Group Title: influence of pictures, context and difficulty on beginning reading
Title: The influence of pictures, context and difficulty on beginning reading
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098654/00001
 Material Information
Title: The influence of pictures, context and difficulty on beginning reading
Physical Description: viii, 105 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Brooks, Peggy Ruth, 1951-
Copyright Date: 1977
 Subjects
Subject: Reading -- Ability testing   ( lcsh )
Reading, Psychology of   ( lcsh )
Clinical Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Clinical Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by Peggy Ruth Brooks.
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 68-71.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098654
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000201615
oclc - 03887404
notis - AAW8371

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

influenceofpictu00broo ( PDF )


Full Text












THE INFLUENCE OF PICTURES, CONTEXT AND DIFFICULTY
ON BEGINNING READING








By

PEGGY RUTH BROOKS








A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
I' PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1977
















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The author expresses her sincerest gratitude to

all members of her Supervisory Committee for their

participation in her training and in the development

of her career as a psychologist. Nathan X. Perry has

contributed so much to the direction and guidance of

the author, from her undergraduate honors research

to the present study. Suzanne Bennett Johnson deserves

the greatest thanks for her active supervision and

enthusiastic support of this dissertation. ,,. eith

Berg and Wiley C. Rasbury have also contributed greatly

to the author's development as a scientist, throughout

her graduate education. Appreciation is also extended

to Donald S. Childers for participating as the "outside"

committee member on both the qualifying exam and the

dissertation.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOW'LEDE 7 :TS . . . . .

ABSTRACT. . . . . . . .


INTRODUCT.IC ... . . . .

PILOT STUDY . . . . . .

PreDaration of Test Yaterials.

METHOD . . . . . . .

Dependent Variables. . . .

Reliability . . . .

Data Analysis. . . . .


RESULTS . . . . . . . . .

Experimenter, Sex and Race Effects .

The Rezression Model . . . .

The Effect of Pictures on Total Errors

The Effect of Context on Word
RecoZnition. . . . .. .. . .

The Effect of Trials on Word
Recognition . . . . . . .

The Effect of Difficulty and
Level on Word Recognition. . .. .

Models for other Dependent Measures,

The Effects of Pictures on other
Measures . . . . . . . .


Pa e



2i-


1
. . . iii




. . . 1



. . . 14



. . . 21

. . . 25
N/



23


23

33

35













TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Page

Comprehension . . ., ., . .2

Repetitions, Reversals, and
Insertions . . . . . . . .

Stem Errors. . . . .. . . . ,

Affix Errors . . . . . . . .

Substitutions. . . . . . . .

Nonsense Errors. . . ..... . .

Omissions . . . ... . . . .7

Self-Corrections . . . . . . .

Repeated Errors.. . . , ... . .

DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . 51

Pictures . . . . . . . . .1

Context. . . . . . . . .. .

Difficulty . . . . . . . . 60

Learning . . . . . . . .. 61

Types of Story Category Errors ...., . 62

CONCLUSION. .. .. . . . . . 66

REFERENCES. .... .. . . . . . .6

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . .. 72

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . 105











Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



THE INFLUENCE OF PICTURES, CONTEXT AND DIFFICULTY
ON 7BEINNINI READI;




Peg-vy uth Brooks

December, 1977


Chairman: Nathan W. Perry
Major Department: Clinical Psychology


Eighty-three children (39 females, 44 males) who had

completed first grade participated as subjects in this

study to determine the effects of picture, context and

difficulty on reading. Superior and below average readers

were grouped into picture, no picture and control con-

ditions (level and picture were between subjects factors).

The experimental groups received easy and difficult word

lists and stories (trials and difficulty were within

subjects factors) while the control group received only

the word lists. All groups received aid on a missed word

during the second presentation of the stories (or word

lists in the case of the control group). Total error

frequencies, comprehension scores, and story category types










of error frequencies served as dependent variables. 5our

factor, repeated measures analyses of variance revealed

significant three-way interactions for all variables and

subsequent analyses were necessary to assess main effects

of one variable while two others were held constant.

The effect of pictures was such that below average

readers who received stories accompanied by Dictures

made more errors than any other rrout. Superior readers

did net appear to be affected by the presence of pic-:res,

Pictures also did not significantly alter conprehension

scores or particular story error ty-es for an -1rou.

Results on the effect of context were similar: selow

average readers made more errors on stories (in whicn

contextual cues exist) than on word lists (in which :nly

graphic cues exist) while superior readers made equivalent

numbers of errors on both stories and word lists.

Difficulty of material was significant for all dependent

measures. All groups made significant improvements in

word recognition on difficult material over trials.

Difficult material produced poorer performance Dy toch

superior and below average readers on comprehension and

story error types, and in some cases, produced different

error patterns for both groups. Experimenter aid also

bettered performance of poorer readers. Effects of these










variables on superior reading of easy material may have

been obscured by basal effects in which superior readers

made so few errors initially, that there was not much

room for improvement over trials,

Results of this study clearly support the hypothesis

that pictures and context interfere with poorer readers'

word-decoding performance and suzsesn that trese readers

rely on inappropriate strategies such as searching for

meaning and contextual cues to learn to read. Superior

readers appear to use both graphic and contextual infor-

mation efficiently when reading easy material out te-d to

rely more on graphic cues on difficult material. Sug-

gestions for more appropriate reading material for each

group are made, based on these findings. These resul-s

are also discussed in light of developmental, atten-ional

and psycholinruistic theories of reading ability.













Chairman


viii














INTRODUCTION


The abundant use of bright colorful illustrations

in children's reading texts certainly leads one to believe

that pictures accompanying printed reading material are

facilitative in the acquisition of reading skill. Yet

there exist very little experimental research data to

support this notion. generally, pictures have simply been

assumed to foster reading skill, mostly through their

attractive stimulus properties. This is a conclusion,

which as Bourisseau (1965) put it, ". has persisted in

the absence of solid research evidence and has achieved a

prominent and seldom-disputed position (p.250)". Indeed,

in her interview of twenty-five proponents of different

beginning reading approaches, Chall (1967) noted that none

of them seriously questioned the need for pictures. Miller

(1938) reported that teachers believe children learn to
read better with pictures for several reasons: (1) pictures

introduce characters in a story; (2) they arouse and sustain

interest; (3) they clarify unfamiliar concepts appearing

in print; and (4) pictures furnish clues to word recognition.

However, Miller (1938) found that when duplicate copies of

first grade texts with no illustrations were given to half








of his subjects (n=600 first through third graders), the

nonpicture group made 12 out of 18 possible statistically

significant reading gains during the year while the picture

group made only ten out of 18. While not arguing to remove

pictures from all textbooks, Miller (1938) stated the absence

of pictures did not cause children to read with less compre-

hension or interest. He concluded, ". . it is probable

that many illustrations leave much to be desired in furnish-

ing clues to the reading material which they accompany.

Anyone who has watched beginning readers at work has seen

them shift their eyes from a printed word to the picture,

trying to get a clue to the word from the picture. Such

shifting of attention is considered by some persons to be

an interference with reading (p. 676)".

Yet, because of the direct sensory appeal of pictures,

it has been assumed that they facilitate learning through

sensory and cognitive stimulation. Because of the popularity

of pictures and belief in their instructional utility, very

little systematic research has been carried out to determine

the influence they have on children's reading. A recent

review article by Concannon (1975) cites fewer than ten

studies on the effects of pictures on reading, yet virtually

every study indicated that pictures do not contribute sig-

nificantly to the word-decoding ability of the child.

In the studies involving the influence of pictures on

word recognition, a common paradigm has been one in which

children are presented with a small number of words in no-

picture and picture conditions, with training and test trials.







Samuels (1967) utilized this paradigm, with 30 pre-first

graders in a preliminary word recognition task, and showed

that both a simple and complex picture provided more clues

for recognition and produced more correct responses than

the no-picture condition. However, in the test trials when

no pictures were present, the subjects trained in the no-

picture condition excelled. This study alternated the

acquisition and test trials purposefully so that the subjects

in the picture-plus-word conditions would be aware that the

words were important stimuli. Still, these subjects tended

to rely on pictures when they were present instead of graphic

detail of the words as cues. In a second experiment in the

same study, 52 students with seven months of first grade

experience were divided into picture and no-picture conditions

in which a story made up of 50 separate words was used in

reading instruction. The pre- and posttest consisted of

presenting the subjects with the individual words for recog-

nition. For the better readers, Samuels found no significant

difference in reading acquisition between the picture and

no-picture groups. However, the poorer readers learned to

read significantly more words in the no-picture condition

than in the picture condition. Samuels interpreted this

finding as support for the notion that the poorer students

were more distracted by the picture stimulus which interfered

with learning to read the words. Samuels cites 3.J. Underwood's

principle of least effort (1963) in summarizing his research

findings the principle of least effort suggests that when

both word and picture are presented together, the picture







most readily produces the desired response because at first

the picture can elicit a response more quickly than the

printed stimulus. So, given the two stimuli, producing a

response to the picture requires less effort; however, in-

stead of focusing on the word, the subject then attends to

the picture, failing to give the necessary attention to the

word.

Two other studies utilizing versions of Samuels'

paradigm reveal similar findings. Duell (1968) found in

teaching sight vocabulary, pictures were less effective as

cues than prompter training without visual pictorial stimuli.

A more recent study by Singer, Samuels and Spiroff (1974)

utilized four training treatments with 164 first and second

graders to determine the effect of pictures and contextual

conditions on learning printed words. The four training

treatments were: word-no picture; word-picturei sentence-no

picture; and sentence-picture. In the test trials, only

words were shown to the subjects. On both number of trials

to criterion and number of correct responses, subjects in the

word-no picture treatment scored significantly better than

any other treatment group. In the report of their study,

Singer et al. state their findings are in support of a focal

attention hypothesis of Samuels (1967). Central to this

hypothesis is the notion that focusing on printed words is

crucial for reading acquisition and that pictures (and other

contextual cues) distract children from focusing attention

on the necessary orthographic detail of the words themselves.

It is indeed difficult to find experimental evidence to

support the other side of the picture vs. no picture controversy.







While many authors have faithfully expounded on and cited

anecdotal evidence in favor of pictures in reading texts

(e.g., Whipple, 1953; and Schonell, 1961), solid data to

document this belief is difficult to find. In fact, the

only study not reporting evidence against the use of pictures

was conducted by Hartley (1970). Hartley could not find

data to support a generalization about the relative effective-

ness of any one of three conditions words alone; words

with a picture; or words presented with oral context.

