420
Using the Neurological Impress Method with Learning Disabled Readers
Linda Lorenz, MS, and Edward Vockell, PhD
T
he Neurological Impress Method (NIM) attempts to teach reading skills by having the pupil and the teacher read aloud in unison. The method is described in precise detail by Heckelman (1969). However, little research has been conducted regarding the NIM, and none has been published relating the NIM to learning disabled pupils. Gardner (1965), Embrey (1968), Heckleman (1969), and Langford, Slade, and Barnett (1974) have reported success with various adaptations of the NIM. However, because of the absence of control groups in some cases and the high probability of an expectancy effect in others, these studies have methodological shortcomings in regard to internal and external validity (Campbell & Stanley 1963). Hollingsworth (1970) used a tape-recorded variation of the NIM and found no significant impact. The NIM may hold considerable promise for learning disabled pupils because of its simplicity and reports of its promotion of rapid improvements within a short time. However, because of its emphasis on the auditory modality, it might be less effective for children with auditory learning disabilities. The present study, therefore, was undertaken to examine the effectiveness of the NIM for learning disabled pupils. The following two questions were examined:
(1) Will the use of the NIM increase comprehension and word-recognition abilities among learning disabled students? (2) Does the method work less effectively with children who have auditory rather than visual or unidentified learning disabilities?
METHOD The 44 students in the study included 14 second graders, 15 third graders, 7 fourth graders, and 18 fifth graders. The four teachers who took part in the study were all certified learning disabilities teachers with four or more years of teaching experience. The students were housed in eight different school buildings in Lake County, Indiana. They ranged in reading ability from 2.6 years below grade level to five months above grade level as measured by the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT), and IQs ranged from 79 to 113. Actual instructional level of reading, according to the learning disabilities teacher and the regular classroom teacher, ranged from three years to six months below grade level. All students were in a regular classroom for the major portion of the school day. The students were seen by the learning disabilities teachers 30 minutes per day and three days per week. The students in the experimental
Volume 12, Number 6, June/July 1979
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on June 19, 2015
67
421 group were exposed to the NIM for 10 minutes during each session for a total of six and one-half hours. Students in the control group were taught by traditional remedial reading techniques. Students for this study were selected from those in the learning disabilities program, and they were referred by a teacher or a parent, received psychological and academic testing, and were placed in the program as a result of a case conference. These students were identified as learning disabled but were not students whose problems were thought by the school system to be severe enough to warrant self-contained learning disabilities placement. They were seen only on an itinerant basis and remained in the regular classroom for the remainder of the school day. Only those students who were seen three days per week by the learning disabilities teachers were used in this study. The students were matched for grade level and then randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. Random assignment was given by the roll of a die. Pretests and posttests were given using the Reading Comprehension subtest of the PIAT and the Word Recognition subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT). To determine if students with auditory problems benefitted more or less by the NIM, an analysis of variance was performed with students broken down by auditory disability. Upon completion of the study, the experimenter asked the teachers who took part to identify those students in the experimental group who had auditory learning problems. These students were described by the teachers as those with problems in auditory discrimination and/or auditory memory or those who were easily overloaded by too much auditory input or tuned out auditory information after a short period of time because of inability to cope with too much auditory stimulation. It was felt that children exhibiting these auditory processing difficulties might not benefit as much from the NIM as students who had other processing difficulties or no processing difficulties, since the NIM relies heavily on auditory input. 68
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION An analysis of variance showed no significant differences among the Reading Comprehension and Word Recognition pretest, posttest, and gain scores for the experimental and control groups. The largest difference was in Word Recognition, where the control group actually did somewhat better than the NIM group; however, this difference was not statistically significant. An analysis of covariance on the gain scores with IQ as the covariate also showed no significant difference between the NIM and control groups. An additional analysis of variance comparing children with auditory learning disabilities to the other learning disabled children found no significant difference (F = .001; p = .98). These results fail to support the hypothesis that the NIM will help learning disabled pupils develop reading skills. Moreover, students with auditory