This dissertation is an analysis of student and teacher conceptualizations of reading and learning in two separate scripted reading intervention environments, as implemented in a combined junior/senior high school in the Midwest. The youngest participants (grades 7-9), with reading levels four to six years below grade level, as defined through standardized tests, were enrolled in the Corrective Reading (SRA/McGraw-Hill) program. The older participants (grades 9-12), who were assessed as readers between one and six years below grade level, participated in Rewards Plus (Sopris West).
Using an ethnographic approach for data collection, the study employed metaphor analysis procedures to explore the linguistic and conceptual metaphors surrounding reading and reading instruction in the scripted environments. Data were gathered through 25 days of classroom observations, individual guided interviews with 15 students and 4 teachers, and 4 focus-group sessions with students participating in the scripted reading intervention programs, over a period of four months. Findings show that students enrolled in the Corrective Reading classes spent their class sessions working on basic decoding skills, with little focus on comprehension activities. Students and teachers in the Corrective Reading classes believed student reading skills improved as a result of the program, though there was little assessment data to support this. Additionally for some of the students, this perception of improvement in reading was limited to activities within the scripted class environment, and rarely did the instructional strategies transfer into other academic settings. Students in the Corrective Reading classes also held conceptualizations of reading that were generally reflective of the instructional methods used in the class. When asked to describe reading, students often referred to specific phonics and decoding skills or the value placed on listening in the class.
Students enrolled in the Rewards Plus program, a content-area-based program including decoding, comprehension and fluency activities, were less inclined to attribute reading improvement to the scripted intervention, often complaining about the repetitive nature of the program itself, and the perception that the instructional-level of the class was too low for them. Additionally, the students expressed confusion over the emphasis on content –area concepts and strategies provided by Rewards Plus, indicating that the content of the lessons themselves did not seem to appropriately fit in a Language Arts curriculum.
While students in both classes had difficulty describing and defining models for reading, the students in the Rewards Plus classes held a broader range of conceptualizations for reading that ranged from skills- to process-based descriptions. For them, reading represented access into adulthood and job opportunities. Rarely did any of the students describe reading from an epistemic or pleasurable perspective. This is in direct contrast to data from the teachers, who conceptualized reading for themselves as a knowledge-building, transactional and enjoyable activity. Instructional practices in both classes reflected the skill-based conceptualizations held by the teachers for student reading needs.