One quite recent report (Wardle, 1977) which suggests

that illustrations in textbooks may improve reading compre-

hension test performance of below median reading level students

also must be interpreted with caution. In that study,

Wardle looked at reading comprehension for science textbook

material presented in one of five ways to 191 above and below

median reading level seventh-graders. Her five test con-

ditions were (1) text plus an illustration that answered

a high number of test questions; (2) text plus an illus-

tration answering a medium number of test questions; (3) text

plus an illustration that answered a low number of questions;

(4) an unillustrated text; and (5) a test without text or

illustration. The results of her experiment yielded no

improved reading comprehension with an illustrated or unillus-

trated text for the total pupil group or the above median

pupil group. The below median group did answer significantly

more test questions with an illustrated text, but there were

no differences in improvement as a function of the amount of

relevant information in the illustration. Thus, the im-

provement seen for below median readers could not be







attributed to the abstraction of test information from

the illustration. The author suggested that perhaps the

illustrations served only to interest the student in

spending more time studying the text.

Two earlier studies by Vernon (1953t1954) also with

older subjects (12 and 17 year olds), indicated pictures

were found to occasionally help a subject remember a

particular fact about a story. In general, though, an

illustrated story was remembered no better than an unillus-

trated one. In the 1953 study, Vernon also noted that the

younger or less intelligent child paid more attention to

pictures than the older, more sophisticated readers.

In his dissertation, Weintraub (1960) was also inter-

ested in the effect of pictures on comprehension of the

main ideas and events in a story. He compared several

groups of second graders on a multiple choice test of

comprehension. These groups were: boys and girls sepa-

rately, children with high intelligence but low reading

achievement levels, good readers and poor readers. For all

groups, comprehension was greatest when text only (without

pictures) was seen. Boys and girls did not differ signifi-

cantly. Good readers appeared to do well regardless of

the picture or no picture condition, but poor readers scored

better with the text only than with either text and pictures

or pictures alone.

From these studies on the effect of pictures on reading

comprehension, no definitive statement can be made. While

several authors feel that picturesmay be motivating variables








(Whipple, 1953; Schonell, 1961), nothing can yet be said

for the instructional value of pictures for reading compre-

hension. The fact that publishers of certain basal readers

wholeheartedly endorse the use of pictures for reading compre-

hension development was illustrated by Chall (1967) in her

analysis of two series of basal readers. Chall found, on

the average, that preprimers introduce more new pictures

per story than new words. In one series, she found more

comprehension questions about the pictures than about the

text Even in third grade readers, 30 per cent of the

questions could be answered without reading the words at

all.

The studies by Vernon (195311954), Wardle (1977) and

Weintraub (1960) allow some comparison between good and poor

readers and make differential statements about the results

for the two groups. Besides the age differences which may

account for the discrepancies between Wardle's and Weintraub's

results, in no study was the difficulty level of reading

material comparable for both groups. No attempt was made,

for example, to give the poorer readers material containing

easier vocabulary than the material for the superior readers.

This was true for the previously cited studies on word recog-

nition, as well, and may be an important variable for de-

termining poor readers' utilization of pictures as clues

for comprehension, e.g., if the level of material is

exceedingly more difficult for poor readers than for good

readers, the poor readers may be more likely to use the

principle of least effort (Underwood, 1963) in searching







the illustration for clues to the story than the good

readers. Clearly, when comparing good and poor readers,

one important variable may be the difficulty level of

reading material for both groups.

The entire picture controversy has also been seen

as part of a larger controversy, namely, the role any kind

of contextual information plays in the facilitation of

word identification. A major proponent of the contextual

or linguistic hypothesis, Goodman (1965) found that 100

readers in first, second and third grades recognized words

in a story with better accuracy than when the same words

appeared on lists, Goodman argued that on the word list,

the child had only the cues within the words to use for

recognition, while in the story, the presence of additional

contextual cues in the flow of language allowed the child

more information with which to recognize the words. Children

in his study were given a word list to determine their level

of reading and presented a corresponding story containing

the words to read, thereby equating difficulty level for

the subjects, However, Goodman did not provide a control

group which received only words and thus the improvement he

reported for word recognition in stories possibly may have

been due to a practice effect or exposure to the words in

the previous word test condition. He also did not report

whatever differences in performance may have existed for

the groups of readers he tested.





9

Singer, Samuels and Spiroff (1974) found results

contrary to Goodman's (1965) in their comparison of word

alone, word plus picture, word plus sentence and word plus

sentence plus picture conditions. As reported above,

subjects in their study scored best when presented with

the words alone. Thus, the addition of the syntactic and

semantic contextual cues in sentences did not produce

superior results. However, Singer et al. (1974) did not

use different words for children of different reading levels

or address the relative differences between above and below

average readers in these conditions. Hence their results

might have obscured the differences which may exist between

above and below average readers in their use of contextual

information.

An alternative view may be seen in the work of 3iemiller

(1970) on children's development of the use of graphic and

contextual information. Siemiller studied two first grade

classes' reading acquisition throughout a school year and

found an overall developmental progression from reliance on

contextual cues through analysis of graphic detail of words

to an effective combination of both strategies. Biemiller

defined these three phases on the basis of the frequency of

a particular type of reading error which he termed a non-

response error. A non-response error was defined as the

occasion on which the child stopped reading just before a

word it was assumed she/he did not know. Biemiller termed

the first phase a "pre-Nonresponding" phase in which readers

seemed to rely primarily on contextual cues for reading.







The second stage was called the "Nonresponding" phase

because of the high frequency of non-response errors found.

Biemiller hypothesized that readers in this phase began to

grapple with the graphic features of words. The third

phase Biemiller described was the "post-Nonresponding"

stage, in which readers appeared to use both context and

graphic information efficiently.

He reported poorer readers tended to remain in the

first phase longer than better readers. However, the poor

readers who did reach the second phase did not make signifi-

cantly more graphic substitutions. This led 3iemiller to

admit that perhaps the pattern of error types in the differ-

ent phases might only reflect overall ability differences.

While Biemiller's view suggested some kind of developmental

factor may operate in children's use of contextual infor-

mation, it also appeared from his study that poor readers

and superior readers may simply differ in the extent -o which

they typically utilize graphic and contextual information,

regardless of their place on his developmental continuum.

At any rate, Biemiller stood in opposition to the encourage-

ment of the early use of contextual and picture cues and

argues this: ". . the child's first task in learning to

read is mastery of the use of graphic information, and

possibly, of the notion that one specific spoken word corre-

sponds to one written word. The child's early use of

contextual information does not appear to greatly facilitate

progress in acquiring reading skill (1970, p.95)".







It does appear, then, that the presence of pictures

and contextual information may not facilitate acquisition

of early reading skill, especially in poorer readers. If

poor readers tend to ignore the orthographic detail of

words, are they distracted by the presence of pictures

and contextual information or is the task so difficult

for them that they become frustrated and turn to extra-

graphical information for cues? Might not a child of

even average or superior ability also turn to extragraphical

cues when faced with equally difficult reading material?

The possibility exists that all beginning readers may re-

spond to difficult stories similarly, i.e., by relying more

on extragraphical information.

That distractibility is a factor involved in reading

disabilities is supported by a review of several studies

by Tarver and Hallahan (1974) which indicated that dyslexic

children may be unable to filter out extraneous and irrele-

vant information or focus selectively on a learning task.

Results from a study by Elkind, Larson and Van Doorninck

(1965) supported this idea. These investigators employed

an embedded figures task in their study of slow and average

readers and found that slow readers perceived fewer hidden

figures than normal readers. They hypothesized that skilled

reading is related to the Piagetian (1958) concept of

decentration in which freedom from distractibility within

an embedded context, or the ability to decenter from domi-

nating field effects, is required.







Sabatino and Ysseldyke (1972) also found differences

between readers and nonreaders on Bender Visual-Motor

Gestalt tests in which stimulus designs were embedded in

extraneous backgrounds, but found no differences on the

standard Bender test or a Bender memory test.

These studies offer at least some support for the

notion that skilled reading requires the ability to seek

out relevant and ignore irrelevant information. The fact

that Sabatino and Ysseldyke (1972) found nonreaders performing

most poorly on the clearly more difficult task of an embedded

figures design led Tarver and Hallahan (1974) to speculate

that when the discrepancy between relevant and irrelevant

stimuli is of sufficient magnitude, children with reading

and other learning disabilities may De no more highly

distracted than normal controls.

Being a bit more specific about the differences between

below and above average readers, might not the difficulty

level of the reading material be analogous to Tarver and

Hallahan's (1974) hypothesis about relevancy of the stimuli?

If poor readers are presented with reading material that is

less difficult for them, i.e., in terms of vocabulary word

knowledge, would they be no more distracted than better

readers with the level of material that is typically used in

these studies? Conversely, would superior readers be equally

as "distracted," i.e., make as many errors, in a condition

in which they received material that was very difficult for

them? Virtually no study cited here has addressed this







problem. Only in one study (Goodman. 1965) were the

difficulty levels of reading material adjusted for readers'

word knowledge and in the report of that study no compara-

tive data were presented for performance differences between

groups on the different levels of material, e.g., poorer

vs. better readers' performance, In short, a very important

part of the puzzle is missing if below and above average

readers' performance differences cannot be separated from

the difficulty level factor.

The present study was designed to address three major

questions concerning beginning reading. These were: (1)

To what extent do pictures influence and/or interfere with

the performance of superior and below average readers? (2)

To what extent does the presence of contextual cues influence

beginning readers' (both superior and below average) word

recognition ability? (3) To what extent does difficulty

level of reading material influence oral reading performance

of below and above average reading? An additional objective

of the present study was to assess the effect of the presen-

tation of the word lists and stories in terms of learning

over trials, with aid given on missed words in one condition

so that all subjects would have had exposure to all words.

To measure these effects on oral reading performance, the

following dependent variables were of interest, (1) total

number of errors; (2) story comprehension; (3) ten types of

errors n stories, including a frequency count of self-

corrections; and (4) a measure of graphic similarity of errors

to story text. These measures were felt adequate to meet the

objectives of the present study.











PILOT STUDY


Because a major objective of the present study was to

attempt to adjust difficulty of reading material for both

superior and below average readers, a pilot study was

designed and carried through to provide a list of easy,

intermediate and difficult words from which the testing

stories and word lists would be composed.

A total of 84 children from three first grade classes

participated in the pilot study. Participation in the pilot

study excluded participation in the formal study itself.

These children comprised entire classes and so included all

levels of reading proficiency.

One hundred, sixteen words were chosen from pre-primer

to fifth grade level texts and printed in lower case letters

on 4 x 6 cards, one word per card. Children were tested

individually in a quiet place on their sight vocabulary of

these 116 words. The children were allowed ten seconds to

respond to each card. All children were shown all words.

A frequency count was then made of the number of correct

responses to the words, and each child's score on the Reading

subtest of the Metropolitan Achievement Test was compared

with performance on the pilot vocabulary list.

