ED 114 803

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS TRICE_DESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

CS 002 256

Goldbecker, Sheralyn S.Reading: Instructional Approaches; What Research Saysto the Teacher.National Education Association, Washington, D.C.7534p.NFA Publications, Order Department The AcademicBuilding, Saw Mill Road, -West Haven, Conneticut 06516(Stock No. 1037-X-00, $0.75)

MF-$0.76 Plus Postage. HC Not Available from EDRS.Basic Reading; Beginning Reading; Initial TeachingAlphabet; Primary Educatior; *Reading Development;*Reading Instruction; *Reading Processes; ReadingPrograms; *Reading Research; Reading Skills;*Teaching Methods

ABSTRACTIn discussing instructional approaches to reading,

this book offers several definitions of reading and discussesteaching techniques, including early methods, the basal approach, artid

recent trends, among them the phonics approach, the linguisticsapproach, the language experience approach, the initial teachingalphabet, individualized reading, concept development, and programmedand multi-media approaches. A section on reading research considersmeaning-emphasis programs, code-emphasis programs, otherinstructional approaches, and tne problem of definitive research.implications for the classroom teacher are briefly outlined andselected references are included. (LL)

**********************************i************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished * 4

* materials not available from other sources.-.ERIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal *

* reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality *

* of the microfiche ana hardcopy reprpductions !P/C makes available *

* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Servac4 (EDR,S). EDRS is not* responsible forr, the quality of the original document.-Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original.***********************************************************************

tT, 5.4t YIN

rr k -T tS.*t Li ATtiT.

t-D OLT(.,.T.1)%

rX) What Research Says to the Teacher1-4r--( Reading:CD

Instructional Approaches

by Sheralyn S. Goldbecker

National Education AssociationWashington,D.C.

iv"J

a

Library of Congress in Publication DataGoldbeeker, Sheralyn S

Reading. instructional approaches

(What research says to the teacher)Bibliography p1 Reading 1 Title H Senes

LB1050 N33 1975 372 4'1 75-30895

Copyright c 1975National Ediitation NNNOt:idtli) 01 the united States

Stock No. 1037A-00

sEwM 04 '0 41E-Pw0Dpc' ru..,K0 1..N.Ek A_ SY MtCRO

FtCnE,ONLY 5kAN'EC,

National EducationAssociation,;) fR C AND ORGANZA' ON" OPE-kAT

NG NC)f AGRFF MIN'S NA

ONA .,( (0 ;AT ONk uE P400tir " ON 0 ),N Of

V, kt kW,.

N r G4 +u ',NN* so

I

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 5

WHAT IS READING) 5

TEACHING TECHNIQUES 7

Early Methods 7

The Basal Approach 8

Recent Trends 8

READING RESEARCH 12

Meaning-Emphasis Programs 13

Code-Emphasis Programs 16

Other Approaches to Instruction 22

The Problem of Definitive Research 23

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CLASSROOM TEACHER 24

SELECTED REFERENCES 26

Shcralyn S. Goldbecker is an educational writer and researcher.

The manuscript was reviewed by Shirley Daniels, third-grade teacher,Longfellow Elementary School, Des Moines, Iowa.

INTRODUCTION

Perhaps because reading is such an indispensable tool with which togain access to the knowledge that society possesses, it has been themost researched and analyzedand as a result, often the mostcontroversialof our educational system's instructional areas. Even ata time when multi-media approaches to learning have been proposedas a means of assuring effective teaching and learning, readingremains a key factor in learning and communicating, in solvingproblems and forming new concepts, in gathering knowledge forfuture careers, in seeking recreational enjoyment. Parentsand societyas a wholeare more concerned than ever before that all students canread adequately in order to fully participate in our complex and highlydeveloped society. And they are looking to the classroom teacher toprovide students with the skills necessary to achieve this goal.

WHAT IS READING?

In searching for a definition of reading and the skills that the readingprocess entails, the controversy between the advocates of differentapproaches to reading instruction becomes apparent. And this is onlynatural because the way in which one defines and interprets a goalinthis case, reading proficiencydetermines the steps that one willfollow to achieve this goal,

Generally, opinions on the nature of beginning reading can bedivided into those that emphasize reading for meaning from the initialstages of instruction and those that emphasize "decoding"teachingthe student to decode the visual alphahetic symbols first, with meaningtollowmg naturally from this process at a later stage.

The followingthree viewpoints of the reading process exemplify theformer approach.

The proponents of the basal reader type of instruction largely accepta definition of reading such as that proposed by William S. Gray whoclassified reading into four components; word perception or recogni-tion, which would also include pronunciation and meaning: com-prehension and interpretation of the concepts that are conveyed to thereader by the primed words; reaction on the part of the reader to the

t)5

concepts presented: and assimilation of These new concepts with thereader's previous knowledge. (44)* Using this type of definition, it isobvious that there is little difference between reading as practiced bybeginners and reading as practiced by mature readers, except in thecomplexity and the purpose of the material read.

George H. Henry particularly emphasizes the importance of thetheory of concept development in the reading process. He finds thatreading occurs within a series of logical processesrather thaninvolving the learning of a number of discrete skills. Beginningreading in this type of framework differs from mature reading only inthe refinement of the strategies that the reader employs during analysisand synthesisthe two basic modes of thinking involved in the

reading process. (58)Advocates of individualized reading instruction are concerned

primanly with reading comprehension and skills as they relate to theneeds and interests of the individual student. As Lyman C. Hunt, Jrpoints out, a basal reading text controls vocabulary by selecting andpresentjng a limited number of words that the student at a particularreading level is presumed to be capable of comprehending. On theother hand, individualized reading is viewed as a process throughwhich the reader is given freedom to explore through reading, topursue individually selected concepts at her/his own pace. The studentlearns new words not because they are part of a vocabulary list; insteadshe/he learns them naturally as they are presented in the context of theself-selected readings in order to get meaning from the material. Andreading instruction becomes the exploration of meaning and conceptsrather than a structured and intensive process of learning certainrequisite skills. (62)

Next are some of the opinions of those who view reading asprimarily a decoding process.

As a proponent of the extensive use of phonics in teaching reading,Charles C. Walcutt presents a definition of reading as the decoding ofthe visual symbols or letters into spoken words in order to obtain bothail understanding of language and an appreciation of the literature andthe cultural heritage behind it. all as a result of the mastery of thiscode. He feels that while a reading program should be especiallyconcerned with decoding and appreciation, understanding language is

Numbers in parentheses appearing in the text refer to Selected References beginningon p 26.

