T H E APPLICATION OF AUDIO-TUTORIAL TECHNIQUES TO REMEDIATION OF LEARNING DISABILITIES: A CASE STUDY

RALPH SCOTT AND BARBARA PAHRE

Universily of Northern Iowa iVapa Valley Unijied School District

Current literature indicates that educators are placing increasing importance on oral language (Mackintosh, 1964; McNeil, 1965; Robinson, 1966; Stemmler, 1966). Although most articles which deal with the stimulation of oral language are addressed to the classroom teacher and often reflect the impact of linguistics on theories of reading, occasional references are made to the significance of enhancing oral language capabilities of exceptional children (Batemen, 1963; Kass, 1963; McCarthy, 1963; Jordan, 1965; Moore, 1965; Wiseman, 1965; Brison, 1966; Holmes, 1966). To the writers’ knowledge, however, no studies have examined the value of audio-tutorial procedures in facilitating the learning of exceptional children.

This paper (a) reports the results of short term audio-tutorial remediation which placed primary emphasis on increasing oral language of a child who was referred because of a reading problem which appeared to be associated with un- usual reticence, and (b) presents a model of learning which illustrates how various special educators’ may apply audio-tutorial methods in working with specific categories of disabled children.

PROBLEM AND METHOD When Jim first came to the Educational Clinic, he was nine years old and,

after a year’s retention, had just been promoted to third grade. Jim’s teacher observed that he seemed able to comprehend second grade material if given un- limited time. On psychological testing, Jim impressed the examiner as being an extremely polite, compliant and passive lad of a t least average intellectual capa- bilities. His speech was quiet, terse and lacking in spontaneity. Throughout testing, Jim gave up easily on test items unless he met almost immediate success.

Remediation consisted of seeing Jim three times a week for fifty-minute periods from June 20 to August 3, 1966. The chief remedial instrument was a series of Readers Digest Skill Builders (RDSB). At the beginning of each session Jim was asked to assemble the tape recorder and then to select one story from a series of RDSB booklets which ranged in difficulty from second to fourth grade. The ex- aminer read the story, which was simultaneously taped; Jim then related the story orally. If his version was judged to be satisfactory, he was free to use the remainder of the time for other activities such as playing basketball, going to the library, visiting the college greenhouse, playing checkers, playing with clay or finger paints. However, if the version was considered unsatisfactory, he was asked to provide another version. In giving a second or even third version, Jim had the option of listening to the taped story and to his rendition, or immediately attempting to provide a more acceptable version. In the beginning, he chose to give a second version without listening again to the taped story. As’the summer progressed he increasingly relied on replaying the tape recorder to improve his responses.

*In this discmsioii, special ediicators refer to teachers of the retarded, school social workers, remedial reading teachers, curriculum specialists, guidance counselors and school psychologists.

278 RALPH SCOTT AND BARBARA PAHRE

Pre- and posttest data consisted of a comparison of oral responses to the RDSB story on the fourth and on the final date of remediation. Since young children appear to have more difficulty processing and storing auditory (than visual) stimuli (Katz & Deutsch, 1963; Travers, 1964), Jim was told that the initial RDSB version (pre- and posttests 1) was unsatisfactory and that he should provide an improved version (pre- and posttests 2). Thus the RDSB pre- and posttests 1 were the first versions given on 6-27 and 8-5, respectively, while pre- and posttests 2 were the second versions. In the interim between pre-and posttesting, no reference was made to the story recorded on June 27.

RESULTS It is noted on Table 1 that from pretest 1 to pretest 2 there was a 75% increase

in oral language.* This suggests that Jim was more attentive and purposive in TABLE 1. ANALYSIS OF ORAL RESPONSE TO RDSB

Total prodiictive words

Introjections not considered dic- tionary terms and functioning solely to connect words or phrases, such as “er,” “urn,” etc.

Pretest 1 Pretest 2 Posttest 1 Posttest 2

122 214 197 27 1

10 14 23 13

providing his second pretest RDSB version, possibly reflecting his desire to obtain the reward of selecting an activity of his choice for the remainder of the remedial period. I n retrospect, the writers postulate that a sizable increase in total oral language from pretest 1 to pretest 2 might well provide an index, early in the remedial period, as to the subject’s motivation and future pattern of responses to a projected remedial program.