Preparation of Test Materials

Based on the frequency counts and reading subtest scores,

three separate lists of words were derived, of easy,





15

intermediate and difficult levels. Words included in the

easy list were recognized by 88 to 100 percent of the pilot

subjects. Words of intermediate difficulty were recognized

by 66.6 to 79.7 percent of the children in the pilot study

and the difficult words were recognized by 9.5 to 48.8 percent

of the pilot subjects. The easy material was therefore easy

even for poor readers, the intermediate material was difficult

for poor readers and easy for better readers, and the

difficult material was difficult even for better readers.

From these three word lists, three stories were composed.

Since the stories had to be composed from the tested words,

content of the stories was not highly predictable from a

semantic or plot development standpoint. Appendix contains

copies of each of the stories used. There were 27 different

words on the easy list and story (there were repetitions of

some words, especially words such as the, a, and, etc., in

all stories); 25 different words on the intermediate list

and story; and 32 different words on the difficult list and

story. Pictures were drawn to match each story. The pictures

included details relevant to the stories as well as some

aspects not directly referred to in the stories, e.g., the

number of boys or girls was obvious from the picture but was

not referred to in the story itself. Pictures were drawn

in black ink. Amounts of information available from picture

content was not assessed; however, since each picture was

drawn to match each story, similar amounts of information

were contained in each. Thus, the amount of story-relevant

picture content was not considered as a variable in the

present study.












METHODD


Subjects. Eighty-three children who had completed

first grade in the Alachua County School system of 3aines-

ville, Florida, participated as subjects in this study.

The 39 females and 44 males came from the following schools,

in order of greatest number from each Glen Springs, Stephen

Foster, J.J. Finley, Williams, and Metcalfe elementary

schools. All subjects were tested during the summer of

1976, from June through the middle of August.

Children were selected for the study based on their

total reading scores from the Metropolitan Achievement Test

given in their respective schools in the spring of the year.

For the purpose of this study, children who scored above

the 80th percentile were considered superior readers and

those who scored below the 50th percentile were considered

below average readers. This higher cut-off point for the

poorer readers was necessary since children who scored at

the 20th and 30th percentiles were mostly nonreaders, i.e.,

could not read at all. Additionally, children with an Otis-

Lennon Intelligence Quotient (IQ) below 85 were excluded

from the sample. Superior and Below Average subjects were

then randomly grouped into one of three conditions A

Picture condition, a No Picture condition, or a Word List


control group.





17

Letters describing the study were sent home from

school with the children selected (See Appendix 3 for a

sample letter), and parents were contacted by a subsequent

phone call. The parents were informed in greater detail

of the study's goals (though the subject of pictures was

not mentioned prior to the testing, in order to control

for any bias the child might have before testing) and

invited to have their child participate in the study.

Parents were asked to bring the child into the laboratory

in the Psychology Department for testing) if this was

impossible, testing was done at the child's home.

A total of 117 children were tested. Of these, the

data from 31 had to be discarded because of a subject's

either limited or perfect score on the word list vocabulary.

A perfect score meant that the subject recognized 100 percent

of the words on the list and could not be included because

no words could be classified as "difficult" for that subject.

Likewise, a limited score on the word list meant that the

subject recognized so few words (less than 63 percent of

the "easy words") that no material would be "easy" enough

for that subject, i.e., all words would be "difficult" for

that subject. In the case of three other subjects, experi-

menter or equipment error required data from these subjects

to be discarded.

Experimenters. Four experimenters were trained to

administer and score the reading test. Three were females

two Caucasian (one of whom was the author) and one Blacki

one was a Caucasian male. The procedure for administration







and scoring was based on the procedure outlined in Goodman

and Burke's (1972, Chap. 4) Manual for the Reading Miscue

Inventory. Training lasted for one week until all experi-

menters had discussed and reached agreement on their inde-

pendent scoring of six practice tapes. Experimenter

instructions are included in Appendix C .

Apparatus. A quiet place with no distracting stimuli

was required for testing. A cassette tape recorder was

used to record the entire session with each subject.

Word lists, stories and pictures were laminated for

use with the children. Copies of the word lists and stories

were used by the Es to score reading errors. Samples of

the word lists, stories and pictures appear in Appendix

D. A small selection of inexpensive toys and candy bars

was maintained, from which a child could choose one item

at the close of the session, with parental permission.

This reward was not mentioned at any time prior to or during

the testing session.

The subject was seated in a chair in front of a table

or desk on which the testing materials were placed. The

experimenter explained the procedure to the subject in one

of three ways, depending upon the condition. For the

Picture condition, subjects were asked to read a list of

words and two stories with a picture that went with each

of the stories always in the same order. For the No Picture

condition, subjects were asked to read a list of words and





19

two stories, also in the same order. For the Word List

control group, subjects were asked to read a word list

three times.

In both the Picture (P) and No Picture (N) conditions,

subjects were presented with the word list (which comprised

an easy and more difficult list of words, each word in

order of difficulty), the easier story (with or without

an accompanying picture) and the more difficult story,

all without help. Then the subject was asked to again read

the stories in the same orders however, on this second

reading, the subject was told that aid would be given on

a word which was missed (omitted or mispronounced), and

help was given in this trial only. In the Word List (WL)

control condition, help was offered on a missed word

during the second presentation only. finally all subjects

were presented with the same word list without help, on

the last trial.

The Comprehension portion of the testing comprised

three questions to the subjects after each reading of a

story, The subjects was asked (1) to tell the experi-

menter everything she or he remembered about the story

(recall); (2) who was in the story and (3) what happened

in the story. The experimenter was permitted to ask the

additional questions "Who else was in the story?" and

"What else happened in the story?" once each if the subject

gave less than a complete answer to the initial questions.







The three word lists which were compiled on the

basis of the pilot research were each of a different

difficulty level. The word list presented to the subject

as mentioned above was actually made up of two of the

three word lists designed to be easy and difficult for the

subject from the pilot study. Below Average (BA) readers

received the easiest and intermediate lists and Superior

(S) readers received the intermediate and most difficult

lists. In addition, the BA readers received the stories

(made from the word lists) of easiest and intermediate

difficulty, while the S readers received the intermediate

and most difficult stories, again designed to be easy

and difficult for them. Since both BA and S readers

received an identical word list and story, that of inter-

mediate difficulty, this comparison matched the design of

previous studies in which all subjects received the same

word list or story. However, the present study also

allowed for the evaluation of the relative comparisons

of an easy and a difficult word list and story for both

BA and S readers.

Experimenters scored the subject's errors on the

word lists and stories during the session, following along

on a separate copy. The tape recording of the child's

oral reading was also played back afterward to complete

and check the scoring.

In summary, the P and N conditions first received the

word list, then the stories without aid, then the stories







with aid, and finally the original word list. On each

reading of a story, the comprehension questions were asked.

The WL control group was presented with the word list

three times, receiving aid on a missed word during the

second presentation only. The duration of the entire

session was never longer than one-half hour. Sources of

data were the protocols scored by the experimenters and

the tape recordings of each subject's oral reading.

Dependent Variables

Error Frequencies. Total number of errors on word

lists and stories, before and after aid, were totaled in

order to make comparisons between the groups with regard

to the effect of pictures, context of the word, effect of

training (aid and practice) and level of difficulty. In

the trials with aid, an error was counted and scored before

correction. Comparisons between word list errors and

story errors were made possible by subtracting the number

of repeated errors on stories from the total number of

errors on stories.

Story Error Categories. Because it is believed that

oral reading provides a convenient and objective method

for studying central processes occurring during reading

(Fairbanks, 1937) and that oral reading errors may reflect

the cognitive strategies used by readers to make sense of

the reading material (Biemiller, 19701 Weber, 1968), the

present study employed several categories of oral reading







errors in hopes of providing important clues about the

differences between poor and superior readers. The study

was designed to investigate these categories of oral

reading errors as a function of the independent variables:

reading level, pictures, difficulty and training.

In an article which reviews previous error classi-

fication systems and provides reliability data for a

particular classification system, Hood (1976) advocates

the use of a standardized and reliable system. The error

classification scheme used in the present study was

modeled closely after Hood's and also owes much to the

system in the Reading Miscue Inventory (Burke and Goodman,

1972).

Errors were counted when the subject's response oor

lack of response) did not match the printed text material

in its spoken form. Dialect differences were ignored.

Changes in word order, repetition errors and insertions

were counted as one error (each time they occurred) even

though they might have involved more than one word.

The types of errors identified were: (1) repetition,

a repetition of a word or phrase (not mispronounciation

of the word or phrase)---these repetitions were often

anticipatory responses to a following difficult word or

phrase or changes in the intonation of the word or phrase;

(2) orders changes in the order of the words, e.g., sun







up was/sun was upl1 (3) reversal: substitution of a word

containing the same letters as the text word but in a

different sequence, e.g., form/froms (4) stem: substi-

tution of a word containing the same stem as the text

word, e.g., looking/looked; (5) affixt substitution of

a word containing the same affix as the text word, e.g.,

picked/looked, dissatisfied/disappeared; (6; substitution:

substitution of a meaningful word for a text word if it

may not be previously categorized as a reversal, stem

or affix error; (7) nonsense: substitution of part of

a word or a nonsense word if it may not be previously

categorized as a reversal, stem, or affix error. It

should be noted that that reversal, stem, affix, substi-

tution and nonsense errors are all kinds of a more general

substitution for text words. In addition, (6) insertion

an insertion of one or more words between two text words;

and (9) omission a word omitted, either inadvertently,
or as an indication that it was not known. In addition,

it was considered desirable to know whether a child spon-

taneously self-corrected his/herself, whether the error

was a repeated one, e.g., the child produced an error on

the same word later in the story, and whether or not the

error produced was graphically similar to the text.

Graphic similarity was considered important as a measure

IThe error is italicized and precedes diagonal line; text
follows.







of the child's use of graphic cues. Graphic similarity

was determined from a modification of Cohen's (1975)

criteria. An error was considered graphically similar

to the text if, (1) the error word and the text word

shared a common first, last or both first and last letter-

sound, e.g., lighted/looked; or (2) the error word and

the text word have at least half of the letter sounds in

common, e.g., eel/leaf, terrific/traffic. Common last

letters were included as a criterion after a literature

review found that both Weber (1970) and Marchbank and Levin

(1965) contend that beginning readers exploit the letters

in the end positions of words as "salient cues yielding

high information (Weber, 1970, p. 156)".

Comprehension. For the experimental groups, a

story comprehension measure was obtained from the subject's

responses to the comprehension questions mentioned above.

Scoring was based on assigned points for character recall

and development, events and general plot or theme of the

stories. Since the stories were relatively short and

simple, these answers were typically brief. Detailed

guidelines for scoring comprehension were composed (See

Appendix E ) and a total of 25 points were possible for

each story.







Reliability


In studies where data points are subject to varia-

bility due to differences among experimenters, a check

on data reliability is necessary before statistical analy-

sis proper can be undertaken. In Hood's (1976) study,

she not only isolated the most useful error categories;

in addition, she obtained measures of inter-judge

reliability on scoring of total error, meaning loss

errors, repetitions, proportions of graphically similar

errors and errors self corrected, and scores for contextual

appropriateness. Her judges were five female college

graduates who were trained for one week. Cronbach's

alpha reliability coefficient (1951) was used and relia-

bilities which would hold under various numbers of judges

were estimated. For most errors, Hood found that no

appreciable increase in reliability occurred when more

than two judges were used. Support for this finding also

comes from Y. Goodman (1971) who recommends two judges be

employed for recording and counting errors. In the present

study then, two judges per task were employed.

In the present study, four female college under-

graduates as well as the author were judges for reliability

scores on word list errors, story error categories, total

errors on stories and comprehension. Training of the

judges required approximately five hours. A random sample

of data from 30 subjects (with equal numbers from each of







the six treatment groups) was scored for reliability.

Percentage of agreement between two judges was used as

the measure of reliability. Percentage agreement was

defined as the number of agreements divided by the sum

of the number of agreements plus the number of disagreements,

multiplied by 100. The percentage agreement for total

errors on word lists was 99.28; for total errors on

stories, 98.651 for story error categories, 87.79: and

for total comprehension scores, 86.45. In the case of a

disagreement, the rater and the author discussed the

differences. In most cases, the data as scored by one of

the original experimenters were used for the analyses.
Data Analysis

The data required a four factor repeated measures

analysis of variance; the two Between subjects factors

were pictures and reading level and the two Within subjects

factors were difficulty level and trials (the four repeated

measurements). A Statistical Analysis System (SAS: Barr,

Goodnight, Sall and Helwig, 1976) general linear models

procedure was utilized to accommodate the data. The

general linear models (glm) procedure was chosen because

it provides tests of hypotheses for the effects of a

linear model regardless of the number of missing cells

or the degree of confounding in the model. SAS also

allows the user to specify one or more of four types of

sums of squares and their estimable functions. Type II SS

were suggested for use in the present analysis because they





27

provide the reduction in SS due to a particular effect,

given all other effects, i.e., only the parameters associ-

ated with the effect are involved.

Initial analyses were performed to determine any

main effects due to Experimenter or Sex and subsequent

analyses for main effects due to each of the four factors

and their interactions were performed for each of the

dependent variables.











RESULTS



Experimenter, Sex and Race Effects


Four separate analyses were employed to test for

an experimenter effect, each using the glm procedure.

The first was a model in which the effect of experimenter,

picture and level (of the subject's reading ability)

were tested for main effects and interactions on a sum

of errors across all trials. There was no significant

main effect for experimenter (F = 1.79, p <(.15) or
3,60
for any two-way or three-way interactions with picture

and level (See Table 1 ). Three subsequent analyses were

run using the same model, on the following combinations

of total errors on the repeated measures (trials): the

word lists before the stories, the stories, and the word

lists following the stories. None of these analyses was

significant either (See Table 1 ) despite the fact that

these extra analyses might increase the chance of finding

a significant effect, and so the variable experimenter

was dropped from the model.

To test for significant effects due to sex, a model

which included sex, picture and level was employed. There

was no significant main effect of sex (F 7 .69, p <.19)

nor any significant two-way interactions involving the















Table 1




Experimenter

Source df SS p


For Summed Errors

Experimenter

Experimenter x Pictures

Experimenter x Level

Experimenter x Pictures x
Level

Error

For Word List Before

Experimenter

Experimenter x Pictures

Experimenter x Level

Experimenter x Pictures x
Level

Error


3578.618

1499.097

2612.884


5288.464

39999.181



310.348

215.108

95.572


282.907

2820.128


1.79

0.37

1.31


n,s.

n.s.

n. s,


1.13 n.s.


2.20

0.76

0.68


n.s.

n.s.

n. s.


0.86 n.s.














Table 1 (cont.)


Source df SS F

For Stories

Experimenter 3 842.973 1.51 -.s.

Experimenter x Pictures 6 468.419 0.42 n.s.

Experimenter x Level 3 1221.357 2.19 n.s.

Experimenter x Pictures x
Level 7 2522.404 1.94 n.s.

Error 60

For Word List After

Experimenter 3 283.658 1.84 n.s.

Experimenter x Pictures 6 57.925 0.19 n.s.

Experimenter x Level 3 78.971 0.51 n.s.

Experimenter x Pictures x
Level 7 196.415 0.55 n.s.

Error 60 3079.331







independent variables picture and level (See Table 2 ).

There was, however, a significant three-way interaction

involving sex, picture and level (F = 2.89. p <.03).
4,71
Upon examination of the six picture-level treatment

combinations, it was determined that this effect may

have been the result of the particular below average-

no picture (BAN) grouping,l in which there were ten

males and three females. The fact that there was no

significant sex x level interaction was most likely due

to the occurrence in the BAWL group of an oppositely-

loaded imbalance of nine females and five males. At any

rate, this three-way interactions was not considered

important enough to leave the variable sex in the model

and so it was also dropped.

The effect due to race of the subject was not

included in the analysis. There were a total of 13 Black

children included in the study, one of whom was in a

superior reading group. Since no group contained an

equal number of Black and white children, it was felt that

the contribution of race to the differences between groups

would e a random effect. Consequently, due to the few

numbers of Black children, the variable race was not

included in the subsequent models for data analysis.

1Hereafter each of the six treatment groups will be
indicated by combinations of their letter abbreviations
for picture and level conditions, e.g., BAN=BA for below
average level plus N for the no picture condition.














Table 2


Sex


Source df SS p

Sex 1 345.657 1.69 n.s.

Sex x Pictures 2 284.040 C.07 n.s.

Sex x Level 1 84.347 C.-i n.s.

Sex x Pictures x Level 4 2359.781 2.;9 <0.0282

Error 71 14497.874








The Regression Model

Once the variables experimenter and sex were removed

from the model, a complete four-factor model was written

which included pictures, level, trials, (repeated measures)

and difficulty. The dependent variable was a corrected

total error score, i.e., for the stories, repeated errors

were subtracted from total errors to allow for fair

comparisons across trials. The design for this model was

based on a multifactor repeated measures plan found in

Winer (1962, p. 350). The model used the SAS glm pro-

cedure. A summary of this analysis of variance appears

in Table 3. There were main effects for all four factors

(Picturest F2-7=.85, p e_ .0001; Level: F 17 5.94,

p <-- .0001; Trialst F = 100.24, p< .0001; Difficulty:
3,539
P = 824.20, p .0001) and all two-way interactions
1,539
were also significant. There was also two three-way

interactions (pictures x level x trials and pictures x

level x difficulty) which were significant. Because these

significant three-way interactions involved both Between

and Within subjects factors and because each of the Between

and Within factors was crossed with the other, it was

necessary to perform a post-hoc analysis on all possible

pairs of the smallest cells (each four-way combination).

For this purpose, a Duncan's multiple comparison procedure












Table 3

Four Factor ANOVA


Source
Pictures

Level

Pictures x Level

Errori Subject (Pic-
tures x Level)

Trials

Pictures x Trials

Level x Trials

Pictures x Level
x Trials

Difficulty

Pictures x Difficulty

Level x Difficulty

Pictures x Level x
Difficulty

Trials x Difficulty

Pictures x Trials x
Difficulty

Level x Trials x Diffi-
culty

Pictures x Level x
Trials x Difficulty

Error


df SS

2 1534.143

1 3115.61L

2 601.755


6674.499

2115.157

236.760

233.175


111.624

5797.355

186.615

85.061


64.110

129.608


8.85

35.94

3.47


12.32

100.24

5.61

11.05


2.64

824.20

13.27

12.09


4.56

6.14


0. 003






<0.C101

< O.CC01




<0.0001

<0.0001

<0.0005


L0.0109

<0.0005


6 12.683 0.30 n.s.


3 19.132 0.91 n.s.


6 20.422

539 3791.297


0.48 n.s.








was utilized. Although Duncan's multiple comparison test

was not specifically designed for multiply classified

data, it is acceptable to use it for this purpose and

the User's Guide to SAS (Barr, Goodnight, Sall and

Helwig, 1976) specifies a procedure which allows for this

function. This procedure compared the 48 cells (four

of which were redundant for the control group since

control subjects received only three trials compared :o

four trials for the experimental groups) for significant

differences. Many of these comparisons were meaningless

and will not be reported here.

The Effect of Pictures on Total Errors

(Word Recognition)


The BAP treatment group differed from all other
groups on the most difficult story (x=21.93 errors).

Similarly, the BAP group differed significantly from

the BAN group on the easy story (x=12,00 vs. x=9.076,

respectively). In the other story condition (stories

with aid), again the effect of pictures on the two BA

groups was such that the group which received pictures

made significantly more errors on the difficult story

(x=16.64) than the group which received no pictures

(x-14.384). However, for the easy story with aid, the
two BA groups did not differ significantly ( BA=9.285,
BAN7.153).
xBAN-7.153).








For the superior groups, pictures did not produce

any significant differences on the difficult story or

the easy story. Nor did pictures significantly influence

differences between the two superior groups on the subse-

quent stories with aid.

The Effect of Context on Word Recognition

The control groups (SWL and BAWL) were included in

these comparisons to rule out possible explanations of

differences based on practice effects over trials. Or

the story conditions, it must be remembered that a fair

comparison dependent measure was obtained by subtracting

repeated errors from total errors.

The BA readers were clearly influenced by the

presence of context effects in stories. For the difficult

word list and story, the BAP group made significantly

more errors on stories (xWL=15.642 vs. XSTRY=21.928).

Again, for the easy word list and story, the effect of

context for this group was such that significantly fewer

errors were made on the word list (x=6.928 vs. x=12.000).

For the BAN group, results were parallels more errors

were made on stories than word lists, regardless of

difficulty of material (x=4.846 vs. x=9.O76 for the easy

material, x=12.769 vs. 16.000 for the difficult material).

None of the BA groups significantly differed from each

other on errors on the easy word list (XBAp=6.928,

XBAWL'4.857, XBAN4.846). The control group (BAWL) did








not differ significantly from the first presentation of

the word lists to the second, for either easy or difficult

material, thus ruling out a practice effect on the first

two trials.

The superior groups, on the other hand, did not

differ significantly on errors made on word lists vs.

stories regardless of difficulty of the material. The

SP and SN groups also did not differ from each other

significantly on these conditions, nor did the SP group

differ from the SWL group significantly. The means for

these groups appear in Table 4.

The Effect of Trials on Word Recognition

(Learning)

Comparisons were made between word lists given before

and after stories (or repeated presentations of the word

list in the case of the control groups) to assess for

learning.

