final action research proposal sample

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq

Corrective Reading: an Action Research Proposal

12/10/2011

Christina Fink

UCLA Principal Leadership Institute Cohort 12A

1

I. Topic/Rationale

As a 10-year veteran elementary educator in the primary grades (Kindergarten – 2nd

grade), in a school with a high population of English Learners, I became well versed in teaching

my students to read. Though all students varied in their developmental levels, it was never too

much of a struggle (barring any sort of learning disability) for students to learn how to decode

words through systematic phonics instruction – even those students who spoke English as a

second language. For the past two years, however, I have had the opportunity as an

Instructional Practices Coach and Intervention Coordinator to work with older students, namely

those in the 4th

– 6th

grades. The trend that I have noticed is quite disturbing: many English

Learner students in these grades have learned to decode text at a quick rate, and with a high level

of accuracy; however, they often cannot comprehend the material that they read. In essence,

they are unable to become true readers, as they cannot extract meaning from text.

The difficulty reading comprehension poses to English Learners is understandable, as it is

a higher-order skill that must be done at the same time as decoding. The ability to perform both

of these skills in tandem requires a mastery of the language that many English Learners haven’t

acquired. Struggles with reading comprehension pose significant problems for English Learners

in the upper elementary grades. A lack of comprehension when reading literature keeps students

from experiencing the thrill of visualizing the story in their minds. During instruction in other

content areas, such as social studies, science, or math, a lack of comprehension prohibits students

from accessing the curriculum. When students are not able to get the message of the lesson, they

become unmotivated to pay attention to lessons.

While these problems pose a significant barrier to students’ education in the upper

elementary grades, there is also a much broader significance. Students may carry this apathy

2

toward reading into middle and high school, where a significant amount of reading is required in

order for students to access educational material. This can lead English Learners to become

disillusioned with school in general, and poses a threat to their continuing education. In this

sense, raising comprehension levels of English Learners is a matter of social justice, in that these

students deserve equal access to an education and should not be hindered simply because English

is not their primary language. English Learners are fighting a battle that English-speaking

students do not have to fight – overcoming the barrier of speaking English as second language,

and becoming proficient in that language according to state assessments. We as educators, need

to help them improve their scores, as that is the only way for them to gain equal access to

challenging curriculum.

A focus on reading comprehension relates directly to my school’s 2010 – 2011 Single

Plan for Student Achievement, as it is listed as an area of need in the SPSA for 4th

and 6th

grades.

Additionally, scores on reading comprehension portions of the California Standards Tests were

lower than state average for EL students in 4th

– 6th

grades. As far as Annual Yearly Progress,

students in the Hispanic subgroup (many of whom are also members of the English Learner

subgroup) did not make adequate gains in language arts.

These reasons lead me to believe that the investigation of a reading comprehension

intervention program, such as SRA Corrective Reading, for upper elementary English Learners is

an important and worthwhile endeavor with implications for their future success in school and,

consequently, in life.

3

II. Review of Literature

Corrective Reading is a reading intervention program published by SRA/McGraw-Hill.

This program is geared toward students in the 4th

grades and above, and specifically focuses on

the areas of reading comprehension through the process of direct instruction. It is designed to be

implemented with students in small homogeneous groups, though the instruction can be

administered to groups as large as 18-22 students. The Corrective Reading program has been

adopted by my school district as the reading intervention program for all 4th

– 6th

grade students

performing significantly below level in reading comprehension.

In reviewing the literature on Corrective Reading, it has been difficult to find unbiased

research that has been conducted using the specific program that will be used in my study:

namely, the Levels A and B1 reading comprehension components. However, research on the

Corrective Reading program does exist, and I will examine that research in my review.

Additionally, I found it helpful to consult best practices with regard to literacy instruction for EL

students, which will be discussed in my review, as I believe it will help as I implement the

Corrective Reading program with my EL students.

