RELATIVE GAINS IN READING READINESS SKILLS USINGTWO APPROACHES TO READING READINESS INSTRUCTION

Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Cihon, William Paul, 1931-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 27/05/2018 03:52:23

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/288021

INFORMATION TO USERS

This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document.

While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand

markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document

photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with

adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the

copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred

image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being

photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the

upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be

made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at

additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

A Xerox Education Company

I I

73-13,321

CIHON, William Paul, 1931-REIATIVE GAINS IN READING READINESS SKILLS USING TWO APPROACHES TO READING READINESS INSTRUCTION.

The University of Arizona, Ed.D., 1972 Education, administration

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.

RELATIVE GAINS IN READING READINESS SKILLS USING TWO

APPROACHES TO READING READINESS INSTRUCTION

by

William Paul Cihon

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

19 7 2

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA.

GRADUATE COLLEGE

I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my

direction by William Paul Cihon

entitled RELATIVE GAINS IN READING READINESS SKILLS

USING TWO APPROACHES TO READING READINESS INSTRUCTION

be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the

degree of Doctor of Education

¥ Dissertation Director

Scfa&ejc. / 3- j ft Jju Date

After inspection of the final copy of the dissertation, the

following members of the Final Examination Committee concur in

its approval and recommend its acceptance:-

tPcS. /97?-

/?, Z _J22Z—

ml / 9 7

This approval and acceptance is contingent on the candidate's adequate performance and defense of this dissertation at the final oral examination. The inclusion of this sheet bound into the library copy of the dissertation is evidence of satisfactory performance at the final examination.

PLEASE NOTE:

Some pages may have

ind is t inc t p r in t .

F i lmed as rece ived .

Un ive rs i t y M ic ro f i lms , A Xerox Educa t ion Company

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however,.permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED:

PREFACE

This study was conducted during the 1971-72 school

year in the E.C. Nash and E.L. Wetmore Elementary Schools

in the Amphitheater School District Number 10, Tucson,

Arizona. The purpose of the study was to determine the

relative gains of students in reading readiness skills

using two approaches to reading readiness instruction.

I wish to express a special debt of gratitude in

memory of Dr. Lloyd C. McCann for his counsel and assist­

ance .

I express deep appreciation to the faculties and

staffs of the E.C. Nash and E.L. Wetmore Elementary Schools

whose efforts and cooperation made this study possible.

For their support and encouragement, I extend my thanks to

the members of the Board of Trustees of Amphitheater Public

School District Number 10.

I am especially indebted to Dr. Henry E. Butler, Jr.

of the College of Education, The University of Arizona, for

his willingness to accept the chairmanship of the committee

for this study. I wish to record my appreciation for the

counsel and guidance offered by Dr. Roy F. Blake and Dr.

Robert T. Grant. Other committee members from the College

of Education, The University of Arizona, whose assistance

is gratefully acknowledged are Dr. Milo K. Blecha and Dr.

iii

iv

Bill J. Ranniger. X wish to thank Dr. Warren S. Hays and

and Mr. Keith E. Meredith for their assistance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ix

ABSTRACT x

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of the Problem ......... 3 Significance of the Problem ....... 3 Theories Underlying the Study 9 Hypotheses 10 Assumptions Underlying the Study 12 Definition of Terms 12

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE l4

Overview l4

III. PROCEDURES 23

Sample 23 Teacher Population 2k Instructional Procedures 25

Language Experience Approach 25 The Basal Reader Readiness Program . . 31

Design of the Study 35 Instruments for Collecting Data 3^ Treatment of the Data .......... kl

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 46

Procedure 4 7 The Word Meaning Test The Listening Test 50 The Matching Test 52 The Alphabet Test 55 The Numbers Test 55 The Copying Test 57 Total Scores 60 Summary 60

v

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued

Page

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Gk

Conclusions 64 Recommendations 67

REFERENCES 69

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Number of Studies in Which Significantly Superior or No Differences were Found . . . l6

2. Letter Rating and Readiness Status Corresponding to Various Ranges of Total Score on Form A or Form B ..... . 36

3. Split-Half Reliability Data for Form A in Seven School Systems 39

4. Alternate-Form Retest Reliabilities of Subtest and Total Scores for End-of-Kindergarten Pupils in Four School Systems (D, E, F, and 6) k2

5« Analysis of Variance of Subtest Word Meaning (MRT) by Instructional Treatment and Classes within Schools . 51

6. Analysis of Variance of Subtest Listening (MRT) by Instructional Treatment and Classes within Schools 53

7. Analysis of Variance of Subtest Matching (MRT) by Instructional Treatment and Classes within Schools 5^

8. Analysis of Variance of Subtest Alphabet (MRT) by Instructional Treatment and Classes within Schools 56

9• Analysis of Variance of Subtest Numbers (MRT) by Instructional Treatment and Classes within Schools 58

10. Analysis of Variance of Subtest Copying (MRT) by Instructional Treatment and C l a s s e s w i t h i n S c h o o l s . . . . . 5 9

vii

viii

LIST OF TABLES—Continued

Table Page

11. Analysis of Variance of Total Scores (MRT) by Instructional Treatment and Classes within Schools 6l

12. Intercorrelations Among Subtest Scores (N = 12,225) 62

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. Analysis of Variance, a Hierarchical Design kk

ix

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine whether

one approach to the initial teaching of reading was more

effective than another for pupils whose performance indicated

need for additional readiness experiences prior to the ini­

tiation of formal reading instruction. Determining the

relative effectiveness of basal reader and language experi­

ence approaches as they applied to fostering readiness for

first grade was the task at hand.

The sample was composed of four first grade classes

in two elementary schools of the Amphitheater Schaol Dis­

trict Number 10, Tucson, Arizona. In two classrooms, one

in each school, the teachers were committed to the Sheldon

Basic Reading Series. In the other two classrooms, the

teachers used R. Van Allen's Language Experience Approach

as the basis of the readiness program.

Prior to the opening of school, the Metropolitan

Readiness Test, Form A, was administered to all first grade

students in both schools. Those students who scored fifty-

four (5^) or below participated in the study. Seventy-six

(76) students from the E.C. Nash and E.L. Wetmore. Schools

were assigned to classrooms taking part in this experiment.

x

xi

The treatment covered a nine week period. During

the experimental period, unannounced visits were made to

all classrooms participating in the study. The Metropolitan

Readiness Test, Form B, was administered during the final

week of the study. The data thus obtained were then sub­

jected to the analysis of variance of a hierarchical design,

with repeated measures.

The composite score data and treatment indicated

few gains made from pretest to posttest. The research indi­

cated that neither approach was effective in producing sig­

nificant gains in achievement within the period of time

allowed for instruction. Some exceptions to this general

conclusion appeared when the analysis of variance results

indicated that the researcher was unable to reject totally

Hypothesis Two in all subtests. The analysis of variance

of subtest Alphabet indicated there was a significant dif­

ference between pretest to posttest results and a signifi­

cant interaction effect. This interaction existed between

methods and schools, indicating some classroom environ­

mental factor rather than a methodological factor. The

analysis of variance of subtest Numbers indicated that

there was a significant difference between pretest to post-

test results and a significant interaction effect. This

interaction existed between methods and schools, also indi­

cating some classroom environmental factor rather than a

methodological factor. The analysis of variance in subtest

xii

Matching indicated there was a significant difference in

pretest to posttest. However, no other significant dif­

ference existed. This indicated that gains were made using

both methods of instruction. It was concluded that neither

one of the methodologies was superior to the other in

fostering readiness skills in students whose performance

on readiness tests indicated a substantial need for addi­

tional readiness instruction prior to formal first grade

instruction.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

One of the foremost concerns in education is to be

able to utilize the most effectual and appropriate ap­

proaches to instruction. Many elementary school educators

are confronted with major problems in the teaching of read­

ing to first grade students. Each year the elementary

principal must face problems associated with educating in­

coming first grade students.

No administrator can simultaneously plan the text­books, invent the television monitor, and design the classroom seats. But he can make his influence felt in the shaping of ways in which education is to proceed to a greater degree than it has been felt in the past. For the key decisions which make development real instead of oratorical have to be made by the educational administrator (National Education Association, 1958, P* 24).

Decisions concerning teaching assignments, teaching methods,

class size, standardized testing, and other major decisions

must be made. The principal and the first grade teachers

are responsible for evaluating the results of teaching

reading to new students. These students meet the legal

requirements, such as minimum age and residency, to enter

school, but there are vast differences in their ranges of

readiness, ability, and experience.

1

2

Stauffer (1970) evaluates the situation as follows:

In almost every unselected population of children required to attend school at age six, a certain portion of that population does not possess the maturity of physiological, intellectual, or emo­tional development to be responsive to the kind of formal teaching-learning that is started in most first grades. Test results on six-year-olds ob­tained before they entered first grade have shown a disparity of readiness as much as five (5) years. These findings are not astounding, neither need they be disconcerting. Where individual differ­ences are recognized and the instructional program is paced accordingly, many problems are resolved (p. 237).

Throughout our nation, schools exist which do not

recognize or make special efforts to accommodate the differ­

ences in readiness that first grade students exhibit. Too

often incoming first grade students are placed immediately

in a formal reading program. Hoggard (1957) writes:

One of the chief causes of reading failure is rushing children into the intial program before they are ready. Recently, the writer made a survey of 72 schools for the purpose of finding out practices in regard to reading readiness. It was alarming to find that 27 schools started all first graders in the pre-primer during the first or second week of school. It was more alarming to learn that four school systems started all first graders in the primer. The explanation was made since the primer contains all the vocabulary to be found in the pre-primer, the program simply stai~ts with the primer in order to save time (pp. 523-527).

In spite of innovations

the past ten years, first grade

with reading is unsuccessful in

stated by Orme (1955):

in elementary education over

students' initial contact

many cases. The problem is

Children of the first grade who are found to have deficiencies in readiness should neither be

3

excluded from the first grade and put with younger children in the kindergarten nor forced into a beginning reading program for which they are not ready. They should be given a definite program of readiness training which offers them a chance to succeed, with methods and materials adiusted especially to meet their needs and abilities (pp. 45-^6).