For difficult material, every group made significant

gains over trials (See Table 4). Performance improvements

ranged from 4.643 to 2.571 words. The BAWL group made

the largest decrease in errors, an absolute difference

of 4.643, over trials.

However, this significant improvement in every group's

performance was not always the case for easy material

(See Table 4). There were no significant differences in













Table 4

Error Means on Word Lists


Difficult


WLB WLA


SP 8.214 4.500

BAP 15.643 11.357

SN 10.357 6.000

BAN 12.769 9.154

SWL 6.286 3.714

BAWL 10.286 5.643

Easy

WLB WLA

SP 2.286 1.571

BAP 6.928 4.143

SN 2.786 2.000

BAN 4.846 2.692

SWL 1.643 1.071

BAWL 4.857 2.071









the performance of superior readers across trials, on

easy material, which may have been due to small differ-

ences between basal and ceiling measures for these

readers. In general, superior readers did not make

as many errors in the first trials as below average

readers, thus there may have been little room for signifi-

cant improvement for the superior readers.

The Effect of Difficulty and Level on Word Recognition

Easy and difficult materials were clearly dis-

tinguished by number of errors made on each. In every

condition (WL, STRY, STRY with AID, and WL) there were

significant differences between easy and difficult

material for every group (SP, BAP, SN, BAN, SWL and BAWL).

In some cases, BA readers and S readers performed

equally well on material that had been designed to be

similarly easy and difficult for both groups. For

example, there were no significant differences between

BAWL, SN and SP groups or the BAN, BAWL and SN groups on

the easy word list. However, in most cases S readers made

fewer errors than BA readers on easy and difficult

material, e.g., on the difficult story, S readers made

significantly fewer errors than BA readers in the same

conditions (x s9.571, xB l21.928 x N=11.642, x N-16.000i
SP BAP SN BAN
x =6.857, x =9.857).
SWL BAWL








A multiple comparison test does not allow an effect

to be analyzed holding all other effects constant, so

that effects of difficulty and level on word recognition

have been reported elsewhere under the effects of

pictures and trials, since they are factors crossed with

these other factors. In addition, difficulty and context

effects are inseparable as reported above, though one may

still isolate one or the other factor.

Models for other Dependent Measures

For all other dependent measures, the data was

reorganized to look at only those groups and trials on

which these measures were recorded. An overall analysis

using a total model which included the independent varia-

bles picture, level, aid (formerly trials, the new varia-

bles included only two levels --- stories with aid and

stories without aid) and difficulty. A glm analysis of

variance was performed with this model on all dependent

variables. The story error category labeled "order" had

only two readings differing from zero and so was dropped

from the analyses. Also, the dependent variable affix

took a zero value in two of the subsequent analyses and

consequently an additional analysis excluding the variable

affix was performed for these two cases. A KYANOVA was

performed in the glm procedure using the full model to

test for main effects and interactions for all other

dependent variables including comprehension and story

error categories.









The Effect of Pictures on Other Measures

There was no significant main effect for pictures

for any of the other dependent variables which included

comprehension and story error types. A MANOVA test

using the Motelling-Lawley Trace also did not reject

the hypothesis of no overall pictures effect (12,40=0.74,

p 4.71). Similarly, there were no significant two-way,
three-way or four-way interactions involving the Dictures

variable.

The Effect of Aid, Level and Difficulty

on Story Error Categories

The MANOVA tests for main effects due to aid, level,

and difficulty yielded significant ratios. Since there

were also significant interactions among these factors,

the effects of each were studied by observing one varia-

ble at fixed levels of the other two. The results of

this procedure are presented in the subsequent sections

for the remaining dependent variables.

A general note in regard to the effects of the

independent variable aid is in order here. Since aid on

stories was always given in the same order, i.e., no

aid, then aid, there was no way to rule out an effect

of order when scores were higher due to aid. Thus, the








effects of aid and practice are confounded for all varia-

bles. This factor may alternatively or more appropriately

be seen as the effect of trials or practice, as it was in

the previous analysis for effects on total errors.

Comprehension

The dependent variable comprehension was considered

an important variable in this experiment, particularly

with regard to the effect of pictures on comprehension.

As presented above in Table AL the effect of pictures

on comprehension was nonsignificant.

The effect of difficulty on comprehension scores

was significant for both S and BA subjects on the first

stories (without aid). Superior readers had a mean

comprehension score of 3.928 on the difficult story vs.

a mean score of 5.000 on the easy story. Likewise, the

BA readers had a mean score of 1.222 on the difficult story

and a mean score of 3.555 on the easy story.

The effect of aid on comprehension was significant

for S and BA reader for difficult stories only. Superior

subjects had higher mean comprehension scores when aid

was given than when it was not (x=5.500 vs. x=3.928).

Similarly, BA subjects scored higher on the comprehension

measure when aid was given than when it was not

(x=4.296 vs. x=3.555).








The effect of level on comprehension was significant

in two cases: on the easy story with aid, superior

subjects had a mean score of 5.678 while below average

subjects had a mean score of 4.296; on the difficult

story without aid, superior subjects had a mean score

of 3.928 while BA subjects had a mean score of 1.222.

These significant results may not be easily interpreted

in the former case because of the effect of aid/practice,

but it is interesting to note that comprehension scores

of BA and S readers did not differ for easy stories

before aid, or for difficult stories with aid. The

results of these independent variables' effects on compre-

hension are summarized in Table of the Appendix.

Repetitions, Reversals, and Insertions

The results of the analyses of the effects on

repetitions, reversals and insertion errors are grouped

together because the analyses revealed no significant:

differences between groups for any combination of the

independent variables. The summary table for these results

appear in Table A2 of the Appendix.
Stem Errors

There was only one condition in which significant.

differences occurred in stem errors. This was for the

variable aid on BA reading of difficult stories. These

subjects made more stem errors (x=0.852) on stories before








aid than on stories with aid (x=0.370). Again, this

effect must be interpreted with caution since a practice

effect cannot be ruled out. The summary of results

appears in Table A3 of the Appendix.

Affix Errors

In two instances, errors of the affix type could

not be included in the overall model because the variable

affix took on only the value of zero which produced

singular error matrices. These were the analyses labeled

aid for BA subjects on easy material and level on easy

stories with aid. Additional analyses removing the

variable affix from the model were performed for the

other variables in these instances and are included in

the appropriate sections.

The effect of difficulty on affix errors was

significant only for the S readers, at both levels of

aid. The means for easy and difficult stories without

aid, respectively, were 0.071 and 1.607. Likewise, the

means for easy and difficult stories, respectively, with

aid were 0.000 and 1.107.

The effect of aid was nonsignificant at every combi-

nation of level and difficulty, except the one that could

not be computed due to zero values in both aid and no aid

conditions.








The effect of level was significant for difficult

stories with and without aid. There were no significant

effects for easy stories. On difficult stories without

aid, S readers made significantly more affix errors than

BA readers (x=1.607 vs. x=0.111). On difficult stories

with aid, S readers again made significantly more affix

errors (x=1.107) than BA readers (x=0.074). Results of

these analyses are summarized in Table A of the Appendix.

Substitutions

The effect of difficulty on substitution errors was

significant in every case except one. In general, both

BA and S readers made more substitutions on difficult

material. Superior readers made significantly different

mean substitutions 1.571 and 2.857 times, respectively,

on easy and difficult stories without aid; they obtained

significantly different mean substitution error scores

of 0.964 and 2.357, respectively, on easy and difficult

stories with aid. BA readers also obtained significantly

different mean substitution error scores of 3.852 and

5.815, respectively, on easy and difficult stories with
aid. Below average readers did not make significantly

different mean numbers of substitutions on easy or

difficult stories without aid.

The effect of aid or practice did not produce any

significant differences on substitution errors for three








out of four combinations of level and difficulty. How-

ever, for BA readers on easy material, aid was associated

with fewer substitution errors (x=3.852) than no aid

(x=6.185).

Readers' level contributed significantly to substi-

tutions on every combination of aid and difficulty. In

every case, S readers made fewer substitutions than BA

readers. The means were 1.571 and 0.964, respectively,

vs. 6.185 and 3.852, respectively, for superior vs.

below average readers on easy stories with and without

aid. For difficult stories with and without aid, re-

spectively, the mean scores were 2.857 and 2.357 for S

readers vs. 6.296 and 5.815 for 3A readers. Results of

the analyses for substitutions appear in Table Ac of

the Appendix.

Nonsense Errors

Difficulty of the reading material caused signifi-

cant differences in nonsense errors for superior readers

only, in both aid and no aid conditions. In the no aid

conditions, these subjects made more nonsense errors on

difficult material (x=2.893) than on easy material

(x=0.500). In the aid trials, S readers again made
significantly more errors on difficult material (x=1.250)

than on easy material (x=0.286).








Aid was a significant variable for S readers on

difficult stories (XNo Aid=2.893 vs' XAid=1250) and

for BA readers on easy stories (xNo Aid=1.888 vs.

xAid=1.148), in both cases aid or practice producing

fewer nonsense errors.

Level was significant for the difficult stories,

with and without aid. For stories without aid, S readers

made significantly more nonsense errors (x=2.893) than

BA readers (x=2.111). For stories with aid, however,

BA readers made significantly more errors (x=1.333) than

S readers (x=1.250). Table A6 of the Appendix summarizes

these results.

Omissions

For every analysis studying difficulty at four

combinations of level and aid, significant differences

existed. Superior readers made more omissions on diffi-

cult than easy material, regardless of aid. The means

were 4.571 and 0.714 errors, respectively, on difficult

and easy stories without aid. The means on difficult

and easy stories with aid were 4.250 and 0.786 errors,

respectively. Likewise, BA readers made significantly

more omissions on difficult than on easy material, re-

gardless of aid. On stories without aid, BA mean error

scores were 19.11 and 6.074, respectively, for difficult

and easy material. Similarly, on stories with aid, the

means were 12.630 errors vs. 3.630 errors, respectively,

for difficult vs. easy material.








The effect of aid or practice was significant in

two instances for BA readers only. These subjects made

fewer omissions with aid on both easy and difficult

stories. For the easy stories, the mean errors were

3.630 with aid and 6.074 without aid. For the difficult
stories, mean errors were 12.630 with aid and 19.111

without aid.

Level of subjects' reading ability was also an

important factor in omission errors, BA readers making

more omissions than S readers in every case (x3A=6.074

vs. xS=0.714 for easy stories without aid; XBA=19.111

vs. xs=4.571 for difficult stories without aid; XBA=3.630

vs. xS=0.786 for easy stories with aid; and xBA=12.630

vs. xS=4.250 for difficult stories with aid). Summa--r

of these results appears in Table A7 of the Appendix.

Self-Corrections

Difficulty did not affect mean numbers of self-

corrections to a significant extent, for any combination

of level and aid.

