Date Awarded


Document Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.)




Low-achieving students tend to be "externals," lack mastery orientation, and often do not "take responsibility" for learning. Through the cognitive behavioral approach in this study, the goal is to help the low achiever become better at self-monitoring and encoding information.;Low-achieving students from two elementary schools were pre- and posttested using the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (to measure reading achievement), Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (to measure self-esteem), and the Children's Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (to measure intrinsic motivation). The teachers completed, as both a pre and post measure, the Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale II to measure student classroom behavior. Thirty low-achieving students who also received remedial reading instruction in each school, were randomly assigned to a cognitive-behavioral, study skills, and control group. The treatment groups participated in an eleven-week program of either a cognitive-behavioral or study skills intervention. The cognitive-behavioral approach used Meichenbaum's self-instructional phases in the context of developing better reading comprehension, study and problem-solving skills in the classroom. The study skills group received training on developing better study habits, and the control group received no treatment. The treatment groups were led by school psychologists. The course of the treatments followed a detailed outline.;It was predicted that all three groups would show significant gains in reading. It was also hypothesized that the cognitive-behavioral group would show significantly higher posttest score gains in achievement, student classroom behavior, intrinsic motivation, and self-esteem than the study skills or control groups. In addition, it was predicted that the study skills group would show significantly higher posttest score gains in academic achievement than the control group.;The MANOVA design was used to compare all groups to determine how they differed on each dependent variable. All groups, when analyzed together, showed a significant F ratio regarding gains in reading. There were no significant differences between any of the groups. It was thus concluded that no individual treatment was more effective than the other.



© The Author