Table 1 also reveals that as predicted there was an important, 6l%, increase in total number of words from pretest 1 to posttest 1. However, in comparing these responses, it is also noted that unproductive language more than doubled on posttest 1. On the other hand, a comparison of pretest 2 with posttest 2 shows that there was not only a 27% increase in total number of words expressed on post- test 2, but also a slight decrease in unproductive language. These findings suggest that after brief remediation there was substantial posttest increase in the quantity of oral language which was accompanied by an initial increase in unproductive language. The frequency of unproductive language diminished noticeably, while the total amount of oral language continued to increase, when Jim was given an opportunity to provide a second response to auditory stimuli. This initial rise in unproductive language is consistent with Travers’ (19G4) view that the auditory mechanism is a much poorer analyzer than is the visual. It comes as no surprise,

*Oral language was calculated by word corillt, as determined by standards developed by Mc- Carthy (1030) aiid amplified by Davis (1937) and Wiiiitx (1959). These standards exclude what throughout this paper is referred to as unproductive Inngwge: repetitions as well as interjed ions not considered dictionary items aiid fuiict,ioniiig solely to coiiiiect words or phrases such as “er,” “urn.”

APPLICATION OF AUDIO-TUTORIAL TECHNIQUES 279

then, that in a remedial program aimed a t oral language growth there may be a temporary increase in unproductive oral language until new and improved language patterns have become habitualized.

DISCUSSION Since no similar studies have been reported it is difficult to evaluate the case

study and remediation which has been discussed here. One case study, suffering as it must from luck of controls and small N , does not in itself prove anything. The reported increase in oral language may have been due to such factors as personal attention paid to the subject or improved interpersona.1 relationships. The findings do nonet,heless demonstrate that audio-tutorial procedures, which were supple- mented by learning theory techniques, resulted in extensive oral language gains of a ret,icent nine year old boy with a serious reading problem.

Perhaps more important'ly, the results of this case study suggest one possible strategy whereby recent, advances i n audio-visual media may be applied within the field of except.ionalit,y. Audio-tutorial procedures appear to hold rich potentials with certain exceptional children, such as the visually and motorically impaired youngsters who can effectively deal with auditory signals and who can express themselves verbally; i n addition, if it is true t.hat oral language is of critical im- portance i n reading, then additional research may demonstrate the value of audio- tutorial methods preceding actual reading remediation. In sum it appears that lurther research, including replication of the present study, is needed to determine m e circumstances under which audio-tutorial procedures may facilitate t,he learning of children who represent, various classifications of exceptionality.

REFERENCES BATEMAN, B.wii.ik<.\. lleadiiig atid psycholingriist ic process of partially sighted children. I11 J. Mc-

Carthy (Ed.), Selected studies o n the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Madison: Phot,o Press, 1963. Pp. 70-56.

BRISON, I ) . W. A non-talking child in kindergartrii: Ai l application. Journal of School Psychology, 1966, 4 (4), 59-62.

ll.ivIs, EDITH. The development of lirigrrist,ic skill i t i t,wii~s, singletons, with siblings, and only children from age five t o t,eri years. Child Welfare Monographs, No. 14, Minneapolis: Universit,y of 3lintiesota Press, 1937.

HOLMES, I). The application of learning t,heory t o the treatment of a school behavior problem: A case study. Psjjchology in the Schools, 1966, 3,

JORDAN, L.\uR.\. \'rrhal readiness training for slow-learning children. Menfa/ Retardation, 1965, 3, 19-22.

I<.\ss, CORMNE 1.;. Some psychological correlates of severe reading disability. I n J . McCarthy (Ed.), Selected stzcriies on Ihe IIlinois Test of Psycholinguislic i2bilities. Madison: Photo Press, 1963. Pp. 87-93,

KATZ, PHYLLIS, & I~EUTSCH, 31. The effects of varying modality of stimulus presentation in serial leariiiiig O I I retarded atid normal readers. Paper presented at. the meeting of the Eastern Psy- chological Association, Sew York, April, 1963.

