Academic remedial training at navy recruit training centers: an evaluation

Abstract

Academic Remedial Training (ART) at Navy recruit training centers (RTCs) was established in 1967 to provide remediation to recruits who were not completing training because of reading deficiencies. Changes in recruit populations and training curriculum have occurred. Therefore, an evaluation was needed to determine if ART was meeting current needs. The evaluation answered four questions. What are the literacy requirements of the recruit training academic program including specific reading skills and reading proficiency (readability) levels needed to understand training materials? Are ART curriculum goals and objectives consistent with the literacy requirements? What are program demographics at each RTC? Are ART graduates successful in the Navy? The evaluation had two phases: Phase one determined the literacy requirements of recruit training and then compared these to ART instructional objectives. The second phase examined ART demographics and identified an ART sample which provided information about ART graduates who completed training. Recruit training instructional materials are heavily loaded with scientific and technical terminology and concepts. Analyses of training manuals determined that manuals had 10th and 11th grade readability levels. Academic tests had readability levels of grade 16 or higher. Program demographics showed more than 50 percent of population assigned were separated from the Navy before completing ART. A sample of ART participants had a mean reading grade level score of 6.2. Of the 292 ART recruits in the sample who graduated from recruit training, 209 remained in Navy service, 83 had been discharged. Program administration and management practices were identified that may have a negative impact on the program effectiveness. The effectiveness of ART is questionable. There is almost total mismatch between ART curriculum objectives and reading skills identified in RTC literacy analysis. Program graduates are not progressing at a rate comparable with peers. Recommendations were to continue the program; restructure the curriculum to address specific reading skills identified in the literacy analysis; align program management at all RTCs; and, examine and change administrative practices that may have a negative impact on program success.

Notes

This item is only available in print in the UCF Libraries. If this is your thesis or dissertation, you can help us make it available online for use by researchers around the world by STARS for more information.

Graduation Date

1989

Semester

Fall

Advisor

Anderson, Betty

Degree

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.)

College

College of Education

Department

Instructional Programs

Format

Print

Pages

174 p.

Language

English

Length of Campus-only Access

None

Access Status

Doctoral Dissertation (Open Access)

Identifier

DP0027210

Subjects

Dissertations, Academic -- Education; Education -- Dissertations, Academic

Accessibility Status

Searchable text

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS