18 dir: a remedial program for...

18 DIR: A Remedial Program for Reading

Reading Recovery

Reading Recovery (RR) was developed in New Zealand by Mary Clay in 1976 (Clay, 1985). This program was developed during the Whole Language era. Reading Recovery specifically caters to pupils in grade 1.11 Within the context of RR, children at risk in grade 1 are seen on an individual basis, 30 minutes a day for 12 to 20 weeks. The activities include letter recognition, reread-ing short graded books, reading new short graded books, writing words and sentences, decomposition and recomposition of words in writing, and reading sentences and short texts written by the pupil (Clay, 1985; Legault, 2006; Shanahan and Barr, 1995; Elbaum et al., 2000). Working on phonics (decoding) is not systematic and is only done when the child has difficulty (as it is prescribed in Whole Language).

The Reading Recovery program has several serious prob-lems. Shanahan and Barr (1995) concluded in their research that RR obtains positive results, but that these results must be tempered since 10% to 30% of the pupils are withdrawn from the program, and thus from the final research results if they do not progress sufficiently, or if they are frequently absent. In their meta-analysis, Elbaum et al. (2000) conclude that the assertions of the RR program are unfounded since approximately 30% of struggling pupils were removed from the program and con-sequently from the final research results. A more recent meta-analysis by D’Agostino and Murphy (2004) concluded that RR is effective, but strangely failed to mention the exclusion of the samples mentioned by Shanahan and Barr (1995) and Elbaum et al. (2000). Excluding 30% of the weakest pupils is not a “small” flaw, it is a fundamental methodological deficiency. If, while researching the treatment of juvenile leukemia, we sys-

11. In fact, the Reading Recovery program is often extended into grade 2.

Boy

er, C

hrist

ian

(201

2). D

IR: A

Rem

edia

l Pro

gram

for R

eadi

ng. M

ontré

al: É

ditio

ns d

e l'A

ppre

ntiss

age.

ISB

N :9

78-2

-938

05-0

2-3

DIR: A Remedial Program for Reading 19

tematically excluded from the sample pool the subjects who died and those not responding to treatment, the medical world’s knowledge of this terrible disease would not be nearly as advanced as it is, and it would not have reached a success rate of 80% for this type of cancer. Thank God, researchers in the field of education are not the same as those researching AIDS or breast cancer!

Further examination shows another serious flaw, in my humble opinion, which has yet to be discussed in papers on RR; the evaluation methods used to indicate RR pupils’ progress. The majority of the methods employed are both simple and peripheral to the skill of reading.

The methods of evaluation generally used to validate the success of RR at the end of an intervention or school year are: 1) evaluating the recognition of upper and lower case letters ofthe alphabet; 2) reading three lists composed of 15 isolated words most frequently used in writing; 3) evaluating concepts of writing (upper and lower case, word, sentence, beginning of a book, punctuation…); 4) asking the pupil to write as many words as possible in 10 minutes; 5) dictating words for which every sound correctly identified is scored; 6) reading short graded books orally, where the level is determined by the last book read with an accuracy rate of 90% (Clay 1985; Elbaum et al., 2000; Legault, 2006; Shanahan and Barr 1995).

Tests 1, 2 and 3 are only relevant during the first weeks of learning to read. After this, these tests become inappropriate. There is a risk of over-evaluating RR pupils using these tests. For example, with test 1 (letters of the alphabet), a good reader at the grade 1 level can forget both the name and sound of lower case and upper case letters J, Q, Y and X, and can confuse B and P sounds without having any serious impact on his reading and comprehension. Nevertheless, an RR pupil can do better than a good reader on test 1 simply because he is still working