Aid or practice produced significant differences in

three instances: for both S and BA readers on easy

material and for S readers on difficult material. Mean

number of self-corrections were lower with aid or practice

than without it in these conditions. For S readers, the

mean scores were 1.428 and 1.857, respectively, for easy

and difficult stories without aid, and 0.571 and 0.893,

respectively, for easy and difficult stories with aid.








Below average mean scores for easy stories were 2.852

without aid and 1.555 with aid.

Level was a significant factor in self-corrections

in two cases, both on easy stories. On easy stories

without aid, S readers made fewer self-corrections

(x=1,428) than BA readers (x=2.852). On easy stories

with aid, S readers also made fewer self-corrections

than BA readers (x=0.571 vs. x=1.555). Again, since S

readers made so few errors, they could hardly self-

correct very much. Results are summarized in Table AS

of the Appendix.

Repeated Errors

In every case, repeated errors were more frequent

on difficult than easy material (x=3.107 vs. x=0.500

for S readers on stories without aid; x=0.893 vs. x=0.286

for S subjects on stories with aid; x=11.888 vs. x=5.592

for BA subjects on stories without aid; and x=6.074 vs.

x=1.481 for BA subjects on stories with aid).

Also, in every case, S readers made fewer repeated

errors than BA readers (see mean scores above).

The effect of aid or practice was significant in

three out of four combinations. Aid did not produce

significant differences in S readers' repeated errors on

easy stories without aid. In all other cases, though,





50


aid or practice produced fewer repeated errors than no

aid (see mean scores above). Results of these analyses

are summarized in Table A9 of the Appendix.













DISCUSSION



Pictures


The results from the analyses of the effect of

pictures on word recognition and types of errors provide

substantial support for the previous findings of Singer,

Samuels and Spiroff (1974) and Samuels (1967). Superior

readers did not differ on number of errors in picture

and no picture conditions, while below average readers

in the picture condition made significantly greater

numbers of errors than those in the no picture condition.

Thus it appears that pictures do indeed influence be-

ginning reading of below average ability. However, when

aid for a missed word was given on the easy stories,

pictures did not significantly influence differences

between the two below average groups. Thus, if a below

average reader has had practice with words and the words

are of an easier level, pictures may not interfere.

Pictures did not significantly influence compre-

hension or types of errors made. The result for compre-

hension is in line with earlier results of Vernon's (1954)

and supports Chall's (1967, p. 259) contention that while








full-color illustrations are the most expensive features

of reading texts, it has not been demonstrated that they

help children either to recognize words or comprehend

text. Given the finding that pictures interfere with

word recognition on stories for below average readers,

one might expect that as a result of that process, compre-

hension of story material should also be impaired. While

pictures did not significantly contribute to comprehension

scores, they also did not impair them in the present study.

It may be that better comprehension measures than the

crude one in the present study or the one in Vernon's

study (number of facts remembered about a story) need to

be developed to adequately assess the effect of pictures

on this measure of reading. A very detailed and complex

measure has very recently been developed by Drum (1977)

which may prove helpful in this regard. Another explanation

may be that even while pictures interfered with word recog-

nition for poorer readers, these readers may have used

the pictures or contextual cues in the stories to bring

them up to the level of the other readers on comprehension.

Still another alternative may be that superior readers were

able to recognize or sound out correctly more words, but

were not reading for meaning or understanding, since the

below average and superior groups did not differ from

each other in two cases of comprehension scores.








An additional original question was whether pictures

might not produce certain types of errors more frequently,

e.g., more types of errors which were nonsensical or not

graphically similar to the text, since the child might be

distracted by the pictures. The fact that pictures in

this study did not account for a significant amount of

variance between groups or particular types of errors

did not support this hypothesis. In the present study,

the number and distinction between types of errors may

have been too many or may have obscured the effect, but

the graphic similarity measure has at least partially

ruled out that explanation. A more precise measure of

graphic similarity, using a mathematical formula (Weber,

1970) may be a future task to undertake in this regard.

Yet the interpretation may simply be that while pictures

interfere with poorer readers' word recognition, these

children may use a combination of cues to produce their

wrong answers. This interpretation might concur with

Biemiller's (1970) notion of developmental phases in the

use of contextual and graphic information in learning to

read. Perhaps the poorer readers in the present study

would be in his "pre-nonresponding" phase in which there

is more reliance upon contextual cues. However, one

might expect to see better performance on stories than

word lists if this is the case. In the present study,








this result was not obtained for below average readers.

Still, the poorer readers may indeed have been relying

more on contextual cues which did not bring them success

on the stories.

These results imply readers of below average ability

may require early reading material without pictures and

with aid on focusing attention to graphic detail when

vocabulary is especially difficult for them. The fact

that the poorer readers performed better with aid is not

surprising since the experimenter's help on a given word

would most likely direct the reader's attention to the

word and thus force the reader to focus on the graphic

detail or configuration of the word. For easy material,

the below average readers may have mastered the words

enough to be able to use orthographical cues efficiently

without the frustration of difficult material which

might have forced them to turn to extragraphical infor-

mation. Pictures may serve this function for the below

average reader on difficult material, i.e., they may offer

the child an alternative method for decoding words which

is not successful since a picture cannot reliably direct

the child to an abstract symbolization or picture-word

association. There are two methods of beginning reading

instruction containing no pictures which do exist, based

on the author's beliefs that the child learning to read








should not rely on them. One method, the Bloomfield

system (1963) argues that the first task of learning

to read is breaking the code, or the alphabetic princi-

ple. Oral reading is stressed over silent reading at

first, and use of context cues is also discouraged.

The second method, the Carden Reading Method (Carden,

1967) also excludes pictures and emphasizes comprehension

and literary appreciation as well as phonic skills.

Though this study did not address the issue, pictures

may also inhibit a child's development of creative

imagery and storytelling techniques. In Chall's interview

(1967) of 25 reading specialists, one author said, ".

in first grade, pictures are a big part of our word-

analysis program, . but there is no question that

there may be a delimiting effect of pictures on concepts

and creativity. . (p. 70)". In addition, Chall suggests

that having children rely on pictures to learn to read

may rob them of early intellectual growth. She states,

"Pointing to and naming or writing a letter at an early

age is quite different from pointing to or drawing a

picture of a cat, truck or tree. The child who can

identify. .. a letter engages in symbolic representation.

When the child engages in symbolic representation, he is

already practicing a higher form of intellectual behavior

(1967, p. 159)". The author cites no research to support

these beliefs but it may well be another important issue

to study.








The possibility of a developmental trend over age

groups would be a further avenue to pursue in regard to

the picture question. Wardles' (1977) data may suggest

that older readers of below average ability may be

helped by the presence of pictures, on certain types

of material. Because of what appears to be the publishing

companies' insistence on more and more full-color illus-

trations in texts, do the reading series themselves set

up a learning paradigm in which children are shaped to

look at the pictures for clues because the answers to

the comprehension questions can more easily be found in

the pictures? Or, as a child grows older, do pictures

really begin to take on relevant meaning for text

material, especially in some content areas such as science?

The question of what is considered relevant for

picture content also arises. The present study did not

attempt to modulate relevancy, color or location of

pictures. The pictures used were relatively modest in

comparison to those in most readers; they were black and

white, story-related and were placed at the left side

of the story. Still they distracted below average

readers from the stories. The fact that the pictures

used in the present study did not contribute significantly

to comprehension scores or other types of errors may








reflect this simplicity of design. However, there is at

least one reading program, the Gibson-Richards program,

or Language through Pictures Series (1963) which uses

only black and white stick figures and argues for their

success in serving as useful clues to sentences. Ricnards

(1968) suggests the use of pictures of "hieroglyphic

simplicity --- not as cues merely to word meanings but

as an accompanying pictorial language, pruned of dis-

tractive possibilities (p. 362)". The position of

pictures as well as their stimulus content may be another

potential area of study. For example, if the pictures

are seen after the story, as in the Distar method (SEnel-

mann and Bruner, 1974) and not with the story, might

they be less likely to interfere with attention to

graphic detail, and more likely to reinforce the learning

of new words? This appears to be an exciting avenue to

pursue.

In summary, the results of the present study indicate

that pictures may interfere with beginning reading when

readers are of below average level. When the same words

have been used repeatedly, individual aid is given, and

the words are of an easy difficulty level, pictures may

no longer distract the poor reader. Pictures do not

appear to help or hinder superior beginning reading.








Also, the pictures used in this study did not contribute

significantly to comprehension scores or to particular

types of errors.

Context


The results of this study also support and extend

the focal attention hypothesis (Samuels, 1967) with

regard to the issue of contextual cues in reading.

Again, the poorer readers made more errors on stories

than on word lists, while those who received only word

lists did not differ across the two trials, -hus ruling

out a practice effect. While Samuels reported the

effect of pictures on poor reading, neither ne nor his

colleagues, Singer et al. (1974) reported the deleterious

contextual effect specifically for poor readers, They

did note overall reduced performance with context, but

did not report differences due to level of the readers.

This finding is in opposition to that of Goodman's (1965)

in which word recognition in stories was higher than that

on word lists, regardless of a subject's reading ability.

The fact that superior readers did not differ on

word recognition from word list to story may be interpreted

as support for a hypothesis such as that of 3iemiller's

(1970) in which readers progress to a stage in which they





59


utilize both graphic detail of individual words and

contextual information present in stories. The pattern

of errors revealed for superior readers on difficult

material would suggest that even superior readers,

though, may "regress" to an earlier developmental stage

when faced with difficult material. This error pattern

is discussed further in a later section.

Again, the results of the present study would

indicate that poorer readers do not learn words as

efficiently when they are presented in stories as when

they are presented in isolation on a word list.








Difficulty


The present study showed difficulty of reading

material to be an important factor to consider in

studies of beginning reading. Further refinement of

the process whereby easy and difficult material is

devised for below and above average readers is needed.

To make fair generalizations about the effect of any

other variable, difficulty levels for superior and below

average readers need to be equated at the beginning of

testing. This is not always easy to do for the be-

ginning reader of below average ability whose sight

vocabulary may not be very large to start with. The

present procedure was only partially successful because

below average readers made more errors than superior

readers even on easy material, but represents an improvement

over past studies which did not consider it as a varia-

ble. The study did allow superior and below average

readers to perform at comparable levels in many cases

(e.g., on comprehension of easy stories. Also, certain

other effects (e.g., the effects of level and practice)

were significant only for difficult or easy material,

and this is an important extension over previous studies.

An example of this was the significant effect of level

found only for the difficult stories on nonsense errors








superior readers made more nonsense errors than below

average readers on difficult stories without aid,

another example was that found for differences in before

and after word recognition --- for superior readers, the

effect was significant only for difficult material

which may have been due to the basal effect for superior

readers on easy material.


Learning


Learning, or improvement in word recognition across

trials occurred for all groups on difficult material

and for below average readers on easy material as well.