Przychodzin-Havis et al. (2005) gives an analysis of several research studies that have

been done on the use of Corrective Reading in settings that range from those that take place in

general education, special education, and alternative education. In addition, the analysis explores

the use of Corrective Reading as delivered by both teachers and peers. For the purpose of this

research project, I have chosen only to review those articles that focus on the use of Corrective

Reading in the general education setting, as delivered by a classroom teacher. It is important to

note that there may be a slight bias in the reporting of research studies in this analysis, as it was

4

published by the Journal of Direct Instruction, which promotes the use of programs that follow a

“direct instruction” method of teaching over other types of instructional programs.

In 1990, Clunies-Ross (as cited in Przychodzin-Havis et al., 2005) conducted a quasi-

experimental research study on Year 6 general education students in Melbourne, Australia. The

quasi-experimental designation was given, as Clunies-Ross used nonequivalent pre-test and post-

test control groups. In her study, the Corrective Reading: Comprehension B program was

implemented two to three times per week over a period of eight months with a group of 31

students, while a comparison group of 26 received instruction using an interest-based thematic

approach to reading. To measure her outcomes, Clunies-Ross used the ACER Test of Learning

Ability for Year 6 Students. The findings indicated that the Corrective Reading group made

greater gains on three subtests of the ACER, though only the Syllogistic Reasoning subtest gain

was statistically significant. However, the Corrective Reading group showed statistically

significant greater gains than the control group on the Total Test composite.

In 1995, Sommers (as cited in Przychodzin-Havis et al., 2005) conducted research with

112 at-risk middle school students in grades 6, 7, and 8 in Big Piney, Wyoming, who were

performing approximately 2-3 years below grade level in reading. Students used one of several

different direct instruction programs, including the Corrective Reading program, in a pull-out

model. The research was non-experimental, as it only used one group pre-test and post-test (the

Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests). Sixth-grade students demonstrated a .93 year gain in grade

level, which was an equivalent of 1.1 months per month of instruction. This could have been due

to the effectiveness of the Corrective Reading program, but also may be attributed to the strength

of the core classroom instruction, the increased maturity level of the students, or the familiarity

of the students with the test that was given. Because there was no triangulation of data, these

results are questionable.

5

A final piece of research analyzed by Przychodzin-Havis et al. (2005) was done in 1993

by Vitale, Medland, Romance, & Weaver. Their research was quasi-experimental in that they

used nonequivalent treatment and control groups. The research was done in a Southwestern

urban school district with twenty-six low-achieving 4th

– 6th

grade students designated as

“Chapter 1”. These students were compared to students at the same school, average and gifted

students from a comparable school, and district students as a whole. The comparison groups

received Chapter 1 reading instruction while the Corrective Reading group received 1 hour of

instruction 5 days per week. The researchers used the ITBS Reading Comprehension and

Vocabulary subtests to measure gains in student achievement. Their results found that the

Corrective Reading group made more substantial gains than the control group.

Other research has shown the benefits of using Direct Instruction programs, including

Corrective Reading, with older students. Grossen (2004), used a variety of Direct Instruction

programs at Charles M. Goethe Middle School in Sacramento, CA. Goethe was designated a

“high-needs” school in that 87% of its students qualified for free or reduced lunch, and 40% of

its population spoke English as a second language. The difference in this study from the

previous studies was that all teachers implementing the Direct Instruction interventions were

given a two-day workshop in each of the programs they taught. Additionally, they were

provided with four to five coaching sessions over the course of the school year to ensure that

they were effectively implementing their programs. Teachers created monthly reports using the

formative tests found within their programs, and these data were used to shape coaching

sessions. Growth in grade level standards was measured using the Stanford Achievement Test –

9th

edition (SAT-9), which was administered at the end of the first year of the project. The

researchers also used the Multilevel Academic Survey Test (MAST) and the Woodcock-

Johnson-Revised (WJ-R) as pre- and post-tests to measure growth in basic literacy. Additionally,

6

surveys were given to both teachers and students, in order to assess their attitudes toward the

implementation of the Direct Instruction programs.

The results of this study were quite positive. The average student improved by 2 grade

levels, moving from a 4th

to a 6th

grade reading level on the MAST. For EL students, the results

were stronger, as the number of students reading at grade level increased more than 3.5 times.

Teacher attitudes were significantly more positive toward the Direct Instruction model as

opposed to the non-Direct Instruction model of the previous year. Students were generally

positive about that year’s learning, their beliefs that they had improved in reading and writing,

and their desire to learn more in the following year. However, only slightly more than half of

students reported enjoying reading and writing more.

Finally, Gersten et al. (2007) have given recommendations for effective literacy

instruction for elementary EL students, citing evidence from research. Three of their

recommendations seem quite pertinent to the implementation of the Corrective Reading program.

These recommendations include: screening EL students for reading difficulties; providing small-

group, intensive interventions for EL students who are struggling with reading; and providing

high-quality and explicit vocabulary instruction to EL students. In a 2006 criterion-related

validity study which monitored student progress over time, Dominguez de Ramirez & Shapiro

(as cited in Gersten et al., 2007) found that oral reading fluency in elementary students up to

grade 5 could show growth in a period as short as two weeks. This reaffirms the need for

screening and progress monitoring of reading achievement of EL students. In 2006, Vaughn,

Mathes, et al. (as cited in Gersten et al., 2007), conducted a randomized controlled trial of the

Enhanced Proactive Reading program, a direct-instruction program in which students were

taught in small groups, teachers modeled new content, and instruction was provided at a fast

pace. Students answered chorally most of the time, the instruction was highly interactive, and

7

students were given frequent opportunities to respond. This study showed a significantly

significant impact on overall reading (0.89) and comprehension (1.32). Gersten, et al. concluded

“that other programs that follow the same principles of direct and explicit instruction to teach

core reading elements in small groups are likely to have the same beneficial effects.” (p. 10)

Overall, the research has shown an increase in reading achievement in students who

receive instruction in Corrective Reading, or another direct instruction program with similar

characteristics and methods. In one study, students who were designated English learners made

greater gains in reading through the use of these programs than students whose primary language

was English. However, it is important to note that several studies may have a bias toward direct-

instruction programs, and most studies were either pre- or quasi-experimental in nature.

Additionally, the study that showed a positive increase in teachers’ and students’ attitudes

involved the use of intensive teacher training via workshops and ongoing coaching sessions.

Several of the research-based recommendations for providing instruction to English learners,

which include screening for reading difficulties and progress monitoring, small-group

interventions, and explicit vocabulary instruction, are all evident in the Corrective Reading

program.

8

III. Research Question

As a result of the perpetual phenomenon of English learner students in the upper

elementary grades (4th

– 6th

) struggling in reading comprehension, my district decided to adopt

the Corrective Reading comprehension intervention program. As the Instructional Practices

Coach and de facto Intervention Coordinator, I am responsible for both organizing the

intervention groups, in addition to teaching several of the groups myself.

For the past few years, my district has been emerging from a direct instruction-induced

fog, which had left teachers feeling weary of using scripted reading programs. In the years prior,

teachers were often verbally reprimanded or given written warnings when they were not teaching

according to the exact instructions of their teacher’s manuals, though they saw that their students

were yearning for instruction that was more authentic and engaging. Luckily, these restrictions

have lifted, and teachers have been providing more authentic and learning experiences to their

students, including the use of investigation and critical-thinking skills. This is particularly true in

the area of reading instruction. Now that we have adopted Corrective Reading as an intervention

program, with its emphasis on Direct Instruction and scripted nature, I – along with many of my

colleagues – are very skeptical of its promised benefits to students’ achievement. Additionally,

I am concerned about the program’s effect on students’ attitudes toward reading.

Given this background, I am proposing the following questions:

In what ways will the implementation of the SRI Corrective Reading program effect the

comprehension levels of English Learners in the 4th

– 6th

grades?

What effect (if any) will this program have on students’ attitudes toward reading?

What effect (if any) will this program have on teachers’ attitude toward reading

instruction?