on letter recognition during RR sessions. Test 2 (reading a list of frequently used words) is based on word recognition (see Appendix A, p. 73), which is irrelevant when pupils know how to read. It is true that a good reader will normally do well in this type of evaluation, but a weaker pupil can do equally well since the reading evaluation material and writing activities dur-ing the RR sessions are composed of words most often used in writing (Clay, 1985; Legault, 2006). Test 3, based on writing concepts, is the RR test furthest from the skill of reading. This method of evaluation can be justified, but only when a student is just beginning to learn to read. This test will produce the same biased results as tests 1 and 2, where a struggling first grade reader can obtain a higher success rate than a strong reader simply because RR instruction emphasizes these test skills. This evaluation does not reveal the level of reading skill. Tests 4 and 5 are writing evaluations, which allow an indirect evaluation of decoding, but are weak measures of students’ ability to read. Once again, pupils in the RR program can have higher success rates, but these results are not accurate indicators of their read-ing skills. In summary, tests 1 to 5 emphasize peripheral aspects of reading, and some tests (1, 2 and 3) are too simple to suc-cessfully measure a student’s reading ability. Therefore, theses tests do not demonstrate an accurate and relevant measure of the success rate of remedial reading intervention.

Only test 6 is directly linked to the skill of reading, but only measures the accuracy rate (see Appendix A, p. 73) of oral read-ing. The accuracy rate of oral reading is an essential aspect but if not accompanied by a measure of reading rate (see Appendix A, p. 73), the accuracy rate is meaningless. It is obvious that a childreading 50 words per minute with an accuracy rate of 95% has a far better level of oral reading than a child reading 25 words per minute with the same accuracy rate of 95%. Despite both pupils’ accuracy rate of 95%, it is likely the child with the better

Boy

er, C

hrist

ian

(201

2). D

IR: A

Rem

edia

l Pro

gram

for R

eadi

ng. M

ontré

al: É

ditio

ns d

e l'A

ppre

ntiss

age.

ISB

N :9

78-2

-938

05-0

2-3


reading rate will display a superior level of information retention and will be more likely to reason easily around the text read. Although reading rate and accuracy rates are essential elements of oral reading, one without the other presents inaccurate and misleading information.

The first five assessments used to evaluate and demonstrate progress in the RR program can provide information and insight at the start of a child’s learning to read, but has absolutely no significance as summative assessments when it comes to the skill of reading. Worse still, these assessments can produce inflated results for the RR pupils in comparison to pupils of the same age that have no difficulty reading.

Continuing with the topic of achievement assessments, RR has yet another major defect; it does not measure reading com-prehension. A special education program that has been taught for 30 years and claims to rehabilitate poor readers, but fails to evaluate literal and inferential reading comprehension (see Appendix A, p. 73), is as unacceptable as someone evaluating an individual’s ability to snowboard by simply measuring whether he or she can put on boots and a helmet. Snowboarding means being able to descend a slope, and for those who are young and foolish, make daring jumps. Reading means being able to read texts while assimilating literal information and producing inferences, regardless of a child’s grade level.12

Finally, the last flaw of the RR program is economic. RR is very expensive; special education teachers in this program can only work with an average of 16 first grade pupils per year (Shanahan and Barr, 1995; Elbaum et al., 2000). Most educa-tional systems cannot afford to maintain this program long term, unless they are in a wealthy country during an economic boom.

12. Legault (2006) concluded that RR is efficient in a study conducted inOntario (Canada) using more or less the same assessment tests listed above, without testing reading comprehension. Not a very convincing doctorate thesis.


Despite its popularity in the English world, Reading Recovery is a free flow intervention program with many signifi-cant weaknesses. Elimination of up to 30% of weaker pupils in its programs, the use of simple and non relevant tests, the lack of reading comprehension evaluation, and an inability to reach a larger number of pupils during a school year make the RR special education program worth avoiding.

To conclude, in light of the information provided there appears to be sufficient evidence to make one seriously doubt the effectiveness of special education programs. How can we explain the failure of special education interventions? Obviously, there are many concomitant factors. In the following pages, I call your attention to one underestimated factor: time and intensity, which is an important element of the DIR program.