6

not really within the initial function of such a program, (108)Linguistic scholar Leonard Bloomfield also proposes a somewhat

limited definition of the concept of reading as decodinglearning thealphabetic symbolsrather than initially emphasizing the importanceof meaning, as kias been done in the basal programs He believes thatmeaning comes as the reader gams proficiency in breaking the code, asshe/he masters the letters through the initial study of regularly spelledwords and then words as wholes. (8)

Charles C. Fries, also a linguist, sees reading as a three-stageprocess involving the transter stage from "auditory signs for languagesymbols" to "new NMI!l signs for the same signals"; the productivestage during which the student's responses to the visual patternsbecome unconscious, and finally the imaginative stage "when thereading process itself is so automatic that the reading is used equallywith or even more than live language in the acquiring and developing ofexperiencewhen reading stimulates the vivid imaginative realization ofv [canons experience (30)

These and many other definitions have been, proposed for thereading process However, whether one accepts reading as a processthat should stress the importance of meaning and interpretationthatis, mature reachngtrom the very beginning or ..s a process that starts

with the student learning to decode or master the visual symbols fromwhich to reconstruct speech, with meaning and appreciation to comelater. the ultimate goal for the reader is the same. understanding andappreciation of what is written so that these concepts can he incorpo-rated into her/his existing knowledge.

TEACHING TECHNIQUES

Early MethodsReading instruction, always a tundamental of the American educa-

tion system. was exemplified during the colonial period, is well as thelate 1700's and early 1800`., by the reading primers that taughtstudents to read by memorizing indiN [dual letters. then 4.0mbinationsof letters. and 'mall!, complete words. This alphabet spelling methodeventually gave way to the word method introduced try Horace Mannin 1840. Under this system, readers learned words by sight, and moreemphasis was placed on the reader's comprehension

7

o

Various other methods of reading mstruction were employed duringthe late 1800's and early 1900's. Among those experiencing popularityat different times were such diametrically opposed methods as anartificial type of phonics that was used extensively for constant wordanalysis and the complete abandonment of word analysis in favor ofhaving the reader learn whole words by sight through rep: Anion.

The Basal ApproachFrom about 1930. the most common classroom method of reading

instruction has made use of the basal reader. The basal readerapproach stresses the 'achievement of meaningful reading from thebeginning. 14h-frequency words are presedted first with carefulvocabulary control. Phonics and word analysis are applied later, andeven then only to words that the reader already knows. Pictures in thetext are considered to he more important clues to word recognitionthan phonic analyst The sentences, stories, and poems of the basalreader are intended to he geared to the interests and experiences of thereader so that the content will become a motivational factor along withthe desire to master the skill of reading. Vocabulary is controlledsolely by the meaning-in:qui:tic!, principle rather than by any concernfor phonic regularity. In essence, the only differences between thereading the student does in the basal text and that which she/he will dothroughout herthis life lie in the purpose of the reading and itscomplexity.

Recent TrendsAround the mid-1950. dissatisfaction with the overall success of the

basal method from many quarters of society led to dinelopment of andexperimentation with various new techniques for readinginstructionmany of which were based on the type of decodingdefined by Bloomfield and others. The primary difference in thetheories of these "decoders lay in their assumption that beginningreading, learning to decode the visual symbols for the spokenlanguage. was vastly different from mature reading, done for meaningand appreciation.

8

Phonics

The return of an emphasis on phonicseither as a component ofthe general reading program or as the basis for an entire program'twitestablished the extensoe and early application of the science ofspeech sounds as a took in learning how to read and spell. The concernis with the reader's abilny to associate letters, letter groups, andsyllables with the corresponding speech sounds. Although there isconcern for reading content, word recognition is stressed first, withmeaning following later The study of phonics is intended to gixe thereader a faster start in word recognition so that reading content neednot he so watered down, in man) of the entics of the traditionalbasal reader, haw indicated that stnet xocabulary control on themeaning-frequency pnnelple has led to uninteresting content in thesereaders. particularly at the beginning Joel. While supporters of thephonics approach consider illustrations in the text still to be univnantto intimation. the) should be treated so as not to draw the reader'sattention from analysis at the words

Linguistics ApproachLinguistics is the scientific study of the ongin and structure of

language. As applied to the teaching of reading by Bloomfield, Enes,Wardhaugh, and many others, it emphasizes the same type ofdecoding found in the phonics approach The linguistic methodattempts to build on the already .Ida raced ability each student has in

the spoken language when she -he begins to learn to read. Oral readinggains new importance with the desire to transfer knowledge LA spoken

words to their pnnted equnalents Unlike the basal and phonicsJpproacht:s, howexer, tocabillary is controlled largely on the basis ofspelling regularity so indoldual soundiletter correspondences can bemastered one at .1 time. once this prozess is complete, irregulanhes ofthe language are dealt with_ Pnmary emphasis is placed on thealphabet' c"xle because the reader already has a fairly extensoe audial

and oral ocabulary and thus content and illustrations no longer haxefirst prionty Meaning and application are thought to do clop naturallyas the smbolic code is broken because the early words that arelearned are already pan of the reader's spoken xocabulary

9

It)

Linguistic. OuigrowthBecause American schools are faced with the task of educating more

and more 'students who are non-English-speaking. and because thetraditional English oriented methods ot instruction hate been less thansuccesstul with mart o) these student, linguists hate recentlt begunto int esngate approache.s to hihnoat readmi: mgrut ,n adtlinOnto attempting to change traditional attitudes toward non-Enghsh-speaking students that the are culturallf deficient. that their namelanguage and culture are somehow interior. that they must learn thenew standard language quickl before the> hate eten had a chance tomature in their name language--all of which can he a detastatmgetteet on the et ennui success ot these students in school. proponentsot bilingualhicultural education are establishing and etaluatmg grog.rams designed to help students become literate in both their namelanguage and English. unit/mg reading matenals designed to relatemore clutch to their cultural and language expenences.

Facing a similar problem are those students well a% urban Blackswho come to school speaking a non-standard dialect of English andwho must learn to read trom traditional texts. In attempting to help thistf pc of student learn to read more easilf linguists hate begun researchin the areas ot pttchohnevistut c to.lohnguttuct. to etaluate theettects ot various ps.f etiological and sociological factors. respeetitel .on the Alm ot these students to learn to read t8b) Such studies hat eled to the det elopment of new instructional matenals that are untlenin non-standard dialect and that hate ntent mote relet an! to theeterf da), experiences ot these students Thus. these students would beable to learn to read 1,1 their non-standard chalect--and evenencesuccess in a learning situation and then this knowledge would hetransferred through instruction in standard English, much in tA 1e samemanner as in mans hdingual experimental programs

Language Experience ApproadlAnother technique stressing earl} mastern ot the alphabetic code is

the language evenence meatod i digest Here the dose relationshipsamong reading. spelling. and writing are stressed Reading matenalsare deteloped inchtiduall for each student based on her his oralexpressions that are written down 11t the teacher in the beginning

Its

11

stages, then. as the student gains protictenc. she /he wales her/his

own materials Thus, there is individualization of instruction as well as

flembilit of learning activate.. Word recognition And voeabulandevelopment begin earls. as doe. phonics instruction them!' com-munication skills are stressed as each student writes and readsindependently. thus gaming knowledge of .1 basic vocabular>. Each

student's unique Interests and needs are a pamarti concern of thisself-pacing fve of reading instruction.