9

IV. Action Research Proposal Plan

In that my research questions involve both the process of teaching the Corrective

Reading program along with an evaluation of the program, my research will involve mixed

methods, using both quantitative and qualitative measures. The quantitative methods I plan on

implementing involve the use various measures of students’ achievement levels in reading

comprehension, along with qualitative methods that will involve the examination of the context

in which students are participating in the program. The study will be longitudinal, covering a

period of six months of instruction in a non-experimental setting. My research design will

support an action research plan in that a 6-month period will provide enough time for me to

gather substantial data on students’ achievement in reading comprehension, in addition to

allowing time for interpreting the data and making instructional decisions to improve my practice

for the following year based upon what was learned. The following paragraphs describe the

interventions, settings, and participants in my research, along with a more detailed description of

the methods to be used.

Fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students will take part in this intervention and will be

chosen based upon their scores on the Language Arts portion of the 2011 California Standards

Test. These students have been chosen in alignment with my school’s Single Plan for Student

Achievement, which focuses on increasing the reading comprehension level of students in the

upper elementary grades. All students who scored at the Basic, Below Basic, and Far Below

Basic level will be assessed using the placement tests provided within the Corrective Reading

program. Students will be taught in groups according to their grade level and placement level.

Placement of students into levels will be done using the guidelines provided by the Corrective

Reading program. Students will fall into one of three different levels depending on their

10

performance on the placement test: Comprehension A, Comprehension A Fast Cycle, and

Comprehension B1.

As described by Gersten et al. (2007), English Learners respond well to programs that

involve the use of direct instruction where teachers explicitly model new content in small groups,

following a fast pace during which students provide choral responses to questions. As a result of

this information, I plan to provide my interventions with students in small groups of no more

than 10 students each, in a highly interactive environment. However, one group of students will

be receiving Corrective Reading instruction in a group of 25, which follows the guidelines of the

publisher for group size. Groups will consist predominantly of students who are English

Learners, though there will be some students in the groups that speak English only. My research

and data analysis will focus only on those students who are English Learners. Groups will be

gender-mixed according to the students’ placement level. Because the school in which my

research will be conducted is a Title I school, it is safe to say that most participants are

considered socio-economically disadvantaged. Further detail on students’ demographics will be

discussed in the data analysis section of this research project.

Students will receive 30 minutes of instruction in Corrective Reading four-five times per

week with either a certificated classroom teacher or a highly qualified paraprofessional. For the

purposes of this action-research study, a highly qualified paraprofessional is one who has earned

a bachelor’s degree and has taken graduate courses in education. All four of the teachers who

plan on delivering instruction in Corrective Reading will receive training in the delivery of the

program from the publisher or from a qualified Instructional Practices Coach. Instruction will

take place either in a full-sized classroom or a half-sized room, where there is adequate room for

all participants (all students will have access to a chair and a table/desk on which to write). No

11

other instruction will be taking place in classrooms where the Corrective Reading instruction

will be happening.

The teachers delivering the Corrective Reading intervention will meet once every four

weeks to discuss students’ progress, troubleshoot any problems, and share any best practices for

student achievement. Teachers will use the formative and summative tests included in the

program for data analysis. In this case, I as a researcher will also be a practitioner delivering the

intervention to three different groups of students. I plan to facilitate the discussion of the

Corrective Reading implementation with my colleagues, helping them to share data in an

objective way and keeping my personal biases to a minimum. I plan on displaying data to the

teachers without the use of students’ names, thereby taking some of the subjectivity out of our

data interpretation. I also plan on doing my final data analysis with the help of my colleagues, in

order to help with my subjectivity and biases. I feel that by holding myself accountable to my

colleagues, I will have less of a chance of making quick assumptions and bringing my own

personal biases into the intervention implementation and data analysis.

12

V. Strategy for Data Collection and Analysis

I plan to use several data collection methods and instruments in my action research,

including several forms of student-generated artifacts and inquiry data from both students and

teachers.

Student-generated artifacts will consist of baseline data from students’ 2011 scores on the

Reading/Language Arts portion of the California Standards Test (CST) and a pre-assessment of

students’ reading comprehension levels using the STAR Reading Test from the Accelerated

Reader reading program. Additionally, a post-test using a California Standards Blueprint Test (a

test created to mimic the CST in rigor and style) along with a repeated administration of the

STAR Reading Test will be given to students to show whether or not they have shown growth in

reading comprehension. During the implementation of the intervention, I plan to use are

students’ performance on in-class reading comprehension assessments and assignments, along

with students’ reading response journal entries to show how well students are comprehending

classroom material. Finally, I will use benchmark assessments provided by the Corrective

Reading intervention program to measure students’ progress in learning material presented in the

program.

Observational data that will be collected will consist of my own personal field notes as a

participant-observer while implementing the Corrective Reading program. I plan on writing

about my experiences with teaching the program, including the students’ reactions, efforts, and

achievement in the program, and any noteworthy events that happen during instruction. I will

keep a composition book at my table in order to jot notes both during intervention groups and

afterward. Brief notes will be written as events occur, and more detailed descriptions will be

added as soon as possible afterward.

13

Finally, I also plan to use several forms of inquiry data. I plan to survey participating

students again, asking them about their feelings about reading in addition to their feelings about

the Corrective Reading program and whether or not they felt it has helped them with their

reading achievement in school. I also plan on surveying classroom teachers about their students’

abilities in reading comprehension both before the intervention begins and after the intervention

has ended, and whether or not they feel that the program has affected their students’ abilities in

reading comprehension. In addition to that, I plan on surveying my participating teachers, and

their attitudes about teaching the program and the quality of the program. Each of these surveys

will have Likert items, using a scale of 1 – 5, in addition to short answer sections, where teachers

and students will be able to provide evaluative information in a less restricted way.

In order to analyze my data, I plan to take advantage of the Microsoft Excel program in

order to create visual representations of students’ performance on pre- and post-assessments.

Additionally, I plan on recording students’ Likert answers on a spreadsheet, averaging the survey

questions and, again, representing that data visually in an Excel chart. Survey questions that are

short-answers will be coded according to patterns that emerge in the answers. I hope to show

results of data for students as a whole, in addition to disaggregating data of students according to

their grade level. As with students’ and teachers’ short responses, I plan to code my own field

notes according to themes or patterns that emerge. Hopefully this will give me plenty of data to

triangulate in order to draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of the program.

In order to ensure validity and reliability, I plan on using multiple sources of data

(triangulation) in addition to keeping accurate records of all of my students’ data. Additionally, I

plan on making my biases clear to both myself and other participants, and taking part in peer

debriefing with colleagues at my workplace and within the Graduate School of Education &

Information Studies at UCLA. Finally, I plan on presenting my results to the School Site

14

Council at my elementary school after my research has concluded. With respect to ethics, I plan

on informing all of my students of their participation in my research, even given the fact that the

Corrective Reading program is mandated by my school district. Parents will be notified of their

students’ participation in surveys for my project and will have the opportunity to have their child

opt out if desired. In addition, my data and results will be kept confidential with respect to

students’ individual identities in order to protect the privacy of the participants. Finally, I plan

on getting administrator approval for my project, and working closely with my fieldwork advisor

in order to ensure that all ethical obligations are being met.

15

VI. Relationship to California Professional Standards

for Educational Leaders (CPSELs) and Fieldwork

My action research project proposal relates to a major component of my fieldwork plan.

The first, and biggest, project in my fieldwork plan is to set up and implement a school-wide

intervention program for students in first through sixth grades. The intervention that will be used

with fourth, fifth, and sixth-grade students will be the Corrective Reading program, on which I

will be conducting my action research.

In addition to actually implementing the Corrective Reading program, I will also be

leading a group of educators in the implementation of interventions for the entire school. I will

be creating master schedules with grade-level teams and training educators and para-educators

on the proper implementation of interventions. Additionally, I will be meeting with these teams

on a monthly basis in order to monitor progress, troubleshoot, and share best practices that have

been discovered during individual implementation of interventions. Finally, I also plan on

communicating with parents about these interventions, which will manifest itself in a parent

information newsletter and seminars about how to help struggling readers at home.