Time and Numbers

Mathematical arguments are not valued in Québec education.13 Yet, numbers help us see, think, and understand more

13. This allergy to numbers and statistics is the reflection of, on the one hand,poor scientific knowledge in education and, on the other hand, the deprecia-tion of rigour in the last decades in the world of education. It must be said that the dominating pedagogical trend for more than 30 years in Québec, one of romantic and highly ideological flavour, has not been compatible with rigour. The Ministry of Education of Québec and school boards do not have any interest in knowing how many grade 1 pupils have been recuperated by special education interventions, or how many grade 1 pupils know how to read in June, or the real impact the last educational reform is having on pupils’ learning. When they do question, they do so in such a light and non-rigorous way that one wonders if they are truly interested in knowing the answers. The chosen “study” methods are often surveys, group discussions or “expert” consultations. At the end of the “study”, conclusions drawn are expected answers that never contradict the mainstream ideological educa-

Boy

er, C

hrist

ian

(201

2). D

IR: A

Rem

edia

l Pro

gram

for R

eadi

ng. M

ontré

al: É

ditio

ns d

e l'A

ppre

ntiss

age.

ISB

N :9

78-2

-938

05-0

2-3

Bibliography

Adam, M.J. Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990.

Adams, M.J., and M. Bruck. “Resolving the Great Debate.” American Educator, 19 (1995): 7-12.

Ambrason, L.Y., M.E.P. Seligman, and J. Teasdale. “Learned Helplessness in Humans: Critique and Reformulation.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87 (1978): 49-74.

Archambault, J. “Attention, les systèmes de récompenses ne sont pas sans danger.” Bulletin de liaison de l’Association québécoise des psychologues scolaires, 9 (1997): 2-10.

Bissonnette, S., M. Richard, and C. Gauthier. Comment enseigne-t-on dans les écoles efficaces ? Efficacité des écoles et des réformes. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2006.

Borman, G.D., G.M. Hewes, L.T. Overman, and S. Brown. “Comprehensive School Reform and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational Research, 73, no. 2 (2003): 125-130.

Boyer, C. “Être ou ne pas être dyslexique? Est-ce la bonne question?” Apprentissages et socialisation, 20 , no. 2 (2000): 161-181.

Boyer, C. Descriptive Grids for Explicit Teaching of Reasoning and Comprehension in Reading , ADOR, ETIR, II. Montréal: Éditions SESSIONS, 2006.

Boyer, C. Grilles de l’enseignement explicite du raisonnement et de la compréhension en lecture—Programmes EERCL, DAL et DIR. Montréal: Éditions SESSIONS, 2009.

Boyer, C. L’Enseignement explicite de la compréhension en lecture. Boucherville: Graficor, 1993.

Boyer, C. Lire c’est raisonnner—Les programmes en lecture de Christian Boyer. Montréal: Éditions de l’Apprentissage, (forthcoming).

Butkowsky, I.S., and D.M. Willows. “Cognitive-Motivational Characteristics of Children Varying in Reading Ability: Evidence for Learned Helplessness in Poor Readers.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, no. 3 (1980): 408-422.


Cameron, J., and W.D. Pierce. “Reinforcement, Reward, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational Research, 64 (1994): 363-423.

Cameron, J., and W.D. Pierce. “The Debate About Reward and Intrinsic Motivation: Protests and Accusations do not Alter the Results.” Review of Educational Research, 66 (1996): 39-51.

Cameron, J., and W.D. Pierce. “Pervasive Negative Effects of Reward on Intrinsic Motivation: The Myth Continues.” The Behaviour Analyst, 24 (2001): 1-44.

Cameron, J., W.D. Pierce, K.M. Bnako, and A. Gear. “Achievement-Based Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation: A Test of Cognitive Mediators.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, no. 4 (2005): 641-655.

Carnine, D.W., J. Silbert, and E.J. Kameenui. Direct Instruction Reading. Upper Saddle River: Prentince Hall, 1997.

Chall, J. Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw Hill, 1967.

Chard, D.J., S. Vaughn, and B.-J. Tyler. “A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building Reading Fluency with Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35 no. 5 (2002): 386-406.

Clay, M.M. The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann, 1985.

Collins, C. “Reading Instruction that Increases Thinking Abilities.” Journal of Reading, 34 (1991): 510-516.

Coyne, M.D., D.C. Simmons, E.J. Kame’enui, and M. Stoolmiller. “Teaching Vocabulary During Shared Storybook Readings: An Examination of Differential Effects.” Exceptionality, 3 (2004): 145-162.

D’Agostino, J. V., and J.A. Murphy. “A Meta-Analysis of Reading Recovery in United States Schools.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, no. 1 (2004): 23-38.