Initial Teaching AlphabetWhile advocates of the linguistic method begin instruction with

regularly spelled word. and then grachiall. progress to the Ir-

regularities, Sir Limes Pitman and other alphabet reformers havesought to revise the alphabet itself to correspond more elosel to the

actual sound of the English language. Each of the 44 characters of the

Initial Teaching Alphabet tiit/a) de%1Ned 11,), Pitman represents a single

sound After the reader uses materials written in the lit'a forfora ear orso long enough to feel confident about reading this tile ofmaterial-- the transfer as made to reading nutenals using the trAmonal

alphabet

\ot all of the new instructional techniques proposed are based on

de,"ding r'rpo,ed to maningtul reading !tom the start of mstrue-

non

Individualized ReadingMe Indic idirallied reading approach. while stressing meaningful

reading btore word analysis. is aimed at replacing what practilionersfeel to be the gener.p. uninteresting content of the basal reader with acarietv of reading materials selected hs the !nth% Mud! student. As with

laneuaee espermise approach. however. each student progtessesher his own pace. aid there is considerable flevibilit of learning

eviveriences myna

CI)m"ept Derekrne111hale hasat readers often present short stories or poems that the

i.dent lrsrks at ore .11 a time. those concerned with earls concept

I I

development feel students should he more Loncerned with relating thevarious materials read to one another than with reading "skills." Byfragmenting reading into groups of discrete skills, the reader can losesigla of the meaning necessary to analyze what is read, to relate this tomaterials read previously. and to synthesize this with the knowledgeshe/he already has. Reading, as taught using the concept developmentap,proach, must go beyond mere comprehension and thus bring aboutcreative response from the reader.

Programmed and Multi-Media ApproachesProgrammed instruction has provided reading materials in a dif-

ferent format whereby reading tasks are presented in small units. Intheory, meaning, phonics, and linguistics approaches can he treated inthis manner. organizing reading fundamentals into a logical progres-sion of skills However, the decoding approaches seem to have mademore frequinit use of this technique. One advantage to this method,which utilizes texts. workbooks, teaching machines, ete to drillstudents'in repetitious activities involving memorization. is that theteacher is freed to provide more creative instruction. And as in othermethods discussed, the reader is self-motivated, moving largely at

her/his own pace.The use of various communication media has increased in Tecent

years as teachers incorporate reading materials other than ,standardtexts. field trips, motion 'pictures, tilmstrips, still pictures, taperecorders. record players, and the like ,into the daily Instruction toincrease each studehts background of experience. Generally the thrustof this approach has been more toward increasing comprehension andthus gaining meaning from reading, based on the principle that astudent will not understand the printed word if she/he cannot assocrateit with real objects or their visual representations, even though theskills involved in decoding have shown her/him how to pronounce it'correctly.

READING RESEARCH

With these and other new techniques competing with the oncefirmly entrenched basal approach tto becOme "the' way" to teachstudents to read better, or earlier, or whatever the objective. how is the

12,I

classroom teacher to evaluate which techniques will he the mosteffective in her/his particular situation? As srated earlier,, there hasbeen extensive research on reading insiruction carried out during thelast several decades. A look at some ot the more recent studies mayprocide sonic interesting inNightsperhaps because differing conclu-sions regarding many ot these techniques make it difficult, tocategorme any approach as entirely successful or unsuccessful

Meaning-Emphasis ProgramsThe major issue debated by proponents of meaning emphasis and

those of code emphasis is the 'point at which meaning becomesimportant in the reading process. While code emphasizers feel thatmeaning follows once the code is broken, Yetta M. Goodman hasfound otherwise in her analysis of students' reading miscues (errors).Using miscue analysis to diagnose reading problems and to iaehieveinsight' into the complexity of the reading process, she concludes thatwords should not he introduced outside the context of language andthat students should haw access to all language cuesmeaning,sound. and the relationship between letters and sounds---wben learningto read In discussing one student who had difficulty in comprehendingthe word globe, even though he could pronounce it correctly she

rites'

It is more important for this child to learn the scientific concept ofthe word globe than to teach him the sound-symbol correspondence,its graphic identity as a word or'its dictionary meaning out of thecontext ot the written language in which is was presented, (41)

Basal ApproachBaal textbooks have been criticized by advocates of both major

types ot reading instruction for a number ot shortcomingsforeample, ocabulary controlled strictly on the basis ot meaningfrequency has led to uninteresting or watered-down content. and the

`stories are based largely on the experiences ot white, middle-class,suburban students, stories that ethnic and socioeconomic minoritiescannot relate to and thus be motivated to read. However, there is evidence

that publishers of basal readers are attempting to alleviate this problem

while maintaining the emphasis on meaningful reading

13

14

Albert J. Harris and Milton D. Jacobson, compilers of new listingsof general and technical reading vocabularies based on currentlypopular elementary -level textbooks, have found.

A much less stringent conitt)I over vocabulary than formerly ischaracteristic ()I sonic of the new basal reading programs.... Thusit may he anticipated that a word list based on readers popular in1970 may reflect this trend toward less exacting control over basalreader vocabularies. (50)

And hopefully this loosening of vocabulary control would aid in thedevelopment of more interesting and varied reading materials.

In an attempt to relate to students of all social, ethnic, and economicbackgrounds, publishers have also begun providing basal materials thatpresent characters and situations more familiar to these minoritygroups For example, S. Alan Cohen notes:

Most teachers and curriculum super% isors assume that commerciallypublished basal "sight" reader programs adequately cover the scopeand sequence of skills needed to produce good waders.. . . We

found that some skills are taught in the wrong sequence. . . Sonic

as analyzing roots and affixes, are overtaught becausethey lend themselves to workbook exercises better than other skills.Sonic are undertaught, and still others are not taught at all. IA] study,completed recently at the Yeshiva University Reading Clinic, involveda detailed behavioral analysis of the teacher manuals of threerepresentative basal reading systems currently in wide use. Over 66percent of the skills taught were unrelated to reading (viewed asdecoding. I

However, Cohen found such basal series as the C'hw:dler LangzuzgeEyenene Readers by Ca lino et al and The Bank Street Readers byBlack to he both popular and successful when used with urbanpopulations. Both these series deal with the multi-ethnic urbanenvironment and include many illustrations to motivate the reader. Butdespite the tact that this type of content may he more relevant for somereaders, Cohen still feels that such basal programs need to besupplemented by programs to develop phonic and word attack skills.(17)

Herbert Kohl has been successful in motivating disadvantagedreaders by using a wide variety of reading materials such as "how to"

14

1 5

manuals, bus schedules, and menus:

The ability to master these materials increases the reader's powerover his or her lite and, therefore, are highly interesting to

beginning readers.. ..... ..................