and nonauditory learning disabilities were equally unlikely to benefit. The present study was conducted under conditions similar to those in the Heckelman (1969) and Gardner (1965) studies, which produced positive results. Although the other two studies used daily sessions and the present study used three sessions a week, the overall amounts of time spent using the NIM were quite similar. Whereas the present study was conducted with pupils randomly assigned to experimental and control groups, the absence of such scientific controls was a serious deficiency in the earlier studies. Another difference between this study and the previous studies was the influence of teacher expectations. Heckelman was practically the founder of the NIM, and Gardner was a member of the original research team. It therefore seems likely that they were expecting positive results, and such expectations are a serious threat to both internal and external validity (Campbell & Stanley 1963). In the present study the participating teachers actually expected positive results from the NIM and expressed surprise that the test scores did not support this. The fact that the results came out precisely the opposite of what Journal of Learning Disabilities
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on June 19, 2015
422 the teachers expected suggests that the results probably were not contaminated by expectancy biases. There was, in fact, some disappointment expressed by teachers when the results indicated that there were no significant differences between groups. It was noted by the four teachers taking part in this study that some positive results did occur that seemed to be a result of the use of the NIM. These positive effects, of course, could have been due to something other than the NIM. The following were mentioned by the teachers as positive results of the NIM: (1) There was often a closer relationship between teacher and student, perhaps due to the physical closeness of teacher and student during the process of the NIM. (2) The students (with some exceptions) often asked, "When are we going to read together again." There was a positive attitude of the child towards the method. (3) Regular classroom teachers, who worked with the students whenever the itinerant teachers did not (a significant part of the school day), commented that the fluency of the student had improved and that he was a "good oral reader." (4) The children were motivated to pick up a book and read it. They appeared more confident in their ability to read. (5) The method introduces reading material to the children that they may otherwise not have had. (6) There was an improvement in left to right progression and visual tracking ability. (7) Oral expression when reading improved with pauses for punctuation and better phrasing. However, it should be noted that these positive results are subjective opinions, not the outcome of an impartial, objective analysis. Such results are quite susceptible to accidental teacher bias arising out of a "vested interest" in seeing their efforts succeed. The scientifically controlled results of this study indicate t h a t contrary to the expectations of the teachers—the NIM students did no better than the control students.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The results of this study indicate that there were no significant differences between the control group and the experimental group in gains in word recognition or reading comprehension. This was true even when interactions with IQ, sex, grade, teacher, and school were examined. Hollingsworth's study and this study have indicated that there were no significant differences between groups receiving impress training and those who did not. At the very least, such results suggest the need for further replications before the use of the NIM for learning disabled pupils becomes widespread. Perhaps as a result of such replications teachers should reconsider use of the NIM. It seems possible that instruction time could be better spent with other methods more likely to produce improvements.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Linda Lorenz is a coordinator of the Disabled Children's Program at the University of Illinois Medical Center, Chicago. She holds a masters degree from Purdue University, Calumet (1978), and a bachelor's degree from the University of Illinois Chicago Circle Campus (1972). Edward Vockell is an associate professor of education at Purdue University, Calumet. He holds a doctorate from Purdue University (1972), a masters degree from Xavier University in Cincinnati (1969), and a bachelor's degree from the Athenaeum of Ohio (1967). Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Vockell, Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, Ind. 46323.
REFERENCES Campbell, D.T., Stanley, J., Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research on teaching. In K.L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNaUy, 1963. Embrey, A., A Study on the Effectiveness of the Neurological Impress Method as a Remedial Reading Technique. Unpublished master's thesis, Central Washington State College, 1968. Gardner, C, The Experimental Use of the Impress Method of Reading Habilitation (Co-op Reading Project No. S167). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1965. Heckelman, R.G., A Neurological Impress Method of remedial reading. Academic Therapy, 1969, 4, 277-282. Hollingsworth, P.M., An experiment with the impress method of teaching reading. Reading Teacher, 1970, 24,112-114. Langford, K., Slade, K., Barnett, A., An examination of the impress technique in remedial reading. Academic Therapy, 1974, 9, 303-319.
Volume 12, Number 6, June/July 1979
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on June 19, 2015
69
Using the Neurological Impress Method with Learning Disabled Readers
Linda Lorenz, MS, and Edward Vockell, PhD
T
he Neurological Impress Method (NIM) attempts to teach reading skills by having the pupil and the teacher read aloud in unison. The method is described in precise detail by Heckelman (1969). However, little research has been conducted regarding the NIM, and none has been published relating the NIM to learning disabled pupils. Gardner (1965), Embrey (1968), Heckleman (1969), and Langford, Slade, and Barnett (1974) have reported success with various adaptations of the NIM. However, because of the absence of control groups in some cases and the high probability of an expectancy effect in others, these studies have methodological shortcomings in regard to internal and external validity (Campbell & Stanley 1963). Hollingsworth (1970) used a tape-recorded variation of the NIM and found no significant impact. The NIM may hold considerable promise for learning disabled pupils because of its simplicity and reports of its promotion of rapid improvements within a short time. However, because of its emphasis on the auditory modality, it might be less effective for children with auditory learning disabilities. The present study, therefore, was undertaken to examine the effectiveness of the NIM for learning disabled pupils. The following two questions were examined:
(1) Will the use of the NIM increase comprehension and word-recognition abilities among learning disabled students? (2) Does the method work less effectively with children who have auditory rather than visual or unidentified learning disabilities?
METHOD The 44 students in the study included 14 second graders, 15 third graders, 7 fourth graders, and 18 fifth graders. The four teachers who took part in the study were all certified learning disabilities teachers with four or more years of teaching experience. The students were housed in eight different school buildings in Lake County, Indiana. They ranged in reading ability from 2.6 years below grade level to five months above grade level as measured by the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT), and IQs ranged from 79 to 113. Actual instructional level of reading, according to the learning disabilities teacher and the regular classroom teacher, ranged from three years to six months below grade level. All students were in a regular classroom for the major portion of the school day. The students were seen by the learning disabilities teachers 30 minutes per day and three days per week. The students in the experimental
Volume 12, Number 6, June/July 1979
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on June 19, 2015
67
421 group were exposed to the NIM for 10 minutes during each session for a total of six and one-half hours. Students in the control group were taught by traditional remedial reading techniques. Students for this study were selected from those in the learning disabilities program, and they were referred by a teacher or a parent, received psychological and academic testing, and were placed in the program as a result of a case conference. These students were identified as learning disabled but were not students whose problems were thought by the school system to be severe enough to warrant self-contained learning disabilities placement. They were seen only on an itinerant basis and remained in the regular classroom for the remainder of the school day. Only those students who were seen three days per week by the learning disabilities teachers were used in this study. The students were matched for grade level and then randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. Random assignment was given by the roll of a die. Pretests and posttests were given using the Reading Comprehension subtest of the PIAT and the Word Recognition subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT). To determine if students with auditory problems benefitted more or less by the NIM, an analysis of variance was performed with students broken down by auditory disability. Upon completion of the study, the experimenter asked the teachers who took part to identify those students in the experimental group who had auditory learning problems. These students were described by the teachers as those with problems in auditory discrimination and/or auditory memory or those who were easily overloaded by too much auditory input or tuned out auditory information after a short period of time because of inability to cope with too much auditory stimulation. It was felt that children exhibiting these auditory processing difficulties might not benefit as much from the NIM as students who had other processing difficulties or no processing difficulties, since the NIM relies heavily on auditory input. 68
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION An analysis of variance showed no significant differences among the Reading Comprehension and Word Recognition pretest, posttest, and gain scores for the experimental and control groups. The largest difference was in Word Recognition, where the control group actually did somewhat better than the NIM group; however, this difference was not statistically significant. An analysis of covariance on the gain scores with IQ as the covariate also showed no significant difference between the NIM and control groups. An additional analysis of variance comparing children with auditory learning disabilities to the other learning disabled children found no significant difference (F = .001; p = .98). These results fail to support the hypothesis that the NIM will help learning disabled pupils develop reading skills. Moreover, students with auditory