Deci, E. L., and R.M. Ryan. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behaviour. New York: Plenum Press, 1985.

Duffy, G.G., L.R. Roehler, G. Rackliffe, C. Book, M. Meloth, L.G. Vavrus, R. Wesselman, R. Putnam, and D. Bassari. “Effects of


Explaining the Reasoning Associated with Using Reading Strategies.” Reading Research Quarterly no. 22 (1987): 347-368.

Duke, N.K., M. Pressley, K. and Hilden, K. “Difficulties in Reading Comprehension.” In Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and disorders, edited by C.A. Stone, E.R. Silliman, B.J. Ehren, and K. Apel. New York: Guilford Press, 2004.

Elbaum, B., S. Vaughn, M. Hughes, and S. Moody. “How Effective Are One-To-One Tutoring Programs in Reading for Elementary Students at Risk for Reading Failure? A Meta-Analysis of the Intervention Research.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (2000): 605-619.

Gans, A.M., M.C. Kenny, and D.L. Ghany. “Comparing the Self-Concept of Students With and Without Learning Disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36 no. 3 (2003): 287-295.

Gauthier, L. R. “The Effects of Vocabulary Gain Upon Instructional Reading Level.” Reading Improvement, 28 (1991): 195–202.

Gersten, R., and S. Baker. “Teaching Expressive Writing to Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis.” The Elementary School Journal, 101, no. 3 (2001): 251-272.

Giroux, N. “L’enseignement de précision clinique,” in Manuel d’éducation, comportementale en autisme, G. Magerotte. Bruxelles: de Boeck (forthcoming).

Goodman, K.S. What’s whole in Whole Language? Richmond Hill, Ontario: Scolastic, 1986.

Harn, B.E., Linan-Thompson, and G. Roberts. “Does Additional Instruction Time Make a Difference for the Most At-Risk First Graders?” Jounal of Learning Disabilities, 41, no. 2, (2008): 115-125.

Hasbrouck, J., and G.A. Tindal. “Oral Reading Fluency Norms: A Valuable Assessment Tool for Reading Teachers.” The Reading Teacher, 59, no. 7 (2006): 636–644.

Juel, C. “Learning to Read and Write: A Longitudinal Study of Fifty-Four Children from First Through Fourth Grades.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, no. 4 (1988): 437-447.

Kincade, K.M., and S.A. Beach. “Improving Reading Comprehension Through Strategy Instruction.” Reading Psychology, 17 (1996): 273-281.


Kingner, J.K., and S. Vaughn. “Reciprocal Teaching of Reading Comprehension Strategies for Students with Learning Disabilities Who Use English as a Second Langage.” The Elementary School Journal, 96 (1996): 275-293.

Kroesbergen, E.H, and J.E. Van Luit. “Mathematics Interventions for Children with Special Educational Needs. A Meta-Analysis.” Remedial and Special Education, 24, no. 2 (2003): 97-114.

Kunsch, C.A., A.K. Jitendra, and S. Sood. “The Effects of Peer-Mediated Instruction in Mathematics for Students with Learning Problems: A Research Synthesis.” Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, no. 1 (2007): 1-12.

Laberge, D., and S.J. Samuels. “Toward a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in Reading.” Cognitive Psychology, 6 (1974): 293-323.

Leblanc, G. (2004). “Enhancing Intrinsic Motivation Through the Use of a Token Economy.” “Essays in Education Online Journal.” http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol11fall2004.html

Lecomte du Noüy, P. Entre savoir et croire. Paris: Édition Gonthier, 1964.

Legault, L. Effectiveness of an Early Literacy Intervention and its Predictive Measures. Université Laval, Faculté des sciences de l’éducation, Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2006.

Lepper, M.R., D. Greene, and R.E. Nisbett. “Undermining Children’s Intrinsic Interest with Extrinsic Reward: A Test of the ‘Overjustification’ Hypothesis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28 (1973): 129-137.

Light, B.G., and J.A. Kistner. “Learning-Disabled Children: Individual Differences and their Implications for Treatment.” In Psychological and Educational Perspectives on Learning Disabilities, B.Y. Wong. Orlando: Academic Press,1986.

Luciano, S., and R.S. Savage. “Bullying Risk in Children with Learning Difficulties in Inclusive Educational Settings.” Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 22, no. 1 (2007): 14-31.

Lysynnchuk, L., M. Pressley, and N.J. Vye. “Reciprocal Teaching Improves Standardized Reading-Comprehension Performance in Poor Comprehender.” The Elementary School Journal, 90 (1990): 469-484.


Maag, J.W., and R. Reid. “Depression Among Students with Learning Disabilities: Assessing the Risk.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, no. 1 (2006): 3-10.

Madden, N.A., and R.E. Slavin. “Effective Pullout Programs for Students at Risk.” In Effective programs for students at risk, R.K. Slavin. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 1989.

Marzano, R.J., and J.S. Marzano. “The Key to Classroom Management.” Educational Leadership, September (2003): 6-13.

Meyer, M.S., F.B. Wood, L.A. Hart, and R.H. Fleton. “Selective Predictive Value of Rapid Automatized Naming in Poor Readers.” Journal of Reading Disabilities, 21, (1998): 106-117.

Mishna, F. “Learning Disabilities and Bullying: Double Jeopardy.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, no. 4 (2003): 336-347.

Moody, S.W., S. Vaughn, M.T. Hughes, and M. Fisher. “Reading Instruction in the Resource Room: Set Up for Failure.” Exceptional Children, 66, no. 3 (2000): 305-315.

Moyer, S.B. “Repeated Reading.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, no. 10, (1982): 619-623.

Norris, J.M., and L. Ortega, L. “Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-Analysis.” Language Learning, 50, no. 3 (2000): 417-528.

Palincsar, A.S., and A.L. Brown. “Reciprocal Teaching for Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities.” Cognition and Instruction, 1 (1984): 117-175.

Manzo, A.V., U.C. Manzo, and M.M. Thomas. “Rationale for Systematic Vocabulary Development: Antidote for State Mandates.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49 (2006): 610-619.

National Reading Panel. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction. Rockville: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000.

Parent, V. Les interventions orthopédagogiques en lecture au primaire. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2008.

Pierce, W.D., J. Cameron, J. “A Summary of the Effects of Reward Contingencies on Interest and Performance.” The Behaviour Analyst Today, 3, no. 2 (2002): 221-228.


Pikulski, J.J. “Preventing Reading Failure: A Review of Five Effective Programs.” The Reading Teacher, 48, no. 1 (1994): 30-39.

Pressley, M. “What Should Comprehension Instruction be the Instruction Of?” In Handbook of Reading Research Volume III, M.L. Kamil, Mahwah: Lawrence Ellbaum Associates, 2000.

Rand Reading Study Group. Reading for Understanding. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. www.rand.org/multi/achievementforall/, (2002).

Rasinski, T., S. Homan, and M. Biggs. “Teaching Reading Fluency to Struggling Readers: Method, Materials, and Evidence.” Reading and Writing, 25 (2009): 192-204.

Reder, F., E. Stephan, and C. Clément. “L’économie de jetons en contexte scolaire: risque d’un effet délétère.” Journal de Thérapie comportemental et cognitive, 17, no. 4 (2007): 165-169.

Rupley, W.H., T.R. Blair, and W.D. Nichols. “Effective Reading Instruction for Struggling Readers: The Role of Direct/Explicit Teaching.” Reading and Writing, 25 (2009):125-139.

Saint-Laurent, L., M. Hébert, É. Royer, and B. Piérard. “Identification of Students with Academic Difficulties: Implications for Research and Practice.” Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 12, no. 2 (1996): 143-154.

Samuels, S.J., and D. Reinking. “Reading Fluency: Techniques for Making Decoding Automatic.” In What Research has to Say About Reading Instruction, S. J. Samuels. Newark: International Reading Association, 1992.

Samuels, S.J. “The Method of Repeated Reading.” The Reader Teacher, 32 (1979): 403-408.

Seligman, M.E.P. Helplessness. On Developement, Depression and Death. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1975.

Shanahan, T., and R. Barr. “Reading Recovery: An Independent Evaluation of the Effects of Early Instructional Intervention for At-Risk Learners.” Reading Research Quarterly, 30, no. 4 (1995): 958-996.

Shevlin, M., and A. O’Moore. “Creating Opportunities for Contact Between Mainstream Pupils and their Counterparts with Learning Difficulties.” British Journal of Special Education , 27, no. 7 (2000): 28-33.


Slavin, R.E., N.L. Karweit, and N.A. Madden. Effective Programs for Students at Risk. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 1989.

Smith, F. Understanding reading. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1971.Stahl, S.A., and P.D. Miller. “Whole Language and Language

Experience Approaches for Beginning Reading: A Quantitative Research Synthesis.” Review of Educational Research, 59 (1989): 87-116.

Swanson, H.L., and M. Hoskyn, M. “Experimental Intervention Research on Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of Treatment Outcomes.” Review of Educationl Research, 68, no. 3 (1998): 277-321.

Swanson, H.L. “Reading Research for Students with LD: A Meta-Analysis of Intervention Outcomes.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, no. 6 (1999): 504-532.

Swanson, H.L. “Research on Interventions for Adolescents with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of Outcomes Related to Higher-Order Processing.” The Elementary School Journal, 101 no. 3 (2001): 331-348.

Sweller, J. “What Human Cognitive Architecture Tells us About Constructivism.” in Constructivism Theory Applied to Instruction: Success or Failure?, edited by S. Tobias and T. Duffy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., (forthcoming).

Therrien, W.J. “Fluency and Comprehension Gains as a Result of Repeated Reading.” Remedial and Special Education, 25, no. 4 (2004): 252-261.

Torgesen, J.K. “Individual Differences in Response to Early Interventions in Reading: The Lingering Problem of Treatment Resisters.” Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15 (2000): 55-64.

Torgesen, J. K. “Instructional Interventions for Children with Reading Disabilities.” In Specific reading disability. A view of the spectrum, B.K. Shapiro. Timonium: Tork Press, 1998.

Vaughn, S., S.W. Moody, and J.S. Schumm. “Broken Promises: A Reading Instruction in the Ressource Room.” Exceptional Children, 64, no. 2 (1998): 211-225.

Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.


Wanzek, J. and S. Vaughn. “Response to Varying Amounts of Time in Reading Intervention for Students with Low Response to Intervention.” Journal of Reading Disabilities, 41, no. 2 (2008): 126-142.

Wright-Stawderman, C., and B.L. Watson. “The Prevalence of Depressive Symptoms in Children with Learning Disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25 (1992): 258-264.

Young, A.R. “Effects of Prosodic Modeling and Repeated Reading on Poor Reader’s Fluency and Comprehension.” Applied Psycholinguistics, 17 (1996): 59-84.

Contents

Introduction 11Doubt at the Origin of the DIR Program 11Disturbing Findings 12Reading Recovery 18Time and Numbers 22Time and Intensity 27Motivational Structure and Emotional State 34Student Involvement 35Three Sources of Human Motivation 37The Content Behind Learning How to Read 46Explicit Teaching of Reading 51Evaluation Process and Selection of the Weakest Pupils 54Several Results of the DIR Program 60And Education at a Standstill… 68And to Finish… 69

Appendix A Several Definitions 73Appendix B Suggested Targets for Reading Rate in

French According to Grade Levels in June 75Appendix C Estimated Time Devoted to Teaching

Reading in Québec’s Elementary Schools, According to Grade Level 77

Appendix D The Dangerous Exercise of Evaluating Learning Delay According to Reading Rate and Grade Level 78

Appendix E Basic Elements to Improve Relations and Emotional Atmosphere 84

Appendix F Basic Elements for Developing Interest in Literature 85

Appendix G A Functional Definition of Reading 87

Appendix H Reasoning Reading 89Appendix I Over-Reading 93Appendix J Activity List 96Appendix K Evaluating Oral Reading 97Appendix L Guidelines to Consider When Evaluating

Reading Reasoning and Comprehension 99Appendix M Questionnaire Samples 101Appendix N Test Samples 104

Bibliography 108

18 dir: a remedial program for...

Documents