A comparison of two different approaches to reading

readiness instruction for students who have deficiencies in

readiness was the major concern of this study.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to determine the

relative effectiveness of the basal reader and the language

experience approaches as they applied to fostering reading

readiness for the first grade students whose performance

on the Metropolitan Readiness Test indicated, need for addi­

tional readiness experiences prior to their initiation in

formal reading instruction.

Significance of the Problem

The primary function of the elementary school is

instruction. Effective reading and other communicative

skills, listening, speaking, and writing are absolutely

necessary for the child to benefit from formal instruction;

therefore, research on the effectiveness of initial readi­

ness instruction prior to formal first-grade instruction

is indicated. The dynamic elementary school principal can

k

assume leadership in curriculum and instruction, but he

needs to know in what direction to lead.

McNally and Dean (1963) state:

It is true that other administrators should be familiar with the general purposes and nature of the elementary school program; but the elementary school principal needs to know that program as a physician knows anatomy, as an integral, pulsing system, with its complex detail. He should know its objective; the content, scope, organization, and sequence of its learning program; and the rationales underlying those features. He should be -acquainted with the strengths and weaknesses of various programs and methods, with the character­istics of good instructional methods and materials, and with effective ways of bringing about improve­ment in them (p. 117).

Tyler (1964) states:

In most fields, including education, it seems to be so much easier to follow something that has already been established and publicized than it is to painstakingly study our own problems, decide what we are trying to do, experiment with instructional ideas and materials, and evaluate their effective­ness for our purposes (p. 21).

Educators are encouraged to become conversant with

the complexities of readiness for formal first grade in­

struction and to use a more diagnostic approach both to

readiness for reading and the initial teaching of reading.

Clymer (1964) states:

In all cases in which trials are made, systematic provisions should be made for a critical evaluation of the results. Such tryouts are not easily made, but our claims to professional status rest on our ability to demonstrate the value of what we do (p. 27).

Hoggard (.1957) in "Readiness Is the Best Prevention"

states:

5

Reading authorities are in agreement that reading readiness is the very foundation of prevention. More, not less, attention needs to be given to reading readiness at all levels of learning but especially at the first grade level (p. 526).

Carrillo (1966) writes of readiness activities in

the following way:

Owing to the pervasive nature of readiness it is almost always necessary to include the development of readiness factors in the school curriculum. It is good insurance for pupil success. Teaching reading too soon (before the child is ready) may cause permanent damage through too many failure experiences. On the other hand, delayed instruc­tion in beginning reading is not ordinarily a problem to the child (though it may be to the parents) as long as the pre-reading activities pro­vided are varied and meaningful to the development of the children. Readiness provides the foundation upon which reading skill is built (p. 2).

Acknowledging the necessity of readiness activities

for pre-first grade students, one needs to evaluate the

programs and materials available for reading readiness in­

struction. By far the greatest number of schools in the

country use the basal reader approach as the major empha­

sis in their reading programs. Steward's (1957, P« 52)

survey of current practices and problems in education con­

cluded that in school systems of 250,000 children in 107

cities over 25,000 population, all schools were making use

of one or more basal reading series.

Although elementary educators have espoused various

approaches to the initial teaching of reading, Smith's

(193^) words are as relevant today as they were in 193'±:

6

The great majority of our public schools undoubt­edly are not yet ready to dispense with a basal reader. The techniques of teaching reading through functional activities must undergo further development and refinement; new materials must be prepared; administrative difficulties must be overcome; and teachers must be better trained (p. 360).

Sheldon (1970) confirms the predominant usage of

basal reading programs in schools today when he states:

Dissatisfaction with the basal reader contribu­tion to a modern reading program has grown steadily during the past thirteen years. However, in spite of the suggestion of obsolescence and the expressed dissatisfaction, basal readers have grown in number, changed in emphasis, and are still the major material used in most reading programs in the United States and Canada. As evidence of the increasing popularity of the basal reader we can identify at least eight basal, reading programs which share about ninety percent of the reading material market in the U.S. schools (p. 295)•

Accepting the fact that individual students vary in

their capacities to learn, the use of basal readiness activ­

ities, books, and suggested methods has not decreased .the

number of students with initial reading problems. Stauffer

(1970) writes:

As the senior author of a series of basic readers I .learned how difficult it was to construct material at the pre-primer and primer level. A year of great effort plus the help of a well-known author of books for children produced only substandard language usage that was no more palatable than any of the similar materials already available. Such materials do not take advantage of the children's facilities, intellectual abilities, and motivations (p. xi).

Other reading authorities show concern for the

strong emphasis on "packaged sequential development" and

for structure in the form of readiness workbooks. Durrell

and Nicholsen (1961) write:

Although the lessons of the reading readiness books may develop desirable abilities such as language fluency, motor skills, and attention to nonword forms and sounds, it is doubtful that they contribute greatly to reading readiness. Since it has long been demonstrated that children bring to first grade oral vocabularies much larger than will be required for reading, it is unlikely that additional language development will improve the child's chances for success (p. 268).

A relatively new approach that has been employed in

various schools throughout the country in the past fifteen

years is the Language Experience Approach to Reading. Hall

(1972) writes:

The Language Experience Approach has been in­creasingly employed for initial reading instruc­tion in the last decade. In recent years there has been growing interest in the implications of linguistic study for the teaching of reading (p. 328).

The focus of a language approach to the initial

teaching of reading uses the students' language as a means

of communication. The transfer from oral language usage t

written language is made functionally. Heading becomes

talk written down. Bruner, Oliver, and Greenfield (1966)

express their thoughts:

When language is used to convey the content of experience and action, there is more often than not a requirement of developing correspondence between what we do, what we see, and what we say. It is this correspondence that is most strikingly involved in reading and writing, in school learning, and in other abstract pursuits (p. 322).

Using the children's oral language as the main

focus of the initial teaching of reading receives further

support from Malmquist (1970) who states: "An adequate

command of the spoken language and good listening abilities

are, however, necessary prerequisites of any kind of ad­

vancement as regards reading ability" (p. 60).

George (1970) states:

The ability of the teacher to choose the best ap­proach or combination of approaches and to utilize the mechanics of the approach as well as to control other aspects of the learning situation will deter­mine the difference between success and failure in beginning reading instruction (p. 29).

The significance of the problem relates to the

current emphasis on accountability in educational endeavors

by national and state educational agencies. Arizona's

Department of Education (1971) established a policy on

reading which states in part:

1. Beginning 1971-72 with promotion into and from the first grade, promotion in the common schools in reading shall be based upon predetermined ob­jective performance levels in reading proficiency as shall be established by the local district .

The first grade reading requirements as set by the policy

of districts will cause set standards to be placed in per­

formance objectives as criteria for successful achievement

(a policy of pass or fail). Kowitz and Armstrong's (l96l)

research on the relation of promotion policy to academic

achievement indicates:

A policy of "achieve or fail" seems to cause more change among pupils who are being promoted than among pupils who are being retained. While there was a trend toward increased achievement in the school with an "achieve or fail" policy the in­crease was limited largely to pupils who were in no real danger of being retained (p. ^3).

The national educational agencies have several cur­

rent research projects designed effectively to teach first

grade students to read. One is the National Right To Read

Program. Dr. Iiolloway (1971), director of this program,

states:

One of the first steps in the new effort will be to establish 50 to 100 model programs across the country during the next year. Located to serve as much of the nation as possible, they will demon­strate effective practices that can be picked up in interested schools (p. 76).

To improve the initial teaching of reading to first

grade students must by of the highest priority. To deter­

mine the effectiveness of the initial reading instruction

approaches to the teaching of reading is imperative.

Theories Underlying the Study

An examination of reading and language instructional

materials reveals the psychological position from which each

is derived, and this understanding is necessary to appraisal

and implementation of a readiness program.

Henderson (1970) explains that the typical basal

reader program is consistent with the stimulus-response

psychological position of the behaviorist in that compre­

hension training consists largely of teacher-formulated

10

questions posed before, during, and after reading assign­

ments. There is also a standard sequencing of word-

recognition skills.

In contrast, the cognitive position of the language

experience approach shifts the responsibility for the

learning task from the teacher to the student. It is the

pupil's act which initiates learning. A cognitive approach

leads to and implies that a detailed analysis of the think­

ing skills has been made.

Some educators view beginning reading instruction

as a period for decoding and for the acquisition of a sight

vocabulary. Others consider that beginning-to-read is an

integral part of overall language development, closely

resembling the circumstances in which oral language was

acquired.

Hypothes es

The following hypotheses were tested:

1. As measured by the Metropolitan Readiness Test

(MR'T) there is no significant difference between

achievement by students using the R. Van Allen

Language Experience Approach to reading readiness

and achievement by students using the Sheldon Basic

Reading Series to reading readiness instruction as

measured by:

11

a. word meaning (the child's store of verbal con­

cepts ) .

b. listening (the child's knowledge of the world

about him and his ability to comprehend

sentences and paragraphs).

c. matching (the child's visual-perceptual skills

akin to those involved in discriminating word

forms in beginning reading).

d. alphabet (the child's ability to recognize

letters of the alphabet when these are spoken

by the examiner).

e. numbers (an inventory of the child's stock of

number concepts).

f. copying ( the child's manifestation of a combi­

nation of visual perception and motor control

similar to what is called for in learning hand­

writing ) .

There is no significant difference between the pre­

test and posttest results (MRT) as measured by:

a. word meaning.

b. listening.

c. matching.

d. alphabet.

e. numbers.

f. copying.

12

The .05 level of significance is used for rejection

of the hypotheses.

Assumptions Underlying the Study

This study assumes that the basal reader approach

to reading and the language experience approach to reading

are effective methodologies used in teaching students

reading readiness skills.

A second assumption is that the students involved

in the study are representative of the student population

of the elementary schools of the Amphitheater School

District No. 10.

A third assumption is that the teachers involved in

the study taught reading readiness skills using a particular

methodology, and they are representative of the effective

teacher of that particular methodology.