Or course it is foolish to stick to one stereotyped image of thelearners' culture. Though most of the materials selected may relateto the learners' perceived interests there is no harm in throwing inmaterials that might expose them to unfamiliar situations. (69)

L. Jean York and Dorothy Ebert, on the other hand, find it:

rather imprudent to discard a sequential reading program that issuccessful because five children cannot relate to the story.... othermaterials and methods imght be selected for the five children whoare not succeeding. (114)

Not totally willing to accept the theory that disadvantaged studentscannot learn to read stories that they cannot relate to, York and Ebertconclude that "the problem may well be the children's paucity ofverbal skills rather than the content of the reading hook."_(114)

Individualized ReadingWhile it is difficult to quarrel with the philosophy behind indi-

idualized reading, there appear to he certain drawbacks to thisapproach. Miles A. tinker and Constance M. McCullough indicatethat experiments with this method have produced favorable results.(105) However, though Edward R. Sipay sees certain advantages tothis method, he feels that there is still need for further research to seeJust how effectively reading skills are being developed by this type ofprogram. (88) Harry W. Sartain, after studying 10 classes of second-graders involved in an individualized reading program, concludes thatthis approach does not appear to produce better achievemeht than doesa good basal program. (83) He also sees inefficiency as a weakness,since teachers must become involved in preparing and presentingnumerous individual reading lessons each day. (82) One solutionproposed by both Sartain and Mkt Banton Smith (92) is the use of thisindividualized approach as a supplement to a basic reading program,particularly in the upper elementary levels, thus, students benefit from

15

1 t;

I

the Indy, idualization of instniction, and the teacher can more effec-tively and efficiently pros ide group instruction in those gkills that lendthen selses to that approach

Concept DevelopmentJohn FL Langer cites studies such as those by David FL Russell that

have shown a close correlation between concept development inreading and vocabulary growth. Although it is difficult to find reliablemethods to evaluate Ole type of affective thinking represented byconcept development. Langer sees it to be an essential process inreading instruction: "The word-in-itself is devoid of meaning if theuser has no concept for it." (73)

Henry also presents examples of how even first-graders can besuccessfully instructed by the use of the "spiral curriculum" thatenables the reader to synthesize concepts of ever-increasing numberand complexity. But he, too, sees the area of concept development asneeding further investigation to develop ways of both fostering and

measuring the process as an integral part of reading. i58)

Code-Emphasis ProgramsThere are a number of wntersJeanne S Chill (14), Kohl (69).

and Tinker and McCullough (105), among themwho emphasize theimportance of phonics instruction during beginning reading. Atpresent, the general trend seems to be to combine a phonics compo-nent with other types of reading instruction, and many instructionalmaterials are prepared on this ha%is,

Lou E. Burmeister has concluded that the vast number of phonicsgeneralizations about consonants, vowels, and phonic syllabication hasburdened teachers, who incorporate phonics instruction into theirreading programs. And he is supported in this belief by RonaldWardhaugh. ( I I) While Burmeister still urges the use of those torfu/generalizations in teaching reading:

The teacher should alWays keep. in mind that phonics deals withrelationships between printed symbols and sounds and that phonicswill he of no help to the reader interested in getting meaning unlesshe orally knows the word being attacked, (1 I )

16

1

Unle'ss the alphabetic symbols produce sounds that in turn producemeaning for the reader, Burmeister contends that "utilizing phonic

skills can he busywork." (II)

Linguistics ApproachCohen concludes that a number of linguistic readers and workbooks

have been successful in tests conducted with urban students. (17) On

the other hand. Wardhaugh, after examining a number of studies

where the linguistic method appears to have produced higher reading

achievement than other instructional methods, proposes that there

.really is no linguistic "method ":

'There appears to be no more justification for talking about alinguistic nfethod or various linguistic method', of teaching reading,

particularly beginning reading, than for talking about a linguistic

method or methods of teaching a foreign language. Linguistic

methods are methods that linguists employ in doing linguisticresearch and possibly in teaching linguistics. Reading is not linguis-

tics. It has a large linguistic content, but it also has content that isnonlinguistic; conseqiiently, methods for teaching reading mustdraw on other sources in addition to linguistic ones. But such

methods should build on sound linguistic knowledge. ( I I )

He also concludes that the reading improvement he has observed might

have resulted as much from the fact that there was simply a change in

the method of instruction. the very newness creating an improvement

(known as the flizwtherne Om) as from any particular merit in thelinguistically oriented reading materials. (110) However, if linguistics

is used to obtain a new "perspective" on reading instruction, thenlinguistic research can lead to more effective teaching methods, (1 I I)

On the other hand. A. S. Carton cautions that while application of

linguistic principles to the teaching of reading can be beneficial, "Nosingle blindly-applied method can be universally appropriate." (13)

Although research in the area of bilingual education is still in

relatively beginning stages. Richard D. Arnold has cited a number of

promising elementary -level experiments conducted with Mexican-Americans. Blacks. and Whites, (1) Joan T. Feeley describes several

totally English-oriented programs for teaching non-English-speaking

students to read, and finds them generally insufficient or ineffective.

17

Going on tp IQok at bilingual programs in Mexico (involving Spanishand an Indian language) and in Texas, Florida. New Jersey, and NewYork (all involving English and Spanish), she attends that the resultsavailable thus far are encouraging when students are instructed andallowed to become literate first in their native language and thenreceive instruction in the standard language later. (28)

After studying syntax characteristics of four groups of Arizonathird-gradersbilingual students scoring both high and low on thereading section of the Metropolitan Achievement Test and monolingualstudents in the same categoriesPatricia D. Van Metre concludes:

The children, bilingual and monolingual, who scored low on thereading test scored with little difference on the syntactic construc-tions investigated.

At no time could any qualitative differences in the answers given bymonolingual and bilingual children in response to the test items bediscerned. if children were developing at a slower rate linguistical-ly, they appeared to be developing in the same manner, whetherthey were bilingual or monolingual. (107)

Rather than linguistic differences, Van Metre feels that the reasonthese bilingual students are developing the way they are is the way inwhich they are learning two languages:

One might posit that at times in Southwestern communities the twolanguages being learned by the small child are not clearly differen-tiated for him, since he may hear both languages spoken by thesame adults in his home, Silk sometimes the two languages aremixed in form. Such mixture is an anticipated phenomenon resultingfrom the collision of tw.) languages, but for the child first learninglanguage and having no concept of "language" in the formal sense,`his linguistic input may seem to him to be one complex systemwhich he must process. (107)

As for a solution to this problem, Van Metre proposes:

. that while children should be presented with a rich and variedlinguistic iniiut, a wide range of chilthin's responses (language'production) should be accepted and respected in order to allow. forexpected differences in language ability.

Furthermore, schools Might play an important role in differen-

18

tiating for the child the two languages which he is processing bypresenting one or both languages in standard form and unmixedform, Perhaps each adult in the classroom should speak only onelanguage to the young bhild, English or Spanish, so that he isassisted in his perceptions of the two language systems. (107)

Certainly on the basis of the general lack of success of manytraditional programs for non-English-speaking students, the field ofbilingual education must he considered an appropriate area for further

research.The student who comes to school speaking and comprehending a

non-standard English dialect faces a special problem. As Robert B.Ruddell writes:

It is quite common that the standard form of English has receivedhigh priority in our own backgrounds, owing to parental and teacheremphasis placed upon "good English" and in turn social mobility. .

. Due to limited information available in past years, the generalpublic often regards non-standard dialects as class markers foruneducated persons of low social status. (81)

Thus there is a reluctance among some teachers to attempt the sameapproach as proposed for bilingual educationthat of teaching stu-dents first in their native language and then in the standardlanguagebecause in this case the "native language" is thought to beinherently incorrect. However, Ruddell points out:

. the responsibility as classroom teachers to develop our own and

our student's appreciation of non-standard dialects as we come tounderstand the highly regular and consistent nature of these lan-guage forms. (81)

Kenneth S. Goodman supports this type of approach on the basis ofhis study of students' reading miscues that result from dialecticdifferences. He proposes that when a teacher corrects such miscues,she/he is cutting students off from their linguistic competencies andcausing them to lose sight of the meaning in favor of sheer wordrecognition accuracy; therefore, he concludes that teachers must end

this type of dialect rejection if they are to succeed in teaching

non-standard speakers to, read. (39)Sociolinguists have offered a number of alternatives to help these

19

Pi)

non-standard speakers learn to read. Roger W. Shuy (86) suggests thatinstructional matenals he adjusted to the social dialect of the student.while William A Stewart (98) proposes that such a change in readingmaterials take place only in the beginning reading stages, followed byinstruction using transitional materials designed to give gradual compe-tence in the standard language.

This latter type of approach is also supported by Joan C. Baratz,who writes:

Because of the mismatch between the ghetto child's system and thatof the standard English textbOok, because of the psychologicalconsequences of denying the existence and legitimacy of the child'slinguistic system, and because of the success of vernacular teachingaround the world, it appears Imperative that we teach the inner-cityNegro child to read using his language as the basis for initialreadersfIn other words, first teach the child to read, and then teachhim to read in standard English. Such a reading program would notonly require accurate ernacular texts for the dialect speaker, butalso necessitate the creation of a series of "transition readers" thatwould move the child, once he had mastered reading in the

ernacular, from vernacular texts to standard English texts. (5)

Kenneth S Goodman suggests still another alternative for studentswhose dialect does not differ significantly from standard English:students would he encouraged to read the same way that they speak.Thus, special dulcet materials would not be needed, and the teacherwould not attempt to change the children's dialect. (33) However,Joseph A. Fisher finds this alternative unsatisfactory for three reasons:( Continued use of standard texts will give the students a sense ofrejection of their language; (2) More than a permissive attitude towardpronunciation is needed because of the syntactical and' grammaticaldiflerences between the dialect and the standard language: (3) It wouldbe difficult to establish evaluation criteria when students are allowed toalter pronunciation, change or drop endings, and even drop words.Because of these factors, Fisher is among those who favor readingmaterials written in non-standard dialect. (29)

Again, this is one of the many aspects of reading instruction thatdemands further investigation. James L. Liffey pinpoints one problemas that of !cubing to view the non-standard dialect as a different,rather than a deficit, language. Once this is accomplished, classroom

20

2

teachers will he able to make use of the theories and applicationsderived from further psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic research inorder to unproe reading instruction for the non-standard speaker. (72)

Initial Teaching AlphabetThere appears to be considerable question over the results of various

programs experimenting with the dt/a, as well as over the need toregularize English spelling in the first place.

Wardhaugh reports that experiments with the dt/a thus far have beenfavorableperhaps due somewhat to the Hawthorne effect mentionedearherbut he still finds the evidence as a whole to he inconclusive.However, he does believe the system to be "well-thought-out"orthographically, "one of the more successful attempts to reformEnglish spelling for a specific purpose." (1 l l)

Tinker and McCullough caution educators to look beyond enthusias-tic reportsof achievement for further evidence of the advantages ofsuch a system, the permanence of the reading gains, and the ease of

the later transfer to traditional spelling:.

Several experiments using the iitia for initial reading and forremedial teaching are underway in both England and the UnitedStates. . It has already been noted that after two or three years ofinstruction differences in the reading levels of litia students andthose taught traditional orthography were smaller or nonexistent.However, since children who have used i/t/a seem to excel in wordrecognition and usually after three-years are not reading below the

level of children using the traditional alphabet, it seems that the i/t/ashould receive further consideration, including several more years ofcareful experimentation to gather conclusive evidence on just howeffective it really is. . (105)

Wardhaugh ( 1 l ) feels that it may be nece'ssary to regularizeEnglish spelling somehow in order to assist in the instruction of thebeginning reader, but both Cohen (17) and Kohl (69) question thenecessity of making English phonetically consistent for this purpose.Kohl, in particular, sees English spelling irregularities as presenting nosignificant problem. Utilizing Caleb Gattegno's chart of the 47 soundsin spoken English and the possible fetter combinations that represent

each sound (32), Kohl finds only about 150 distinct spelling varia-

22I

lions. Because this is a finite Jantier. he concludes that theseirregularities can he masteredand certainly. this is a much easier taskthan that facfng students of languages such as Chinese that inxolxemuch more complex and numerous symbols than English

Other Approaches tO Instruction

Programmed InstructionIn looking at programmed instruction at the elementary !excl.

Edward Fry finds support for the belief that computers. talkingtypewriters. and other teaanng machines ean provide beginningreading instruction. But also finds "no proof. . that programmedinstruction can do any more for beginning reading than regularclassroom teaching or human tutoring.'' 01)

Nth Banton Smith reaches a similar conclusion when she states;

Computers can, no doubt, he helpful in establishing certain elementsof skill that require practice. But to teach other essential processesof reading, such as getting meanings from word symbols arranged insentences, interpretation, critical reading, and appreciation, whichdo not lend themselx es to predetermined answers, oral dialogue,mental interaction, and exchanges of thoughts are required. (79)

Multi-Media InstructionWhile audio-cisual methods of instruction have general!) been

thought of as a means for enriching the classroom experience, cautionis exen urged here when applied to reading instruction. While imokedwith the CRAFT Protect examining reading among disadxantagedBlacks in 'urban areas. Albert J. Harris obserxed the use and theresulting fiects of a %inlet), of audio- mild materials including taperecorders, oxerhead projectors, filmstrips, and cameras. Hams foundthat if teachers were well trained in using the equipment, audio-% isualprocedures, did aid in des eloping reading skills "Howorer, forteachers who haivnot been carefully trained in audio-% isual teaching.the more time spent with audio-% mai procedures, the worse thereading test results.'' (49)

0 o

The Problem of Definitive ResearchIn 190, Jeanne S Cha II concluded that oxle-emphasis programs

were superior. at least in the beginning stages, to meaning-emphasisprograms as tar as °veal reading achievement is concerned. (14) In

testing ChaWs conclusions as part of the Cooperative ResearchProgram in First Grade Instruction (9), Robert Dykstra reaches thetype of conclusion that many others appear to have reached regardingthe sarious types of reading programs. Although he has gatheredes idence that generally supports Chairs theories.

There is no clear es idence that the early emphasis on code per se isthe only or esen the primary, reason for the relative effectiveness ofthe code-emphasis programs.... The possibility exists that someother characteristic of these programs (higher expectations of pupilachievement, for example) may be a more crucial element indetermining pupil achievement than the emphasis on axle - breaking.It is also possible that some particular combination of factors withinthe code-emphasis programs accounted for their effectiveness. Thereis some es idence for this conjecture in that the sanous code-emphasis programs did not appear to he equally effective. (26)

The U S Oltice of Education has sponsored a number of widelypublicued Cooperative Reading Studies. And as the results of thesestudies are quoted for vinous purposes, Sipay warns the teacher to heaware of the limitations of such research Among these limitations, he

lists lack of control of implementation of program, by individualteachers. lark of cleark.ut definitions of programs. the effect ofteachers. instructional settings. and tests used for evaluation; theinfluence of the Hawthorne died. and the fact that long -range effectshase not been determined. t89

Perhaps Dykstra has pinpointed a problem with research into the

effectiveness of reading instruction techniques that seems to has e

resulted in a general unwillingness to totally accept one specificmethod to the exclusion of all others:

The major types of programs which were compared differed in anumber of respects in addition to the sarymg emphases on code andmeaning . Unfortunately, studies of this nature compare onet omplex of instructional factors with another (omple% of instruc-tional factors. thereby making it impossible to isolate the single

23

characteristic (if indeed there is one) which makes one program,more effective than another. (26)

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CLASSROOMTEACHER

Awl so the debate continues among the meaning emphasiiers, thecode emphasizers, and those who fail somewhere in between, tieekingto combine both aspects into an effective reading program. But whatdoes all this mean to the classroom teacher who is faced with thenecessity of actually putting sonic sort of program into effect ineveryday instruction?

Generally. research seems to lead to two possible conclusions thus'tai---.both of which point to the classroom teacher as the ultimatedeterminant ot success in any type of reading program.

Eve Malmquist states that:

Research has shown that there does not exist one method of readingwhich is best for all children. Rather, teachers should look'for someproper combination or methods best fitted to each child. Moreresearch is needed, however, in order to identify procedures forteachers to match appropriate methods to the aptitudes, skills, andinterests ot each child. (76)

This same conclusion is expressed by Ethel M. King: "One thing iscertain, no one method ot teaching reading will prove equally effectivefor all pupils in 41 schools by all teachers." (66)

And apparently there is one variable in the process of teachingstudents to read that is both vital to success and within the control ofthe indiv idual teacher. According to George 0. Spache:

our reading, research into the effectiveness of various instruc-tional methods in classroom or remedial situations is often pointless.Such comparative research tends to ignore the fact that the dynamicpractices of the teache'r and the kinds of teacher -pupil interactionsshe promotes are the most important determinants of pupils'dare% ements The collected results of the large scale First GradeReading Studies . strongly reaffirm this tact. Hardly any realditterences in pupil achievement were found in comparisons among

24

9.;

a half-dozen different approaches in carefully equated populations91, Rather, in almost every study. achievement vaned more from one

teacher's classroom tc the next than it vaned according to the methodsor materials employed. (94)

Tinker and McCullough find that expenmental classes usually showgreater achievement than control classes, no matter which instructionaltechnique is used. However, they feel that the teacher's drive anddetermination during the experimental stagewhether or not she/he isa highly skilled reading teacheris a greater factor in students'progress than the actual teaching method employed. (105)

King indicates that the differences in teaching styles and profes-sional competencies among teachers have a definite effect on achieve-ment, (66) In tact, according to Malmquist,

Many studies indicate that the teacher is a more important variablein reading instruction than are the teaching methods and instrue-tional materials Nevertheless, reading research has not yet suc-ceeded in identity ing the characteristics of effective readingteachers, (76)

There are many questions left to he answered :About how student;learn to read and what can he done to facilitate this "proces; for eachstudent, no matter what needs, skills, or interests she/he brings to theclassroom Since none (i1 the techniques so far developed appears tO bethe ultimate answer to reading success, the answer may lie in acombination of existing procedures or even in a totally new procedureas yet undeveloped or untested Perhaps more important areas forhuffier investigation would include recommendations on specific'techniques for successtully meeting each student's needs in learning Coread and specific competencies needed by the classroom teacher tobring about effective readingrather than continued comparison ofoverall approaches' to reading instruction. However, the salient pointremains that no reading program operates by itself The teacher is stillthe sonde catalyst who can determine success or failure of a readingprogram, no matter where its emphasis lies.

25

SELECTED REFERENCES

Arnold, Richard D. 'Retention in Reading of jDisadsantagedMexican-American Children During the Summer Months."Paper presented at the International Reading Association Con-vention, Boston, April 1968,

2. Aukerman, Robert C-Ipproache,s to Beginning Reading. New

York: John Wiley, 1971. 43. Bapftwd, Jack. "The Role of Phonics in Teaching Reading,"

ReGdint; and Realism. (Edited by J. Allen Figurel.) Proceedingsof the Thirteenth Annual Convention, 13, Part I. Newark, Del.:International Reading Association, 1967, pp. 82-87.

4 Bailey , M. H. "The Utility of Phonic Generalisations in Gr adesOne Through Six." The Reading Teacher 20: 413- 18:.1967,

5 Barati, Joan C. "Linguistic and Cultural Factors in TeachingReading to Ghetto Chddren.",Elementan English 46: 199-203;.February 1969.

6. Betts, Emmett A, "Reading: Psychological and Linguistic'Bases." Education 76: 454-58: April 1966.

7 Bleismer, Emery P., and Yarborough, Betty H. "A Comparisonof Ten Different Beginning Reading Programs in First Grade."Phi Delta KaPpan 6: 500-505: June 1965.

8. Bloomfield, Leonard, and Barnhart, Clarence L. Let's Read ,ALinguistu Apmaeh. Detroit: Wayne -State Unisersiiy Press,

1961,Bond, Guy (. and Dykstra, Robert. "The Cooperative ResearchProgram in First-Grade Reading Instnn.tion." Reading Research(Pwed% 2: 9-142: Summer 1967.

JO. Buchanan-Sulks an Associates. Programmed Reading. New,

York: NficGrass-Hill. 1964.11 Burmeister, Lou E, "Content of a Phonics Program." Reading

Methods and Tethhei Impiotement. (Edited by Nila BantonSinith Newark. Del.. International Reading Association, 1911pp 27.33

!2 in%llen D "Hos% to Teach IA ith Programmed TextbooksGiade Feather, February 1967.

11, Carton, A. S. "Linguistics and Reading Instruction Readin'and Realism. (Edited by J. Allen Figurel.) Newark, Del,.International Reading Association, 1969. pp. 571-82

26

14. Chan. Jeanne. S. Learning to Read. The Great Debate. NewYork: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1967.

15 , and Feldman. S. Beginning Reading Study. Cooperative

Research Project. Washington. D.C.: U.S. Office of Education,1966:

16. Clymer, Theodore. "The Utility at Phonic Generalizations in thePiiinary Grades." The Reading Teacher 16: 252-58; 1963.

17. Cohen, S. Alan. Teich Them Al! to Read: Theory, Methods. andMaterials for Teaching the Disadvantaged New York: RandomHouse, We., 1969,

18. Davis, F. B.. "Research in Comprehension in Reading." Read-

ing Research Quarterly 3: 499-545: 1968.

19 Dechant, Emerald V. Improving, the Teaching of Reading.Revised edition. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Inc,.1970.