M.\CKINTOSH, HELEN H. Children and oral language. Joint statement. of the Association for Childhood IZdricatioii International, Association for Siipervision and Crlrriciilrim I)evelopment, Inter- i i a t iotial Reading Association arid National Council of Teachers of English, 1964.

~ ~ c C . \ I ~ T H Y , I ) O R O T H E . ~ . The language developmerit of the preschool child. Child Welfare Mono- graphs, S o . 4, hliiineapolis: l'iiiversity of Minnesota Press, 1930.

McC.\I~THY, J. Qiialitntive atid qiratititittive differences in the language abilities of young cerebral palsied childi~rti. I11 J . hIcCarthy (Ed.), Sdecled studies on the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic .4bdilies. Madison: Photo Press, 1963. Pp. 27-45.

RIcSEII,, J. Psyc.holitigriistics and the reading problem. Education, 1!165, 86 (3), 162-16:.

280 RALPH SCOTT AND BARBARA PAHRE

MOORE, W. Compensatory language arts programs for disadvantaged children. Teachers College

ROBINSON, JOANNE. Linguistics principles in reading. In B. Gertz (Ed.), Linguistics and reading:

STEMMLER, ANN 0. Teaching oral language and reading. Harvard Educational Review, 1966,36,42-59. TRAVERS, R. Transmission of information to human receivers. American Psychological Association:

WINITZ, H. Language skills of male and female kindergarten children. Journal of Speech and Hearing

WISEMAN, D. A classroom procedure for identifying and remediating language problems. Mental

Journal, Indiana State University, 1965, 37, 6-32.

Why and how. Cambridge, Mas.: Lesley College Press, 1966.

Newsletter of Division 16, 1964,d (I), 1-5.

Research, 1959, 2, 377-386.

Retardation, 1965, 3 (2), 2@24.

PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULAR GROUPS

RONALD B. SIMON0

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

The purpose of this paper was to determine if undergraduate senior curricular groups could be differentiated by a personality measure administered to them during their freshman year.

Related studies on this question seemed to offer contrasting results. Norman and Redlo (1952) concluded that the MMPI was “valid for distinguishing per- sonality trends amongst various major (i.e.) fields of study) groupings.” However, Lough (1947) suggested that the MMPI was “not a useful instrument for differ- entiating majors” and Clark (1953) remarked that the “MMPI should rarely be used for counseling” individuals who are making decisions about undergraduate field of concentration. Other investigations have looked at the relationship between personality measurement and choice of undergraduate major (Blum, 1947; Harder, 1959; Lough, 1946; Spiaggia, 1950; Sternberg, 1953).

METHOD Sample. Undergraduate males and females (538) from a major private university in the Southeast

constituted the sample. Within the sample were 360 males and 178 females. Individuals were placed in curricular groups according to their undergraduate major at time of graduation.1

Testing. All freshmen entering this institution in the fall semester of 1960 were given a modified form of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). This modified MMPI included all of the items comprising the three validity scales, the nine original clinical scales, the Taylor anxiety (A t ) scale, and the Welsh anxiety ( A ) scale (Dahlstron & Welsh, 1960). This testing was admin- istered as part of an earlier project supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (Spiel- berger & Weitz, 1964).

K-corrected scores were used for the Hs, Pd, Pt, SC, and Ma scales and are the only ones cited throughout this paper for those scales. The remaining scales are reported in terms of raw scores.

Statistical Analysis. A one-way analysis of variance test was computed for each MMPI scale in order to note differences between curricular groups. Because F ratios might suggest significant differ- ences between curricular groups, t tests were planned to compare pairs of curricular groups on the fourteen scales. In order to compare science and non-science majors, t ratios were computed for each of the fourteen MMPI scales used in this study.

‘Supplementary tabular material has been deposited with the American Documentation Insti- tute. Order Document No. 9647 from AD1 Auxiliary Pyblications Project, Photoduplication Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 20540. Remit in advance $1.25 for hotocopies or $1.25 for microfilm and make checks payable to: Chief, Photoduplication Service, Ligrary of Congress.