A fourth assumption basic to this research is that

the alternate forms of the Metropolitan Readiness Test are

measuring the same content area without significant prac­

tice effects occurring when the different forms of the

test were used.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are used in this study:

1. Reading readiness is

the general stage of developmental maturity and preparedness at which a child can learn

13

to read easily and proficiently in a regular classroom setting when exposed to good teaching. It involves the "whole" child— his mental, emotional, social, and physical welfare as well as the specific skills directly related to the reading act (Rogers, 1970, p. 3)«

2. Basal reader approach to reading is an approach

which employs a series of books and related

materials, increasing gradually in difficulty, used

for the purpose of teaching the reading skills. The

series starts with readiness level and proceeds

through material of sixth or eighth grade diffi­

culty .

3• Language experience approach (LEA) to reading is an

approach which, according to Allen and Allen (1969)

brings reading and other communication skills to­

gether in the instructional program. The develop­

ment of language skills makes possible the con­

tinuing use of each child's own experience-back­

ground and thinking as the basis for skill develop­

ment .

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The literature reviewed in this study is limited to

research studies on readiness and the initial teaching of

reading to first grade students. Many of the recent studies

researched methodology and the effects of various approaches

upon the initial teaching of reading. Other studies eval­

uated readiness progress and its effects on students learn­

ing to read. The studies reviewed were primarily conducted

from i960 to the present.

Overview

The concept of readiness as a definite stage in be­

ginning reading instruction was initiated in the early

1920's. In 1926 the International Kindergarten Union, in

cooperation with the United States Bureau of Education,

conducted an investigation on pupils ' readiness for reading

instruction upon entrance to first grade. The first

articles on this subject were published in Childhood Educa­

tion in January, 1927* Two of these articles used the term

"reading readiness." Gray's Summaries, published in 1925,

reported for the first time three studies on the subject

of readiness. Interest in reading readiness research

reached its zenith in the period between 1930 and 19'±0. In

Ik

15

19^0, Gray (as cited by Smith, 1961) reported twenty-two

studies relating to reading readiness in one year. Since

that time the number has declined steadily to one or two a

year.

Much of the data pertaining to reading readiness in

recent research is couched in studies regarding effective

approaches to initial reading instruction or first grade

studies concerning the teaching of culturally and econom­

ically deprived students.

Bond and Dylcstra's (1967) interpretation of the

first grade reading studies involve several independent

studies which were used as the basis for improving reading

instruction. The Cooperative Research Program in First

Grade Reading consisted of twenty-seven independent studies

coordinated in general research design, instruments of

measurement, types of information gathered, and compara­

bility of data collected.

The major group of studies investigated the effect­

iveness of a variety of approaches to reading instruction.

Another group of studies investigated the influence of

extended readiness programs, various methods used to teach

reading to culturally disadvantaged children, and children

limited in the use of the English language.

Table 1, from Bond and Dylcstra's "Interpreting the

First Grade Reading Studies," summarizes the findings

reported by the individual project directors of those

Table 1. Number of Studies in Which Significantly Superior or No Differences were F ounda

Paragraph Word Recognition Comprehension Spelling

n-t u i—i h 13 0) a V a 0

+> o •o -p o •o +> o •a Vi r* 0 0 a 0 a 0 3 u +> c! O tl o k o s* 3 -p c O h

w E 0 1 fj <u CS 0 S o 1 C 0 d o 0 i £ o £ o u o •H -0 -H M S •rl •H V -r! to <3 <H •H •H 73 •H bo CO u •H 13 -H O u •rl 0 O H U u o u • H O G r -i C U •H O O H J-i Methods

,0 -o 0 JZ 0) W -ri (3 fl) a £ o t/J -H <H IS <D 0) £ V W *H a a Methods £ 3 0.-P & Vt <H tn a a+> a trt <H tn CU a-p a tn a

3 +> X O 3 .0 -H -H <a s K O 3 0 -H -H (3 3 O 3 0 -H -rl ffl 3 vUIiipal :z tn a S w S! CO CC W M S W 25 a a ca w a s (0 £2 C Q a w

I.T.A. vs. Basal 5 k 1 0 1 k 0 1 1 3

Linguistic vs. Basal k 1 3 0 0 2 2 1 2 1

Basal + Phonics13 vs. Bas al 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0

Language Experience vs. Basal 3 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2- 0

Basal + Linguistic Emphasis vs. Basal 3 3 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0

aBond and Dykstra (19&7, p. 5)*

Basal Reader supplemented by Supplementary Phonics.

c Lippincott Readers plus Visual Materials.

H C\

17

studies in which comparisons were made between basal

readers and other approaches.

Table 1 also indicates the comparisons of the

language experience appx~oach with the basal approach to

initial teaching of reading. There were three studies

comparing the Language-Experience approach with the Basal

Reader approach concerning the initial teaching of reading.

The basal reader approach was the control method; the

language experience approach was the experimental method.

The results indicated that the language experience approach

was superior in word recognition in two studies, and no

significant differences were found in one study. In para­

graph comprehension, the language experience approach was

superior in one study; the basal reader approach was sig­

nificant in another study; and there was no significant

difference in the third study. In spelling, the language

experience appx-oach was superior in one study, and no sig­

nificant differences were indicated in the remaining two

studies.

Several conclusions presented by Bond and Dykstra

through their evaluation of the first grade studies are:

1. There are indications that reading instruction

can be improved.

2. It appears that certain combinations of approaches

prove more effective than the use of certain

specified methods in isolation. Furthermore, no

matter what the method used may be, word study

skills need to be emphasized and taught system­

atically .

3. There is evidence that a more diagnostic approach

both to readiness for reading and the teaching of

reading is needed. This implies that teachers must

know the reading program and each child's instruc­

tional needs as he grows in his reading skills.

Prolonged readiness programs, for example, may be

valuable for some children and highly wasteful for

others.

4. There are indications that differences in cultural

opportunities and English language background of

the children alter the approaches that are effec­

tive in preparing them for reading and teaching

them to read.

Vilscek, Morgan, and Cleland (1966) examined a

comparison of the basal reader and the coordinated language

experience approaches in first grade reading instruction.

Their findings indicated that students in the integrated

experience approach to communication had significantly

higher mean scores (at the .01 level) than did the students

in the coordinated basal language arts approach. Their

conclusion stated: "In spite of initial pupil limitations

in reading readiness, teachers can accommodate and provide

19

more diversified instruction through an integrated experi­

ence approach to communication" (p. 3^)•

Stauffer (1967) compared the effectiveness of a

language arts approach with a basal reader approach to

first grade reading instruction. The result indicated

that on the Stanford Achievement Battery, the experimental

population using the language arts approach scored sig­

nificantly higher at the .01 level of significance on word

reading, paragraph meaning, and spelling. On tests of

word recognition ability, the experimental random sample

group scored higher than the control sample group. When

readiness and intelligence were held constant, the experi­

mental population scored significantly better than the

control population in all measures except word study skills

on the Stanford Achievement Battery and on the Rate of Oral

Reading Test.

Giles (1966) examined "The Effects of Two Approaches

to Reading Instruction Upon the Oral Language Development

of First Grade Pupils." These findings indicated that the

language experience approach was more effective than the

traditional basal reader approach as a method for present­

ing beginning reading instruction in encouraging the devel­

opment of certain oral language skills. It was also found

that beginning reading instruction by either approach en­

couraged regression in the extent of verbalization of first

20

grade pupils, but that the greatest regression was found to

occur in the basal group.

Hahn (1967) compared the effectiveness of three

approaches to beginning reading. Twelve school districts

in Oakland, Michigan, participated. The results of the

Stanford Achievement Test, Primary Battery II, showed the

language experience group to be more advanced in spelling,

word study, and language than the other groups. In general,

this study concluded that the language experience approach

to beginning reading is an effective method of first grade

instruction.

Hall's (1965) study to develop a language experi­

ence approach to reading for fii-st grade culturally dis­

advantaged children and to evaluate that program in terms

of gain in reading readiness scores, word recognition

scores, sentence reading scores, and experimental teachers'

ratings of practicality and effectiveness found that the

language experience approach was superior to the basal

reader approach in three areas: in improving reading

readiness, in developing word recognition ability, and in

skills in sentence reading.

The implications of this study, as stated by Hall,

are that the findings of the study and the survey of the

literature indicate that the language experience approach

has possibilities as an approach to reading readiness and

beginning reading which can surmount the difficulties of

21

inappropriate materials and different language backgrounds

of the disadvantaged. Hall reported that pupils who were

taught thr-ough the language experience approach made as

much or more progress in reading, as measured by stand­

ardized tests, than did children taught using the individ­

ualized reading and basic reader approaches.

Harris and Serwer 11966) reported no significant

difference between pupils using language expex-ience

oriented approaches and pupils using other approaches. In

aspects of word study, paragraph meaning, word meaning, and

reading attitudes, pupils using other approaches had sig­

nificantly higher mean scores than pupils taught by lan­

guage experience oriented instruction.

McCanne (1966) reported that pupils using other

approaches had significantly higher mean scores in word

meaning, vocabulary, word study, and reading attitudes than

pupils using the language experience approach.

Kendrick (1966) reported no significant difference

between pupils using language experience and basal ap­

proaches on word meaning, vocabulary, word study, and

reading attitudes. A significant advantage in paragraph

meaning was afforded to pupils taught through a basal reader

approach.

Marita's (1965) study reported that there were no

significant differences between pupils 1 achievement in

paragraph meaning, vocabulary, and reading attitudes. The

22

study included pupils in a whole-class type organization

learning through language experience approach and pupils

taught by a basal reader approach. This study reported

significant advantages in word meaning and word study

skills by pupils in language experience approach classes as

compared with students in basal reader classes.