Even though practice effects were likely across so many

trials, the effects of aid from the experimenter were

most likely also contributory, because in the case of

superior and control subjects, no improvement occurred

in the two trials before aid was given though significant

improvement did occur in both groups after aid. This

result would seem obvious since giving the subject the

word would allow learning, but some practice effect of

trial and error may also have occurred across trials.

Learning appeared to be most enhanced for below

average readers, by a simple reading of a word list with

individual aid given on the unknown or missed words, and

a post-test of the same list to reinforce the learning.









No significant word knowledge was gained by superior

readers on easy material, but this was probably due to

the fact that the superior readers usually had fewer

new words to learn in the first place, and so their

improvement might be small in comparison to that of

below average readers. Yet, one might also expect the

opposite finding --- with fewer new words to learn,

superior readers might be expected to be able to master

them more easily than if they had many new words to learn.

The possibility exists that these readers were not

challenged by the easy material, which brings up the

question of how best to improve learning in superior

readers. Since pictures did not help or hinder their

reading and stories vs. word lists did not help or hinder,

the present data suggest material of sufficient difficulty

may be helpful in increasing these readers' sight vocabulary.


Types of Story Category Errors


Repetition, reversal, insertion and omission errors.

The present study found no differences between groups on

repetition reversal or insertion errors. The result for

reversals was somewhat surprising in view of the fact

that poor readers (especially dyslexic children) are

typically seen as evidencing more of these kinds of








errors (Meier, 1972). However, none of the first graders

in the present study had been identified as specifically

learning disabled nor did any attend a resource room as

part of their school program. Many of the poor readers

had been recommended for a summer remedial reading

program, but were ineligible to participate because

their scores were above the 20th and 30th percentiles

on the Metropolitan Reading test. So, the population

of poor readers studied here may be distinct from more

severely disabled readers in terms of their error patterns.

There were also no differences between groups on

numbers of repetitions or insertions. Thus, both superior

and below average readers may repeat words for other

reasons than difficulty of the word. Likewise, below

average readers in general did not appear to insert

irrelevant or extraneous words into stories more often

than superior readers, as might have been guessed. However,

below average readers did omit significantly more words

than superior readers and this may have been their pattern

of approach to a difficult or unknown word. Below average

readers also made more self-corrections than superior

readers on easy stories, but both groups made equal

numbers on difficult material. This result may again be

due to the basal effects for superior readers on easy

material.








Types of substitution errors. Stem, affix, substi-

tution and nonsense errors may all be seen as particular

types of substitutions of words other than the text

words. As might be expected on an error type which con-

tains part of the correct word, superior readers made

more affix errors than below average readers. This was

also the case for nonsense errors on difficult stories

without aid. Nonsense errors and graphic similarity

were highly correlated at .72, so that this finding may

not be as surprising as one might at first think.

Nonsense errors are simply incomplete or meaningless

words and may still represent an attempt to decode the

material. However, this finding was reversed on stories

with aid, in which below average readers made more

nonsense errors. It may be that, as attention was drawn

to the words with individual aid, initial attempts at

recognition, or a vacillation between word and picture,

yielded these types of errors. Also, the effect of aid

may have been to motivate the poor readers to try to

decode or sound out the words which would also produce

more nonsense errors. The general results may also

suggest though, that the superior readers were at first

reading difficult material word by word, not relying on

the contextual cues of the sentences, but with aid and




65


practice began to do so, or that with aid, they began

to use both contextual and graphic cues, as Biemiller

(1970) suggests. The fact that poorer readers made
more substitutions of complete and meaningful words

than better readers also implies that the poorer readers

may rely heavily on meaning and contextual cues in

reading, but that these strategies are largely unsuc-

cessful for them in learning to recognize new words.














CONCLUSION




The results of the present investigation point

out several important findings. Firstly, pictures and

contextual cues do not appear to contribute significantly

to beginning reading and especially appear to interfere

with poorer readers' acquisition of new word vocabulary.

Secondly, difficulty of the material used can be an

important variable in studies comparing below and above

average reading. Thirdly, several interpretations were

made about the relative differences between these two

groups on particular types of errors. The characterization

of the superior reader as an efficient user of both

context and graphic detail may be questionable in certain

cases of difficult material, and characterization of

poorer readers as strugglers for meaning in reading may

be justified on the basis of these results. When material

is very difficult, superior readers may tend to decode

words graphically rather than using both contextual and

graphic information. Poorer readers tend to rely on

inappropriate strategies, utilizing meaning and contextual

cues on difficult material but aid may assist them in more

attempts to decode words.





67


Many future studies suggested here may hold

interesting answers to the questions raised by this

study. For example, an extension of the present study

over second and third grades, with a follow-up at grade

seven would provide much needed data on the develop-

mental trends which may be present in the use of pic-

torial and contextual cues in easy and challenging

reading.









REFERENCES


Barr, A. J., Goodnight, J.H., Sail, J.P., and Helwig, J.T.
A User's Guide to SAS, Raleigh, N.C., SAS Institute,
Inc.: 1976.

Biemiller, A. The development of the use of graphic and
contextual information as children learn to read.
Reading Research Quarterly, 1970, 6, 75-96.

Bourisseau, W., Davis, O.L. & Yamamoto, K. Sense-im-
pression responses to differing pictorial and verbal
stimuli. Audio-Visual Communication Review, 1965.
249-258.

Bloomfield, L., & Barnhart, C.L. Let's Read (experimental
ed.), 1963, Bronxville, N.Y. Clarence L. Barnhart,
Inc.

Carden, M. The Carden Method, Mae Carden, Inc., l3en
Rock, N.J.7, 1T5.

Chall, J.S. Learning to Read: The Great Debate, New York:
Mc raw- iI7-, 1677

Cohen, A.S. Oral reading errors of first grade children
taught by a code emphasis approach. Reading Research
Quarterly, 1975, lo, 616-650.

Concannon, S.J. Illustrations in books for children
review of research. The Reading Teacher, 1975,
Dec., 254-256.

Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure
of tests. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 297-334.

Duell, 0. An analysis of prompting procedures for teaching
a sight vocabulary. American Educational Research
Journal, 1968, 5, 675-66.

Drum, P.A. Types of recall response by good and poor
readers. Paper presented at the Second Annual Boston
University Conference on Language Development, Sep.
30-Oct. 1, 1977.








Elkind, D., Larson, M., & Van Doorninck, W. Perceptual
decentration learning and performance in slow and
average readers. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1965, 56, 50-56.

Engelmann, S., & Bruner, E.C. Distar Reading System,
1974, Science Research Associates, Inc., Chicago.

Fairbanks, 3. The relation between eye-movements and
voice in the oral reading of good and poor silent
readers. Psychological Monographs, 1937, 48, 78-107.

Gibson, C.M., & Richards, I.A. Language through Pictures
Series, 1963, Washington Square Press, Pocket BooKs,
Inc., New York.

Soodman, K.S. A linguistic study of cues and miscues in
reading. Elementary English, 1965, 42, 639-643.

Goodman, Y.M. Longitudinal study of children's oral
reading behavior. Final report. Contract No. 03E
-5-9-325062-0046. U.S. Offices of Education, 1971.

Goodman, Y.M., & Burke, C.L. The Reading Miscue Inventory.
New York: Macmillan, 1972.

Hartley, R.N. Effects of list types and cues on the
learning of word lists. Reading Research Quarterly,
1970, 6, 97-121,

Hood, J. Qualitative analysis of oral reading errors: the
inter-judge reliability of scores. Reading Research
Quarterly, 1976, 4, 577-598.

Marchbanks, G., & Levin, H. Cues by which children
recognize words. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1965, 56, 57-61,

Meier, J.H. Learning disabilities found in elementary
schools. In P. Satz and J.J. Ross (Eds.), The
disabled learner, 1973, Rotterdam University-Press,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp. 101-120.

Miller, W.A. Reading with and without pictures. Elementary
School Journal, 1938, 38, 676-682.

Piaget, J., & Morf, A. Les isomorphismes partiet/s entire
les structures logiques et les structures perceptives.
In J. Piaget (Ed.) Etudes d'Epistemologie Genetique,
Vol. 6, Paris: Presses Universitaries de trance, 1958.








Richards, I.A. Book review of J. Chall's Learning to
Read: The Sreat Debate. Harvard Educational
Review, --6B -7 -7357-64.

Sabatino, D.A., & Ysseldyke, J.E. Effect of extraneous
"background" on visual-perceptual performance of
readers and non-readers. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
1972, 35, 323-328.

Samuels, S.J. Attentional processes in reading: the
effects of pictures on the acquisition of reading
responses. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1967, 58, 337-342. -

Schonell, F.J. The Psychology and Teaching of Reading,
1961, Philosophical Library,- New York.

Singer, H., Samuels, S.J., & Spiroff, J. The effects of
pictures and contextual conditions on learning
responses to printed words. Reading Research
Quarterly, 1974, 4, 555-567.

Tarver, S.3., & Hallahan, D.P. Attention deficits in
children with learning disabilities: a review,
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 9, 560-569.

Underwood, 3.J. Stimulus selection in verbal learning.
In C.N. Cofer & B.S. Musgrave (Eds.), Verbal Behavior
and Learning: Problems and Processes, 1976 Mc3raw-
Hl, New York.

Vernon, M.D. The instruction of children by pictorial
illustrations. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1954,- 171--T79. -

The value of pictorial illustrations.
ritishr Journal of Educational Psychology, 1953, 23,
180-17. -

Wardle, K.F. Textbook illustrations do they aid reading
comprehension? Paper presented at the American
Psychological Association, San Francisco, August, 1977.

Weber, R.M. First-graders' use of grammatical context in
reading. In H. Levin & J.P. Williams (Eds.), Basic
Studies on Reading, 1970, Basic Books, Inc., New York.

SThe study of oral reading errors a survey
of the literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 1968,
4, 96-119.





71


Weintraub, S. The effect of pictures of the comprehension
of a second grade basal reader. Dissertation
Abstracts, Dec., 1960, 1428-1429.

Whipple, G. Appraisal of the interest appeal of illus-
trations. Elementary School Journal, 1953, 53,
262-269.

Winer, 3.J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design,
1962, Mc -aw-ri, New York.




































APPENDIX










Table Al

Comprehension


Source

Difficulty


Level=l, Aid=l

Error

Level=l, Aid=2

Error

Level=2, Aid=l

Error

Level=2, Aid=2

Error


Level=l, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=l, Difficulty=2

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=2

Error


16.071

315.429

0.446

166.304

73.500

88.333

3.130

148.333



6.446

13.304

34.571

258.429

7.407

60.204

90.741

209.481


4.32 <0.0439


0.08 n.s.



23.69 o.oo001



0.41 n.s.


1.32 n.s.



6.67 <0.0135



2.62 n.s.


12.76 <0.0010


S SS p










Table Al (cont.)