These major activities to be accomplished will cover several of the California

Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSELs). The main CPSELs that will be

touched upon are Standards 1, 3, and 5. Standard 1 focuses on a shared vision - developing,

planning and implementing activities, and allocating resources toward it. Implementing the

Corrective Reading program will require me to have a larger vision, communicate that vision to

others, and plan activities in order to achieve that vision. Standard 3 involves organization,

operations, and allocation of resources. The action research that I am undertaking involves

managing and organizing people and resources, and will give me plenty of experience in this

arena. Finally, Standard 5 focuses on ethics and the development of a capacity for professional

16

leadership. I feel that my involvement with this intervention program will necessitate an ethical

standard of professionalism on my part, including the use of sound, research-guided methods in a

reflective setting. I hope to model and promote reflective practice and continuous growth in both

myself and the educators with whom I will be working.

If my research shows that the Corrective Reading program is effective with English

Learners, it may become a program that is more widely used both in my school and within the

district. Our method of providing interventions in my school could possibly become a model for

other schools. On the other hand, if my research shows that there is little or no effect on

students’ reading comprehension by using the Corrective Reading program, I feel that it may

lead to more action on my part to find a program or method of intervention that better serves

English Learners. To do this, I may have to recruit my principal’s support in petitioning our

district to “opt-out” of the mandated program, citing our research-based evidence.

Each of these possible actions will further equity and social justice. If the program

proves to be effective, English Learners will have a greater capacity for reading comprehension,

and thus carry with them another tool to help close the achievement gap between them and their

English-speaking counterparts. If my research shows that the program does not serve English

Learners, it will provide me with evidence to support the need for other programs or methods to

support these students. Instead of spending year after year participating in an intervention that

makes no difference, I will have the data to prove that these students deserve something different

and more effective. Since these students otherwise would have no voice or choice in the matter,

this action would be furthering the cause of social justice for all students in that the data would

speak for them.

17

VII. Appendix

Table 1: Student Attitude Survey

Corrective Reading Student Survey: 2011-2012

Grade (circle one): 4th

5th

6th

Level: (circle one): A B B-Fast

How much do you think you have learned from this program?

NOTHING NOT MUCH I DON’T KNOW A LITTLE BIT A LOT

How much do you think your reading has improved this year because of this class?

NOT AT ALL NOT MUCH I DON’T KNOW A LITTLE BIT A LOT

Do you enjoy reading more after participating in this program? How much?


Has this program helped you to become a better student in your regular class? How much?


How happy are you about participating in this program again next year?

NOT NOT VERY I DON’T KNOW A LITTLE VERY Happy Happy Happy Happy

What did you like MOST about this program?

What did you like LEAST about this program?

18

Table 2: Classroom Teacher Attitude Survey

Corrective Reading Classroom Teacher Survey: 2011-2012


5th

6th


My students enjoyed participating in the Corrective Reading Program.

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

My students’ vocabulary has improved.


My students’ reading comprehension has improved.


My students’ critical thinking skills have improved.


Overall, my students have benefitted from this program.


I look forward to having other students participate in the program next year.


Table 3: Corrective Reading Teacher Attitude Survey

Corrective Reading Instructor Survey: 2011-2012


5th

6th


My students enjoyed participating in the Corrective Reading Program.


My students’ vocabulary has improved as a result of this program.


My students’ reading comprehension has improved as a result of this program.


My students’ critical thinking skills have improved as a result of this program.


Overall, my students have learned a lot from this program.


I look forward to having other students participate in this program next year.


I enjoy teaching the Corrective Reading program.


I feel that Corrective Reading is an effective intervention program.


What did you enjoy MOST about teaching this program?

What did you enjoy LEAST about teaching this program?

1

VIII. References

Gersten, R., Baker, S.K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007).

Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in theelementary

grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.

Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov./ncee

Grossen, B. (2004). Success of a direct instruction model at a secondary level school with high

risk students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20(2), 161-178

Przychodzin-Havis, A. M., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., Miller, D. A., Warner,

L., Leonard, B., & Chapman, S. (2005). An analysis of Corrective Reading research.

Journal of Direct Instruction, 5(1), 37-65.

final action research proposal sample

Documents

english learner students

students education

older students

english learners havent

reading comprehension

lack of comprehension

upper elementary grades

high school