In summary, this chapter reports conflicting data

from the literature regarding the initial teaching of

reading to first grade students and the effectiveness of

various methodologies on instruction. The results have not

shown a decisive advantage for either method under consid­

eration. Research is conflicting and inconclusive. There

is no recent research specifically dealing with readiness

factors and readiness programs for those first grade stu­

dents evaluated as needing special efforts for a successful

readiness program. The research data of the reviewed

literature indicate the need for research to determine

whether there is a superior methodology for a readiness

program.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES

This chapter presents a description of the popula­

tion, an explanation of the instructional procedures used

in the study, the design of the study, the instruments use

for collecting the data, and how the data were treated.

Sample

The sample was comprised of four first grade class

rooms in two elementary schools of Amphitheater School

District, Number 10, Tucson, Arizona. Students in two

classrooms, one in each school, were given nine weeks of

reading i"eadiness instruction using Allen's language

experience approach. The two teachers committed to the

language experience approach used as their guide Language

Experiences in Early Childhood, Teacher's Resource Book,

by Allen and Allen (1969)* In the other two classrooms,

one in each school, the teachers were committed to the

basal series. They used Sheldon and Mills's (1968) basic

reading series, Picture Stories, with Teacher's Manual, as

the source of readiness activities.

From a total of eighty-seven subjects in the two

treatment populations in four classrooms, seventy-six

students were selected. All seventy-six received the

23

pretest readiness instruction and posttest analyses. The

difference between total population and subjects used in

the study can be attributed to population mobility and

random exclusion to have an equal number of students in all

groups for purposes of analysis.

Teacher Population

Two teachers used the basal reader approach to

reading readiness, and two teachers used the language

experience approach to reading readiness. The teachers who

participated in the study were selected because of. their

experience and background training in the two types of

approaches to reading instruction.

Each of the four teachers who participated in the

study has a Masters Degree, plus additional graduate study

units. All are certified as elementary teachers by the

Department of Education, State of Arizona, and have taught

first grade for five years or more. The teachers who used

the language experience approach have completed eleven

units or more of graduate study with Allen at The

University of Arizona. The teachers who used the basal

reader series have extensive experience with this approach

and indicated a preference for the basal approach.

25

Instructional Procedures

Language Experience Approach

Since a language experience approach is a way of

thinking about promoting language learnings for each child,

a variety of methods and multisensory materials were used.

Oral expression was stimulated by talking, listening,

observing, reviewing, painting, singing, and an emphasis

upon relating experiences. The children's language,

recorded letter by letter, word by word, and sentence by

sentence, was a major thrust of the experimental groups'

daily experiences. Dictated materials provided the basis

for "making reading from talk" and centered on the

learner's recognition that his speech could be recorded in

print. Children recorded their thinking through writing

and other media. Flexible grouping was used so that

various activities involved the total group, small groups,

and individual activity. Classrooms were operated as

learning laboratories that extended throughout the day and

included learning centers in all curriculum areas. The

laboratory was characterized by two types of organization:

teaching activities, in which the teacher assumed

responsibility for identifying and extending concepts and

leading children to formulate questions for further study

and investigation; and learning centers, where children

went by choice or by assignment to engage in self-expression

26

and to interact with the ideas of other people communicat­

ing in many ways—through tapes, recordings, films, film-

strips, picture sets, books, art prints, riddles, sculp­

ture, and conversation.

The learning centers that were organized and

utilized during the period of this research study included:

1. A discussion center for sharing ideas and demon­

strations and for evaluation sessions. Equipment

included a chart holder, flannel board, chalkboard,

screen for films, record player, and tape recorder.

2. A book center for browsing and reading. Picture

books, alphabet books, and books with accompanying

records were later augmented by books authored by

the children.

3. A communications resource center for exploring

writing and language skills. Materials included

different sizes, colors and textures of paper;

crayons, felt pens, pencils, and chalk; alphabet

letters to copy or trace, a supply of blank-

books for illustrating and writing stories, and

picture dictionaries.

k. An art center for self-expression with multiple

materials. Paints, pastels, clay, a variety of

paper and textured materials were available.

A listening center to sharpen perception for the

many ways people say things. A listening post with

27

a collection of records and commercial and homemade

tapes was used.

6. A role-playing center for acting out roles of many

people—real and imaginary. Children were given

the opportunity to try out roles of other people

and to imagine themselves in situations not

possible in real life, a new dimension in oral

language.

7« A game center for reviewing and pi~acticing skills.

Homemade and commercial games which foster visual

discrimination, classification and.review, sequence,

and other skills related to language development

were used. -

An experience approach to language development

takes advantage of the variety of personal language repre­

sented in the classroom. The program was deliberately

planned to preserve the child's language personality and,

at the same time, to present certain skills and encourage

new patterns of self expression. From a linguistic point

of view, language instruction was kept in its natural

setting of communication. Allen and Allen (1969) explain

it in this manner:

The goals of a broad language-experience approach cannot be broken up into listening goals, speaking goals, writing goals and reading goals. Such fragmentation requires the young child to perform the most difficult task of the scholar—to

28

integrate learning into meaningful behavior. To take listening, or speaking, or writing, or reading out of its rightful place in communica­tion is to ask childi~en to do what is impossible for many of them. Further, it requires the teacher to use valuable time to put back together what did not need to be separated in the first place (p. 9)*

Since future success in all academic endeavors is

heavily dependent upon language proficiency, the program

was devoted to improvement of all aspects of communication.

There were three major emphases which guided planning of

the readiness program during the nine weeks designated for

this study.

Group One; Extending Experience with Words;

1. Sharing experiences—the ability to tell, write

(via dictation), or illustrate something from a

personal standpoint.

2. Discussing experiences—the ability to interact

with what other people say and write.

3. Listening to stories--the ability to hear what

others have to say through books and to relate

ideas to one's own experiences.

'l. Telling stories—the ability to organize one's

thinking so that it can be shared orally or in

writing (via dictation) in a clear and interesting

manner.

5. Dictating words, sentences, and stories--the

ability to choose from all that might be said about

a subject the part that is most important for

someone else to write (via dictation) and read.

6. Exploring writing—the ability to reproduce

letters of the alphabet and words with pencils,

crayons, felt markers , and paints in informal

activities.

7« Authoring individual books—the ability to

organize one's ideas into a sequence, dictate them,

illustrate them, and make them into books.

Group Two: Studying the English Language:

1. Conceptualizing the relationship of speaking,

writing, and reading—the ability to conceptualize

through extensive practice, that reading is the

interpretation of speech that has been written down

and then must be reconstructed, orally or silently.

2. Expanding vocabulary—the ability to expand one's

listening, speaking, reading, and writing vocabu­

lary.

3« Reading a variety of symbols--the ability to read

in one's total environment such things as the

clock, calendar, thermometer, and dials.

4. Developing awareness of common vocabulary—the

ability to recognize that our language contains

many common words and patterns of expression that

must be recognized and correctly spelled when

writing (dictating) one's own ideas.

5. Improving style and form—the ability to dis­

criminate and use richer language after listening

to well-written material.

6. Studying words—the ability to pronounce and under­

stand words.

Group Three: Relating Author's Ideas to Personal Experiences:

1. Listening to stories and boolcs--the ability to

listen to books that are read for information and

pleasure•

2. Using a variety of sources--the ability to find

and use many resources in expanding vocabulary,

improving oral expression, and sharing ideas.

3« Comprehending what is heard—the ability to discuss

meanings of words in context of sentences and

paragraphs and the thought in a passage or whole

selection.

4. Summarizing--the ability to recall main impres­

sions, outstanding ideas, or important details of

what has been heard.

5. Organizing ideas and information—the ability to

restate in various ways the ideas in the order in

which they were written or spoken.

6. Integrating and assimilating ideas--the ability to

use ideas gained from listening and observation for

personal interpretation and elaboration of con­

cepts .

7. Listening critically--the ability to make judgments

and discuss accuracy and reasonableness of state­

ments heard.

The Basal Reader Readiness Program

Picture Stories (Sheldon and Mills, 1968) provides

the basic materials for developing pre-reading skills of

two types: (l) illustrations which present stories in

picture form, and (2) illustrations which are used to

develop such basic skills as auditory discrimination, visual

discrimination, classification, and eye-hand coordination.

Interpreting the content and action of a picture story

sequence is developed from simple, one-picture stories to

sequences which include four or more pictures. Sheldon and

Mills (1968) assume that children have had many experiences

upon which teachers may build. "Listening to stories read

or told by parents and teachers, following the verbal

directions of family members, and listening to television

and radio have developed the listening skills of most

children to varying degrees"(p. 6). Since oral language is

basic to an understanding of printed language, the

preparatory program provides for activities designed to

develop language skills systematically by narrating per­

sonal experiences, using complete sentences, creating

experience charts, and creating and retelling stories. Th

program suggests that teachers include discussion of

picture stories, reading aloud to pupils, and telling

stories as effective means of developing common under­

standings and attitudes which are necessary prerequisites

to beginning reading instruction. To develop correct and

consistent patterns of word usage, understanding that

printed symbols stand for meaning, and a desire to learn t

read are major aims of the preparatory program. Suggested

books, songs, records, poems, films and filmstrips are

used to extend experiences, build concejDts, and encourage

a desire to read. Another major aim of the preparatory

program presented in Picture Stories is to provide

systematic instruction and practice in the following basic

skills, described in the Teachers' Edition as prerequisite

to initial reading:

1. The ability to listen to and follow directions.

2. The ability to perform certain tasks involving

eye-hand coordination.

3. The ability to follow a left-to-right visual

progression.

k. The ability to interpret the content of a single

picture story in terms of the main idea and the

supporting details.

The ability to interpret a picture story in

sequence.

The ability to make inferences about what has gone

before and what will happen next in a picture

story.

The ability to draw logical conclusions as to the

motives, moods, and conversation of the picture

story characters.

The ability to create oral texts for picture

stories as preparation for reading conversation at

a later level.

The ability to recall story events in sequence and

to express ideas in the form of complete sentences

The ability to make visual discriminations involv­

ing likenesses and differences in concrete objects

pictures, geometric shapes, and word forms.

The ability to perceive and make auditory dis­

criminations involving familiar sounds.

