was in second grade. There were other spectacular successes — but I’d bore you.

The important thing to remember is, the program is a tool. You still have to TEACH the kids and observe carefully, providing supplementary multisensory activities as necessary. The program does not do the job for you (all that talk about “teacher-proof” is nonsense). I found through trial and error that it was essential the kids meet the mastery targets in each lesson and you NEVER let them proceed forward unless they do. When they understand there’s no fudging, they shape right up and apply themselves and yes, they do “get it.”

I have never had one that didn’t (yet) and we’re talking a lot of kids (and years) now. I may have met my match this year, but I’m just getting out my tool kit and we’ll see about her!

If it’s available to you, I’d give it a try. With 2-4graders, go for Fast Cycle. And be sure to supplement with multisensory activities, but using the sounds, words and sequences in RM.

Susan S.
Ontario,Canada

I will amend my ancient post to say it is likely that my students who did not do well with Reading Mastery did not have the kind of instruction Susan is talking about. So it may have been due more to the instructor than the content of RM.

Janis

Experience is such a *huge* part of the success of most programs, though one of the strengths of Corrective Reading was that I, who didn’t have much experience, could just dive in and follow. It was important, though, that I *did* follow even when it seemed counterintuitive (accuracy & fluency standards *that* high? YES. WELL worth the time effort and focus.)

That is certainly true, Sue. I have recently collected Corrective Reading materials and am anxious to try them. But I’m sure I’ll be better after doing it with a couple of kids. That’s really true with everything.

Janis