20, Diack. Hunter. riu., Teaching of Reading. in Spite qf theAlphabet. New York: Philosophical Library. 1965,

21. Dillard, J. L. Black Elighsh. New York: Random Hou;.e, 1972.

22, Douglass, Malcoim P., editor. Claremont Reading Conference.Thirty-Eighth Yearbook. Claremont., Calif.: the Conference.

1974.

23. Downing, John A. The Initial Teaching Alphabet, Revised

edition. New York: Macmillan. 1974,24. Duffy. Gerald G.. and Sherman. George B, How to Teach

Reading Systematically. New York: Harper and Row. 1972.

25. Durkin, Dolores. Teaching Young Children tg Read. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon. 1972.26. Dykstra, Robert. "The EffectRene7ss of Code- a nd Meani4-

Emphasis Beginning Reading Programs " The Reading Teacher22: 17.23: October 1968,

27 Ervin-Tripp, S. M. "Children's Sociolinguistic Competence andDialect Diversity." Early Childhood Education. (Edited by I.Gordon.) Seventy-First Yearbook of the National Society for theStudy of Education. Part II. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1972. pp i23-W.

28. Feeley, Joan T. "Teaching Non-English Speaking First-Gradersto Read. Elementary English 47: 199.208: February 1970.

29. Fisher. Joseph A. "Dialect. Bilingualism, and Reading," Read-

ing for All. (Edited by Robert Karlin.) Proceedings of the Fourth

27

2

IRA World Congress on Reading. Newark, Del.: InternationalReading Association, 1973. pp 86-95.

30.Fries, Charles C. Linguistics and Reading. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

31. Fry, Edward. -Programmed Instruction and Automation inBeginning Reading." Elementary Reading instruction. (Editedby Althea Beery et al.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1969. pp.400-13:

32. Gattegno, Caleb. Towards a Visual Culture. New York: AvonBooks, 1971.

33. Goodman, Kenneth S. "Barriers to Reading Comprehension."Elementary English 42: 853-60; 1965.

34. "The Language Children Bring td School: How toBuild on It." Grade Teacher 26: 135-42; March 1969.

35. _ ''A Linguistic Study Of Cues and Miscues in Reading."Elementary English 42: 641-45; 1965.

36. . "Reading: The Key Is in Children's Language." TheReading Teacher 25: 505-508; March 1972

37. . "Reading: A Psycholinguistic GuLsing Game."Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. (Edited by HarrySinger and Robert B. Ruddell.) Newark, Del,: InternationalReading Association, 1970. pp. 259-72.

38. editor. The Psycholinguistic Nature of the Readingc* Process. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1967.

39. and Buck, Catherine. "Dialect Barriers to ReadingComprehension Revisited." The Reading Teacher, 6-12; Oc-tober 1973.

40. and Fleming, James T., editors. Psycholinguistics andthe Teaching of Reading. Newark, Del.: International ReadingAssociation, 1969.

41. Goodman, Yetta M. "Using Children's Reading Miscues forNew Teaching Strategies." The Reading Teacher 23: 455-59;February 1970.

42. , and Burke.. Carolyn. ''Do They Read What TheySpeak?" Grade.Teacher 26: 144-50; March 1969.

43. Reading Miscue inventory 'Vanua!: Procedures forDiagnosis and Evaluation. New York: Macmillan, 1972.

44. Gray, William S. On Their Own in Reading. Second edition.Chicago: Scott, Foresman, 1970.

28

45, Groff, P. "Fifteen Flaws in Phonics," Elementary English 50:

35-40: 1973,46. Gustak, F. J. Diagnostic Reading Instruction in thee Elementary

School. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.47. Hatner, Lawrence E., and Jolly, Hayden B. Patterns of Teach-

ing Reading in the Elementary School. New York: Macmillan,1972.,

4X, Harris, Albert J. How to Increase Reading Fifth edition.

New York: David McKay Co.. Inc., 1970.49. . "Key Factors in a Successful' Reading Program."

Elementary English 46: 67-76: January 1969.50. and Jacobson, Milton D. Basic Elementary Reading

Vocabularies. The First R. Series. New York: Macmillan, 1972.51. . and Server, B. L. Comparing Reading Approaches in

First-Grade Teaching with Disadvantaged Children. CooperativeResearch Project No. 2677. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office ofEducation, 1966.

52. , and Spay, Edward R. Effective Teaching of Reading.Second edition. New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1971.

53. , editors. Readings on Reading Instruction. Second edi-tion. New YOrk: David McKay Co., Inc., 1972.

54. Harris. L.A., and Smith. C. B., editors. Individualizing Reading

Instruction: A Reader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1972.

55. Harrison, Maurice. Insumt Reading: The Story of the InitialTeat lung Alphabet. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd.,1964.

56. Heilman, Arthur W Phonies in Proper Perspective. Columbus,

Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1964.57. . Principles and Practices of Teaching Reading. Third

edition. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1972.58. Henry. George H. Teaching Reading as Concept Development:

Emphasis on ,Ifjective Thinking. Newark, Del,: InternationalReading Association, 1974.

59. and Brown, John. An inquiry into the Nature ofContept Development Within the Ongoing Classroom Situation.Project Number 1487, Contract Number O.E. 2-10-128.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1965.

60. Hodges, R , and Rudorf, H., editors. Language and Learning to

29

r.

Read. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1972.61. Hull, M.A. Phonics for the Teacher of Reading.Columbus,

Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1969.62. Hunt, Lyman C., Jr. "Philosophy of Individualized Reading."

Reading and Inquiry. (Edited by J. Allen Figurel.) InternationalReading Association Conference Proceeding, 10. Newark, Del.:International Reading Association, 1965. pp 146-48.

63. Jenkinsons Marion D. "Information Gaps in Research in Read-ing Comprehension." Reading: Process and Pedagogy.Nineteenth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Mil-waukee: the Conference, 1970. pp, 179-92.

64. Karlin, Robert. Teaching Elementary Reading: Principles andStrategies. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971.

65. , editor. Reading for All. Proceedings of the Fourth IRAWorld Congress on Reading. Newark, Del.: International Read-ing Association, 1973.

66. King, Ethel M. "The Influence of Teaching on ReadingAchievement." Reading for All. (Edited by Robert Karlin.)Proceedings of the Fourth IRA World Congress on Reading.Newark, Del.: International Reading Association. 1973. pp.110-15.

67. Klein, Howard, editor. The Quest for Competency in TeachingReading. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association,1972.

68. Kobrick, J. W. "The Compelling Case for Bilingual Educa-tion." Saturday Review, 54-58: April 29, 1972.

69. Kohl, Herbert. Reading, How To. New York: E. P. Dutton andCo., Inc., 1973

70. Labov, William. Some Sources of Reading PrOblems for NegroSpeakers of Nonstandard English." New Directims in Elemen-tary English. (Edited by Alexander Frazier.) Champaign. III.:National Council of Teachers of English, 1967.

7 I . , The Study of Nonstandard English. Washington,.D.C.:ERIC Clearinghouse for Linguistics, Center for Applied Linguis-tics, 1969.

i2. Laffey, James L. "Selected Language Research and Its Implica-tions for Teaching Reading to the Disadvantaged." ReadingGoals for the Disadvantaged. (Edited by J. Allen Figurel.)Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1970. pp.

30

31

55-62.73, Langer, John H.. "Vocabulary and Concept Development."

Joionai ()) Reading 10. 448, 453, 455-56. April 1967.74. Lefevre, Carl A, Lin 'times aid the Mulling o/ Reading. New

York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.75. Levin. Harry. "Reading Research: What. Why, and for Whom?"

Elementars English 43: 138-47; 1966.76. Mahnquist. Eve. ''Perspectives on Reading Research." Reading

for A11. t Edited by Robert Karlin.) Proceedings of the Fourth

IRA World Congress on Reading. Newark, Del.: International

Reading Association, 1973, pp. 142-55.77. Montessori, Maria. The Montessori Method. New York: Schoc-

ken Books.4nc., 1964.7X The Reading Teacher 19, No. 8; May 1966.79, Robinson. 11. Alan, editor. "Reading: Seventy-Five Years of

Progress Supplementary Educational Monographs, No. 96.Chicago. University of Chicago Press, 1966,

80. Robinson, Helen M editor. Innovation and Change in Reading

hiltruetion. Sixty-Seventh Yearbook of the National Society for

the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1968.

81 Ruddell, Robert B. "Attitudes Toward LanguageWhat Value

for the Classroom Reading Teacher" Claremont Reading Con-

ference. (Edited by Malcom P. Douglass.) Thirty-Eighth Year-

book. Claremont, Clad.: the Conference. 1974, pp. 21-33.

82. Sartain, Harry W. "The Place of Individualized Reading in a

Well-Planned Program." Readings on Reading hisinwtion.

(Edited ..by Albert J. Harris' and Edward R.. Sipay .1 Second

edition. Nev , York. David McKay Co., Inc., 1972. pp. 193-99.

83. , "The Roseville Experiment with Individualized Read.

ing The Reading Teacher 13: 277-81, 1960 ,

84, Schulwitz, Bonnie Smith, editor Teachers. Tangibles,Ted:manes. Comprehension of Content in Reading. Newark,

Del.: International Reading Association, 1975.85 Sheldon, William D: "Basal Reading Approaches." First Grade

Reading Pmgrams. (Edited by James F. Kerfoot,) Perspectives

in Reading, No. 5. Newark, Del.. International Reading Associa-

tion, 1965. pp. 28-35.86, Shuy, Roger W. "A Linguistic Background for Developing

31

Beginning Reading Materials for Black Children." TeachingBlack Children to Read. (Edited by Roger W. Shuy and Joan C.Baratz.) Washington, D.0 : Center for Applied Linguistics,1967 pp. 117-37.

87, Singer, Harry, and Ruddell, Robert B., editors. TheoreticalModels and Processes of Reading. Newark, Del.: InternationalReading Association, 1970.

88, Sipay, Edward R. "Individualized Reading: Theory and Prac-tice. Children Can Learn to Read. . But How? (Edited byColeman Morrison ) Rhode Nand College Reading ConferenceProceedings Providence, R 1.: Oxford Press, 1964. pp. 82-93.

89. . "Interpreting the USOE Cooperative Reading Studies."The Reading' Teacher 22: 10-16, 3A October 1968.

90 Smith, Frank. Understanding Reading A PsycholinguisticAnalysis of Reading and Learning to Read. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, 1971,

91. Smith, Nila Banton. American Reading Instruction. Newark,Del.: International Reading Association, 1965.

91. Smith, Nila Banton. America, Reading Instruction. Newark,Del.: International Reading Association, 1965.

92. , Reading Instructwn for Today's Children. EnglewoodCliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc.. 1963,

93. Southgate. Vera. "Approaching i/t/a Results with Caution."Read: s: Research Quarterly I, No 3: 35-56; 1966.

94. Spache, George D "Psychological and Cultural Factors inLearning tO Read." Reading for All, (Edited by Robert Karlin.)Proceedings of the fourth IRA World Congress on Reading.Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1973. pp.43.50

95, . Tossard Better Reading. Champaign, III.: Garrard Press,1963.

96 and Spache, Evelyn B, Reading in the ElementarySchool Second edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1969,

97 Spaulding. R 13 and Spalding, W T. The Writing Road toReading Revised edition, New York. Whiteside Inc.. TornMorrow, 1%2

98. Stewart, William A:* On the Use of Negro Dialect in the Teachingof Reading." Teaching Bick Children Jo Read. (Edited by RogerW Shuy and Joan C. Baratzi Washington, D.C.: Center forApplied Linguistics, 1969, p. 156.

99 Strang, Ruth. Diagnostu Teaching of Reading. New York:McGraw -Hill. 1964

32

100 McCullough, C. M.. and Tr der, A E. The Improve-ment of Reading Fourth edition. New York. McGraw-Hill.1967

101 Stnekland, Ruth G. "The Language of Elementary SchoolChildren. Its Relationship to the Language of Reading Textbooks

- and the Quality of Reading of Selected Children." Bulletin of theSchool ul Education, Indiana University :38' 4; 1962.

102 Summers, E G "Reading Research Literature. Identificationand Retrieval Rfteading Research Quarterly 4: 5-48; 1968.

103 Tanyzer, Harold J., and Alpert. Harvey. "Three Different BasalReading Systems and First Grade Achievement." The ReadingTeacher 19: 636-42; 1966.

104 Tinker. ,Miles A Bases for Effective Reading. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press. 1965

105 , and McCullough, Constance M. Teaching ElementaryReading Fourth edition. Englewood Cliffs. NJ.. Prentice-Hall.Inc . 1975

106. Van Allen, Roach. "How a Language- Expenence Programworks Elementary Reading Instruction. (Edited by AltheaBeery et al ) Boston Allyn and Bacon, 1969.

107 Van Metre. Patricia D. "Syntactic Charactenstics of SelectedBilingual Children Claremont Reading Conference. (Edited byMalcolm P Douglass.) Thirty-Eighth Yearbook, Claremont.Calif., the Conference, 1974. pp. 102-108.

108. Walcutt, Charles C. "ReadingA Professional Definition."Elmer/ran School Journal67: 363-65: April 1967,

109 Wallen, Carl J. Word ,ittaa Adls m Reachng, Columbus, Ohio,Charles E. Memll. 1969

110 Wardhaugh, Ronald "Is the Linguistic Approach an Improve-ment in Reading Instruction?" Current Issues in Reading.(Edited by Nib Banton Smith ) Newark, Del,. InternationalReading Association, 1969 pp 254-67.

Reading A Linguistic Perspective New York: Har-court. 13race. and World. Inc 1969.

112 Wilson. Robert M Diagnostic and Remedial Reading forClassroom and Clinic Second edition Columbus, Ohio CharlesE Merrill, 1972

113 . and Hall. Nyanne Reachng and the Elementary.Sc /tool Child New York. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.. 1972

114 York. L. Jean. and Ebert. Dorothy. "implications forTeachers--Primary Level." Reading for the Disadvantaged,(Edited by Thomas D Horn New York. Harcourt BraceJovanov 'ch. Inc 1970.-pp, 182-89.

3 4-