The ability to make auditory discrimination

involving: (a) likenesses and differences between

initial consonant sounds; and (b) rhyming words,

preparatory to the development of phonic analysis

skills.

The ability to perceive relationships and to

classify or make generalizations.

The introduction of letter forms and names is also

a major aim of the preparatory program. Children are

given many opportunities to recognize likenesses and dif­

ferences in word forms and thereby demonstrate a readiness

for learning to read the printed symbol. The program pro­

vides a carefully graded sei-ies of exercises which

encourage the ability to observe likenesses and differ­

ences in size, shape, color, place, direction, and form.

Activities which require the use of pencils, crayons,

scissors, and paste are designed to encourage a high degree

of eye-hand coordination. The illustrations for the story

and skill pages in Picture Stories are constructed to

facilitate left-to-right visual progression.

The preparatory program is not designed to create

a stereotype, but rather to facilitate communication in the

classroom and to provide a community of undei-standing as a

basis for carrying on reading instruction.

In "summary, the two reading readiness approaches

studied had certain distinct differences inherent in their

rationales:

Basal LEA

Predetermined developmental No predetermined sequence, sequence of introducing Skills introduced and sub-skills—subject matter ject matter emerges as selected and organized prior children record their own to the teaching situation. thinking' through writing

and speaking.

i

35

Materials include readiness workbooks, pre-primers, primers, and accompanying workbooks.

Ability grouping for the purposes of instruction. Emphasis on uniformity of learning results with minimum standards and enrichment activities.

Teacher-oriented, teacher directed approach.

Materials include writing materials (paper, pencils, pens) for- dictation--later own recording of ideas.

Learning centers where children actually do work. Ability grouping not utilized. Emphasis on individualized learning results.

Pupil-oriented, teacher viewed as a resource person.

Design of the Study

The Metropolitan Readiness Test (MRT), Form A, was

administered to all first grade students of the E. C. Nash

and E. L. Wetmore Elementary Schools prior to the initia­

tion of the study. Students in these schools were repre­

sentative of the elementary schools in the Amphitheater

District. All students who scored a total of fifty-four

(54) or less on the composite groupings participated in the

study. Various ranges of total score on Test Forms A and B

indicated a score of 5k as the mid-point of the score range

4.5-63, which is the average readiness status. Scores lower

than 5k indicate a decreasing potential for success in

first grade reading instruction.

Table 2 reports the ranges and composite score

indie es.

The students were randomly assigned to one of two

groups in each school. One group was instructed in the

basal reading approach to readiness instruction, Sheldon

36

Table 2. Letter Rating and Readiness Status Corresponding to Various Ranges of Total Score on Form A or Form Ba

Score Range b

Letter Rating

Readiness St atus Significance

Above 76 A Superior Apparently very well prepared for first-grade work. Should be given opportunity for en­riched work in line with abilities indicated.

64-76 B High Normal

Good prospects for success in first-grade work provided other indications, such as health, emotional factors, etc., are consistent.

45-63 C Average Likely to succeed in first-grade work. Careful study should be made of the specific strengths and weaknesses of pupils in this group and their instruction planned accord­ingly.

24-44 D Low Normal

Likely to have difficulty in first-grade work. Should be assigned to slow section and given more individualized help

Below 24 E Low Chances of difficulty high under ordinary instructional conditions. Further research work, assignment to slow sec­tions, or individualized work is essential.

aHildreth, Griffiths, and McGauvran (1969, P« 11).

•j^ These levels are set up in terms of standard

deviation distances. B, C, and D are each 1.0 S.D. in width. A and E are extremes beyond 1.5 S.D. above and below the mean, respectively. Level A includes the top 7 per cent of the standardization group, Level B the next 24 per cent, Level C the middle 38 per cent, Level D the next 2k per cent, and Level E the lowest 7 per cent.

Basic Reading Series, the other in the Allen language

experience approach to reading readiness instruction. Each

group consisted of not less than eighteen or more than

twenty-three students. At the conclusion of the study, a

group within one school was larger than eighteen students;

therefore, the additional students were randomly excluded

so that there were eighteen students in each group for

purposes of analysis.

The treatment covered a period of nine weeks. The

Metropolitan Readiness Test, Form B, was administered

during the final week of the- study.

The teachers who participated in this study were

selected because of their experience and involvement in

the two types of approaches to reading instruction. Meet­

ings were held with the teachers prior to initiating the

study, and the administration of the tests and methods of

instruction were outlined. All teachers were restricted to

their assigned approach to reading instruction. One

hundred twenty minutes of reading readiness instruction per

day was established. If necessary, all teachers used the

Spanish language to clarify instructions for Spanish-

speaking students. Student teachers from the College of

Education, The University of Arizona, were assigned to each

of the teachers during the sixth week of the study.

Unannounced observations were made to insure adherence to

the teaching commitments.

38

Instruments for Collecting Data

The instruments used in this study were the

Metropolitan Readiness Tests, Forms A and B, authored by

Hildreth et al. (1969):

These tests were devised to measure the extent to which school beginners have developed in the several skills and abilities that contribute to readiness for first grade instruction. Designed for testing pupils at the end of the kindergarten year or the beginning of the first grade, these tests provide a quick, convenient, and dependable basis for early classification of pupils, thus helping teachers manage the instructional effort more efficiently (p. 2).

Data on the reliability of the Metropolitan Readi­

ness Tests, the Subtests, and Total Scores have been

obtained for both Form A and Form B and are presented as

Table 3*

Hildreth et al. (19&9) discuss the Retest Relia­

bilities as follows:

The general level of the reliabilities would be considered as quite good, particularly those found for total score, for which the median of the 13 determinations is .92. The instability of such young children, most of whom are taking their first (group) test, is a factor in the reliability of measurement, along with the characteristics of the tests themselves. Generally, the Alphabet test shows the highest degree, of reliability; the median of the 13 determinations for this sub-test of only l6 items is .88. Matching follows with a median reliability value of .82, then Copying with .81, Numbers with .80, and Word Meaning and Listening as least reliable with median values of .6l and •52, respectively.

A further observation is that the reliabilities for Form A and for Form B, when of the same type

Table 3« Split-Half Reliability Data for Form A in Seven School Systems3

Mean S .D. Mean S .D.

Test rll Odd Even Odd Even rll

Odd Even Odd Even

School Sy stem A (N = 167) School System B (N = 173)

1. Word Meaning .69 5-1 4.6 1.7 1.6 .58 4.7 3.9 1.7 1.6 2. Listening .50 5-2 4.5 1-3 1.6 •33 5-4 4.7 1.4 1.6 3. Matching .82 4.9 5-1 1-9 1-5 .83 4.6 4.9 1.8 1.6 4 • Alphabet .85 6.6 6.1 1-9 2.0 .87 5-0 4.6 2.2 2.2 5« Numbers .78 7-4 6.3 2.3 2.2 .68 7-0 6.1 2.4 2.3 6. Copying .81 3.7 3.4 1.8 1.7 •79 3-5 3.4 1.8 1.6 Total, Tests 1-6 •91 32.8 30.2 7-5 7-1 •91 30.4 27.5 7-6 7.3 SE Measurement of Total Score 4.2 4.3

School System C (N = 200) School Syst em D (N = 88)

1. Word Meaning • 6l 4.0 3.3 1.7 1.8 .58 5.8 5.6 1.4 1.4 2. Listening • 33 4.3 4.4 2.2 1-5 .52 5.4 5 • 8 1.4 1.4 3« Matching .86 3.7 4.1 2.3 2.0 •70 4.5 4-9 1.7 1.6 4. Alphabet .89 4.9 4.4 2.5 2-5 .88 6.1 5.4 2.0 2.1 5. Numbers .84 5.8 5.5 2.5 2.6 • 76 8.6 7.7 2.4 2.6 6. Copying .85 3.4 3.0 1.9 1.8 .82 3.6 3.5 1.8 1-7 Total, Tests 1-6 • 94 26 .2 24.6 9.2 8.7 • 95 33.8 32.6 6.9 7.6 SE Measurement of Total Score 4.3 3-2

\D

Table 3«—Continued

Test rll

Mean S .D • Mean S .D •

Test rll Odd Ef en Odd Even r^ Odd Even Odd Even

School Syst em E (N = 86) School Sy stem F (N = 59)

1. Word Meaning • 70 4.4 4-5 1-7 1.7 .55 4.2 4.7 1.7 1.6 2. Listening - 5 7 4.6 4.8 1.6 1.7 •52 4.3 5-0 1.5 1.6 3 . Matching .82 3.6 4.3 1.9 1.8 .85 3.7 3.8 1-7 1.8 4. Alphabet .89 4.8 ' 4-5 2.5 2.4 .89 5-4 4.8 2.1 2.2 5. Numbers .82 6.7 5-3 2.6 2.3 .85 6.3 4-7 2.3 2.2 6. Copying .81 3.5 3-5 1.6 1.8 .82 3.3 3-5 1.7 1.7 Total, Tests 1-6 • 93 27-7 27-0 8.2 8.4 .91 27«1 26 .3 8.0 7-2 SE Measurement of Total Score 4.2 4.3

School Syst em G (N = 65)

1. Word Meaning • 52 4.0 4.6 1.7 1.5 2. Listening .59 4.5 4.4 1.7 1.6 3. Matching .83 3-9 4.4 1.9 1.6 4. Alphabet .84 4.7 4.3 2.3 2.1 5. Numbers • 73 7.0 5.4 2.6 2.2 6. Copying • 79 3.0 2.3 1.7 1.4 Total, Tests 1-6 • 90 27.3 25.6 8.4 7.0 SE Measurement of Total Score 4.7

aHildreth et al. (1969, P« 27)•

and obtained from the same school systems, are quite similar (p. 28).

Table 4 reports the Alternate-Form Retest Relia­

bilities of Subtest and Total Scores. The two types of

reliability necessary for this study were internal con­

sistency and test-retest parallel form reliability. It was

necessary for every item in the test to measure the same

construct since scores were derived by summing across

items. The manual reports split-half reliability as

representing this consistency. The study involved

administering parallel form tests with a time span between

administrations which requii'ed the test-retest parallel

form reliability. The researcher wished to determine if

the test was consistent across time and between forms;

therefore, a reliability was used which had been estab­

lished for parallel forms with a time span between

administrations which approximated the time span used in

the study.

Treatment of the Data

The data compiled were treated by analysis of

variance. This analysis of variance is of hierarchical

design, with i~epeated measures, the main effects being the

approaches to instruction, the repeated variable being the

pretest and posttest results of the Metropolitan Readiness

Tests. The hie.rar*chical design was used on each subtest

Table 4.a Alternate-Form Retest Reliabilities of Subtest and Total Scores for End-of-Kindergarten Pupils in Four School Systems (D, E, F, and G)*

Test

F orm A followed by F orm B Form B followed by F orm A

Test N r A B

Mean S . D.

N rBA

Mean S . D.

Test N r A B A1 B 2 A1 B2

N rBA B1 A 2 B1 A2

1. Word Meaning 292 . 66 9-6 10 .4 2.9 3-0 278 .64 9-7 9 .8 3.0 2.9 2. Listening 290 . 5 0 9.8 11 . 1 2.7 2.9 278 • 50 10.7 10 • 3 3-0 2.6 3 . Matching 291 . 6 9 8-3 9 . 2 3-2 3.4 2 o 0 • 76 8.2 9 • 3 3 . 6 3-3 4. Alphabet 290 . 8 2 10.1 10 • 3 4.3 4.3 231 .86 10.2 10 • 5 4.4 4.3 5- Numbers 291 . 8 0 13.2 12 .4 4.7 4.5 277 • 79 12.0 13 • 7 4.7 4.7 6. Copying 289 .73 6 . 6 6 .1 3-1 3-0 277 .74 6.1 6 . 6 3-1 3-2 Total, 15-7 16.3 1 6 . 8 16.6 Tests 1-6 278 . 9 1 58.0 59 • 5 269 • 91 57-0 6 0 .4 SE Measurement of Total Scores F orm A 4. 7 F orm B • 5-0

Because there was considerable difference between the Means of School System D and those of the other three systems, the above correlations have been computed separately for D alone, and for E, F, and G combined. The results for Total Score only are reported here. (Subtest results are available on request.)

Form A followed by Form B Form B followed by Form A

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Sch. SE SE Sys. N rAg Meas A^ B0 A^ B., N r^A Meas B^ A0 AQ

D 79 -93 3.7 67.0 6 9.4 1 3 - 4 1 4 . 0 7 6 .93 4 . 3 6 6 . 6 68.4 1 5 . 9 1 6 . 1 E,F,G 1 9 9 . 8 9 5 . 0 54.4 5 5 . 6 1 5 . 1 15-5 1 9 3 - 8 9 4.2 5 3 . 2 5 7 . 2 1 5 - 6 1 5 . 6 Total 278 2 6 9

aHildreth et al• ( 1 9 6 9 , P« 29).

43

and composite score of the Metropolitan Readiness Test

results.

The theoretical model underlying this design

assumes that subjects wei~e influenced by the social unit of

which they were a part, in this instance, classrooms. The

classrooms were assumed to be representative of a larger

population of classrooms, and the students were a random

variable within the classrooms. The best way to assure

this representiveness was to sample randomly from a popula­

tion of classrooms; however, this was impractical in the

school setting in which the study took place. An alternate

method was to replicate the procedure in more than one

setting and randomly assign the students to the treatment

groups within each of these settings, the settings being

schools in this situation. Inference beyond those two

schools can be made if the schools are considered repre­

sentative of a larger population of schools.

The hierarchical design is not as powerful as a

random effects design for analysis of variance, making it

more difficult to detect differences. However, the

hierarchical design was the only justifiable design in this

social context. This design allowed for:

1. The validation of random assignment of students

to groups.

2. The comparability of the two schools involved iii

the study.

k k

3. The testing of Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2.

k. The determination of any interaction effects, if

any, and the examination of these interaction

effects.

The design is illustrated by Figure 1.

School 1

Classroom 1 LEA

Classroom 2 Basal

Pre Post

A E

B F

!

Classroom 1 LEA

.

Classroom 2 Basal

C G

D H

Figure 1. Analysis of Variance, a Hierarchical Design

In summary, Chapter III deals with the composition

of the sample, including how the students were selected and

assigned in the study. A description of the teacher popu­

lation and the teachers 1 involvement in the study was

presented. The two types of instructional procedures used

were explained, with a general description of each

k5

methodology and its application to the study. The design

of the study, including a diagram depicting the design,

was presented. The instruments used for the data collec­

tion were described, and supporting data on reliability

were presented.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

This chapter reports the analyses of data for each

of the subtests and total scores of the Metropolitan Readi­

ness Tests.

This study, conducted at the E. C. Nash and E. L.

Wetmore Elementary Schools, Amphitheatei~ Public Schools,

Dictrict Number 10, Tucson, Arizona, was designed primarily

to determine the effectiveness of two approaches in reading

readiness instruction to a specific group of first grade

students. The study took place prior to initiating the

students into a formal reading program.

The Metropolitan Readiness Test, Form A, was

administered to all first grade students of Nash and

Wetmore Elementary Schools prior to the start of the 1971-

1972 school year. The students who scored fifty-four (5^)

or less were selected to participate in the study. These

students were randomly assigned to either a basal reader

approach class or a language experience approach to reading

readiness class at each school.

Each teacher was committed to use one hundred

twenty minutes each day for the teaching of reading readi­

ness skills in their selected methodology during the nine

47

weeks duration of the study. The participating students

were posttested using the Metropolitan Readiness Test, Form

B. The resulting scores were statistically treated, using

the analysis of variance, a hierarchical design.

Proc edure

The procedure used to report these data is as

follows: The Analysis of Variance Source Table is

reported, followed by conclusions. The Analysis of

Variance Table indicated there were seven sources to

examine. Two of these were main effects: Methodology (A)

and Pretest to Posttest Gains (B). All other sources were

interaction terms. A slash (/) indicates that the second

term was nested within the term preceding the slash (/)•

The two principal effects under study were methodology and

gains determined by pre- to posttesting. If no difference

between methodologies existed, then interaction effects

which were present were of no value for interpretation.

Therefore, interaction effects were analyzed only in

situations when there was a significant difference between

methodologies.

Pretest to posttest gains which were made are

reported.

To determine the effectiveness of the two appraoches

to reading readiness instruction, the following hypotheses

were tested:

There is no significant difference between achieve­

ment by students using the R. Van Allen Language

Experience Approach to reading readiness and

achievement by students using the Sheldon Basic

Reading Series to reading readiness instruction as

measured by:

a. Word meaning. (The child's store of verbal

concepts.)

b. Listening. (The child's knowledge of the world

about him and his ability to comprehend sen­

tences and paragraphs.)

c. Matching. (The child's visual-perceptual skill

akin to those involved in discriminating word

forms in beginning reading.)

d. Alphabet. (The child's ability to recognize

letters of the alphabet when these are spoken

by the examiner.)

e. Numbers. (An inventory of the child's stock of

number concepts.)

f. Copying. (The child's manifestation of a

combination of visual perception and motor

control similar to what is called for in

learning handwriting.)

There is no significant difference between the pre­

test (Metropolitan Readiness Test) and posttest

results as measured by:

a. Word meaning. (The child's store of verbal

concepts.)

b. Listening. (The child's knowledge of the world

about him and his ability to comprehend sen­

tences and paragraphs.)

c. Matching. (The child's visual-perceptual

skills akin to those involved in discriminating

word forms in beginning reading.)

d. Alphabet. (The child's ability to recognize

letters of the alphabet when these are spoken

by the examiner.)

e. Numbers. (An inventory of the child's stock

of number concepts.)

f. Copying. (The child's manifestation of a

combination of visual perception and motor

control similar to what is called for in

learning handwriting.)

The .05 level of significance is used for rejection

of the hypotheses.

The Word Meaning Test

The Word Meaning Test measures the child's store

of verbal concepts. It is a sixteen-item picture vocabu­

lary test. The pupil selects from three pictures the one

that illustrates the word the examiner names. It is

presented in the form of a picture vocabulary test allowing

the student to indicate the breadth of his oral vocabulary.

The words used in this test are chosen mainly from standard

kindergarten and primary word lists.

The results of the analysis of variance of subtest

Woi'd Meaning (MRT) by instructional treatment and classes

within schools found in Table 5 did not allow rejection of

Hypothesis 1 or Hypothesis 2. The results indicated that

there were no differences between methodologies; therefore,

the interaction effects were not examined.

The Listening Test

The Listening Test measures the child's knowledge of

the world about him and his ability to comprehend sentences

and paragraphs. It is a sixteen-item test of ability to

comprehend phrases and sentences instead of individual

words. The pupil selects from three pictures the one which

portrays a situation or event the examiner describes

briefly. It presents the child with a series of statements

varying in length and complexity, and has him indicate his

understanding of the statements by marking one of three

pictures. In certain of the items there is need for the

child to make inferences beyond a literal understanding of

what he hears, and to bring certain knowledge and experi­

ence into his consideration. In all of them the child must

attend carefully to what is said, keep one or several ideas

51

Table 5» Analysis of Variance of Subtest Word Meaning (MRT) by Instructional Treatment and Classes within Schools

Sourc e df ss MS F Prob .

Method 1 71. 1579 71*1579 1 .0635 N.S .

Schools/Method 2 133- 8 1 5 8 66 .9079 8 • 9542 < .01

Error Between 72 •

CO

CA in

0000 7.4722

Pre-Post 1 6 3 2 . 2369 6 3 2 . 2 3 6 9 4 . 8 1 8 0 N.S .

Method/Repeated measures 1 55. 6842 55.6842 •

CO

N.S.

Repeated measures within schools/ Method 2 262. 4473 131.2237 38 . 3 5 8 3 < . 0 1

Eri-or within 72 240 . 6 3 1 6 3.3421

Total 151 1933-9737

52

in mind for brief periods of time, and note details in the

pictures presented.

The results of the analysis of variance of subtest

Listening (MRT) by instructional treatment and classes

within schools found in Table 6 did not allow rejection of

Hypothesis 1 or Hypothesis 2. The results indicated that

there were no differences between methodologies; therefore,

the interaction effects were not examined.

The Matching Test

The Matching Test seeks to assess visual-perceptual

skills related to those involved in discriminating word

forms in beginning reading. The pupil marks one of three

pictures which matches a given picture. The child must be

able to note similarities in the forms of objects, pictures,

geometric figures and words. This ability is needed to

analyze and synthesize printed words.

The results of the analysis of variance of subtest

Matching (MRT.) by instructional treatment and classes

within schools found in Table 7 did not allow the rejection

of Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 must be rejected because of

the significant gain from pretest to posttest scores at the

.05 level. However, since no significant differences

between methodologies existed, the interaction effects were

not examined.

53

Table 6. Analysis of Variance of Subtest Listening (MRT) by Instructional Treatment and Classes within Schools

Source df SS MS F Prob.

Method 1 l8. 4802 1 8 . 4 8 0 2 .4709 N.S .

Schools/Method 2 78. 4869 39-2435 5 .6279 < . 0 1

Error Between 72 502. 0 5 2 6 6.9713

Pre-Post 1 401. 3750 401.3750 6 •7331 N.S .

Method/Repeat ed measures 1 11. 0592 1 1 . 0 5 9 2 .1855 N . S .

Repeated measures within schools/ Method 2 119- 2 2 3 7 59.6119 17 .7474 < . 0 1

Error within 72 24l. 8421 3.3589

Total 151 1372. 5197

54

Table 7« Analysis of Variance of Subtest Matching (MRT) by Instructional Treatment and Classes within Schools

Source df SS MS F Prob.

Method 1 5-1579 5.1579 1 0 .5933 N.S .

Schools/Method 2 • 9737 .4869 .0434 N.S.

Error Between 72 8 0 8 . 6 3 1 6 1 1 . 2 3 1 0

Pre-Post 1 6 5 6 .9^74 6 5 6 .9475 35 . 2 3 4 9 < .05

Method/Repeated measures 1 3 6 . 0 2 6 3 3 6 . 0 2 6 3 1 .9322 N.S .

Repeated measures within schools/ Method 2 37.2895 18.6448 3 •

0

CD

-J

\D

N.S .

Error within 72 434.7368 6 . 0 3 8 0

Total 151 1979.7632

The Alphabet Test

The Alphabet Test measures the child's ability to

recognize letters of the alphabet when these are spoken by

the examiner. It is a sixteen-item test of ability to

recognize lower-case letters of the alphabet. The pupil

chooses a named letter from among four alternatives.

Pupils making very low scores on this test apparently are

those who have had very little exposure to the printed word

(blocks, books) or very little encouragement to attend to

any of the formal characteristics of words, and are in need

of special assistance in this respect.

The analysis of variance of subtest Alphabet (MRT)

by instructional treatment and classes within schools found

in Table 8 did not allow the rejection of Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2 must be rejected because of the significant

gain from pretest to posttest scores at the .05 level.

However, since no significant differences between

methodologies existed, the interaction effects were not

examined.

The Numbers Test

The Numbers Test is an inventory of the child's

stock of number concepts, number knowledge, ability to

manipulate quantitative relationships, recognition of and

ability to produce number symbols, and related knowledge,

56

Table 8. Analysis of Variance of Subtest Alphabet (MRT) by Instructional Treatment and Classes within Schools

Sourc e df SS MS F Prob.

Method 1 6 .7368 6,7368 .1154 N.S .

Schools/Method 2 116 .7369 5 8 . 3 6 8 5 2 • 4397 N.S .

Error Between 72 1722 .5789 23•924?

Pre-Post 1 i4o4 . 2 3 6 8 l 4 o 4 . 2 3 6 8 18 .9694 < .05

Method/Repeated ine asur es 1 36 .0264 3 6 . 0 2 6 4 .4867 N .S .

Repeated measures within schools/ Method 2 148 . 0 5 2 5 74.0263 14 .5355 < .01

Error within 72 3 6 6 .6843 5 . 0 9 2 8

Total 151 3 8 0 1 . 0 5 2 6

57

such as concepts of money. It is a twenty-six item test of

number knowledge.

The results of the analysis of variance of subtest

Numbers (MRT) by instructional treatment and classes within

schools found in Table 9 did not allow rejection of

Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 must be rejected because of the

significant gain from pretest to posttest results, signifi­

cant difference between schools and method, and repeated

measures within schools and method. However, since no

significant differences between methodologies existed, the

interaction effects were not examined.

The Copying Test

Copying is a test in A\Thich the child manifests a

combination of visual perception and motor control similar

to what is called foi~ in learning handwriting. It is a

fourteen-item test which measures a combination of visual

perception and motor control.

The results of the analysis of variance of subtest

Copying (MRT) by instructional treatment and classes within

schools found in Table 10 did not allow rejection of

Hypothesis 1 or Hypothesis 2. The results indicated there

were no significant differences between methodologies;

therefore, the interaction effects were not examined.

58

Table 9« Analysis of Variance of Subtest Numbers (MRT) by Instructional Treatment and Classes within Schools

Source df SS MS F Prob.

Method 1 26 .9^73 2 6 .9473 .4881 N .S .

Schools/Method 2 1 1 0 .4-211 55 . 2 1 0 6 3 .2596 < •05

Error Between 72 1219 . 5 2 6 3 16 • 9379

Pre-Post 1 6 8 2 . 1 3 1 5 6 8 2 • 1315 20 . 1 7 2 0 < .05

Method/Repeated measures 1 5 . 9 2 1 2 5 .9212 .1751 N .S .

Repeated measures within schools/ Method 2 67 . 6 3 1 5 33 . 8 1 5 8 4 . 6 5 2 5 < . 0 5

Ei-ror within 72 523 . 3 1 5 8 7 . 2 6 8 3

Total 151 2635 . 8 9 4 7

59

Table 10. Analysis of Variance of Subtest Copying (MRT) by Instructional Treatment and Classes within Schools

Source df SS MS F Prob.

Method 1 • 2369 .2369 .0554 N.S .

Schools/Method 2 8. 5526 4.2763 .1924 N.S .

Error between 72 1 6 0 0 . '1737 2 2 . 2 2 8 8

Pre-Post 1 6. 7 3 6 9 6.7369 .8463 N.S .

Method/Repeat ed measures 1 2 . 1315 2.1315 . 2 6 7 8 N .S .

Repeated measures within schools/ Method 2 15. 9 2 1 1 7.9606 1 . 9 2 8 5 N.S.

Error within 72 297- 2 1 0 5 4.1279

Total 151 1931. 2 6 3 2 . 12.7898

Total Scores

The total scores indicate the extent to which the

six tests go together to form a meaningful composite readi­

ness measure. The results of the analysis of variance of

subtest Total Scores (MRT) by instructional treatment and

classes within schools found, in Table 11 did not allow the

rejection of Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 at the .05

level. The results indicated there were no significant

differences between methodologies; therefore, the inter­

action effects were not examined.

Table 12 presents the intercorrelations among the

tests. All are positive and, for the most part, would be

considered moderate. None, however, is so large as to

suggest that any two of the tests are measuring identical

or nearly identical functions. It is noted that the most

closely correlated subtests (r = .64-) are Alphabet and

Numbers. This is to be expected, since these two contain

the most directly taught material. A child who has learned

the alphabet at home or in kindergarten would quite likely

have been taught a variety of number concepts also. The

Copying test appears to be the most unique of the six

subt es ts .

S mninary

In summary the analysis of variance treatment of

the data did not allow the rejection of Hypothesis 1 in any

Table 11. Analysis of Variance of Total Scores (MRT) by Instructional Treatment and Classes within Schools

Source df SS MS F Prob.

Method 1 114 . 6 3 1 6 114.6316 .5290 N.S .

Schools/Method 2 8 2 6 . 5 5 2 6 413.2763 1 .9073 N.S .

Error between 72 1 5 6 0 0 . 6 8 4 2 2 1 6 . 6 7 6 2

Pre-Post 1 2 0 4 2 5 . 2 8 9 5 20425.2895 1 6 .9784 N.S .

Method/Repeated measures 1 4 3 1 . 1 5 7 8 431.1578 • 3584 N.S .

Repeated measures within schools/ Method 2 2406.0246 1 2 0 3 . 0 1 3 2 30 . 1 2 2 1 < .05

Error within 72 2 8 7 5 . 5 2 6 3 39.9374

Total 151 4 2 6 7 9.8684

ON H

62

Table 12. Intercorrelations Among Subtest Scores (N = 12,225)a

S ub t e s t 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Word Meaning — .49 .43 .46 • 55 • 39

2. Listening CM • .40 • 50 • 36

3. Matching • 53 . 6 0 .49

4. Alphabet .64 . 4 5

5. Numbers • 53

6 . Copying - -

Mean 8 . 6 7 8.89 7.'i:9 9.39 1 2 . 0 2 6 . 8 2

S .D. 3 . 1 0 CO

*

00

CO

4.o4 4 . 7 0 4 . 7 0 3 . 8 8

aHildr eth et al. ( . 1 9 6 9 , p. 1 6 ) .

63

of the subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Tests. The

analysis of variance results indicated that the data did

not allow the rejection of Hypothesis 2 in all subtests

except the Matching subtest, the Alphabet subtest, and the

Numbers subtest.

The analysis of variance on the subtest Matching

indicated that there was a significant difference in pre­

testing to posttesting. No other significant differences

existed. This suggests that gains were made within both

methodologies of instruction.

The analysis of variance of the subtest Alphabet

.indicated that there was a significant difference between

pretesting to posttesting results and a significant inter­

action effect. This interaction existed between repeated

measures within schools and method, suggesting that the

pretesting to posttesting difference was not attributable

to a methodological difference but rather to some classroom

environmental factor.

The results of the analysis of variance of subtest

Numbers indicated that there were significant gains from

pretest to posttest results, significant difference between

schools and method, and repeated measures within schools

and method. Since no significant differences between

methodologies existed, the .interaction effects were not

examined.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter reports the conclusions derived from

the evaluation of the statistical treatment of the research

data. Implications and recommendations are also included

in this chapter.

The purpose of this study was to determine the

relative effectiveness of the basal reader and the language

experience approaches as they applied to fostering reading-

readiness for the first grade students whose performance on

the Metropolitan Readiness Test indicated need for addi­

tional readiness experiences prior to their initiation in

formal reading instruction.

Conclusions

The analysis of variance treatment of the data did

not allow the rejection of Hypothesis 1 in any of the sub­

tests of the Metropolitan Readiness Tests.

The analysis of variance results indicated that the

data did not allow the rejection of Hypothesis 2 in any

subtests except the Matching subtest, Alphabet subtest, and

the Numbers subtest.

The analysis of variance on the subtest Matching

indicates that there was a significant difference in

G k

pretesting to posttesting results. No other significant

differences existed. This suggests that gains were made

within both methodologies of instruction. This could imply

that matching skills were emphasized within both methodolo­

gies by predominate use of games, drills, demonsti-ations ,

and study sessions which promote matching skills.

The analysis of variance of the subtest Alphabet

indicated that there was a significant difference between

pretesting to posttesting results and a significant inter­

action effect. This interaction existed between methods

and schools, which suggests that the pretesting to post-

testing difference was not attributable to a methodological

difference but rather to some classroom environmental

factor.

The results of the analysis of variance of subtest

Numbers indicated that there were significant gains from

pretest to posttest results. The significant difference

between schools and method, and repeated measures within

schools and method indicates the differences were not

attributable to a methodological difference but rather to

some classroom environmental factor. The most closely

correlated subtests (r = .64) are Alphabet and Number's as

indicated by Table 12. These two subtests contain the most

directly taught material in all classrooms. A child who

has learned the alphabet at home or in kindergarten would

quite likely have been taught a variety of number' concepts

also.

Possible reasons for differences not existing on

the remaining subtests are:

1. Instruction in too many skills was being attempted

in the short period of time allotted for the

experiment. Perhaps it would be better to isolate

the skills and teach toward a specific skill for a

period of time.

2. The duration of the experimental period of the

study should be extended.

Since there were few gains made from pretesting to

posttesting, it was concluded that neither methodology was

effective in producing significant gains in achievement

within the period of time allowed for instruction. This

could imply that both methodologies were unable to effect

the desired degree of readiness skills in those students

whose performance on readiness tests indicated a substan­

tial need for additional readiness experiences prior to

formal reading instruction. Another possible implication

is that insufficient time was allotted for instruction.

The implication of insufficient time is more viable due to

existing research which shows some degree of effectiveness

of both methodologies in Grade One.

67

Recommendations

Several recommendations involve the duplication of

this study with variations. One recommendation is to

duplicate this study with an extended time period. Another

possible research design would call for a duplication of

the study using a larger number of classrooms in an

attempt to eliminate environmental differences to a greater

degree. A third recommendation is to identify specific

techniques within each instructional methodology and to

determine what aspects within each methodology contribute

to its effectiveness. A fourth recommendation is to

individualize the instructional program to meet the

student response by utilizing many methodologies in an

eclectic instructional program.

Further research on the effectiveness of instruc­

tional methodology in the elementary school classroom could

provide valuable information for teachers, administrators,

and school boards.

Elementary schools are engaged in widespread experi­

mentation to meet the new educational requirements of our

complex society. The practitioners in education are

challenged to be receptive and involved in promising trends

in methodology and programs contributing to educational

experiences of children.

68

It is hoped that this study will contribute in some

measure to the improvement of instructional programs in the

elementary schools.

I

REFERENCES

Allen, Roach Van, and Claryce Allen. Language Experiences .in Early Childhood. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Press, 1969-

Arizona Department of Education. Policy of the State Board of Education on Reading. Phoenix, Arizona, July, 1971• (Mime ographed Letter).

Bond,. Guy L., and Robert Dykstra. "Interpreting the First Grade Reading Studies," The First Grade Reading Studies: Findings of Individual Investigations. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Assoc., 1967, pp. 1-9.

Brunei", Jerome S., Rose R. Oliver, and Patricia M. Greenfield. Studies in Cognitive Growth. New Y o r k : W i l e y a n d C o 1 9 6 6 .

Carrillo, Lawrence. "Reading Institute Extension Service, One Year Schoolwide Project--Grades Kindergarten through Eighth," Administrators and Supervisors. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1966 .

Clymer, Theodore. "New Ventures in Teaching of Reading," Principal« XLIII, No. k (February, 196^), 2 6 - 3 0 .

Durrell, Donald D., and Alice K. Nicholsen. "PreSchool and Kindergarten Experiences," Sixtieth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961 , pp. 267-268.

George, John E. "Variables in Beginning Reading Instruc­tion," Improving Reading Ability Around the World, eds . Dorothy Kendall Bracken and Eve Malmqu.ist. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Assoc., 1970, pp. 2 8 - 3 7 .

Giles, Donald Elbert. The Effects of Two Approaches to Reading Instruction Upon the Oral Language Development of First Grade Pupils. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, North State Texas University 1 9 6 6 .

69

70

Gray, William S. Summary of Investigations Relating to Reading. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925.

Hahn, Harry T. "Three Approaches to Beginning Reading Instruction: ITA, Language Arts and Basic Readers," The First Grade Reading Studies: Findings of Individual Investigations. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Assoc., 1967, PP• 31~35-

Hall, MaryAnne. The Development and Evaluation of a Language-Experience Approach to Reading with First-Grade Culturally Disadvantaged Children. Unpub­lished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland, 1965*

Hall, MaryAnne. "Linguistically Speaking, Why Language Experience?," The Reading Teacher, XXV, No. h-. (January, 19 7 27"] 328-331 •

Harris, Albert, and Blanche Serwer. "Comparison of Reading Approaches in First-Grade Teaching with Dis­advantaged Children," Cooperative Research Project No. 2677, U. S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1 9 6 6 .

Henderson, Edmund 11. "Do We Apply What We Know About Comprehension?," Current Issues in Reading, ed. Nila Banton Smith, Vol. 13, Part 2, International Reading Assoc., 1970, PP• 85-96.

Hildreth, Gertrude, Nellie L. Griffiths, and May E. McGauvi"an. Manual of Directions: Metropolitan Readiness Test, Forms A and B. New York: Harcourt Brace and World, Inc., 1969, PP* 2-29*

Holloway, Ruth Love. "Target for the Seventies: The Right to Read," Phi Delta Kappan, VIII, No. 1 (September" 1971), 75-76.

Hoggard, J. Kendau. "Readiness Is the Best Pi-evention., " Education,. .LXXVII (May, 1957), 523-527*

Kendrick, William. "A Comparative Study of Two First Grade Language Arts Programs," Cooperative Research Pro.ject No. 2576, U. S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1 9 6 6 .

71

Kowitz, G. T., and C. M. Armstrong. "The Effect of Promo­tion Policy on Academic Achievement," Elementary School Journal, New York Department of Education, LXI (1961), 435-^3.

Malinquist, EA^e. "Problems of Reading and Readers: An International Challenge," Improving Reading Ability Around the World, Eds. Dorothy Kendall Bracken and Eve Malinquist. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Assoc., 1970, pp. 59-71*

Marita, Sister M. "A Comparative Study of Beginning Read­ing Achievement Under Three Classroom Organiza­tional Patterns: Modified Individualized, Three-to-Five Groups, and Whole Class Language-Experience," Cooperative Ilcsearch Project No. 2659. U. S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1965*

McCaime, Roy. "A Study of Approaches to First Grade Read­ing Inst.ruct.ion from Spanish-Speaking Homes , " Cooperative Research Project No. 273^. U. S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1966.

McNally, Hai"old J., and Stuart E. Dean. "The Elementary School Principal," Preparation Program for School Administrators, eds. Donald J. Leu and Herbert C. Rudman. East Lansing Michigan State University, 1963.

National Education Association. Educational Policies Commission, Washington, D. C., 195 , p. 2'i.

Orme, Lillian. "Building Readiness for Reading in First Grade Children Through Special Instruction," Thirty-Fourth Yearbook, National Elementary P r i n c i p a l , X X X V ( S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 5 5 ) , ^ 5 .

Rogers, Norma. What Is Reading Readiness? An Eric/Crier + IRA Micromonograph. Newark, Delaware: Inter­national Reading Assoc., 1970*

Sheldon, William B. "Basal Reader Progrcims: How They Stand Today," Current Issues in Reading, Vol. 13, Part 2, ed. Nila Banton Smith, International Reading Assoc., 1970, pp. 295-299*

Sheldon, William B., and Queenie B. Mills. Picture Stories, Preparatory Book I, Sheldon Basic Reading-Series: Centennial Edition. Belmont, California: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1968.

72

Smith, Nila Banton. American Reading Instruction. Morristown, N. J.: Silver Burdett Co., 193^»

Smith, Nila Banton. "What Have We Accomplished in Reading—A Review of the Past Fifty Years," Elementary English, XXXVII (1961), l4l-150.

Stauffer, Russell G. "The Effectiveness of Language Arts and Basic Reader Approaches to First Grade Reading Instruction," The First Grade Reading Studies: Findings of Individual Investigations. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Assoc., 1967, pp. l'iO-146.

Stauffer-, Russell G. The Language-Experience Approach to the Teaching of Reading. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1970.

Steward, David K. "Values and Limitations of Basal Readers," Materials for Reading, Supplementary Education Monograph, No"! Bb . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957, PP* 5-1-56.

Tj'ler, Ralph. "The Interrelationship of Knowledge," The National Elementary Principal, XLIII, No. k 1 February, 191> h) , 1~3-25 •

Vilscek, Elaine C., Lorraine Morgan, and Donald L. Cleland. "Coordinating and Integrating Language Arts Instruction in First Grade," The Reading Teacher, XX, No. 1 (October, 1966), 31-37-