and nonauditory learning disabilities were equally unlikely to benefit. The present study was conducted under conditions similar to those in the Heckelman (1969) and Gardner (1965) studies, which produced positive results. Although the other two studies used daily sessions and the present study used three sessions a week, the overall amounts of time spent using the NIM were quite similar. Whereas the present study was conducted with pupils randomly assigned to experimental and control groups, the absence of such scientific controls was a serious deficiency in the earlier studies. Another difference between this study and the previous studies was the influence of teacher expectations. Heckelman was practically the founder of the NIM, and Gardner was a member of the original research team. It therefore seems likely that they were expecting positive results, and such expectations are a serious threat to both internal and external validity (Campbell & Stanley 1963). In the present study the participating teachers actually expected positive results from the NIM and expressed surprise that the test scores did not support this. The fact that the results came out precisely the opposite of what Journal of Learning Disabilities
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on June 19, 2015
422 the teachers expected suggests that the results probably were not contaminated by expectancy biases. There was, in fact, some disappointment expressed by teachers when the results indicated that there were no significant differences between groups. It was noted by the four teachers taking part in this study that some positive results did occur that seemed to be a result of the use of the NIM. These positive effects, of course, could have been due to something other than the NIM. The following were mentioned by the teachers as positive results of the NIM: (1) There was often a closer relationship between teacher and student, perhaps due to the physical closeness of teacher and student during the process of the NIM. (2) The students (with some exceptions) often asked, "When are we going to read together again." There was a positive attitude of the child towards the method. (3) Regular classroom teachers, who worked with the students whenever the itinerant teachers did not (a significant part of the school day), commented that the fluency of the student had improved and that he was a "good oral reader." (4) The children were motivated to pick up a book and read it. They appeared more confident in their ability to read. (5) The method introduces reading material to the children that they may otherwise not have had. (6) There was an improvement in left to right progression and visual tracking ability. (7) Oral expression when reading improved with pauses for punctuation and better phrasing. However, it should be noted that these positive results are subjective opinions, not the outcome of an impartial, objective analysis. Such results are quite susceptible to accidental teacher bias arising out of a "vested interest" in seeing their efforts succeed. The scientifically controlled results of this study indicate t h a t contrary to the expectations of the teachers—the NIM students did no better than the control students.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The results of this study indicate that there were no significant differences between the control group and the experimental group in gains in word recognition or reading comprehension. This was true even when interactions with IQ, sex, grade, teacher, and school were examined. Hollingsworth's study and this study have indicated that there were no significant differences between groups receiving impress training and those who did not. At the very least, such results suggest the need for further replications before the use of the NIM for learning disabled pupils becomes widespread. Perhaps as a result of such replications teachers should reconsider use of the NIM. It seems possible that instruction time could be better spent with other methods more likely to produce improvements.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Linda Lorenz is a coordinator of the Disabled Children's Program at the University of Illinois Medical Center, Chicago. She holds a masters degree from Purdue University, Calumet (1978), and a bachelor's degree from the University of Illinois Chicago Circle Campus (1972). Edward Vockell is an associate professor of education at Purdue University, Calumet. He holds a doctorate from Purdue University (1972), a masters degree from Xavier University in Cincinnati (1969), and a bachelor's degree from the Athenaeum of Ohio (1967). Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Vockell, Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, Ind. 46323.
REFERENCES Campbell, D.T., Stanley, J., Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research on teaching. In K.L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNaUy, 1963. Embrey, A., A Study on the Effectiveness of the Neurological Impress Method as a Remedial Reading Technique. Unpublished master's thesis, Central Washington State College, 1968. Gardner, C, The Experimental Use of the Impress Method of Reading Habilitation (Co-op Reading Project No. S167). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1965. Heckelman, R.G., A Neurological Impress Method of remedial reading. Academic Therapy, 1969, 4, 277-282. Hollingsworth, P.M., An experiment with the impress method of teaching reading. Reading Teacher, 1970, 24,112-114. Langford, K., Slade, K., Barnett, A., An examination of the impress technique in remedial reading. Academic Therapy, 1974, 9, 303-319.
Volume 12, Number 6, June/July 1979
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on June 19, 2015
69