Source df SS ?

Level

Difficulty=l, Aid=l 1 28.679 3.39 n.s.
Error 26 219.666

Difficulty=l, Aid=2 1 26.263 5.13 <0.322

Error 26 133.237

Difficulty=2, Aid=l 1 100.676 10.58 \0.0032
Error 26 247.524

Difficulty=2, Aid=2 1 39.035 3.26 n.s.
Error 26 311.074













Table A2

Repetitions, Reversals


and Insertions


Source df SS p


Repetitions
Difficulty

Level=l, Aid=l

Error

Level=l, Aid=2

Error

Level=2, Aid=l

Error

Level=2, Aid=2

Error


Level=l, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=l, Difficulty=2

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=2

Error


1.143

13.357

0.000

7.71h

0.463

16.833

3.130

148.333





0.446

13.304

0.161

11.732

5.352

13.750

0.019

34.833


1.74


n.s.


0.00 n.s.



0.25 n.s.


0.41


n.s.


0.59 n.s.



0.27 n.s.



4.92 <0.0324



0.01 n.s.






76







Table A2 (cont.)


Source df SS p


Level

Difficulty=l,



Difficulty=l,



Difficulty=2,



Difficulty=2,


Aid=l

Error

Aid=2

Error

Aid=l

Error

Aid=2

Error


2.179

29.157

0.0395

18.098

3.41"

34.427

1.727

35.709


1.94 n.s.



0.06 n.s.


2.58


n.s.


1.26 n.s.


Reversals

Difficulty

Level=l, Aid=l

Error

Level=l, Aid=2

Error

Level=2, Aid-1

Error

Level=2, Aid=2

Error


0.0000

4.8571

2.9286

0.6429

0.0000

11.2593

0.4629

1.7500


0.00 n.s.



1.18 n.s.



0.00 n.s.


1.94


n.s.













Table A2 (cont.)


Source df SS ? p


Level=l, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=l, Difficulty=2

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=2

Error


0.0179

9.3036

0.8750

4.2321

0.6667

4.1481

0.0185

7.0833


3.18 n.s.



2.79 n.s.



1.70 n.s.


0.06


n.s.


Level

Difficulty=l,



Difficulty=l,



Difficulty=2,



Difficulty=2,


Aid=l

Error

Aid=2

Error

Aid=l

Error

Aid=2

Error


0.051

13.058

0.841

5.459

0.051

11.058

0.318

4.864


0.09 n.s.


4.01


n.s.


0.12 n.s.



1.70 n.s.













Table A2 (cont.)


source at ss


Insertions

Aid

Level=l, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=l, Difficulty=2

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=2

Error


1.143

7.857

0.000

2.428

0.1852

3.1204

1.852

7.342


2.30 n.s.



0.00 1.000



0.08 n.s.


2.04


n. s.


Level

Difficulty=l,



Difficulty=l,



Difficulty=2,



Difficulty=2,


Aid=l

Error

Aid=2

Error

Aid=l

Error

Aid=2

Error


0.011

7.416

1.051

9.149

1.601

16.381

0.012

6.288


0.04


n. s.


2.99 n.s.


2.54


n.s.


0.05 n.s.


F p













Table A2 (cont.)


Source df SS p


Insertions

Difficulty

Level=l, Aid=l

Error

Level=l, Aid=2

Error

Level=2, Aid=l

Error

Level=2, Aid=2

Error


0.018

4.232

1.446

6.875

1.500

9.333

0.074

2.833


0.09 n.s.



2.85 n.s.



1.95 n.s.



0.23 n.s.












Table A3

Stem Errors


Source d SS p

Difficulty

Level=l, Aid=l 1 0.013 0.03 n.s.


Error

Level=l, Aid=2

Error

Level=2, Aid=l

Error

Level=2, Aid=2

Error


Level=l, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=l, Difficulty=2

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=2

Error


5.232

0.286

7,714

2.666

10.342

0.166

3.648



0.161

11.303

0.000

5.000

0.2963

8.0000

3.130

10.583


0.59 n.s.



2.92 n.s.



0.47 n.s.





0.30 n.s.



0.00 1.000



0.65 n.s.



4.50 <0.0403











Table A3 (cont.)





Source df SS

Level

Difficulty=l, Aid=l 1 0.0-& 0.07 n.s.

Error 26 16.983

Difficulty=l, Aid=2 1 0.132 0.40 n.s.

Error 26 8.61l

Difficulty=2, Aid=l 1 1.702 2.78 n.s.

Error 26 15.907

Difficulty=2, Aid=2 1 0.231 0.53 n.s.

Error 26 11.296












Table A4

Affix Errors


Source df SS p


Difficulty


Level=l, Aid=l

Error

Level=l, Aid=2

Error

Level=2, Aid=l

Error

Level=2, Aid=2

Error


33.018

13.304

17.161

4.589

0.166

0.583

0.074

0.426



0.071

0.928

3.500

31.857

CANNOT



0.018

1.287


Level=l, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=l, Difficulty=2

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=2

Error


31.31 .0.0001



31.85


3.12 n.s.



2.03 n.s.




1.00 n.s.



3.02 n.s.



BE COMPUTED



0.22 n.s.












Table A4 (cont.)


Source df SS

Level

Difficulty=l, Aid=l 1 0.070 0.98 n.s,

Error 26 1.857

Difficulty=l, Aid=2 CANNOT BE COMPUTED

Error

Difficulty=2, Aid=l 1 30.764 26.36 0.0001

Error 26 30.345

Difficulty=2, Aid=2 1 14.669 38.03 0.o0001

Error 26 10.030











Table A5

Substitutions


Source df SS F p


Difficulty

Level=l, Aid=l

Error

Level=l, Aid=2

Error

Level=2, Aid=l

Error

Level=2, Aid=2

Error


Aid

Level=l, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=l, Difficulty=2

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=2

Error


23.1L3

60.429

27.161

51.304

0.166

157.120

52.018

123,000



5.161

41.232

3.500

78.857

73.5000

167.9815

3.130

129.083


4.02 0.0515



19.85 <0.000oo


0.01 n.s.



4.35 -0.0136





1,99 n.s.



0.81 n.s.



9.44 <0.0039



0.17 n.s.











Table A5 (cont.)


Source

Level

Difficulty=l, Aid=l

Error

Difficulty=l, Aid=2

Error

Difficulty=2, Aid=l

Error

Difficulty=2, Aid=2

Error


ba



292.596

198.431

114.610

95.372

162.575

179.058

164.334

177.003


35.34 LO.cOOl



31.24 "0.C001



23.61


24.14 <0.0001


`"













Table A6

Nonsense Errors


SSource df SS p


Difficulty

Level=l, Aid=l

Error

Level=l, Aid=2

Error

Level=2, Aid=l

Error

Level=2, Aid=2

Error


Level=l, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=l, Difficulty=2

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=2

Error


80.161

61.089

13.018

20.732

o.666

51.500

0.463

51.620


0.643

9.357

37.786

109.214

7.4074

24.9815

8.166

42.583


20.72 <0.0001



9.49 <0.0037


0.21 n.s.



0.22 n.s.




1.23 n.s.



9.89 .0.0031



4.06 .0.0507



1.85 n.s.














Table A6 (cont.)


Source df SSI p


Level

Difficulty=l,



Difficulty=l,



Difficulty=2,



Difficulty=2,


Aid=l

Error

Aid=2

Error

Aid=l

Error

Aid=2

Error


26.515

32.166

10.224

19.622

8.400

137.345

0.095

83.750


21.43 0.0001



13.55 c0.0011



1.59 n.s.



0.03 n.s.















Table A7

Omissions


Source Fd-F SS F p


Difficulty

Level=l, Aid=l

Error

Level=l, Aid=2

Error

Level=2, Aid=l

Error

Level=2, Aid=2

Error


Level=l, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=l, Difficulty=2

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=2

Error


208.286

183.357

168.018

141.732

2294.518

2635.037

1093.500

1206.342



0.071

20.000

1.446

455.303

80.6667

557.8148

567.130

3738.342


13.32 -0.0007



2C.37 <0.0001


2'.67 O0.0001



25.29 <0.0001


0.05 n.s.



0.08 n.s.



4.48 0.0407



5.69 z0.022






89





Table A7 (cont.)


Source

Level

Difficulty=l, Aid=


Difficulty=l,



Difficulty=2,



Difficulty=2,


=1


Error

Aid=2

Error

Aid=l

Error

Aid=2

Error


394.870

507.066

111.171

234.511

2905.822

3341.024

965.181

1481.046


20.25 -0.0001



12.33 <0.0017



22.61 /0.0001



1~.94 c0.0003


"~ --














Table A8

Self-Corrections


Source

Difficulty

Level=l, Aid=l

Error

Level=l, Aid=2

Error

Level=2, Aid=l

Error

Level=2, Aid=2

Error

Aid

Level=l, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=l, Difficulty=2

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=2

Error


dl 55 7


2.571

22.857

1.446

10.732

16.664

91.259

0.166

33.750



10.286

15.500

13.018

25.875

22.6852

84.0093

1.185

40.537


1.29 n.s.



2.60 n.s.


2.69



0.08


n.s.



n.s.


8.08 -0.007



12.07 L0.0012



5.82 <0.0207


0.28


n.s.













Table A8 (cont.)


Source df 5

Level

Difficulty=l, Aid=l 1 27.844 5.90 40.0224
Error 26 122.764

Difficulty=l, Aid=2 1 13.313 13.05 <0.0013

Error 26 26.524

Difficulty=2, Aid=l 1 0.186 0.06 n.s.

Error 26 83,114

Difficulty=2, Aid=2 1 4.182 2.04 n.s.
Error 26 53.345












Table A9

Repeated Errors




- Source -f SS ? p


Difficulty

Level=l, Aid=l

Error

Level=l, Aid=2

Error

Level=2, Aid=l

Error

Level=2, Aid=2

Error


Level=l, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=l, Difficulty=2

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=l

Error

Level=2, Difficulty=2

Error


95.161

38.589

5.161

9.804

535.185

658.620

284.741

142.083



0.643

14.857

68. 6L3

38.000

228.1667

152.4259

456.463

741.981


22.54 <0.0001



6.92 <0.0120



19.79 c0.0001


25.92 <0.0001




2.22 n.s.



15.02 <0.0004



20.19 <0.0001



18.77 <0.0001












Table A9 (cont.)






Source df SS

Level

Difficulty=l, Aid=l 1 356.481 38.86 0.o0001
Error 26 238.519

Difficulty=l, Aid=2 1 19.654 17.96 <0.0002
Error 26 28.455

Difficulty=2, Aid=l 1 1060.036 33.97 <0.0001
Error 26 811.345

Difficulty=2, Aid=2 1 368.997 42.54 <0.0001
Error 26 225.530




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs