Citation
Alternative teaching strategies, reading comprehension and attitude

Material Information

Title:
Alternative teaching strategies, reading comprehension and attitude an experiment with seventh grade language arts students
Creator:
Kaplan, Jeffrey Stuart, 1951-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xii, 239 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Art teachers ( jstor )
Educational administration ( jstor )
Educational strategies ( jstor )
Learning ( jstor )
Reading comprehension ( jstor )
Reading instruction ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Short stories ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Curriculum and Instruction thesis Ph.D
Dissertations, Academic -- Curriculum and Instruction -- UF
Reading (Secondary) -- Florida -- Marion County ( lcsh )
Reading comprehension -- Study and teaching ( lcsh )
Marion County ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 1985.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 227-236.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jeffrey Stuart Kaplan.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
030321977 ( ALEPH )
16663961 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

ALTERNATIVE TEACHING STRATEGIES, READING COMPREHENSION AND ATTITUDE: AN EXPERIMENT WITH SEVENTH GRADE LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENTS By JEFFREY STUART KAPLAN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1985

PAGE 3

Copyright 1985 by Jeffrey Stuart Kaplan

PAGE 5

to my wife, Renee, "ma amie, bon amie" with profound love and deep admiration

PAGE 6

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are no words to express my appreciation to Dr. Theodore W. Hippie. He truly changed my life. From our first meeting, his keen intelligence and sharp humor inspired me to become a better educator and scholar than I ever thought possible. Dr. Hippie served as the original chairman of this study and his endless patience and valuable suggestions were vital to its completion. For his faithful dedication, continuous support, and sincere friendship, I will be forever grateful. To Dr. H. Thompson Fillmer, I offer my sincerest gratitude for participating in the completion of this study. His professional dedication and scholarship continually served to help me clarify my own thoughts and writing. His assuming the chairmanship of my doctoral committee was truly a high note in my academic career. A very special "thank you" is expressed to Dr. Steven J. Olejnik for his belief in my goal and his determination to see me realize it. His unfailing wisdom, patience, and generosity will always be held in the highest esteem. My doctoral program unofficially began when I was introduced to two kind and devoted teachers— Dr. Eugene Todd and Dr. Robert G. Wright. When I first thought of becoming a teacher. Dr. Todd's generous advice, support, and faith provided me with the impetus to start an exciting and rewarding career. To Dr. Wright, I extend an expression IV

PAGE 7

of sincere and profound gratitude for his awakening in me the endless possibilities of making teaching a joy for both me and my students. I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to Dr. Robert Jester for forming part of my doctoral committee and carefully guiding me toward my completion. He taught me that brevity is the true soul of wit and wisdom and that statistics should always reflect this truth. My thanks are extended to Dr. Albert Wehlburg for forming part of my doctoral committee and for always being prepared to help when needed and to Dr. Michael Nunnery for his revisions and support. Deepest appreciation is due to Dr. Esther Oteiza, Supervisor of Foreign Languages and Fine Arts, Ms. Faye Gardner, Program Manager of Florida Diagnostic Learning Resources and the Marion County School Board, for their cooperation in this study. Special mention must be made to Ms. Shirley Nichols, my former principal and currently Supervisor of Language Arts, for her believing in me so early in my career. The accessibility and support of these people made this study a reality. Many friends and colleagues have helped greatly in the completion of this dissertation. Dr. Leonard Rhine will always be remembered for his professional advice and good Friendship, and his wife Helene, for her faithful love and support; Dr. Robert Carroll for his insight, creativity, and good humor; Linda and Glenn Shuman and Terri and Dale Camillo for lending an ear during the difficult times; and Joanne McGinnis for always reminding me that things are often not as tough as they sometimes seem. My wife's parents, Seymour and in loving memory Miriam, and her family were always present in my thoughts throughout this process.

PAGE 8

Their trusting faith in my abilities has always made my life easier. This report also reflects the feelings and attitudes of my beloved grandparents, Frieda and in loving memory Albert Fox, and Ada and in loving memory Abram Kaplan, who were the Mery first to nourish in me the importance of education, learning, and striving. Their devotion and love is deeply a part of this work. I lovingly thank my sister. Dr. Paula J. Kaplan, and her husband, Richard, and my brother, Dr. Gary P. Kaplan, and his wife, Wendy, and their lovely children, Judith and Rachel, for just being themselves. They have always been a constant source of joy and love. Words cannot properly express what I feel for my parents. My father, James, and my mother, Anita, are both educators in the truest sense of the word. My father has been active in education in New York state for over 40 years as a teacher, guidance counselor, and admission representative. My mother has been a substitute teacher and a seventh grade English teacher for nearly as many. Most importantly, though, they have always treated their home like an ideal classroom. They have filled it with wisdom and joy. Finally, there is throughout this study a reflection of the love and devotion of my wife, Renee. It was she who first taught me how to teach creatively. As she has achieved in education herself, I have always admired her unerring good judgment, her faithfulness to an ideal, and her love of learning. More than my wife, she is my best friend, and with this, I lovingly dedicate this work. VI

PAGE 9

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv LIST OF TABLES x ABSTRACT. ^i CHAPTER ONE THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION 1 Introduction 1 Background to the Probl em 5 What Is Comprehension? 6 Teaching Comprehension Skills 7 The Probl em 9 Strategy 12 Purposes J^ Significance 16 Assumptions and Limitations 18 Assumptions 1° Limitations 20 Definition of Terms 21 Research Questions and Hypotheses 23 Factor A: Teaching Strategy 23 Factor B: Readi ng Atti tude 26 Summary of Purposes and Strategy 26 Organization of the Study 28 TWO REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH 30 Position of the Question 30 Level of the Question 37 Oral and Written Questions 43 Reading Attitude and Teacher Strategy 46 Summary *^ THREE METHODOLOGY 52 Design of the Study 52 Revision of a Previous Research Design 54 vn

PAGE 10

Page The Participants and Their Selection 56 Description of the Testing Instrument 57 Pil ot Study 58 Selection of the Treatment Material 60 Development of the Treatment Questions 61 Readi ng Atti tude Inventory 63 Data Collection 64 Data Analysis 65 Summary 66 FOUR PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 70 Statistical Analysis of the Data 70 The Nine Hypotheses 71 Data Analysis for Hypotheses One Through Four 72 Data Analysis for Hypotheses Five Through Eight 78 Data Analysis for Hypothesis Nine 86 Summary 88 FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 89 Background and Purpose of the Study 89 Research Questions and Hypotheses 92 Study Design 95 Data Collection 96 Conclusions 98 Implications 104 Recommendations 107 APPENDIX A THE MARION COUNTY SEVENTH GRADE READING EXAMINATION Ill B THE SAN DI EGO READING ATTITUDE SURVEY 141 C TEXT OF SHORT STORIES READ BY ALL TREATMENT GROUPS 144 D TREATMENT PREQUESTIONS FOR EACH SHORT STORY 160 E TREATMENT POSTQUESTIONS FOR EACH SHORT STORY 162 F THE BARRETT TAXONOMY COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE DIMENSIONS OR READING COMPREHENSION 168 S RESULTS OF READING SPECIALISTS' CONSENSUS ON BARRETT TAXONOMY READING COMPREHENSION TREATMENT QUESTION LEVEL 170 H THE STATISTICAL TABLES 175 viii

PAGE 11

Page REFERENCES 227 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 237 1x

PAGE 12

LIST OF TABLES Table iMl 1 Summary of Mean Numbers and Standard Deviations for Student Correct Preand Postscores I by Teacher x Teaching Strategies 73 2 Summary of Mean Numbers and Standard Deviations for Student Correct Preand Postscores II by Teacher x Teaching Strategies 79 3 Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for San Diego Reading Scores 87

PAGE 13

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ALTERNATIVE TEACHING STRATEGIES, READING COMPREHENSION AND ATTITUDE: AN EXPERIMENT WITH SEVENTH GRADE LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENTS by Jeffrey Stuart Kaplan December, 1985 Chairman: Dr. H. Thompson Fillmer Major Department: Instruction and Curriculum The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of three language arts teaching strategies on the gains in reading comprehension in seventh graders. Reading attitude scores as a function of teachers and teaching strategies were also analyzed. Five teachers, 15 classes, and 326 seventh graders were involved in a control group pretest-posttest experimental design. The following treatments were randomly assigned for each of the five instructors: 1) a group which read stories without any instruction. 2) a group which read stories with written instructions. 3) a group which read stories with oral instructions. Stories were from Scholastic Double Action Short Stories and were geared for low-level, high-interest readers. Questions were arranged according to T.C. Barrett's Cognitive and Affective Dimensions of Reading Comprehension. XT

PAGE 14

Teaching strategies were administered by teachers who volunteered to participate in the study. The strategies were administered once a week for five weeks to 326 average ability seventh graders in Marion County, Florida. Average ability was predetermined by scores on the Comprehensive Test of the Basic Skills and teacher evaluation. Preand post-reading comprehension scores were measured on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. Reading attitude was measured on the San Diego Reading Attitude Survey administered at the experiment's conclusion. Nine hypotheses for teaching strategies and teachers were tested at the alpha level .05. Analysis of the data revealed that only for certain instructors were there significant differences among the teaching strategies. No teaching strategy prevailed as the sole instructional design to use in increasing scores for reading comprehension and reading attitude. There were three implications from this study. First, teachers play a significant role in determining the success of any teaching method. Second, questions should be used in both preand postpositions to assure adequate preparation. Third, teachers play a modest role in shaping reading attitude. xn

PAGE 15

CHAPTER ONE THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION Introduction Since the Greek philosopher Socrates, questions have always been central to learning. Questions have been an integral, if not the integral, component in managing the flow of knowledge as they have served to focus thought and provide a means for determining relevant from irrelevant information. Questions have also served to underline major relationships as well as to create new ideas and insights. More importantly, the manner in which questions are phrased and sequenced has influenced the quality, the importance, and the correctness of conclusions and the application of those conclusions. English teachers, like all teachers, have used questions to encourage their students to think critically about their reading. Oral and written questioning techniques have been used repeatedly in the hope that students would incorporate these strategies into their own reading and hence become better readers. Yet, the potential benefit of questioning strategies in teaching cannot be assumed without a substantial research base. Within the last two decades, extensive research has been directed to questions and questioning strategies. Information from this research reveals that educators have been using limiting questioning techniques. For example, in a review of a half-century on teacher 1-

PAGE 16

-2questioning. Gall (1970) concluded that about 60% of teachers' questions require students to recall only facts. The result is that teachers have been primarily asking questions about the specific information students possessed rather than questions to promote learning. Questions, as Taba (1971) has rightly concluded, must serve in lifting the level of thought in the learning process. To paraphrase Hyman (1979), questions must both help the student learn the material at hand as well as generalize from it. Scheffler (1973), in his essay "Moral Education and the Democratic Ideal," sees questioning as the key means of becoming critical, of learning to reason, and of being reasonable. Scheffler greatly emphasizes questioning and reasonableness since he believes reasonableness is the connecting link for society and the foundation for critical thinking. Critical thinking is important because it encourages students to ask questions, to look for evidence, to seek and scrutinize alternatives, and to be skeptical of their own ideas as well as others. It is, as Rominett Stevens (1912) writes, the "leading out" (Stevens, 1912, p. 2) of what is in the mind of the pupil. Research about questioning and critical thinking increased in the early 1950s. Educators sought ways to vitalize American schooling and then with the launching of Sputnik in 1957, curriculum planners worked even more extensively to prove that the American educational system could produce researchers and thinkers as great as the Russians. As a result, various scholars seriously questioned the reliance by many teachers, textbooks, and curriculum packages of solely factual

PAGE 17

questions to stimulate thought and comprehension. Educators wanted students to experience evaluative questions as well so that students would become critical thinkers and eventually scholars. After all, scholars were not passive receivers of information; they were active searchers. Gradually, curriculum projects shifted in emphasis from learning solely content to learning process. Content refers to the accumulation of facts, concepts, and generalizations. Process refers to the techniques of dealing with content in ways producing new and clearer understandings. In the new process curriculum, students were suddenly called upon to make quick associations and decisions. Both sets of activities, writes Stevens, "required a degree of mental vigor not exercised when [students] were mere listeners" (Stevens, 1912, p. 7). With the shift in curricular emphasis, educators and researchers began evaluating the phenomenon of the "question" itself. They wanted to know what kinds of questions best stimulated reading and listening comprehension. Specifically, they wanted to know the best question format, position, and type to use in a teaching strategy. The answers were not simple because the choices were many. Of all possibilities, the most common forms of short-answer questions are true-false, completion, matching, and multiple choice. Short-answer questions are often labeled "objective" but this notion requires clarification. An objective question calls for a specific answer by any person knowledgeable on the subject. Objective questions do not require an expression of personal feelings and opinions. Yet, although a short-answer question should be objective, the form

PAGE 18

-4of the question does not guarantee only one correct answer. Shortanswer questions can more than likely generate thought in all categories of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain (Bloom et al., 1956) except synthesis and evaluation. A full exploration of all realms of thought, from factual to evaluative, requires the use of both short-answer and discussion questions. Essay answer questions are more involved and often require complex thinking. They can either be straightforward in demand or highly imaginative in scope. Some more creative questions may require translating a story from words to pictures or vice versa; paraphrasing sentences that contain important ideas without repeating more than one or two of the main nouns, verbs, or adjectives; or writing a play to dramatize an idea. The position of a question may also influence comprehension of the reading material. Questions can be positioned either before, during, or after a reading selection or a combination thereof. In any event, questions in different positions serve different functions. Questions which appear before a selection set the stage for reading by assisting the reader in looking for certain important elements of what is to be learned. Questions inserted within the reading alert and monitor student understanding of key points. Finally, questions on comprehension tasks following reading take on forms such as inferring motivations or evaluating content. Whether a question is presented or answered in written or oral form may also influence reading. Written questions require silent and reflective thought while oral questions usually demand quick and

PAGE 19

-5unedited responses. Nonetheless, in participating in an oral discussion, students exhibit most of the same kinds of thinking necessary in writing the answer to an essay question. Finally, the type or level of question asked to aid or assess reading comprehension can be quite varied. Using the Barrett (1968) Taxonomy , teachers can easily devise a list of questions which would include all of the major reading behaviors that can be described and measured. Such major skills include literal comprehension, reorganization, inference, evaluation, and appreciation. Clearly, each type of question demands a different level of comprehension. What the research on questioning shows, as already mentioned, is that most teachers ask a limited variety of questions. And research also shows that students gradually manifest the kind of thinking that teachers request of them. Thus, it is reasonable to say that if students are to obtain the principal social and individual goals usually requested by parents and educators alike, it is necessary to vary the types of questions asked. A significant point to remember in planning questions is that almost any important concept can be taught in several ways that will lead the students to different levels of thinking. The teachers' problem is to select the procedure that is most appropriate. Background to the Problem Comprehension is undoubtedly the most important skill in reading. Without it, reading has no significance. However, considerable

PAGE 20

-6arguments persist as to what comprehension is and how it should be taught. What Is Comprehension? Reading comprehension is usually examined from two broad perspectives: as a process and as a product. As a process, comprehension is said to occur when an individual can successfully call upon an existing schematic structure to explain an experience. A schematic structure is an internal record of what we have witnessed in the past and a framework for how we will organize, interpret, and comprehend future experiences. In a very real sense, process comprehension relies on the active participation of the individual. In fact, cognitive psychologists (Ausubel , 1963, 1958; Smith, 1975) insist that our normal psychological condition is one of comprehension. It occurs even when we are unaware and we only pay attention to it when it does not work. As a product, comprehension is defined in terms of outcomes of proficient reading. Instead of viewing comprehension as an ongoing process, comprehension is considered by a list of defined objectives, each designed to measure the end result that we call reading. Such objectives grew from the efforts of reading experts to standardize the many kinds of examinations that were being designed to evaluate pupil reading comprehension abilities. The significant theories or taxonomies of thinking behaviors include The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain (Bloom et al . , 1956), The Taxonomy of Questions

PAGE 21

-7(Sanders, 1966), and The Taxonomy of Cognitive and Affective Dimensions of Reading Comprehension (Barrett, 1968). Although each of these models serves as an efficient system of analyzing the products of reading comprehension, only the Barrett Taxonomy describes adequately both the understandings and the feelings involved in various types of reading. Consequently, the Barrett classifications are most frequently applied when defining and measuring reading comprehension ability. Despite this controversy though, most experts agree that comprehension is merely the logical output of reading. If reading is thinking in response to selected graphic cues, then comprehension refers to the process of generating thought stimulated by reading. "The result of the interaction of thinking operations upon contents (text materials) produces thought products" (Guszak & Hoffman, 1980, p. 312). Comprehension is the readers' internalization of the selected material. Yet, since comprehension is more easily measured as a product rather than a process, the research literature in reading tends to be dominated by this product perspective. Teaching Comprehension Skills To develop good comprehension skills, there is certainly no substitute for doing much reading. Many introductory methods texts carefully explain that developmental reading instruction divides precisely into word recognition and comprehension skills. These texts further explain that each category can be further subdivided

PAGE 22

-8into levels which specify particular skills and how they should be taught. Yet, this approach, though valid to a degree, denies the process of reading itself. Comprehension skills are taught at the expense of the understanding of the reading material. As a result, educators have recently emphasized that comprehension or knowledge may be acquired through a variety of means: private experiences, observation of a model, or explicit instruction. Private experiences involve reading of self-selected materials. No requirements are made as to the level of difficulty of the reading selection regarding the readers' abilities. The primary purpose of this method is to develop a positive attitude toward reading by nurturing the readers' own habits and desires. One of the problems with the private or leisure reading experience is that readers reach their independent level early and seldom move to the next level of difficulty. Another method of developing reading comprehension proficiency is learning by observation. Parents, peers, and teachers all influence students' learning by the example they set. Especially in school, teachers can provide experiences where students may read and watch others read at their leisure. One procedure which has proven quite successful in promoting favorable attitudes toward reading, and hence, improving reading comprehension ability, has been the Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading Program (U.S.S.R.). This program is organized around a regular time set inside a school for silent reading as a group. The reading material is self-selected by a student and no

PAGE 23

formal evaluation of individual student performance is conducted. A final method to improve reading skills is explicit instruction in reading comprehension skills. For this program to be successful, realistic comprehension goals must be established by the instructor. These goals must be easily described so they can be recognized, be measured with relative ease, and be developed in the available reading material. As mentioned, the Barrett (1968) Taxonomy provides the most practical set of reading objectives that can be readily described and measured. The Problem In Marion County, seventh graders are tested for reading ability at the beginning of each school year. The test used is the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. The testhasa 100 multiple choice questions and measures basic vocabulary, comprehension, and information skills. Developed by Marion County reading and language arts teachers, the test serves as a basic assessment of the reading skills of each entering seventh grade class. There are a total of 29 reading objectives with each objective measured by three or four questions. When the answers to the examination are computer scored, teachers can readily see how well both individual students and classes performed as a whole. These scores have proved to be most helpful in planning class, school, and county reading programs.

PAGE 24

•10During recent years (1982-83, 1983-84), scores on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination at specific schools have been low. On the average seventh graders at these schools have scored in the 50th percentile in the comprehension section and in some subsections of comprehension they have scored as low as the 30th percentile. These scores are comparable to the county-wide scores which are on the average slightly higher or in the 60th percentile for comprehension. Nevertheless, all students, regardless of their scores, take both courses in language arts and reading, usually alternating the two in nine-week quarters. The hope of both language arts and reading supervisors and instructors is that the school year-long combination of both writing and reading with the attack on specific skills will maximize the reading comprehension scores on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. Thus, students normally take this examination twice a year— first, before the year-long instruction and next, at the end of the year-long instruction. Generally, improvement is noticed. Yet, there has not been a study regarding the best teaching strategy to maximize the reading scores on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. Since a variety of teaching strategies does exist, this information would benefit the seventh grade teachers in the Marion County schools and elsewhere. Such knowledge would also expand our understanding of how students learn and comprehend.

PAGE 25

-11To be sure, there are many teaching strategies for improving reading comprehension. Some concentrate solely on improving vocabulary, while others stress story meaning. Sometimes instructors concentrate on teaching isolated concepts (such as words in context, contractions, abbreviations, order of events), while at other times instructors stress main ideas and cause and effect. In any event the assumed result is an improvement in both reading comprehension and reading attitude. Reading attitude is the measurement of student preference towards reading. A number of reading attitude scores exist which measure the reading habits for varied grade levels. When administered properly, teachers can assess reading attitude in general. Since it is generally assumed that reading attitude plays a predominant role in measuring reading comprehension, it is safe to say that measuring reading attitude after experimentation would be most beneficial. After all, if students enjoy reading and do it often, then most likely their reading comprehension scores would be favorable. Thus, there are two basic problems addressed in this study. The first is whether students' reading comprehension scores on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination can be improved by a specific teaching strategy. In this study, the strategies were teacher directed and involved either oral or written questioning arranged according to the Barrett (1968) Taxonomy . Since these techniques are prevalent in most classrooms, both are valid methods for improving comprehension in reading. The second problem is to assess reading attitude as a function of teaching strategies and teachers.

PAGE 26

-12Strategy This study was designed to answer the foregoing problems in regard to the relationship among three literature teaching strategies using questioning upon the reading comprehension scores of seventh grade language arts students and to assess their reading attitude scores as a function of the treatments and teachers. The analysis included five treatment sessions, three teaching styles, five teachers, and 15 classes totaling 326 students. The three teaching styles were 1) reading a low-level, high-interest short story without questions; 2) reading a low-level, high-interest short story with questions expressed aloud before and after the silent reading; 3) reading a low-level, high-interest short story with questions expressed in writing before and after the silent reading. Each of the five teachers administered each of the three teaching styles. Only one style was administered consistently for each of the three classes for the five week period. All teaching strategies were randomly assigned to the participating classes by the researcher. A training session was held in the fall of 1984 to inform the participants on when and how to administer the teaching strategies, the reading examination, and reading attitude survey. The experiment began with the administration of the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination as a pretest in September, 1984. From the week of October 29-November 2, 1984, to the week of November 26-30, 1984, the treatments were administered for one 50 -minute class period each week. During the week of December, 1984, the pretest was readministered as a posttest.

PAGE 27

•13To test for differences in reading comprehension ability, the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination was administered as both a preand posttest. This examination was developed by the Marion County language arts and reading teachers and is administered twice a year to measure progress in reading. As mentioned, the test consists of 100 multiple choice questions measuring progress in vocabulary, comprehension, and information skills. The examination can be found in Appendix A. A problem occurred during the experiment. Two of the five teachers decided not to administer the reading examination at the end of the designated treatment period. As a result, data were collected for the preand post-examinations from only the remaining three teachers. In the spring of 1985, the two declining teachers did administer the reading examination as a posttest to measure their students' school year progress. Thus, data on the preand post-reading examinations were collected twice for analysis. The first collection was for the first administration of the posttest in December, 1984, involving three of the five teachers. The second was for the second administration of the reading examination in May, 1985, involving four of the five teachers. A teacher who had participated in the first posttest did not participate in the second. Reading attitude was assessed from the independently developed San Diego Reading Attitude Survey (San Diego, 1961). This survey consists of 25 yes or no questions about reading preferences. This survey was administered only once, in December, 1984, at the conclusion of the five week study. All five teachers and their classes participated. Significant results on both the aforementioned instruments provided

PAGE 28

-14valuable information for both the practitioner and the researcher in the area of theory, practice, and training. The survey is in Appendix B. The short story questions were teacher directed and arranged according to the Barrett Taxonomy of Cognitive and Affective Dimensions of Reading Comprehension (Barrett, 1968). The questions were arranged accordingly because this taxonomy 1) is widely used, 2) best fits the examination format, and 3) best exemplifies the different levels of reading comprehension which are generally accepted. The questions included one inferential prequestion and 10 literal and inferential postquestions. The inferential prequestions were the same as the last inferential postquestions. The written answers to the questions were not graded. Purposes The purpose of this study was threefold. First, this study was intended to provide more precise information regarding the effectiveness of three literature teaching strategies using questioning upon the reading comprehension of seventh grade students. Previous studies (Ellis, Konoske, Wulfeck, & Montague, 1982; Frase, 1968a, 1968b, 1970; Rickards, 1976a; Rothkopf, 1966, 1972; Rothkopf & Bisbicos, 1967; Swenson & Kulhavy, 1974) have examined similar effects for elementary, high school, and college students, but not middle school students. In addition, these studies generally involved fewer treatment sessions, more limited teaching styles, fewer students, and generally posttested for comprehension of the material only studied in the classroom. This study posttested for comprehension on a test specifically designed to measure general reading skills for Marion County.

PAGE 29

15Second, this study was intended to learn the difference, if any, between oral and written questioning on reading comprehension of seventh grade students. Unfortunately, most research concentrates on the effectiveness of written questioning techniques to influence comprehension, even though oral questioning techniques are used extensively in elementary and secondary classrooms. Thus, questions as to the comparable effectiveness of written and oral questioning techniques were needed to expand our knowledge of teaching. Third, this study focused on the assessment of reading attitude. American schools have often been blamed for nurturing generations of people who can read, but who choose not to. Huck (1974) used the term "illiterate literates" (Huck, 1974, p. 12) to define such people. Simply, they are people capable of reading but who lack the interest to do so. It is therefore incumbent for teachers not only to develop children's reading skills, but also to foster a positive attitude toward reading as a lifelong, pleasurable pursuit. This study, then, was intended to assess the reading attitude of seventh grade students. In summary, this study was designed to investigate the foregoing problems in regard to the relationship between three literature teaching strategies using questioning upon the reading comprehension of seventh graders and to assess reading attitude scores as a function of these three teaching strategies and five teachers. The information, whatever the results, will be beneficial to teachers and textbook authors in analyzing the effectiveness of their questions about reading. Both teachers in Marion County and elsewhere will find the information useful in planning their teaching strategies for increasing the reading comprehension scores of their students.

PAGE 30

16Siqnificance This study is significant for a number of reasons. First, this study replicates a dissertation done by Gerald Green (1976). Green investigated the effects of three questioning techniques to influence the ability of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students to answer comprehension questions about reading selections and found no significant differences among the three teaching strategies. Yet, Green's study raised important questions about the teaching of literature in middle school classrooms and with modifications, his experimental design can be improved. Furthermore, the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination was a more appropriate test of the effectiveness of questioning strategies on maximizing reading comprehension scores for the students in this study. The second significant reason for this study is that questions, both written and oral, have been logically thought to increase the learning of written materials. Rothkopf (1963) was one of the first educational researchers to hypothesize that adjunct or postquestions might stimulate behaviors which result in comprehension. Rothkopf labeled these behaviors as "mathemagenic" learning (Rothkopf, 1963, p. 31). Since Rothkopf s initial work, several researchers (Ellis, Konoske, Wulfeck, & Montague, 1982; Frase, 1968a, 1968b, 1970; Rickards, 1976a; Rothkopf, 1965, 1972; Rothkopf & Bisbicos, 1967; Swenson & Kulhavy, 1974) have demonstrated that questions appearing after a reading selection or postquestions produce greater learning and retention than questions appearing before a reading selection or

PAGE 31

17prequestions. Other researchers (Frase, 1967; McGraw & Grotelueschen, 1972; Rothkopf, 1966; Rothkopf & Bisbicos, 1967) have discovered that questions interspersed in reading material have significantly increased retention of information. Hence, the evidence was overwhelming to use teacher-directed questions to maximize reading comprehension scores. Third, this study is significant because the questions are arranged according to the Barrett (1968) Taxonomy . Questions will be arranged from the lowest level of cognitive thinking to the highest. And research studies (Ellis et al . , 1982; Rickards, 1976) have shown that higher level cognitive questioning, regardless of position, have generally had a greater positive reading achievement than lower-level cognitive questions regardless of position. The fourth significant reason for this study is that although research on questioning techniques and their effects on reading comprehension is extensive, the nature and scope of this research is primarily limited to questions that are written. Early mathemagenic research did not consider the effects of student achievement on questioning that is said aloud, even those for whom this type of questioning has always been a prime teaching tool in the classroom. What studies do exist are limited in scope and mostly concerned with college level students. The fifth significant reason for this study is that information is needed regarding the effect of both oral and written questions on reading attitude. As mentioned, it is apparent from the research that reading habits are often influenced by the reading related activities which occur within the school setting. Thus, since this experiment

PAGE 32

-18made much use of in-class silent and oral reading activities, it was incumbent that a reading attitude survey be administered at the conclusion of the experiment. Finally, the sixth significant reason for this study is that more information was needed about the effectiveness of teaching strategies for middle school students. Much of the research on questioning has concentrated solely on high school and college level students. While some of the results can be transferred to general principles, there was still an immediate need for more research which focuses primarily on seventh graders. With an increased sample in comparison to Green's study, this study's precise estimate of treatment differences in reading comprehension scores will be most useful to teachers on the middle school level. In summary, this study is significant because it 1) replicates a similar dissertation done in a middle school setting by Gerald Green (1976); 2) assesses the assumed premise that both written and oral questions are thought to increase the learning of written materials; 3) uses both literal and inferential questions to assess for reading comprehension ability; 4) increases the knowledge about the use of oral questions to influence reading comprehension ability; and finally 5) assesses reading attitude. Assumptions and Limitations Assumptions 1. A basic assumption was that reading comprehension could be improved.

PAGE 33

192. A second assumption was there is a need to improve reading comprehension scores. 3. A third assumption was that questioning can be effective in improving reading comprehension. 4. A fourth assumption was that there is a difference between oral and written questioning in terms of student achievement. 5. A fifth assumption was that the effectiveness of the treatment sessions was measured by the preand posttest differences of the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. 6. A sixth assumption was that the format of the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination was a close approximation to the treatment sessions, i.e., reading literary passages and then asnwering three or four questions (at different cognitive levels) about each passage. The reading examination, though, has multiple choice questions, whereas the treatment questions have essay questions. 7. A seventh assumption was that one treatment session per week forfive weeks was sufficient to determine if the questioning strategies were successful in producing improved reading comprehension skills and scores in the seventh grade sample. 8. An eighth assumption was that teachers conducted each treatment session in accordance with prescribed procedures. 9. A ninth assumption was that students in this sample were of average reading ability and would be able to read the treatment material silently.

PAGE 34

•2010. A tenth assumption was that students in the population could work with the assigned materials. 11. An eleventh assumption was that students were able to read and answer the treatment material within one classroom period. 12. A twelfth assumption was that students were minimally influenced by peers and teachers who were in other experimental treatment sessions within the same school. 13. A thirteenth assumption was that when intact classes were used, subjects were less influenced by the fact that an experiment was being conducted than when subjects are drawn from classes and put into experimental session. 14. A fourteenth assumption was that the San Diego Reading Attitude Survey (San Diego, 1961) was a valid and reliable instrument for measuring reading habits. Limitations 1. A first limitation of this study was that the students were nonrandomized and were members of five previously assembled seventh grade language arts classes. Thus, randomization was limited only to the assignment of teaching strategies and to classroom sessions. 2. A second limitation was that the uncontrolled variable of the likely differences in teacher personality across treatment groups affected the performance of the groups.

PAGE 35

-213. A third and final limitation was that this study lasted for only one class session per week for five weeks. Definition of Terms 1. Reading Achievement: This term refers to successful attainment of reading skills as determined by the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. 2. Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination: This term refers to the criterion referenced test devised by the Marion County language arts teachers to assess mastery of basic skills in reading. The test is administered in September to all students in the seventh grade. 3. Sustained Silent Reading: This term refers to the scheduled period of daily instructional time involving the student in free selection of available reading materials for independent reading experience. 4. Teaching Strategy: This term refers to those teaching methods a teacher employs to deliver information or to develop students' thinking, speaking, and writing abilities. 5. Questioning Strategy: This term refers to questions asked by a teacher to elicit a response to reading material. 6. Postquestions: This term refers to oral and/or written questions which appear after a reading passage.

PAGE 36

•227. Prequestions: This term refers to oral and/or written questions which appear before a reading passage. 8, Reading Attitude: This term refers to the reading habits of students defined in this study. Their reading habits were measured by the San Diego Reading Attitude Survey (San Diego, 1961). 9.. Reading Comprehension: This term refers to the ability of a subject or a learner to understand that which is written or "encoded in graphic language by a writer" (Goodman, 1968, p. 8). 10. Higher-Level Cognitive Questions: This term refers to questions which require the student to analyze, synthesize, or evaluate previously read material. 11. Lower-Level Cognitive Questions: This term refers to questions which require the student to recall, recognize, or reorganize previously read material. 12. Inferential Comprehension: This term refers to questions which require the student to conjecture about additional facts or ideas the author might have included in the reading material. 13. Mathemagenic Behavior: This term refers to students' learning that is stimulated by adjunct-aids, such as directions or questions (Rothkopf & Bloom, 1970, p. 417). 14. Florida Statewide Assessment Examination: This term refers to the criterion referenced test devised by the Florida Department of Education to assess mastery of basic skills in reading, writing, and mathematics. The test is administered each October in grades 3, 5, 8, and 11.

PAGE 37

-2315. T.C. Barrett's Cognitive and Affective Dimensions of Reading : This term refers to a general sequence of questions from a lower to a higher order as conceived by T.C. Barrett (1968). A complete listing of the types of questions is given in Appendix F. Research Questions and Hypotheses Nine questions directed the definition of the problem and the formulation of the hypotheses of the study. These in relation to the teaching strategies and attitude factors are discussed below. Factor A: Teaching Strategy The three teaching ideas involved a different but common technique to the teaching of reading in language arts class. Each of the three ideas concerned the reading of short stories, and in two cases, the answering of questions about them. The questions used to define Factor A were divided into statistical analyses. The first analysis involved the first administration of the posttest and concerned questions/hypotheses one through four. They were Ql: Was there a difference in reading examination objective scores among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? Stated in operational null form, the hypothesis was HI: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination objective scores among the three teaching strategies.

PAGE 38

24Q2: Was there a difference in reading examination comprehension objective scores among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H2: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension objective scores among the three teaching strategies. Q3: Was there a difference in reading examination itemized scores among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H3: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination itemized scores among the three teaching strategies. Q4: Was there a difference in reading examination comprehension itemized scores among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H4: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension itemized scores among the three teaching strategies. The second statistical analysis involved the second administration of the posttest at the conclusion of the school year. The analysis concerned questions and hypotheses five through eight. Q5: Was there a difference in reading examination objective scores for the second administration of the posttest among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class

PAGE 39

-25discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H5: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination objective scores for the second administration of the posttest among the three teaching strategies. Q6: Was there a difference in reading examination comprehension objective scores on the second administration of the posttest among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H6: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension objective scores for the second administration of the posttest among the three teaching strategies. Q7: Was there a difference in reading examination itemized scores on the second administration of the posttest among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H7: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination itemized scores for the second administration of the posttest among the three teaching strategies. Q8: Was there a difference in reading examination comprehension itemized scores on the second administration of the posttest among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions?

PAGE 40

•26H8: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension itemized scores for the second administration of the posttest among the three teaching strategies. Factor B: Reading Attitude While these treatment interactions were of primary interest in this study, another intervening variable was of interest. The following question was used to define Factor B. Q9: Were seventh grade language arts students' reading attitude scores different as a function of teaching strategies and teachers? Stated in operational null form, the hypothesis was H9: There were no significant differences in reading attitude scores among the three teaching strategies and five teachers. Summary of Purpose and Strategy In review, the purpose of this study was to 1) improve the reading comprehension scores of Marion County seventh graders, 2) learn more about the effectiveness of questioning strategies to improve reading comprehension ability, and 3) assess reading attitude as a function of teaching strategies and teachers. The results of this study should provide teachers in Marion County and elsewhere strategy to help improve reading comprehension and reading attitude.

PAGE 41

27The design of the study was for a five-week treatment using a total of three teaching styles, five teachers, 15 classes and 326 students. Each of the five teachers administered each of the three teaching styles. All teaching styles were randomly assigned to classes. Teachers administered the same teaching style once a week to the same class for five weeks. The three teaching styles were 1) reading a low-level, highinterest short story without questions asked; 2) reading a low-level, high-interest short story with questions expressed aloud before and after the selection; and 3) reading a low-level, high-interest short story with questions expressed in writing. The questions included inferential prequestions and inferential and factual postquestions. The written answers to the questions were not graded. The actual research sessions were held only once a week for five weeks. Student reading scores were based on the three administrations of the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination and reading attitude was assessed from the San Diego Reading Attitude Survey. The reading examination was administered once as a pretest and twice as a posttest. The first posttest included nine classes of the original 15. The second posttest included 12 classes of the original 15. The reading attitude included all 15 classes. Significant results on both the aforementioned instruments will provide valuable information for both the practitioner and the researcher in the area of theory, practice, and training.

PAGE 42

28Orqanization of the Study Chapter One of this study includes an introduction and background of the basic problem, the problem examined, the experimental strategy followed, the purposes, the significance of the study, an overview of the assumptions and limitations, the definition of terms, the research questions and hypotheses tested, and an outline of the organization of the study. Chapter Two contains a review of research and other literature related to the study. Chapter Three contains ari outline of the procedure used in the study. Included are details concerning the design of the study, the revision of a previous research design, the participants of the study and their selection, the description of the testing instrument, the pilot study, the selection of the treatment material, the development of the treatment questions, the reading attitude inventory, the data collection, and the data analysis. Chapter Four contains an analysis of the data and the results of the study. Chapter Five contains the background and purpose of the study, the research questions and hypotheses, the study design, the data collection, the conclusions, the implications, and recommendations. The Appendices contain the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination, the San Diego Reading Attitude Survey, the complete text of each short story used by the treatment groups, the pretest questions for each short story, the posttest questions for each short story, the complete text of T.C. Barrett's Taxonomy of Cognitive and Affective ^fi*v:-

PAGE 43

-29Dimensions of Reading Comprehension , the results of the Barrett taxonomic level of each short story postquestion, and the appropriate statistical tables for each hypothesis. .*;!-.

PAGE 44

CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH This chapter is a review of the research and literature relevant to this study. The first three sections concern research which greatly affect the procedures and design of this study. The final section is devoted to research and literature directly related to the use of intervening variables to influence reading attitude. In some cases, the assignment of research to one category or the other is an arbitrary one and a number of studies reviewed could be placed under either heading. Position of the Question Since the 1960s, much research has been performed on different questioning techniques. Anderson and Biddle (1975), Andre (1979), and Rickards (1979) provide good summary reviews. In the usual study, one or more adjunct question groups are contrasted to a group receiving no questions. Subjects in all groups are given a reading selection. They are usually not permitted to refer to the reading passage to answer the adjunct questions and must depend mainly on memory to complete the questions. After finishing the treatment, all subjects take an examiiiation to evaluate the effects of the adjunct questions. -30-

PAGE 45

•31Most early studies indicate that adjunct questions after prose readings enhance test performance, whereas later studies favor inferential prequestions and factual postquestions to increase reading test performance. Adjunct postquestions can have two types of effect: the "direct effect" and the "indirect effect." The direct effect is that postquestion groups perform better than a read-only control group on final test questions that are informationally similar or identical to the treatment adjunct postquestions (Ellis, Konoske, Wulfeck, & Montague, 1982). The indirect effect, however, is that postquestion groups perform better than a read-only control group on final test questions that are unrelated or incidental to adjunct questions (Anderson & Biddle, 1975; Rothkopf & Bisbicos, 1967). The indirect effect also occurs when students receive inferential prequestions because students use these questions to focus on information not directly covered in the text. This section will contrast the early and later studies which reveal the distinction between adjunct pre and postquestions. Rothkopf (1966) and Rothkopf and Bisbicos (1967) demonstrated that more information is retained and recalled using postquestions than occurs by using prereading questions. Rothkopf and Bisbicos (1967) used 252 high school students who read a 36 page passage from Rachel Carson's The Sea Around Us . The passage was divided into 12 three page "zones," with eight questions per zone. Questions differed in location (before or after the relevant segment) and in required response. The eight questions for each zone were divided into four categories of two questions each according to the character of the

PAGE 46

-32correct answer. Four questions from each zone, one from every answer category, were used to make up the 48 item criterion test. The test was administered after the completion of training and was used for the main experimental comparisons. Upon completion of the posttest, Rothkopf and Bisbicos (1967) found that the group which read the text segment with questions immediately positioned after each zone did significantly better than the group which had questions placed immediately before the zone. Students also performed significantly better on questions which required them to attend and combine all types of material in the reading selection. The results of these experiments suggested that when subjects study a reading passage, they not only may learn specific content, but also may acquire some general facilitative skills. Questions placed before paragraphs enhanced comprehension of only the material covered directly by the question. Frase (1967, 1968a, 1968b) conducted three studies which directly replicated earlier research in two respects. First, he found that retention was highest when questions were placed after paragraphs and increased with the frequency of posttreatment questions. Second, postquestions increased the retention of both relevant and incidental material. Incidental material refers to those questions which appeared on the posttest and subjects did not see during the treatment. The five studies above were performed with high school and college students. Swenson and Kulhavy (1974) used 109 fifth and sixth grade children to verify the earlier findings on question position. As in previous studies, they learned that groups receiving questions after

PAGE 47

-33reading scored significantly greater retention effects than the groups receiving questions before reading. They also found, though, that contrary to previous research, postquestions failed to differentially facilitate learning of incidental items. Critical items or material directly related to the reading passage were better recalled on both immediate and one week retention tests. Swenson and Kulhavy (1974) concluded that younger children might disregard incidental material when cues are present. "This finding buttresses our contention," they wrote, "that control of inspection behaviors is a markedly different task with younger learners" (Swenson & Kulhavy, 1974, p. 215). Rickards (1976a) noted, however, that this early adjunct question research (Frase, 1967, 1968a, 1968b; Rothkopf, 1966; Rothkopf & Bisbicos, 1967; Swenson & Kulhavy, 1974) is based primarily on investigations in which the experimental questions used only required verbatim recall of part of single text sentences. Thus, with respect to the "position effect," Rickards (1976a) wanted to know what would happen if the questions asked required more involved test comprehension, as in the case of conceptual questions requiring learners to abstract concepts from whole paragraphs of text. College students (N = 75) read an 800 word passage and answered conceptual or verbatim preor postquestions. In addition, a control group received inserted questions drawn from common knowledge. Rickards (1976a) confirmed the generalization that for verbatim questions, postquestions yield greater retention than prequestions. The results, however, with regard to higher level conceptual questions, were just the opposite: conceptual prequestions produced higher recall and were superior

PAGE 48

-34to control questions on the immediate recall test. Rickards (1976a) concludes By inducing readers to derive a relevant schema for the passage information, conceptual prequestions apparently resulted in topically related material becoming interrelated and organized around a superordinate structure of concepts or ideas, thereby aiding long-term retention of passage information. (Rickards, 1976a, p. 216) Research on prequestioning strategies has nevertheless yielded conflicting evidence. According to a review by Wiesendanger and Wollenberg (1978), studies by Borthwick (1973), Noakes (1969), Markle and Capie (1976), and Snavely (1962) revealed that prequestions had a negative effect in helping students improve their reading comprehension ability. In contrast, the same review revealed that studies by Danford (1973), McGrawand Grotelueschen (1972), and Owen (1973) found that prequestions encouraged the reader to seek correct answers, and Floyd (1960) remarked that prequestions promoted selective retention regardlessof whether postquestions or other conditions were combined with them. Finally, a later review by Wiesendanger (1982) revealed 22 studies dealing with the effect of question placement on reading comprehension and found 10 favored and 12 opposed the use of prequestions. Analyzing the effect of prequestioning strategies, Wiesendanger and Wollenberg (1978) exposed 90 third grade students to an oral preand posttest questioning strategy. The results of the study indicated that when third grade students received the oral prequestioning treatment, they did not score as high in reading comprehension as those students who were not given prequestions. Yet, within

PAGE 49

-35the prequestioning treatment, students given inferential prequestions did significantly better than students given factual prequestions. As Wisendanger and Wollenberg (1978) concluded, these results did not substantiate the standard use of oral factual prequestions before silent reading in most basal reading programs. The notion that questions, both pre-and post-,, focus on a reading selection follows from the hypothesis about learning what is important to study. Adjunct postquestions encourage this process by channeling students' study behaviors and information processing (Andre, 1979). This is known as the "mathemagenic effect" (Rothkopf & Bloom, 1970, p. 417) because students use adjunct postquestions to discern the material to be on the final exam (Rothkopf, 1966; Rothkopf & Bisbicos, 1967). Ellis et al. (1982) investigated whether this mathemagenic effect would also occur if instructions were used to facilitate learning. They hypothesized that if mathemagenic effects from adjunct postquestions occurred because the student could better anticipate what the final examination would be like, then "instructions to the student about what the test will be like should also be effective" (Ellis et al., 1982, p. 862). Eighty university students were randomly assigned to four groups: a read only control group; an adjunct question group; an instruction group; and an adjunct question plus instruction group. On the posttest, all groups performed significantly better than the control group in recalling verbatim factual information. Instruction subjects though answered incidental questions somewhat better than adjunct question subjects.

PAGE 50

-36When repeating this experiment, Ellis et al. (1982) followed similar procedures except that the adjunct and test questions were constructed by paraphrasing factual information from the text. Again, all groups performed significantly better than the control group. The two adjunct question groups scored higher as well on the final tests than the instruction only group. Ellis et al . (1982) concluded that the results of these experiments implied that students should be told explicitly what to expect on tests, as well as be given adjunct questions. Experiment 2, however, revealed that providing learners with instructions about paraphrased adjunct questions, as well with the adjunct questions, appeared to overfocus the students' attention on the adjunct questions and resulted in a poor performance in comprehension. The research, then, indicated that inferential prequestions and inferential and factual postquestions appeared to influence the overall reading comprehension of a passage. In essence, inferential prequestions have been found to significantly focus the subjects' attention to anticipating the reading passage's events and meaning. The research also suggested that general instructions and adjunct questions seemed to increase reading comprehension of a reading passage. The above research, though, had a number of problems. Some limitations were the use of a small number of subjects, of few controls, of primarily high school and college students as subjects, of only lower order cognitive level questions in early studies, and of reading achievement tests which measured only material covered in the readings. Studies are needed which expand the sample population and which engage younger students.

PAGE 51

37Thus, considering 1) the evidence of the superiority of inferential prequestions and both factual and inferential postquestions and 2) the fact that most classroom teachers, reading comprehension tests, and literature textbooks use questions before and/or after a reading selection, this study used inferential prequestions and both factual and inferential postquestions, without testing for position as a variable. Also, it was felt that the results from both the Swenson and Kulhavy (1974) study and the Wiesendanger and Wollenberg (1978) study regarding the possible difference in question position effects for younger students needed examination. Therefore, It was decided to use treatment subjects in the seventh grade. level of the Question This section of Chapter Two discusses in greater detail the growing body of evidence which indicates a relationship between question type and reading comprehension. A detailed review of related research on adjunct questions has been conducted by Andre (1979). This review cites studies using factual recall tests (Allen, 1970; Anderson, Kulhavy, & Andre, 1971; Frase, 1968a, 1968c, 1969a, 1969b, 1970a, 1970b, 1972; Rickards, 1976a, 1976b; Rickards & DIVesta, 1974; Rothkopf, 1966; Rothkopf & Bisblcos, 1967; Watts, 1973) and studies using application tests (Anderson, 1972; Anderson & Biddle, 1975; Anderson & Kulhavy, 1972; Andre & Sola, 1976; Felker & Dapra, 1975; Hunkins, 1969; McConkie, Rayner, & Wilson, 1973; McKenzie, 1972; Shavelson, Berliner, Ravitch,

PAGE 52

-38& Loading, 1974; Watts & Anderson, 1971). The results of these studies suggested that higher cognitive reading comprehension questions yield significantly higher reading comprehension scores. Thus, when students are given adjunct application questions about concepts and principles, as compared to adjunct factual questions, their ability to use knowledge of the concepts and principles to recognize new examples or solve problems involving the concepts and principles seems to be enhanced. A review of literature on classroom teaching practices indicated that most teachers ask predominantly low level cognitive questions to check recall of knowledge. In Wilen's (1982) review of related question research, he concluded that classroom questioning sessions for secondary students often provide a slight variety or opportunity to participate in critical thinking processes or skills. Wilen (1982) also revealed that higher-order questions placed after the relevant material tended to produce better performance than other questionposition combinations. Similarly, Gigante (1980) studied 22 teachers of students of average and above average ability in world and American literature courses and found that teachers chose lower cognitive and procedural questions nine times out of ten. An interesting study was reported by Cole (1983) in which fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade classroom teachers and elementary supervisors rated the appropriateness of 24 instructional practices for good and poor readers. The results showed that teachers rated practices with low degree of learner involvement and low level of questioning strategy more appropriate for poor readers, whereas practices with a high

PAGE 53

-39degree of involvement and level of questioning were rated more appropriate for good readers. The results suggested that teachers should examine their perceptions of appropriate instruction for poor readers. Cullinan, Harwood, and Gal da (1983) found that there are developmental levels in children's comprehension of literature. Studying fourth through eighth grades, Cullinan et al. (1983) learned that sixth grade readers were able to make inferences beyond the information given and eighth grade readers could make evaluative judgments with valid justification from the text. Fourth grade students comprehended little meaning in the symbolic and metaphoric elements of the text, whereas sixth grade students considered the possibility of symbol and metaphor. The eighth grade students saw multiple meanings for the symbolic and metaphoric features of the text. The results implied that seventh graders are cognitively ready for more advanced questioning levels. Research on question level has most often used the Bloom, Kratwhohl , and Masia Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1964) to classify the level of their treatment and posttest questions. Bloom et al. (1964) created the following taxonomy to distinguish questions from the lowest cognitive level to the highest: 1.0, Knowledge questions; 2.0, Comprehension questions; 3.0, Application questions; 4.0, Analysis questions; 5.0, Synthesis questions; 6.0, Evaluation questions. Shavelson, Berliner, Ravitch, and Loeding (1974) and Ray (1979) incorporated the Bloom et al. (1964) Taxonomy into their study of the effects of question level and position on reading performance. The researchers

PAGE 54

40randomized 87 junior college students into one of five groups, testing either lower or higher questions placed before or after the reading selection. A control group received no questions. They found that higher order questions (comprehension, application, and analysis level) tended to produce greater significant differences on reading performance than did other question-position combinations. Higher level questions, though, had less of an effect on reading achievement for higher ability students. Ray (1979) studied tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade chemistry students and found significantly higher performances on the critical thinking and abstract reasoning tests for the class taught with higher level questions. In addition, he found that students with high and low grade point averages did better in the classroom taught with higher level questions. Both Rickards and DiVesta (1974) and Wilson (1979) used modified versions of Taxonomy of Bloom et al . in their studies. Rickards and DiVesta (1974) examined the effects of "Meaningful-Learning" questions, "Rote Learning of Facts" questions, "Rote Learning of Ideas" questions, and "Task Irrelevant" questions for 80 college sophomores. They found that "Meaningful-Learning" questions were superior to factual ("Rote Learning of Facts") questions even when the amount of time spent reading the passage was similar. Wilson (1979) examined the processing strategies of average and below average sixth and seventh grade student readers in response to factual and inferential questions. She found that average readers outperformed below average readers in response to inferential questions but not in response to factual questions on the majority of reading passages. Wilson (1979)

PAGE 55

-41cited that the sixth graders' abilities to synthesize and organize a response and sensitivity to the author's style were plausible explanations for these findings. Generally, children shift from formal to concrete operation at age 11 to 12 (Flavel & Salatas, 1976, p. 942). Some studies, however, have found no clear relationship between teacher use of higher cognitive level questions and student achievement. Both Denzel (1972) and Salenger (1981) had different design strategies, but each treatment group in each study received questions at different levels of Bloom et al . (1964) Taxonomy . Denzel (1972) (a Knowledge, a Comprehension, an Application, and an Analysis group, plus a group with questions at each of the levels) and Salenger (1981) (Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation groups) discovered no significant differences in achievement for groups tested. Denzel (1972) conducted his study with college freshmen, while Salenger (1981) used eleventh graders. In a similar study, Rosenshine (1979) reviewed research done by Stall ings and Kaskowitz (1974) and Soar and Soar (1973) and concluded that "open-ended questions, questions about personal experiences, and questions about opinions were negatively correlated with achievement" (Rosenshine, 1979, p. 91). His finding was based on the above studies which focused mainly on the basic skill motivation instruction in reading and mathematics for first through fifth grades. Good and Brophy (1978) have offered three reasons for the relationship between the frequency of low level questions and learning gains: 1) teachers who have high frequencies of questions usually plan and organize well and therefore have few classroom management problems; 2) teachers who

PAGE 56

42heavily involve their students in academic activity leave little time for them to pursue nonacademic goals; and 3) they probably also involve their students in a variety of oral participatory instructional approaches (Good & Brophy, 1978, p. 366). In 1970, Cooke used T.C. Barrett's (1968) Cognitive and Affective Taxonomy of Reading Comprehension to 1) analyze the comprehension questions in three basal readers and 2) test this taxonomy for validity and usefulness in future classifying texts. Barrett's classification system includes the following sequential categories: 1.0, Literal Comprehension; 2.0, Reorganization; 3.0 Inferential Comprehension; 4.0, Evaluation; and 5.0, Appreciation. A complete breakdown of these categories may be found in Appendix F. Cooke (1970) developed a rank order for 3,536 questions based on the percentage of questions at each taxonomic level. The results of this rank order were Literal Comprehension, 55%; Inferential Comprehension, 26%; Appreciation, 10%; Reorganization, 6%; and Evaluation, 3%. In addition, Cooke (1970) came to favorable conclusions about the superior utility of Barrett's Taxonomy for analyzing comprehension questions. Nicholson (1977) found similar results on question level when he reviewed four basic fourth grade reading texts using Barrett's Taxonomy . He surmised that a majority of the discussion questions in the teacher's manual required an expected response on the literal level of thinking. Most of the higher level thinking questions were judged to be in the Inferential comprehension category and relatively few in the other designated higher level categories.

PAGE 57

-43Some of the literature on Barrett's Taxonomy was not research based, yet offered theory upon which to base research. Arnold and Wilcox (1982) suggested that by using the Barrett Taxonomy teachers can more intelligently select, adapt, and add to the questions found in the teacher's guides for basal readers. Brunner (1983) favored the use of Barrett's Taxonomy in reading specifically and proposed a number of comprehension strategies to use in conjunction with the Taxonomy . Thus, because of the above recommendations, and because Barrett's Taxonomy , unlike Bloom et al.'s, is specifically designed for literature questions, it was selected for use in this study to analyze treatment and preand posttest questions. In addition, considering the results of the research on question level, it was decided to use at least one question from each taxonomic level of Barrett's Taxonomy for each of the short stories in the treatment sessions. Oral and Written Questions This section of Chapter Two details the relationship between oral and written questions and its subsequent effect on reading comprehension. Most previous studies on teaching questioning techniques (Ellis, Konoske, Wulfeck, & Montague, 1983; Frase, 1968a; Rickards, 1976a; Rickards & DiVesta, 1974; Rothkopf, 1966; Rothkopf & Bisbicos, 1967; Shavelson, Berliner, Ravitch, & Loeding, 1974; Swenson & Kulhavy, 1974) placed questions only in written form within treatment materials. Yet, classroom observation reveals that students spend considerable time answering oral questions and oral questioning

PAGE 58

-44techniques can produce positive, if not significant, results in reading comprehension. Before reviewing related research, it is best to underline some inherent difficulties in analyzing oral questions in a classroom setting. Andre's (1979) review of related research on questioning suggested three problems which can inhibit analysis. First, classifying teachers' oral questions is difficult and determining their reliability can be even more difficult. Second, since teacher questions are usually answered one at a time, an oral question provides possible benefit to only one pupil. Third, material not covered by the questions, yet discussed in class, is not usually measured. Andre (1979) concluded that these problems imply observational research on teachers' in-class questions was not an appropriate vehicle for "systematically examining the effects of higher level questions on student learning" (Andre, 1979, p. 283). Still, research on oral questioning does exist, is a vital part of classroom activity, and should be reviewed. As has been cited in both the Position and Level sections, studies on classroom practices revealed that question and discussion time was significant to comprehension. Denzel (1972) indicated students complained that they received little or no oral feedback when they answered application and analysis questions. Denzel (1972) concluded that this could be a reason for a lack of significant differences between his treatment groups. Salenger's (1981) observations revealed that the frequency of questions in the classroom could be considered a forecast of either a lecture or a discussion section. Studying eleventh graders.

PAGE 59

-45he found that a high frequency of higher-cognitive questions by the teacher generated greater discussion, while a low frequency tended to lead to more teacher talk. Similarly, Laine (1981) studied high school sophomores' oral and written responses to selected literary passages and discovered that a significantly higher proportion of oral statements was devoted to rhetorical filler, digressions, and comparisons to other works than written statements. Some studies demonstrated that oral questioning by teachers during individual group study produced better instructional results than written questions embedded in the text. In 1972, Rothkopf found that adjunct questions presented by a monitor to high school students under regular questioning schedules produced better performance than written questions embedded in the text, especially when the questions were textrelevant. Margie's (1978) review of related literature revealed that oral questions appeared to be more effective than written in classroom instruction. "Yet," he wrote, "it is not just the interaction with the teacher which improves pupil performance, but rather it is the combination of classroom interaction and relevancy of content of the teacher's utterances" (Margie, 1978, p. 101). The major emphasis of questioning research today is on determining the effect of teacher training course on questioning to improve student learning outcomes. Studies by Buttery and Michalak (1978) showed that teachers can be trained to ask higher level questions, and Malvern (1980) and Otto (1983) discovered that teachers trained in systematic questioning techniques can influence student reading achievement. Buttery and Michalak's (1980) experiment trained elementary student

PAGE 60

-46teachers in a microteaching unit. Trainees were required to instruct twelve separate small groups of elementary pupils, concentrating each time on one of 12 specific teacher effectiveness skills used to improve questions posed in discussion lessons. Using a clinical supervision process, they found the experimental group significantly improved in 11 questioning skill areas, as compared with a control group that improved only in two areas. Malvern (1980) retrained seventh grade teachers to increase their ability to structure higher level questions that require students to engage in complex thinking and as a result, students of those retrained teachers showed an increase in comprehension skills. After studying high school biology students and six biology teachers, Otto (1983) learned that teachers can be taught using a systematic questioning method in the classroom and that students taught by the method achieve higher and retain knowledge longer than those in control groups. Therefore, considering the conclusion of the above researchers plus the concern of this researcher that a more realistic test of the relationship between questioning and comprehension should involve a comparison of the strategies actually employed in the public school classrooms 1) oral questioning/discussion and 2) written questions following reading were selected as independent variables in this study. Reading Attitude and Teacher Strategy The final section of the literature review examined the relationship between teaching strategy and reading attitude. Most findings

PAGE 61

-47revealed an inconclusive relationship between specific teaching techniques and attitude formation, yet a number of studies have shown that some general instructional strategies, such as sustained silent reading and self-selection of reading materials, have resulted in improved student reading attitude. An effective and popular teaching strategy for promoting a positive reading attitude is the use of sustained silent reading. Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) is the name given to the time when students are able to read uninterruptedly for an extended period. As Tierney, Readence, and Deshner (1980) remarked, in school silent reading not only provides time for students to practice their skill, but to observe models of good silent reading behavior. Bartelo (1979) favored silent reading because it provided students with an unthreatening situation, where they were not held accountable for materials used. "The reluctant reader," wrote Bartelo, "is thus given an opportunity to see reading as a pleasure task, rather than a negative experience" (Bartelo, 1979, p. 6). Sadoski (1980) agreed that SSR is a pleasurable task because it presents reading as a holistic and recreational language activity as well as a hierarchical learning task. In review of literature, Sadoski (1980) and Moore, Jones, and Miller (1980) concluded that research findings show that SSR is generally beneficial in promoting positive attitudes toward reading. Moore, Jones, and Miller (1980), in particular, cited studies by Pfau (1966), Lawson (1968), Wilmot (1975), and Langford (1978) which measured SSR's effect over short time spans, as well as inconsistency in length and extent of practice. Yet, Moore et al . (1980) disclosed

PAGE 62

-48that these studies were found to confirm SSR to have a positive effect on reading attitude. Moore et al. also remarked that studies by Wilmot (1975), Lawson (1968), and Pfau (1966) showed that SSR had a positive effect on reading ability when combined with a regular program of reading instruction. Two studies revealed how the length of time span does not significantly influence reading attitude. Bartelo (1979) studied sixth, seventh, and eighth graders who were assigned to a compensatory reading program on the basis of their Iowa and Metropolitan Achievement test scores. They read uninterruptedly for 10 minutes per day from September to March. The results of an attitude and interest survey showed an increase of 17% in the amount of time spent by students reading during their spare time, identified as one to three hours. In addition, an increase of 8% was noted in the amount of time and conversation related to the books involved in peer discussion. Yet, Sadoski (1980) showed improved reading attitudes when SSR was used in a seven week program for students in grades 10-12. In both studies, the reading attitude questionnaire was constructed by teachers and reliability scores for the surveys were unavailable. Besides sustained silent reading, other teaching programs may influence reading attitude. Pappas (1980) found that sixth graders who engaged in a formal reading program integrated with systematic drama oriented activities experienced a significant increase in positive attitude about reading when measured by the Estes Reading Attitude Scale. Also, boys who participated in creative dramatics developed a more positive attitude toward reading than girls who participated in

PAGE 63

.49creative dramatics. Employing Moring's Reading Inventory, Part A, Roach (1980) demonstrated that tenth grade students taught by a Directed Team Study approach to outside reading preferred outside reading over students taught by the standard book report method. The Directed Team Study approach to outside reading emphasizes free choice of reading material and peer interaction, whereas the standard book report method stresses free choice of reading, no peer interaction, grading, and evaluation. Again, Johnson (1980) discovered that the gains for the attitude toward reading were significantly greater for fifth and sixth graders taught by the Humanistic Method than by the Basal Method. The Humanistic Method is a procedure which simultaneously tries to build reading skills as well as a learner's positive self-concept. The Basal Method, however, is a process of learning skills by a series of material which is designed for each successive stage of reading development. Thus, considering the influence of sustained silent reading and other intervening variables on reading attitude, this study used silent reading, writing, and discussion as a variable to measure reading attitude. Summary This chapter has presented a review of the research and literature relevant to the study. The first three sections dealt with research which helped to determine the design of the study and the composition of the treatment materials. The final section concerned literature related to the measure of reading attitude in this study.

PAGE 64

-50It was decided that the conclusions from the research on question position necessitated using treatment questions in the pre-and postposition. Higher level cognitive questions were presented in the preposition and both lower and higher level cognitive questions were presented in the post-position. Implications of research in this area also prompted the selection of students in the seventh grade for use as treatment subjects. Findings from the literature on the taxonomic level of adjunct questions resulted in the selection of both low and high-level questions for discussion. Barrett's (1968) Taxonomy was considered to be the most appropriate literary technique for classifying literary treatment questions. Question level research also indicated to use at least one question from each level of this taxonomy. Review of the literature on oral and written questions suggested that both types be used to reflect any significant differences in reading comprehension. The study of the intervention of teaching technique on reading attitude resulted in the use of a reading attitude questionnaire. The studies indicated the need for additional research to determine the effects of oral and written pre-and post-cognitive level questions on reading achievements and reading attitudes. There were many studies which tested either oral or written cognitive level questions, but few which tested both, and even fewer in regard to question position. Furthermore, the studies reviewed indicated a need to measure the combined effect of questioning and silent reading on reading

PAGE 65

-51attitude. Thus, it was the intent of this study to contribute to the body of research on effective teaching for reading achievement of the seventh grade.

PAGE 66

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY This chapter contains details concerning the design of the study, the revision of a previous research design, the participants of the study and their selection, the description of the testing instrument, the pilot study, the selection of the treatment material, the development of the treatment questions, the reading attitude inventory, the data collection, and the data analysis. Design of the Study The general design of this study was an experimental -control group pretest-posttest design. The pretest and posttest was the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination developed by the Marion County language arts and reading teachers. The sample was made up of 326 average seventh graders from three middle schools in Marion County, Florida. Five seventh-grade language arts instructors volunteered to conduct the experiment with three of their respective classes. All instructors were taught how to perform the expreiment and observed during the treatments. In September, 1984, the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination was given by the instructors to their seventh grade classes as the pretest for the study. Then, beginning with week of October 29November 2, 1984, they began the three treatments with their classes. All treatments had been randomly assigned to one of the three classes 52-

PAGE 67

-53by the researcher. The teachers used the same treatment with the same class for the entire experiment. The treatments were three different teaching strategies for the improvement of reading comprehension. The three teaching strategies were 1) a reading selection preceded and followed by written questioning, 2) a reading selection preceded and followed by oral questioning, and 3) a reading selection preceded and followed by no questioning. The experiment lasted for a total of six weeks with the first five weeks devoted to the treatments. A new reading selection was introduced at the beginning of each of the five weeks. The five reading selections were from Scholastic Double Action Short Stories (Minturn & Diggs, 1973) geared for low-level, highinterest readers. Since this text is out of print xeroxed copies of the stories were used. After a five-week treatment period, the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination was readmini stored as a posttest. Only nine of the participating 15 classes took the posttest at this time. Two teachers opted for their respective six classes to take the same examination when it was originally scheduled in May, 1985. In May, 1985, these six missing classes and six others from the study took the reading examination. This testing was counted as a second posttest. Thus, two analyses of the reading comprehension scores were necessary. The first involved the first pretest and the first posttest; the second, the first pretest and the second posttest. A reading attitude questionnaire, the San Diego Reading Attitude Survey (1961), was also administered to all 15 participating classes at the conclusion of the original study. This occurred during the week of December 2-7, 1984. The questionnaire was used to determine

PAGE 68

54reading attitude scores as a function of teaching strategies and teachers. Revision of a Previous Research Design This study resulted from an interest in a dissertation done by Gerald Green (1976). Green investigated 1) the effects of three teaching strategy variables upon the ability of middle school students to answer comprehension questions about reading selections and 2) the effects of the intervening variables of grade and sex upon the ability of middle school students to answer comprehension questions about reading selections. Green's results showed no significant differences within three factors— teaching strategy, grade levels, and student sex— and no significant interactions across the different levels of each factor. Still, Green's experimental design was worth further exploration. His study involved three teaching strategy treatments which were randomly assigned to the population of three middle school language arts classes. Classes were previously ability grouped at the school's third quartile in reading achievement. These sixth, seventh, and eighth graders were also slightly below average in their scores for the 1975-1976 Florida state-wide achievement examination. Each classroom contained a mixture of students from the sixth, seventh, and eighth grade. A separate treatment was assigned to each of the three selected classrooms. The treatments were 1) merely reading the stories without answering any questions, 2) discussion of the stories read, or 3) writing about the stories read. Ten questions were developed by Green (1976) for each of the five short stories. The questions represented each of the five Taxonomic levels in T.C. Barrett's (1968)

PAGE 69

55Cognitive and Affective Dimensions of Reading Comprehension . One complete treatment was administered each week. Reading comprehension scores were measured by administering alternate forms of Level 2 of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills. As reported, the results were inconclusive that teaching strategies made a significant difference in reading comprehension for middle school language arts students. Green (1976) attributed this result to experimental design error. Several changes were made in this investigation to improve the design. This experiment increased the number of subjects and teachers involved. Five weeks were deemed sufficient to determine significant differences within teaching strategies. At the conclusion of five weeks, students should be sufficiently exposed to the teaching strategy selected to warrant a significant difference in their reading comprehension scores. Similar studies on teaching strategy and reading comprehension have used a comparable amount of time or even less. In fact, Rickards (1976b), Rothkopf (1972), and Sanders (1973) have conducted experiments in which the participants read only one 800 word passage in only one session with questions placed strategically before or after the assigned text segments. Thus, this study attempted to determine, if, by modifying Green's (1976) experimental design and increasing the data base, significant differences between teaching strategies would result. The major intent of this study was to examine if the use of questionings about readings does affect a seventh grader's reading comprehension ability on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. Teachers, reading specialists, and textbook authors will greatly benefit from knowing more about the teaching of one segment of a middle school population.

PAGE 70

• 56The Participants and Their Selection The subjects involved in this study were seventh grade students from three middle schools in Marion County, Florida. They are referred to as School A, School B, and School C. Each school housed grades six through eight with students' socio-economic levels ranging from low to middle. School A was located in the rural portion of Marion County. Students attending this school came partly from the surrounding neighborhood and partly from distant subdivisions of Marion County. School A was divided into nine teams of approximately 160 students per team. The total school population of School A was 1400. Administrators at the school used cumulative folder data to attempt to equalize the racial and sexual balance of each team. Within the racial and sexual controls, they used the students' scores on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) and teacher recommendations to try to balance each team intellectually and determine class groupings. At School A, students were ability grouped. School B was located in a low income black neighborhood on the west side of OcalaStudents attending this school came partly from the surrounding neighborhood and partly from a nearby middle income black neighborhood. This middle school was divided into seven teams with approximately 160 students per team. Administrators used cumulative folder data to attempt to equalize the racial and sexual balance of each team. Within the racial and sexual controls, they used CTBS and teacher recommendations to try to balance each team intellectually. Language arts classes at this school were ability grouped. School C was located in a rural portion of Marion County. Again, students attending this school came partly from the surrounding

PAGE 71

57neighborhood and from distant subdivisions of Marion County. School C was divided into nine teams of approximately 160 students per team. The total school population of School C was 1400. Like Schools A and B, administrators used all available data to ability group and racially and sexually mix the students. The population consisted of members of previously assembled seventh grade language arts classes. School A had approximately 425 seventh graders, School B had approximately 333, and School C, 350. For this study, only students in the average ability grouped seventh grade classes were considered, making the sample size exactly 326 students. Students in the program became part of the sample as a result of their teachers' request to volunteer to participate in the experimental study. Of those teachers who volunteered, only their classes with students of average ability participated. The classes were randomly selected to receive each of the three treatments. Participating teachers received formal instruction for the implementation of the treatments as well as directions for administering the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. The investigator observed the participating teachers periodically to evaluate their progress and answer their questions. At the conclusion of the experiment, teachers collected preand posttest information on the reading test and post-reading attitude survey. Description of the Testing Instrument The Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination was selected to test the effectiveness of the treatment program primarily because the format most nearly approximated, as much as a test can, the treatment sessions, and the test was most relevant to the concerns

PAGE 72

• 58of the seventh grade language arts teachers in Marion County. The examination, constructed by Marion County teachers, consisted of 100 multiple choice questions measuring 17 seventh grade developmental reading objectives. The test comprised three sections: Basic Vocabulary, Comprehension, and Information Skills. Each section was subdivided into objectives and each objective had four questions. To pass each objective, subjects must have scored successfully on three out of four questions. The reading examination is administered in September and again in May of each year. When students have failed an objective on the examination, they must complete remedial assignments. The comprehension section was divided into three portions. Section one measured the ability to recognize directly stated details. Section two measured the ability to interpret what was read by identifying the main idea; perceiving relationships, drawing conclusions, and making inferences. Section three measured the ability to extend the interpretation beyond the stated information. Questions were not included which approached the evaluation and appreciation levels because evaluation and appreciation type questions were more conducive to short answer or essay response. Appendix A contains a complete copy of the reading examination and its objectives. Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted to measure the effectiveness of using the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination to measure reading comprehension gains. Pretest scores for both the 1982-1983 and 1983-1984

PAGE 73

59school year were collected. Both sets of scores revealed that students who had taken the test early in the respective school year had scored in the 60th percentile. Specifically, in 1982-1983, seventh grade students at School B averaged 63.6 percentile of total items correct out of a possible 100. In 1983-1984, School B's seventh graders scored 65.4 percentile of total items correct. Similarly, in 1982-1983 at School A, seventh grade students scored 63.1 percentile of total items correct. Again, in 1983-1984, School A's seventh graders scored 56.1 percentile of total items correct. Due to computer error. School C's scores were unavailable. No posttest scores were available for either year. During the 1982-1983 school year there was a computer failure and as a result, no Marion County reading posttests were administered to any seventh grade class. The 1983-1984 school year reading scores were not available until late in the summer of 1984. Eager to learn the posttest scores, I selected a seventh grade teacher to administer the reading examination early. A seventh grade teacher at School A administered the test to two of their average seventh grade classes on March 15, 1984. Most students completed the examination within the designated 50 minute class period. The results revealed that by mid-March of the 1983-1984 school year, most students had raised their score to the 80th percentile or above. Clearly, students' reading comprehension scores measured by this Marion County Reading Test had improved dramatically since September, 1983. Thus, it was considered best to use this test to measure reading comprehension in the beginning of the school year when gains in knowledge would not be as pronounced.

PAGE 74

-60Selection of the Treatment Material The Double Action Short Stories book (Minturn & Diggs, 1973) (a part of Scholastic's Double Action Kit) was selected for use in the treatment because it 1) was available in Green's (1976) dissertation on the effects of three different teaching strategies on the reading of middle school language arts students, 2) corresponded in format to the material presented in the pretest, 3) contained high-interest stories with photographs, and 4) had a Spache Readability Formula range from 3.0 to 3.9. The readability level corresponded as nearly as possible to the reading ability level of the students in the study. The stories were new to the students and relevant to their lives. Although the anthology contained 20 stories, only five were used. Each story was about a teenager living in the 1970s caught in a common adolescent problem. Story length ranged from 1214 words to 1668 words. The five stories varied in style and mood. Robin Herman's "Do or Die" is the story about a young boy who learns the value of teamwork. "Texas Week," by Albert Hernhutter, is a science fiction story about a man who so believes in television that the stories he sees come true. Eloise Greenfield's story, "Love, Oh, Love," is of a young girl who learns to come to grips with the death of a young man who dies in war. The revealing story of a teenager who dreams of becoming a doctor so he can help the people in his poverty stricken neighborhood is told by Harriet May Savitz and M. Caporale Shecktor in "The Water Rats." Finally, Langston Hughes' "Sorrow for a Midget" tells of an orphan who mourns the death of his mother. It was felt that

PAGE 75

61these stories would appeal to most seventh graders because they are realistic, simple, and easy to comprehend. Paperback copies of the Double Action Short Stories were not available. To compensate, xeroxed copies of the five respective short stories were used in the classroom. Development of the Treatment Questions The treatment questions were also taken from Green's (1976) dissertation. These questions were constructed so that at least one question would be at every level of Barrett's (1968) Cognitive and Affective Taxonomy of Reading Comprehension . In his dissertation. Green (1976) extensively described how these questions were formulated and what percentage of each type of question was used. The first two or three questions were almost always at the Recognition (1.1) level on the Barrett (1968) Taxonomy of Reading Comprehension in order to check for comprehension of details and main ideas central to an understanding of the plot of the story. The middle two or three questions required the student to infer (3.0) the answer. The questions were about the main idea (3.2), general significance (3.2), theme or moral (3.2) which is not explicitly stated in the short story. Between the number six and eight position, Reorganization (2.0) question level was asked. On three question sheets, students were asked to summarize information (2.3). On two other question sheets, classifying skills (2.1) were required twice and synthesizing skills (2.4) once.

PAGE 76

-62For question eight and nine, Evaluation questions (4.0) were considered. This type of question asks students to judge the moral behavior (4.5) of the character or the reality or fantasy (4.1) of the story. This was particularly important for students reading "Texas Week," an unusual science fiction story. The last of the 10 questions required students to use Appreciation (5.0) skills by evaluating their emotional response to the stories. They were asked to label or define their emotional response to the content (5.1), characters (5.2), or the author's use of language (5.3). Teachers were told to inform their students that they were not expected or required to provide any one "correct" answer to these questions. These questions appeared last in the treatment because Green (1976) believed, as this study asserts, that students need to react to how they feel about the stories. Appreciation questions allow students to draw closure on their personal involvement with the reading. By positioning these types of questions last, students were better able to justify the reasons for their emotional response. Green (1976) tested the readability level of these questions with both the Fry (1972) and Flesch (1974) formulas. On the Fry graph, the readability level was third grade. The average sentence length was 9.4 words and the average syllable count was 120. The Flesch "reading score" was 95 or "^ery Easy." This was calculated by combining 9.4 words per sentence with 120 syllables per 100 words. Three reading specialists were called in by Green (1975) to determine if his treatment questions did indeed adhere to the Barrett (1968) taxonomic levels. The three specialists all had master's

PAGE 77

• 63degrees in reading and certification to teach reading for grades kindergarten through junior college. All three concurred that the questions did match with the assigned taxonomic levels. The treatment questions can be found in Appendix D and E. Reading Attitude Inventory The Reading Attitude Inventory used in this study was developed by the San Diego County School District of California {San Diego, 1961). The attitude inventory consists of 25 questions which may be answered by marking "yes" or "no." Developed for use with primary and intermediate grade students, it contains questions which appeal to a young child's needs for independence. Typical questions are "Do you like to read before you go to bed?" and "Do you think that you are a good reader for your age?" Analysis of this inventory will generally tell if a teenager liked or disliked to read. Reliability indices for this reading attitude inventory revealed the following: A splithalves reliability coefficient (internal consistency) of .79 was obtained by correlating students' scores on the odd-numbered items with their scores on the even-numbered items. Applying the Spearman-Brown Formula showed that the correlation which would have been obtained had data on two separate administrations of the inventory been available resulted in a reliability coefficient for the entire inventory of .89. A reliability of .89 is generally regarded as sufficient for individual evaluation (Campbell & Stanley, 1973, p. 33). An empirical validity study revealed that the San Diego County Inventory of Reading Attitude (San Diego, 1961) was a valid measure

PAGE 78

-64of student attitude toward reading. Each of the 24 teachers whose students took the attitude survey was asked to indicate the three students in the room who had the best attitude toward reading and the three who had the poorest attitude toward reading. The mean raw scores and standard deviations of these two groups showed a difference of 5.4 raw score points. This difference was found to be significant well beyond the .01 level of significance. These data suggested that this inventory was a valid measure of student attitude toward reading when independent teacher judgments of reading attitude are used as the validity criterion. This inventory can be found in Appendix B. Data Collection Under the leadership of the language arts teachers, data were collected from the classes. Teachers administered three instruments—the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination as a preand posttest and Reading Attitude Survey. The three treatments were randomly assigned to the three classes of the participating teachers. The combined total of School A, School B, and School C was 15 average ability seventh grade classes of Marion County, Florida. The total sample was 326 students. From preto posttest, the treatment program was five weeks. Data collection occurred three times. The first collection involved only three of the original five teachers. After completing the treatments, two of the five teachers chose not to administer the reading posttest in December, 1984. Instead, these two teachers opted

PAGE 79

-65to implement the reading posttest examination in May, 1985, when the reading examination was normally given. The second collection of reading posttest data involved only four of the original five teachers. These data were collected in May, 1985. At this time, one teacher chose not to participate because her students were different than those tested in December, 1984. The third collection of data involved the reading attitude survey scores in December, 1984. All five teachers participated in this collection. Data Analysis Three statistical analyses of the data were performed. The first analysis was of the preand the first postreading examination scores. Analysis of covariance was used to determine the significance of the results. The covariate variable was the pretest score. The design was a 3 x 3 factorial with the teachers acting as a blocking variable. The two independent variables were the three teachers and the three teaching strategies. The dependent variable was the adjusted posttest score. There were four separate scores resulting in four questions and hypotheses for the first analysis. The second analysis was of the preand second postreading examination scores. Analysis of covariance was used to determine the significance of the results. The covariate variable was the pretest score. The design was a 3 x 4 factorial with the teachers

PAGE 80

-66acting as the blocking variable. The two independent variables were the three teaching strategies and the four teachers. The dependent variable was the adjusted posttest score. Again, there were four separate scores resulting in four questions and hypotheses for the second analysis. The third analysis was of the reading attitude survey scores. A 3x5 factorial analysis of variance was used with the teachers acting as a blocking variable. The two independent variables were the three teaching strategies and the five teachers. The dependent variable was the reading attitude score. Thus, the analysis was intended to help determine which three teaching strategies, if any, influenced seventh grade students' reading comprehension scores on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. Further, their reading attitude scores on the San Diego Reading Attitude Survey (San Diego, 1961) were analyzed in an effort to gain more insight into the attitudes of the students. Summary In review, the purpose of this study was to 1) investigate the effectiveness of three teaching strategies upon the ability of seventh grade students to answer comprehension questions about reading selections and 2) to assess the reading attitude of seventh grade students as a function of teaching strategies and teachers.

PAGE 81

-67The three teaching strategies were 1) a reading selection preceded and followed by oral questioning, 2) a reading selection preceded and followed by written questioning, and 3) a reading selection preceded and followed by no questioning. The reading selections were one of five short stories from Scholastic Double Action Short Stories (Minturn & Diggs, 1973). These stories have a Spache Readability Formula range from 3.0 to 3.9 and were intended as low-level, high-interest readers. Comprehension was measured by preand posttest scores on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. Reading attitude was assessed by the San Diego County Reading Attitude Inventory (San Diego, 1961). Participants were teacher volunteers from the seventh grade language arts departments of three previously selected schools (School A, School B, and School C) in Marion County, Florida. Reviewing each of the seventh grade teacher's classes, the investigator randomly determined which seventh grade class received which treatment. Each teaching strategy was administered once a week for five weeks. As mentioned, the teaching strategy consisted of a reading selection preceded and followed by oral, written or no questioning. The Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination is administered county-wide in September of each school year. These scores served as a covariate with the retaking of the examination

PAGE 82

-68at the conclusion of the study. This examination was used. because it most nearly approximated the treatment condisions, and it was most relevant to the teachers and students being studied. Two posttest examinations were given. The first posttest consisted of only three of the original five teachers. Two teachers chose to give the examination at the end of the school year. The second posttest consisted of four of the original five teachers. One teacher did not participate because she no longer had the students who participated in the study. The San Diego Reading Attitude Survey (San Diego, 1961) was administered only at the conclusion of the study. Prior sensitization to the reading attitude questions would significantly influence the students' answers (Campbell & Stanley, 1973, pp. 25-26). The statistical analysis involved covariance for the first eight hypotheses and factorial analysis of variance was used for the ninth hypothesis. Thus, this study attempted to investigate which three teaching variables, if any, influenced the ability of seventh grade students to increase the reading comprehension scores on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. Their reading attitude scores on the San Diego Reading Attitude Survey (San Diego, 1961) were also analyzed. Such knowledge will help all

PAGE 83

-69teachers evaluate their own skills and learn more about teaching reading.

PAGE 84

CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS This chapter contains details concerning the overall purpose of the statistical analysis of the data, the nine hypotheses, the results of the first administration of the reading examination posttest, the results of the second administration of the reading posttest, and the results of the administration of the reading attitude survey. Statistical Analysis of the Data There were three statistical analyses of the data. Two analyses were done on the reading examinations and one analysis was done on the reading attitude survey. Analysis of covariance was the procedure used for the data analysis of hypothesis one through eight on the results of the reading examination scores. Two separate analysis of covariance were necessary because the reading examination was administered twice as a posttest. The first analysis of covariance was a 3 x 3 factorial with blocking on the teacher variable. The second analysis of covariance was a 3 x 4 factorial with blocking again on the teacher variable. The two independent variables were the three teaching strategies and the three or four teachers, respectively. In each analysis, four dependent variables measuring reading outcome on the examination were studied. -70-

PAGE 85

71There was one analysis of variance. Analysis of variance was the procedure selected for the data analysis of hypothesis nine or the results of the reading attitude survey. The analysis of variance was a 3 X 5 factorial with blocking on the teacher variable. The two independent variables were the three teaching strategies and the five teachers. The dependent variable was the score on the reading attitude survey. The Nine Hypotheses There were nine hypotheses analyzed in this study. All hypotheses were stated in the null form and in the analysis of the data collected, significance at the .05 level was used as the minimum for rejection. Hypotheses one to four were repeated again as hypotheses five to eight because the two sets of data were analyzed using the same four variables. Only hypothesis nine stands alone. The nine hypotheses were HI & H5: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination objective scores among the three teaching strategies. H2 & H6: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension objective scores among the three teaching strategies. H3 & H7: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination itemized scores among the three teaching strategies.

PAGE 86

-72H4 & H8: There were no differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension itemized scores among the three teaching strategies. H9: There were no significant differences in reading attitude scores among the three teaching strategies and five teachers. Data Analysis for Hypothesis One Through Four The first analysis was based on the administration of the reading pretest in September, 1984, and the first administration of the reading posttest in December, 1984. The covariance analysis was a 3x3 factorial with blocking on the teacher variable. The two independent variables were the three teaching strategies and the three teacher levels. The means and standard deviations of all four dependent variables for all levels of teachers and teaching strategies are presented in Table 1. The scores represent the first preand the first postadministrations of the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. The results of the first administration of the reading posttest answered the first four hypotheses. Each of the hypotheses involved one of the four dependent variables found in the reading examination. The dependent variables for the reading examination will be discussed individually. A statement of the question and the null hypothesis will then follow. Subsequently, the data will be analyzed. Statistical tables for hypotheses one through four can be found in Appendix H.

PAGE 87

Table 1 Summary of Mean Numbers and Standard Deviations for Student Correct Preand Postscores I by Teachers x Teaching Strategies 4J Teaching Strategies S~. Olt— cu -axi s: c CO Pre None Post I Written Oral O CU-rPre Post I Pre Post I Ol 0) IB 1— Q> N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean . SD 1 A 21 17.90 4.56 21 17.81 4.62 22 16.36 5.03 22 17.27 3.27 19 16.63 5,36 19 15.53 5.36 B 21 10.33 3.40 21 10.43 2.87 22 9.32 3.64 22 10.00 2.96 19 8.42 4.06 19 8.63 3.77 c 21 74.52 13.89 21 74.24 13.17 22 70.64 14.04 22 72.41 9.88 19 66.79 14.79 19 65.74 15.41 D 21 43.71 10.46 21 43.71 10.06 22 41.05 10.35 22 42.64 8.81 19 37.11 9.35 19 36.74 9.27 1 -^ CO 2 A 18 12.77 5.88 18 14.00 5.45 18 13.05 5.95 18 15.66 4.51 23 19.17 3.39 23 20.74 4.50 B 18 6.66 3.63 18 7.83 4.03 18 7.00 4.50 18 8.89 3.43 22 11.59 2.92 23 12.35 2.96 C 61.28 14.95 18 62.50 15.13 18 61.39 15.71 18 66.28 12.58 22 79.55 10.93 23 81.30 13.54 D 18 34.33 10.82 18 36.39 10.88 18 34.28 11.80 18 38.78 9.71 22 47.24 8.84 23 48.87 8.99 3 A 22 19.40 3.65 22 20.18 3.70 23 17.65 6.66 23 19.78 5.85 18 17.22 5.18 18 19.88 3.98 B 22 11.95 2.65 22 11.68 2.80 23 10.83 4.38 23 11.57 4.34 18 10.11 3.42 18 11.94 2.80 C 22 79.09 9.21 22 80.59 10.97 23 73.26 17.28 23 79.04 16.75 18 73.11 12.88 18 81.33 11.40 D 22 47.18 7.28 22 48.14 7.32 23 44.83 10.70 23 46.44 11.87 18 43.88 9.57 18 48.94 9.01 Note. A = Read ing Examination Objective Score (Maximum = 25). B = Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Score (M aximum = 15) ^ C = Read ing Examination Itemized Score i Maximum = 100). D = Read ing Examination Comprehension Itemized Score (Maximum = 60) •

PAGE 88

•74Hypothesis one Hypothesis one concerns the dependent variable reading examination objective score. The reading examination objective score measures the total number of objectives passed on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. The highest possible score was 25. Question 1: Was there . a., difference in reading examination objective scores among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? HI: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination objective scores among the three teaching strategies. Initial differences existed among the three teaching strategies for the pretest reading examination objective scores (F = 9.16, df = 8, p < .05). To compensate for these initial differences, analysis of covariance was used. Homogeneity of regression slopes was found to be significant (F = 2.15, df = 8, p < .05). Simple effects for each teacher level were completed. For teacher one, simple effects were significant (F = 9.00, df = 2, p < .05). For teacher two and three, simple effects were nonsignificant. Therefore, for teacher one, HI was rejected. For teacher two and three, HI was not rejected. Statistical tables for HI can be found in Appendix H.

PAGE 89

-75Hypothesis two Hypothesis two concerned the dependent variable reading examination comprehension objective score. The reading examination comprehension objective score measures the total number of objectives passed on the reading comprehension section of the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. The highest possible score was 15. Question 2: Was there a difference in reading examination comprehension objective scores among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H2: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension objective scores among the three teaching strategies. Initial differences existed among the three teaching strategies for the pretest reading examination comprehension objective scores (F = 9.28, df = 8, p < .05). To compensate for these initial differences, analysis of covariance was used. Homogeneity of regression slopes was found to be nonsignificant. There were no significant interactions among the three teaching strategies and the three teachers. There were no significant main effects among the three teaching strategies. There were no significant main effects among the three teachers. Therefore, H2 was not rejected. Statistical tables for H2 can be found in Appendix H.

PAGE 90

-76Hypothesis three Hypothesis three concerned the dependent variable reading examination itemized score. The reading examination itemized score measures the total number of individual items or questions answered correctly on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. The highest possible score was 100. Question 3: Was there a difference in reading examination itemized scores among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H3: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination itemized scores among the three teaching strategies. Initial differences existed among the three teaching strategies for the pretest reading examination itemized scores (F = 7.33, df = 8, p < .05). To compensate for these initial differences, analysis of covariance was used. Homogeneity of regression slopes was found to be nonsignificant. There were no significant interactions among the three teaching strategies and the three teachers. There were no significant main effects among the three teaching strategies. There was a significant main, effect among the three teachers (F = 8.19, df = 2, p < .05). Significant contrasts existed between teachers one and three, and teachers two and three. Therefore, H3 was rejected for teachers only. Statistical tables for H3 can be found in Appendix H.

PAGE 91

77Hypothesis four Hypothesis four concerned dependent variable reading examination comprehension itemized score. The reading examination comprehension itemized score measures the total number of individual items or questions passed on the reading comprehension section of the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. The highest possible score was 65. Question 4: Was there a difference in reading examination comprehension itemized scores among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H4: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension itemized scores among the three teaching strategies. Initial differences existed among the three teaching strategies for the pretest reading examination comprehension itemized scores (F = 9.05, df = 8, p < .05). To compensate for these initial differences, analysis of covariance was used. Homogeneity of regression slopes was found to be nonsignificant. There was no significant interaction among the three teaching strategies and the three teachers. There was no significant main effect among the three teaching strategies. There was a significant main effect among the three teachers. Significant contrasts existed between teachers one and three. Therefore, H4 is rejected for teachers. Statistical tables for H4 can be found in Appendix H.

PAGE 92

78Data Analysis for Hypotheses Five Through Eight The second analysis was based on the first administration of the reading pretest in September, 1984, and the second administration of the reading posttest in May, 1985. The covariance analysis was a 3 X 4 factorial with blocking on the teacher variable. The two independent variables were the three teaching strategies and the four teachers. The means and standard deviations of all four dependent variables for all levels of teachers and teaching strategies are presented in Table 2. The scores represent the first preand the second postadministration of the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. The results of the second administration of the reading posttest answered hypothesis five through eight. Each of the hypotheses involved one of the four dependent variables found in the reading examination. The dependent variables for the reading examination will be discussed individually. A statement of the question and the null hypothesis will then follow. Subsequently, the data will be analyzed. Statistical tables for hypotheses six through eight can be found in Appendix H. Hypothesis five Hypothesis five concerned the dependent variable reading examination objective score. Reading examination objective scores measured the total number of objectives passed on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. The highest possible score was 25,

PAGE 93

Table 2 Summary of Mean Numbers and Standard Deviations for Student Correct Preand Postscores II by Teachers x Teaching Strategies Teaching Strategies sC 0) QJrOJ-rQ.SNone Wri tten Oral o Pre Post II Pre Post II Pre Post II (1) (0 N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD 1 A 21 17.90 4.50 19 17.58 4.98 23 16.36 5.03 20 18.30 3.39 19 15.63 5.36 16 15.63 5,16 B 21 10.33 3.40 19 9.95 3.85 22 9.32 3.64 20 10.50 3.03 19 8.42 4,06 16 8.38 4.05 C 21 74.52 13.89 19 75.53 13.08 22 70.64 14.04 22 75.75 10.46 19 66,79 14,79 16 68.25 13.67 D 21 43.71 10.46 19 43.95 10,08 22 41.05 10.35 20 43.85 9.33 19 37.11 9.35 16 39,88 10.39 1 2 A 18 12.77 5.88 16 15.94 6.33 18 13.05 5.95 14 11.00 6,48 23 19.17 3,39 22 22.05 4.10 B 18 6.65 3.63 16 8.94 4.58 18 7.00 4.50 14 6.43 4.68 22 11.59 2,92 22 12.95 3.23 C 18 61.28 14.95 16 68.37 18.22 18 61,39 15.71 14 54.36 19.12 22 79.55 10.93 22 86.05 11.55 D 18 34.33 10.82 16 37.94 14.55 18 34.28 11.80 14 28.64 13.94 22 47.27 8.84 22 51.23 9.32 4 A 25 17.00 5.69 26 15.50 7.21 25 15.32 5.38 25 15.52 6.42 19 15,37 5,20 20 14.55 7.05 B 25 9.36 4.06 26 8.46 4.83 25 8.40 3.93 25 8.64 4.33 19 9,11 4,07 20 8.45 5.06 C 25 73.40 13.52 26 64.96 22.83 25 68.08 14.73 25 68.20 17.87 19 69,47 15.61 20 60.05 20.21 D 25 42.96 9.57 26 36.96 15.02 25 39.60 10.91 25 39,32 12.16 19 41,32 9.91 20 38.55 14.54 5 A 25 22.80 1.68 25 23.04 1.93 25 11.80 5.42 25 16,80 5.31 20 12.30 5.82 20 16,15 4.44 B 25 13.72 1.24 25 13.88 1.33 25 16.00 3.67 25 9,84 3,75 19 6,74 3,93 20 9.45 3.44 C 25 87.80 5.46 25 90.32 5.60 25 71.80 13.24 25 59.20 13,65 19 61.95 15,32 20 70.00 15.24 U 25 52.96 3.75 25 54.24 3.95 25 32.76 9.99 25 41.16 9,74 19 34.53 11,57 20 41.05 11.90

PAGE 94

Table 2 continued Notes . A = Reading Examination Objective Score (Maximum = 25). B = Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Score (Maximum = 15). C = Reading Examination Itemized Score (Maximum = 100). D = Reading Examination Comprehension Itemized Score (Maximum = 60). I o

PAGE 95

-81Question 5: Was there a difference in reading examination objective scores for the second administration of the posttest among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H5: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination objective scores for the second administration of the posttest among teaching strategies. Initial differences existed among the three teaching strategies for the pretest reading examination objective scores (F = 9.16, df = 8, p < .05). To compensate for these initial differences, analysis of covariance was used. Homogeneity of regression slopes was found to be nonsignificant. There was a significant interaction among the three teaching strategies and the four teachers (F = 2.94, df = 6, p < .05). For teacher two, there was a significant interaction between the teaching strategy using no exercises and the teaching strategy using written exercises and between the teaching strategy using written exercises and the teaching strategy using oral exercises. There were no significant interactions among the three teaching strategies and teachers one, four, and five. There was no significant main effect among the three teaching strategies. There was a significant main effect among the four teachers (F = 6.89, df = 3, p < .05). Significant main effects were found between teachers one and four, one and five, two and four, two and five, and four and five. Therefore, H5 was rejected for the significant

PAGE 96

82interaction among teaching strategies and teacher two and the significant main effects among teachers. Statistical tables for H5 can be found in Appendix H. Hypothesis six Hypothesis six concerned the dependent variable reading examination comprehension objective score. Reading examination comprehension objective score measures the total number of objectives passed on the comprehension section of the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. The highest possible score was 15. Question 6: Was there a difference in reading examination comprehension objective scores on the second administration of the posttest among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H6: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension objective scores for the second administration of the posttest among the three teaching strategies. Initial differences existed among the three teaching strategies for the pretest reading examination comprehension objective scores (F = 9.28, df = 8, p < .05). To compensate for these initial differences, analysis of covariance was used. Homogeneity of regression slopes was found to be nonsignificant. There was no significant interaction among the three teaching strategies and the four teachers. There was no significant main effect among teaching strategies. There

PAGE 97

•83was a significant main effect among teachers (F = 7.80, df = 3, p < .05). Significant contrasts were found between teachers one and five, two and four, two and five, and four and five. Therefore, H6 was rejected for teachers. Statistical tables for H6 can be found in Appendix H. Hypothesis seven Hypothesis seven concerned the dependent variable reading examination itemized score. The reading examination itemized score measures the total number of individual items or questions answered correctly on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. The highest possible score was 100. Question 7: Was there a difference in reading examination itemized scores on the second administration of the posttest among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H7: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination itemized scores for the second administration of the posttest among the three teaching strategies. Initial differences existed among the three teaching strategies for the pretest reading examination itemized scores (F = 7.33, df = 8, p < .05). To compensate for these differences, analysis of covariance was used. Homogeneity of regression slopes was found to be nonsignificant. There was a significant interaction among the three

PAGE 98

-84teaching strategies and the four teachers (F = 7.36, df = 6, p < .05). Specifically, there was a significant interaction among teacher two and the three teaching strategies. There was a significant interaction among teacher five and the teaching strategy using no exercises and the teaching strategy using written exercises. Finally, there was a significant interaction among teacher five and the teaching strategy using written exercises and the teaching strategy using oral exercises. There was a significant main effect for the three teaching strategies (F = 6.90, df = 2, p < .05). Significant contrasts were found between the teaching strategy using no exercises and the teaching strategy using written exercises, and between the teaching strategy using written exercises and the teaching strategy using oral exercises. There was a significant main effect for teachers (F = 3.97, df = 3, p < .05). Significant contrasts were found between teachers one and four, two and four, and four and five. Therefore, H7 was rejected for the one significant interaction and the two main effects. Statistical tables for H7 can be found in Appendix H. Hypothesis eight Hypothesis eight concerned the dependent variable reading examination comprehension itemized score. The reading examination comprehension itemized score measured the total number individual items or questions passed on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. The highest possible score was 65.

PAGE 99

•85Question 8: Was there a difference in reading examination comprehension itemized scores on the second administration of the posttest among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H8: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttested reading examination comprehension itemized scores for the second administration of the posttest among the three teaching strategies. Initial differences existed among the three teaching strategies on the pretest reading examination comprehension itemized' scores (F = 9.05, df = 8, p < .05). To compensate for these initial differences, analysis of covariance was used. Homogeneity of regression slopes was found to be nonsignificant. There was a significant interaction among the three teaching strategies and the four teachers (F = 2.30, df = 6, p < .05). For teacher two, significant contrasts existed between the teaching strategy using no exercises and the teaching strategy using written exercises and between the teaching strategy using written exercises and the teaching strategy using oral exercises. There were nonsignificant interactions among the three teaching strategies and teachers one, four, and five. There was no significant main effect for teaching strategies. There was a significant main effect for teachers (F = 9.05, df = 3, p < .05). Significant contrasts were found between teachers one and four, two and five, and four and five. Therefore, H8 was rejected for the significant interaction among teaching strategies and teachers and for the significant main effect among teachers. Statistical tables for H8 can be found in Appendix H.

PAGE 100

-86Data Analysis for Hypothesis Nine The third analysis was based on the administration of the San Diego Reading Attitude Survey in December, 1984. The statistical design is a 3 x 5 factorial design with blocking on the teacher variable. The two independent variables were the three teaching strategies and the five teacher levels. The means and standard deviations of the one dependent variable for all levels of teachers and teaching strategies are presented in Table 3. The scores represent the only administration of the reading attitude survey. The San Diego Reading Attitude Survey (San Diego, 1961) was 15 yes or no questions designed to elicit responses about reading preferences. The results of the data were analyzed by hypothesis nine. Question 9: Were seventh grade language arts students' reading attitude scores different as a function of teaching strategies or teachers? H9: There were no significant differences in reading attitude scores among the three teaching strategies and five teachers. Since only a posttest was administered, analysis of variance was used. No significant interactions were found among teaching strategies and teachers. There was no significant main effect among teaching strategies. There was a significant main effect among teachers (F = 10.83, df = 4, p < .05). Analysis of teacher contrasts revealed that there was a significant difference between teachers one and four.

PAGE 101

Table 3 Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for Saii Diego Reading Scores Teaching Strategy Teacher None Written Oral Level N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD 1 21 10.14 5.70 21 7.57 4.43 18 10.55 6.21 2 16 7.88 6.17 9 12.00 5.48 23 11.04 5.76 3 22 9.64 5.62 23 9.56 6.36 18 10.16 4.26 4 26 13.92 5.55 25 15.76 5.16 20 14.15 6.69 5 25 14.16 4.98 25 10.36 5.16 20 14.55 5.27 Note. San Diego Readir g Attitude Score Max imum = 25. N = Number of students. Mean = Mean San Diego Reading Attitude Score. SD = Standard Deviation for San Diego Reading Attitude Score. I CO I

PAGE 102

88one and five, two and four, three and four, and three and five. Therefore, H9 was rejected for teachers. Statistical tables for H9 can be found in Appendix H. Summary In conclusion, analysis of the eight null hypotheses resulted in the selection of no specific teacher or teaching strategy as significant in increasing reading examination scores. However, there was a basis for rejecting, in part, some of the hypotheses. The reading attitude analysis indicated significant differences according to teachers but not teaching strategies. Nothing conclusive can be discerned from the reading attitude scores.

PAGE 103

CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Background and Purpose of the Study A search for answers to problems encountered in increasing reading comprehension led to this study. In recent years (1982-83, 198384) the reading scores on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination at specific area schools have been relatively low. In these schools, the average score for seventh graders was around the 50th percentile, while on some the sub-sections of the comprehension section the scores were as low as the 30th percentile. This study was designed to help teachers improve the performance of these students on this reading examination as well as measure their students' attitude toward reading in general as a function of these teachers and teaching strategies. Problems encountered by all instructors revolve around increasing comprehension of their subject matter within the normal school year. Specifically, teachers are continually forced to decide on the best teaching strategy to present their material and increase understanding. Often, this choice involves one or a combination of three teaching strategies: independent, oral, or written work. The net effect, teachers hope, is that there will be a pronounced difference in comprehension both in understanding and on examinations. The resulting -89-

PAGE 104

-goproblem is that teachers will sometimes select a teaching technique without a substantial experimental base for their decision. Furthermore, even though most teachers use oral questions in their classroom, much research concentrates on the effectiveness of written questioning techniques to influence learning. Thus, the central problem of this study was examining comparable effectiveness of teaching styles, namely questioning techniques, to develop comprehension. A review of the existing literature on questioning techniques revealed that educators have done extensive work in three defined areas: the position of the question, the level of the question, and the difference between oral and written questions. Most of the research, though, concerned only written questions. Nevertheless, the results of research on positioning revealed that written questions appearing before or after the material to be learned have proven to be effective in increasing understanding. Research studies (Gigante, 1980; Wilen, 1982) showed that teachers who included both lower and higher order questions after the material to be studied tended to produce greater class involvement and higher academic scores on subsequent examinations. Other studies demonstrated that questions based upon Barrett's (1968) Taxonomy would be the best to use in classes involving reading activities. Since this experiment would include reading selections and test reading comprehension, Barrett's (1968) Taxonomy was selected for framing the accompanying questions. As mentioned, a review of the literature indicated a paucity of studies devoted to oral questioning and its effect on comprehension.

PAGE 105

91Stin fewer studies examined the comparative effectiveness of oral and written questions and its influence on reading comprehension. Moreover, most teachers, if not all, practice oral questioning to some extent in their classrooms. Given these facts, oral questioning was selected as a variable to be studied in this design. Another element examined was the intervening variable of reading attitude. Reading attitude measures an individual's likes and dislikes about reading in general. Since the experiment involved much reading, the San Diego Reading Attitude Survey (San Diego, 1961) was administered at the conclusion of the study. The aim was to see if there was any apparent pattern as a function of teaching strategies of individual teachers. Finally, most of the research on questioning techniques has been conducted in only elementary, high school, and college classrooms. Few studies have concerned middle schools. In addition, these experiments were not extensive in scope and design. Generally, they used fewer treatment sessions, teaching styles, and students. Testing was limited to material only taught in the classroom. This study broadened its range by including more treatment sessions, styles, and students and testing for reading comprehension on a more general examination. Therefore, the purpose of this study was threefold. The first purpose was to improve scores on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination at selected schools. The second purpose was to examine the comparable effectiveness of three teaching strategies to improve reading comprehension ability. The three strategies were teacher directed and involved no, written, or oral questioning

PAGE 106

-92arranged according to the Barrett (1968) Taxonomy . These techniques are predominant in elementary and secondary classrooms and considered significant in determining reading comprehension ability. The third purpose was to examine reading attitude scores as a function of teachers and teaching strategies. Research Questions and Hypotheses Nine questions and hypotheses were selected to be tested for the statistical analysis of the data on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. These nine questions and hypotheses corresponded to each of the four reading scores tabulated from the examination. The four reading scores were reading examination objective score, reading examination comprehension objective score, reading examination itemized score, and reading examination comprehension itemized score. The first statistical analysis, question one through four, involved the first administration of the posttest at the end of the five weeks. Ql: Was there a difference in reading examination objective scores among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? Stated in operational null form, the hypothesis was HI: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination objective among the three teaching strategies. Q2: Was there a difference in reading examination comprehension objective scores among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions?

PAGE 107

93H2: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension objective scores among the three teaching strategies. Q3: Was there a difference in reading examination itemized scores among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H3: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination itemized scores among the three teaching strategies. Q4: Was there a difference in reading examination comprehension itemized scores among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H4: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension itemized scores among the three teaching strategies. The second statistical analysis involved the second administration of the posttest at the conclusion of the school year. The analysis concerned questions five through eight. Q5: Was there a difference in reading examination objective scores for the second administration of the posttest among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions?

PAGE 108

•94H5: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination objective scores for the second administration of the posttest among the three teaching strategies. Q6: Was there a difference in reading examination comprehension objective scores on the second administration of the posttest among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H6; There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension objective scores for the second administration of the posttest among the three teaching strategies. Q7: Was there a difference in reading examination itemized scores on the second administration of the posttest among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H7: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination itemized scores for the second administration of the posttest among the three teaching strategies. Q8: Was there a difference in reading examination comprehension itemized scores on the second administration of the posttest among students who wrote about short story questions, students who had class discussions about these same questions, and students who read the same stories but answered no questions? H8: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension itemized scores for the second administration of the posttest among the three teaching strategies.

PAGE 109

•95One question was selected to be tested for the statistical analysis of the data collected on the San Diego Reading Attitude Survey. Q9: Were seventh grade language arts students' reading attitude scores different as a function of teaching strategies or teachers? H9: There were no significant differences in reading attitude scores among the three teaching strategies and five teachers. Study Design The experiment was a control group pretest-posttest design. Five teachers were involved in implementing three different teaching strategies during a six-week program. Each teacher used each of the three teaching strategies, which had been randomly assigned to their three classes. Each teacher used the same teaching strategy with the same class for one 5 0-minute class period a week for five weeks. The three strategies were 1) a group which read stories and then neither discussed nor wrote answers to questions about the stories; 2) a group which read inferential questions before reading the stories, read the stories, and then wrote answers to questions about the stories; 3) a group which listened to inferential questions before reading the stories, read the stories, and then discussed questions about the stories. Five stories were used from a low-level, high-interest series by Scholastic. These stories and one of the three randomly assigned

PAGE 110

96teaching strategies were presented once a week for five weeks (October 29-Noveniber 2, 1984 to November 26-30, 1984). Reading gains were measured on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. The reading examination was administered as a pretest in September, 1984, and as a posttest during the sixth and final week (December 3-7, 1984) of the experiment. Reading attitude was measured only once as a posttest. The instrument used was a 25-item questionnaire designed to reflect the reading concerns of adolescents. Data Collection Prior to experimentation, adequate steps were taken to assure that teaching strategies would be randomly assigned and samples would be of average ability. Originally, five language arts teachers volunteered for this study. When one teacher decided not to participate, another teacher volunteered to become the replacement. Each of the five teachers had three average ability grouped classes with which to conduct the experiment. School administrators and guidance counselors had previously determined average ability of the students by analyzing scores on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills and the recommendations of past teachers. Racial and sexual mix for each class was also determined by evidence found in the cumulative folder. Teaching strategies were randomly assigned to each of the five teacher's three language arts classes. At a training session in the fall of 1984, instructions were given on when and how to administer

PAGE 111

97the teaching strategies, the reading examination, and the reading attitude survey. The actual experiment was performed from September to December, 1984. In the first week of September, the pretest was given and then for six weeks from the end of October to the start of December, the experiment was conducted. As said, the first five weeks were devoted to the treatments. Then, on the sixth week, the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination was given again to measure possible significant gains in reading. At this juncture, there was a problem. Two of the five teachers decided not to administer the reading examination as a posttest. Instead, they opted to give the examination in May, 1985. Thus, this experiment had two data collections. The first occurred in December, 1984, when the three teachers issued the posttest to each of their three classes. The second occurred in May, 1985, when four of the original five teachers gave the examination to their classes. One examiner of the original five could not give the examination in May, 1985, because that teacher no longer had the same students as before. Reading attitude scores, though, were collected from all five teachers or 15 groups at the conclusion of the original experiment in December, 1984. The attitude survey was administered on a day separate from the reading examination. Therefore, this experiment was divided into three separate data collections. The first collection was the original examination in the fall of 1984 which consisted of three teachers and nine classes. The total number of students was 146, The second collection was the

PAGE 112

98admini strati on of the posttest in May, 1985, without any additional experimentation. The data consisted of four teachers and 12 classes. The total number of seventh grade students was 236. The third collection was the administration of the San Diego Reading Attitude Survey (San Diego, 1961) in December, 1984. The data consisted of five teachers and 15 classes. The total number of students was 326. Conclusions The general conclusion to be drawn from these results is that no conclusion can be drawn. The three purposes for this study were not realized. Reading scores did not improve significantly on either the first or second administration of the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination as a posttest. Similarly, no one teacher and/or teaching strategy on both postadministrations of the reading examination proved consistently to be more effective than another in improving reading scores. There were only differences for each teacher. Finally, reading attitude scores as a function of teachers and teaching strategies showed significant differences for only each teacher. The specifics forthese conclusions will be discussed. Hypotheses one through four were devoted to the comparison of the preand the first posttest scores on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. The pretest was given in September, 1984, and the first posttest in December, 1984. Analysis of the data revealed that for the first four hypotheses the average pretest reading score was significantly different for the three teaching strategies. For

PAGE 113

•99each hypothesis, analysis of covariance was used to compensate for these differences. HI: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination objective scores among the three teaching strategies. Analysis was done on the within group regression slopes for each treatment group. The results showed that for teacher one, the teaching strategy using written exercises had a regression slope which was not equal to the teaching strategy using no exercises and the teaching strategy using oral exercises. Thus, the results of hypothesis one indicated that for teacher one, the effect of the program depended on the level of the pretest. Analysis of covariance was not continued because the three treatment groups were not initially equal. H2: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension objective scores. Analysis of covariance showed no significant interactions or main effects. Therefore, H2 was not rejected. H3: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination itemized scores among the three teaching strategies. Analysis of covariance resulted in no significant interactions among teachers and teaching strategies and no significant main effects among teaching strategies alone. There was a significant main effect among teachers (F = 8.19, df = 2, p < .05). Significant contrasts existed between teachers one and three and teachers two and three. Thus, hypothesis three was rejected for only these teacher contrasts.

PAGE 114

100H4: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension itemized scores among the three teaching strategies. Analysis of covariance resulted in no significant interactions among teachers and teaching strategies and no significant main effects among teaching strategies alone. There was a significant main effect among teachers (F = 4.57, df = 2, p < .05). A significant contrast existed between teacher one and three. Thus, hypothesis four was rejected only for this contrast. Hypotheses five through eight were devoted to the comparison of the preand the second posttest score on the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination. The pretest was given in September, 1984, and the second posttest in May, 1985, five months after the experiment had concluded. This second posttest was analyzed in an attempt to compensate for the two teachers and six classes which had failed to participate in the original experiment. Also, this second examination served as the posttest for the seventh grade school year. As before, analyses of the data revealed that for hypotheses five, six, seven, and eight, the average pretest reading score was significantly different for the three teaching strategies. For each hypothesis, analysis of covariance was used to compensate for these differences. H5: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination objective scores for the second administration of the posttest among the three teaching strategies. Analysis of covariance resulted in a significant interaction among teachers and teaching strategies (F = 2.94, df = 5, p < .05). For

PAGE 115

-101teacher two, significant contrasts existed between the teaching strategy using no exercises and the teaching strategy using written exercises and between the teaching strategy using written exercises and the teaching strategy using oral exercises. No significant interactions were found among teachers one, four, and five and the three teaching strategies. Hypothesis five had no significant main effect among teaching strategies alone. Hypothesis five did have a significant main effect for teachers alone (F = 6.89, df 3, p < .05). Significant contrasts were found between teachers two and four, two and five, one and four, one and five, and four and five. Thus, hypothesis five was rejected for the significant interaction among teachers and teaching strategies and for the main effect for teachers alone. H6: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension objective scores for the second administration of the posttest among the three teaching strategies. Analysis of covariance resulted in no significant interaction among teachers and teaching strategies and no main effect among teaching strategies alone. A significant main effect was found among teachers alone (F = 7.80, df = 3, p < .05). Significant contrasts were found between teachers one and five, two and four, two and five, and four and five. Thus, hypothesis six was rejected for the main effect for teachers alone. H7: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination itemized scores for the second administration of the posttest among the three teaching strategies.

PAGE 116

• 102Analysis of covariance resulted in a significant interaction among teachers and teaching strategies (F = 7.36, df = 6, p < .05). For teacher two, significant interaction contrasts were found among all three strategies. For teacher five, significant interaction contrasts were found between the teaching strategy using no exercises and the teaching strategy using written exercises and between the teaching strategy using written exercises and the teaching strategy using oral exercises. No significant interaction was found among teacher one and the three teaching strategies and teacher four and the three teaching strategies. A significant main effect was found for teaching strategies alone (F = 6.90, df = 2, p < .05). Significant contrasts existed between the teaching strategy using no exercises vs. the teaching strategy using written exercises and between the teaching strategy using written exercises and the teaching strategy using oral exercises. A significant main effect was found for teachers alone (F = 3.97, df = 3, p < .05). Significant contrasts were found between teachers one and four, two and four, and four and five. Therefore, hypothesis seven was rejected for the specific contrasts stated above. H8: There were no significant differences in adjusted posttest reading examination comprehension itemized scores for the second administration of the posttest among the three teaching strategies. Analysis of covariance resulted in a significant interaction among the teachers and the three teaching strategies (F = 2.30, df = 6, p < .05). For teacher two, significant interaction contrasts were

PAGE 117

103found between the teaching strategy using no exercises and the teaching strategy using written exercises and between the teaching strategy using written exercises and the teaching strategy using oral exercises. No significant interaction was found among teachers one, four, five, and the three teaching strategies. No significant main effect was found among teaching strategies alone. A significant main effect was found for teachers alone (F = 9.05, df = 3, p < .05). Significant contrasts were found between teachers one and four, two and five, and four and five. Thus, hypothesis eight was rejected for the significant interaction among teachers and teaching strategies and for the main effect teachers alone. Hypothesis nine is devoted to the comparison of the scores on the San Diego Reading Attitude Scale (San Diego, 1961) as a function of the five teachers and the three teaching strategies. The San Diego Reading Attitude Scale was given by all five teachers in December, 1984, at the conclusion of the treatments. The scale was 25 yes or no questions about reading habits. H9: There were no significant differences in reading attitude scores among the five teachers and the three teaching strategies. Analysis of variance resulted in no significant interactions among teachers and teaching strategies and no significant main effects among teaching strategies alone. A significant main effect was found among teachers alone (F = 10.83, df = 4, p < .05). Significant contrasts existed between teachers one and four, one and five, two and four,

PAGE 118

•104two and five, three and four, and three and five. Therefore, H9 was rejected for teachers only. Implications Since this experiment did not occur as originally conceived, it is difficult to make specific implications based on this research. The original experiment called for 15 seventh grade language arts classes to take the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination as a pretest in September, 1984, and again as a posttest in December, 1984. The testing occurred as planned with the respective intervening treatments, yet, six seventh grade classes did not take the posttest in December, 1984. Instead, these six classes, as well as six more of the original 15, took the posttest in May, 1985. These complications, therefore, necessitated two analyses of the reading examination data. The first analysis involved only nine of the original 15 classes. The second analysis involved only 12 of the original 15 classes. Despite these problems though, there are a few implications to be drawn. The first implication is that in both analyses there were significant differences in reading examination preand posttest scores according to teachers. In this study no one teaching style prevailed as the sole effective method for increasing reading scores. Indeed, what occurred was that certain teachers were found to be significantly more effective with either one or all the teaching styles. In the first analysis, hypotheses three and four indicated that teacher three had significantly different preand first posttest reading scores

PAGE 119

•105than teachers one and two. In the second analysis, hypotheses five to eight had teacher effects also, but the effective teachers differed for each hypothesis. The first implication to be drawn, then, was that the teacher played an important role in imparting knowledge and generating enthusiasm for the material. The second implication of this study was that in the first analysis none of the three teaching strategies made any significant difference in preand posttest reading examination scores. In hypothesis one to four, there were no significant interactions among teachers and teaching strategies and no main effects for teaching strategies. Furthermore, although questioning might have helped students focus on their reading, it did not solely help to significantly increase their reading scores in the first analysis. During the treatments, questioning was most helpful in allowing students needing time to digest and understand the material. Questioning also prepared students for the reading examination format. The resulting message for classroom teachers is probably mixed. Certainly, this study does not advocate the use of questions as the sole method for increasing reading comprehension ability, nor does it propose eliminating questions altogether. At best, questions should be used judiciously throughout the learning process in both preand postpositions to assure adequate preparation on behalf of the students. No mention has been made of the many interactions and main effects which occurred in hypotheses five to eight for the second analyses. This is for two reasons. First, it would be presumptuous to remark about the effect of teaching strategies in the second analysis since

PAGE 120

106the treatments were no longer in effect. Posttesting occurred five months after the treatments were stopped. Second, little is known about the teachers and their teaching strategies outside the experiment. Any teacher effects as a result of the second analysis can best be described as chance. The third implication of this study was that the teacher played a role in shaping reading attitude, yet that role cannot be labeled as the sole determiner for the different scores. As shown in the third analysis, teachers four and five had slightly higher reading attitude scores than teachers one, two, and three. Still, since this experiment did not measure preand posttest differences in reading attitude, higher reading attitude scores cannot be directly attributed to teachers. There were no interactions for teachers and teaching strategies and no main effects for teaching strategies. Thus, the implication for teachers is that they can exhibit a modest influence on reading attitude among adolescents. Therefore, there were three implications for this study. First, this study showed that in the first analysis a teacher, teacher three, made significant differences in reading examination scores. Second, this study showed in the first analysis, no one teaching style resulted in significant differences in reading examination scores. Third, this study showed in the third analysis that teachers my have some effect on reading attitude. The resulting implication for classroom teachers is that they make a difference in learning.

PAGE 121

-107Recommendations The following recommendations are made for future research which has a similar design and comparable variables. 1. As mentioned in the Conclusions section, this study could have been improved if it had included the original design of the five teachers and 15 classes at the time of the first administration of the Marion County Seventh Grade Reading Examination, Instead, only three teachers and nine classes from the original group participated in the first posttesting. By eliminating the two teachers and six classes, the full effect of the program was not realized. To perform the same experiment again, one recommendation would be to expand the first analysis of the results to encompass at least all the original design. 2. Future replications of this study should involve both a longer period between preand posttesting and/or many more treatment sessions. In Chapter One, the assumption was made that six weeks would be sufficient time to assess for differences among teaching strategies for reading examination and reading attitude scores. The assumption was also made that five repeated sessions of the treatment process, one once a week, would be sufficient to indicate differences. This probably was an error, especially given the fact that students were not immersed in totally different teaching strategies. At best, the students experienced the strategies once a week, and then throughout the remainder of the week at a teacher's discretion. From my experience with this research, it is recommended, then, to expand the

PAGE 122

-108experiment to a 10-week program and allow the same teaching strategy to be presented twice a week to the same class for the 10 weeks. Ten weeks would double the experimental time. 3. Since student scores of teacher three were found to be significant, in the first analysis, it is recommended that the number of teachers and students be expanded beyond the original design. The inclusion of more subjects into the design might yield greater significant results for one overall teaching strategy or at least reveal a pattern where a series of teachers show significant differences for one teaching style. 4. The addition of a new teaching strategy is another recommendation. This experiment compared three teaching strategies of no instruction, oral instruction, and written instruction because these instructional techniques were felt to be present in most elementary and secondary classrooms. The inclusion of a fourth strategy which involves the combination of written and oral instruction would be another possible alternative. Certainly, a large percentage of classroom instruction demonstrates this laternative. 5. This study measured reading attitude only after the first administration of the posttest. It is recommended then that future replications of this experiment institute the reading attitude survey at the time of the reading pretest. Significant differences for reading attitude scores compared with teacher strategies and teacher levels could be analyzed. more meaningfully. 6. It is recommended that if this experiment were to be replicated, two administrations of the reading examination would be given.

PAGE 123

-109As in this study, the first administration would test immediate effects and the second administration would test long term effects. Two administrations of the posttest were not originally intended for this experiment, but they should be a part of repeated studies. 7. Design of a student/teacher rating sheet to indicate teaching style preference is recommended. Such a questionnaire would be designed and analyzed similar to the reading attitude survey and benefit the students and teachers in the sample population as well as elsewhere. 8. The final recommendation is that future replications of this study should include a preand post-examination which is already an integral part of the existing language arts program. As in this study, the examination standardized to the county's reading objectives best represents the student's progress. Research on reading comprehension and reading attitude has been quite extensive for over 20 years. The focus of this research has been primarily on the use of questioning techniques to influence either reading comprehension or reading attitude. The results of these studies have indicated that written questioning styles which use predominantly inferential prequestions and factual and inferential postquestions were most effective in increasing reading comprehension scores. More research is needed, though, on the effectiveness of oral questioning techniques to influence reading comprehension. Similarly, there is also research needed on the effectiveness of questioning techniques to influence reading attitude. This study and others like it are important steps in achieving that goal.

PAGE 124

APPENDIX A THE MARION COUNTY SEVENTH GRADE READING EXAMINATION

PAGE 125

A-2 READING SEVENTH GR4VDE Choose the correct nnawet tliat has the same meaning as the underlined word. 1. Because Gall has always enjoyed traveling, she went on a expedi tion to Africa. — A. Journey B. airplane C. experiment D. challenge 2. Many settlers carae to this country because they thought It would be a land o£ opportunity for them. They expected the move would give them a chance to do well. A. a good position In life B. a guarantee of wealth C. often very unfortunate D. once In a lifetime 3. The magician made the rabbit vanish . A. shine B. hop C. disappear D.' appear 4. Gretel was lost In the denae forest. A. dark B. good looking C. athletic D. thick B-5a Read the sentence and choose the answer which means the same as the underlined word(a). 5. These bones are more ancient than those. A. not as old B. Just as old C. older D. oldest 111-

PAGE 126

U2' I i 6. She was tlie most nnxiouB student In the room at report card tlnie. A. not worried at all B. more worried Lliiin the other atudenta C. not an worried na the other studento D. equally as worried as the other students 7. The Mississippi River is broader than the Ohio River. ' i I A. wider U. not as wide C. equally as wide D. wide 8. She is the wickedest witch oE the west. A. not as evil B. just ns evil C. eviler D. more evil than any other B-8a I Choose the best meaning for the underlined word. 9. The teactier previewed the film. A. BOW it twice B. saw it before tlie class C. saw it wltli the class D. saw it after the class 10. The letter was written in invlBlble Ink. A. able to be seen B not able to be seen C. black D. expensive 11. The imperfect sheets were reduced for quick sale. A. sheets without mistakes B. sTieets that were expensive C. sheets with mistakes D. sheets with designs 12. He dlsrcRgrded his father's instructions. A. quickly finished B. did not follow C. almost forgot D. carefully followed

PAGE 127

-113B-8b r Choose Che best meaning for tlie underlined word. 1 13. John la a Rultarist . A. one who plays Che guitar B. one who tnkoB care of a guitar C. one who buys a guitar D. one who likes o guitar 14. Mr. Smith has a profitable business. A. a business which loses money B. a business which produces a product C. o business which makes money D. a business without money 15. George Is a director In his company. A. a person who travels often B. a person wlio supervises otiiers C. a person who sells products D. a person who pays the bills 16. The story you wrote was Immorous. A. without liumor B. able to ti<-ive humor C. Coo little humor D. full of humor B-9 Choose the answer chat means the same as the underlined word In each sentence. 17. They'll be coming around the mountain when they come. A. They would B. They had C. They will D. They did 18. He'd have gone, but we were not invited. A. we will B. wc should C. we would D. we could

PAGE 128

-11419. Can you believe they're playing tlmt record? A. they are U. their C. there D, they were not 20. Because I am not feeling well, 1 won't cat supper tonight. A. would not B. would C. will not D. will B~IO I Hark the word(3) that means the same as the underlined abbreviation. 21. The sign read, "25 mph " A. miles B. miles per hour C. miles per gallon D. meters per gallon 22. Joe's dad Is Joseph Puccini, c.P.A. A. Current Pracclctloner Associate B. Certified Public Accountant C. Court .Police Adjuster D. Cow Production Administrator 23. The C.O.D. package was from Sears. A. codfish B. Cash on Delivery C. Curtains on Delivery D. Clothes out Distanced. 24. •Michael Denton. D.C. " was the sign on the office door. A. District of Columbio B. Doctor of Chiropractic C. District Attorney Clerk D. Doctor Clerk

PAGE 129

115C-12 Roiid encli of the paragraphs below and choose the sentence tliirt best ' slates the main Idea of each one. A good secretary needs many different skills. She sliould be able to type quickly without ranking ralBtnkes. She must knou-thc proper form for typing letters and reports. She should be able to spell mnny words correctly and to use the dictionary If necessary. Careful filing of papers Is another Important part of her job. Wlien talking on the telephone, a secretary must remember to be polite and to spcnk In a pleasant voice. If ahe hua Co write down the caller's message, she must be sure to Include all the Important facts. In hiring a person to be a secretary, a company will look for someone who has these skills. ' 29. Which sentence best states the pinln idea? A. A secretary must be able to type well. D. A secretary must be polite on tlie telephone. C. A secretary must know how to do many things. D. Careful filing is an Important part of her job. Hiss Martin has a big tree in her yard. Every day after school all the children climb the tree. John likes to hide In the branches. Billy likes to Jump to the ground. The children think tlie tree is a good place to play. 30. Wlilch sentence best tells the main idea ? A. Every day after school all the children would climb the tree. B. John likes to hide In the branches. C. Billy likes to jump to the ground. D. The children think the tree la a good place to ploy. As Brian completed the last answer on his science test and closed his test booklet, he smiled and sighed with relief." All of his notetaklng and studying had been well worth the time he spent. As he watched other students frown over some of the test questions, Brian smiled again. 31. This story Is mainly about A. Brian's frustration B. Brian's relief C. Brian's concern for the otiier students D. Brian's disappointment in himself.

PAGE 130

-116C-ll I Cliooae the sentence tha t means tlie same as the underlined sentences. I 25. The Rcntle Rlont never rocs to the vlllaRe . A. The giant Roes to the village every day. B. The giant always goes to the village. C. The giant does not go to the village. D. The gentle giant goes to the village occasionally. 26. Neither the helicopter nor the train Is fast enough . A. Both the helicopter and the train are unable to go fast enough. B. Either the helicopter or the train la fast enough. C. The helicopter Is fast enough, but the train is not. D. Only the train is fast enougli. Choose the wordCs) that meon the same or nearly the same as the underlined word. 27. The pirates thought the monster vas linnortal . A. could die 0. a mortal C. not human D. couldn't swim 28. The professor performed In an Irrational manner. A. not ordinary B. ordinary C. regular D. rational

PAGE 131

-117Steve had two reosona for quitting bin Job and letting tils wife work. lie wanted to stay at home because It would give him time to learn to play the trumpet. Another reason was that he liked to cook, do houaework, and Cake core of children. Ilia wife preferred to go to work. The chango made both of them happier. 32. This story la mainly about A. tlie effect of trumpet playing on housework B. the reasons wliy so many women work C. the reasons why Steve quit his Job D. the kind of Job Steve's wife likes C-13 I Read the following paragraph and answer tlie questions about it. 1 Wherever we look around us, we find paper. It la used In our books. In our newspapers, and in our magazines. Paper is used In the walls and roofs of our dwellings. The goods we purchase at stores are wrapped in paper. In short, paper seems to be absolutely necessary to our modern civilization. It is hard to believe that there was a tine when man did not have it. In 4000 B.C., the Egyptians first made a sort of paper from the papyrus plant. Historians believe, however, that true paper was probably first invented by the Chinese. The knowledge of this discovery gradually spread over tlie world and was brought into Europe by the Arabs in the eighth century. Paper can be mode out of practically any vegetable material that contains fibers. Rags were first used; they were cleaned, soaked, boiled, and reduced to pulp by heating and grinding. The pulp was then placed between pelces of felt, rolled thin, and dried. Today most paper is made by machinery out of wood pulp. If the paper used yearly in North America were spread around the earth at the equator, it would make a belt almost a hundred miles wide. 33. A sort of "paper" was made by Kgyptlans. A. at the end of World War I B. In «0OO B.C. C. in the eighth century D. twenty years ago 34. Which country la given the credit for inventing paper? A. Chinese D. Arabs C. Egyptians D. North Americans

PAGE 132

-118In the days of the Old Went, lawmen and outlaws alike were often men of great courage. One such man was Wtlllara "Billy" Breakenridgu, a Inwman In Tombstone, Arizona, in the late IBOO's. Although he lived in Tombstone at the same time as the famous Wyatt Earp, Breakenrldge is considered by some to liave been the moat outstanding individual in the notorious frontier town. The story is told about the time Breakenrldge was assigned by the sheriff ttie task of collecting taxes in ant area whelTe cattle rustlers lived. No one thought this possible. Breakenrldge calmly accepted his job and rode out of Tombstone alone. On his way, Brcokcnrldge located one of the toughest of the local rustlers, Curly Bill, and talked the outlaw into serving as a temporary deputy! Together the outlaw and the lawman rode to the rustlers' strongholds. Riding together, they gained respect and understanding for one another, even though they usually represented opposite sides of the law. Some days later Breakenrldge rode back to Tombstone and gave the tax money to the sheriff. With tlie aid of an outlaw deputy, Breakenrldge hod done something that did not seem possible. 35. According to the story, William "BillY" Breakenrldge was a lavroian in Tombstone, Arizona when A. Arizona became a state. B. Wyatt Earp lived in Tombstone. C. the first man walked on the moon. D. he WQ9 a little boy. 36. Which sentence is not true? A. Curly Bill was an outlaw. U. Tumbntone is a town in Arizona. C Breakenrldge became an outlaw. U. Curly Bill and Breakenrldge re'spectcd eacli other.

PAGE 133

-119Alligators occasionally grow to be twenty feet long and may live to bo two hundred years old. Yet they come out of eggs not much larger thnn hens' eggs. There ore usually from thirty to fifty or more of these eggs In a nest. The female, alllgotor does not cover the eggs wltli her body as n bird does, but watches the eggs until they hatch under the heat of the sun. Baby alligators arc very small and stay around the mother for a considerable period of time. They grow rapidly, increasing in length about a foot each year for the first four or five years. Then their growth slows down until, by the time they are fifty to sixty yeors old, they may be growing . about an inch per year. Alligators ore usually found in rivers and swamps of North and South America. They live on floh, birds, and small water animals. Occasionally, they catch land animals, such as pigs. The hides of alligators arc valuable and there are numerous farms In Florida and CollEornia wliere alligators are raised for their hides. These hides furnish the material for traveling bags, shoes, billfolds, and the like. 37. When do alligators decrease their growth to about an Inch per year? A. at birth B. at 5 years C. at 25 years D. at about 50-60 years 38. Hlilch of these is a reason why alligatora are valuable to man? A. They eat pigs and Home land animals. B. Their hides are used for various articles. C. They keep snakes out of the swamps. D. They eat harmful fish and blrda. 39. How does an alligator keep her eggs warm? A. the mother covers them B. in an incubator C. with warm water D. with the heat of the sun

PAGE 134

-120SOUTllWOOD PARK SAILING INSTRUCTIONS Free Demonstration will be held on June 18th. Courses Begin: July 'i, July IB, July 25, and August 1. For ages l* and over. Requires passing Survival Swim Test and payment of $40 fee. Special fee for senior citizens. Contact 800-4288 for registration details. DINGHY OR SUNFISII RENTAL nt $3.50 per hour only to sailors wlio have successfully completed the county sailing program. 40. When will the free demonstration be held? A. July 4th B. August 1st C. June 18th D. July 20th I Read the following paragraph and answer the quesClons about it. [ Horlo Andretti Is sometimes called "The Fastest Driver in America". Mario Is an Italian American racedriver. Even though his father objected to hts racing Mario secretly raced anyway. Racing meant too much to Mario. He left home and did not return until his father let him race. He has taken part In the Indianapolis 500 and tlie American and European Grand Prix. He won many of tlie races. He la truly a great sports man to have done so well at his age. 41. How did Mario convince his f other to let him race? A. He left home and wouldn't return until his father let him race. B. He won the Indy 500 and that convinced him. C. Mario didn't care what his father thought. D. Mario wrote his father a letter.

PAGE 135

-121C-14 Read eflcli of Che storleB below and for Goch one choose the sentence that has the facta tn the same order ns the story. John got up early on Saturday morning, lie cleaned his room, then he ate breakfast. After breakfast he went to play baseball with his friends. Me then went tiome and ate lunch. He watched television until dinner, 42. Whlctr sentence has the facts in the same order as the story? A. Jolm nte lunch before ho played baseball. B. John watched television before ho ate lunch. C. John ate breakfast before he cleaned his room. D. John played before he watched television, Jim decided to make a backpack as his Home Economics project. He spent Saturday morning looking at patterns until lie found one he liked. Next he picked out some heavy cnnvas. Ho cut canvas using his pattern and spent his class time sewing the bag together. As a special final touch he sewed his name on the backpack. He was very proud of the "A" he got on his project. 43. Wlilch sentence has the facts in the same order as in the story? A. After Jim cut the canvas, \\e cose a pattern. B. After Jim sewed his name on the canvas, he sewed it together. C. After Jim looked at patterns, he chose some canvas. D. After Jim made an "A" on his project, ho decided to sew his name on the backpack. Joan was getting ready for a picnic. She got the picnic basket from the garage and then washed all the dishes. She made the potato salad first and set it in the refrigerator to cool. Next she fried the chicken and made some baked beans. After baking the beans she packed everything in the basket and was ready to go. 44. Wlilch answer tells what happened Just before Joan fried the chicken? A. Joan set the potato salad in the refrigerator. B, Joan baked the beans. C. Joan got the picnic basket from the garage. D, Joan washed all the dishes. At 7 o'clock every night during the week, Joe studies. He goes to his room, puts on the light, and gets out his books. He looks over his assignment pad ond decides to do his math first. When he finishes, he studies his English. After that, he checks his pad again. Nothing more. Joe goes to watch television. 45. Wlilch order below shows what Joe did? A. watches television, studies, goes to his room B. studies, watches television, goes to his room C. goes to his room, checks his assignment pad, watches television D. goes to his room, watches television, studies

PAGE 136

122C-15 Read each of the paragraplis below and choose the sentence that answers the question. Morr works after school pnckttig oranges. While carrying n box of oranges one doy, he snw a dog chasing a cat. Suddenly the cat ran under Hare's feet, causing hln to drop the box. The oranges rolled everywhere. Hare had to pick up all the oranges from the ground. 46. Why did Hare drop the oranges? A. Marc packs oranges after scliool. B. Marc was carrying a box. C. The cat ran under his feet. D. The box was too heavy. A rainstorm hit Miami; it lasted for two days. As a result, many streets were flooded. The water was so deep that children could play In the streets with boats. Host boats were small, but a few were large enought to hove motors. It was exciting to watch the older children race their boats througli the city streets. But soon the water level began to drop. The children were sorry that they could no longer play in the streets with thie boats. 47. Wliy were the children sorry? A. The boats were too small to play with In the street. B. Water from the storm ran down the streets and went into homes. C. Many streets were flooded when a rainstorm hit Miami. D. The children could no longer play with their boats in the streets. Home accidents rank second to motor vehicle accidents. More injuries occur In the home than in any other place that people work and play. Many of these injuries are wounds caused by the improper use or handling of household tools. 48. Wliy are people often Injured at home? A. falling down steps B. poor use or handling of tools C. motor vehicle accidents D. working and playing games Stan was cold. lie had only worn a light Jacket and gloves and the temperature was dropping steadily. 49. Why was Stan cold? A. He had iron poor blood. B. He had only worn a light Jacket and gloves. C. The wind was strong. D. Stan was lonely.

PAGE 137

C-16 123Read tlie aentences and do what you are told. DO NOT WRITE ON this booklet. Scratch paper will be given to you. 50. Follow the directions below. Then choose the set of letters that looks moat like yours. Draw a circle. To the right of the circle but attached to it, draw another circle the same size. In the circle on the right put an II. In the circle on the left put a W. To the right of the circles make a Y. Choose the answer that shows wliat you have written. A. Y (ii)(w) B. (@ Y (IT) D. W ® (i) 31. Below are two shapes. Follow the directions. Then choose the picture that looks most like yours. ^ To the left of the heart put an II. To the right of the flower mark a T, Inside the heart put an E. Draw an R on the flower. Between the sliapes put an A. Choose the picture that looks most like yours. A. Il(|?A R(^ II (p fJW>T B. C. I1\^T

PAGE 138

-12452. Uelow are shapes with letters Inside. Follow the dlrecclons. Then choose the picture that looks noaC like yours S Write the letter from the rectangle. To the right of the letter make the letter from the triangle. Next to that put the letter from the square. Inside the circle Is a letter. Put It last. In front of the letter from the circle put the letter from between the parrallel ]^lnes, Choose the letter form that Is tlie same as yours. A. S M T A R B. SARKT C. S H A T R D. SMART 53. Below are five shapes. Arrange them according to the directions below. Then select the drawing that looks like yours. A O ZZIX Put the rectangle on the bottom. Arrange the trapezoid on top of the rectangle with the largest side touching. Put the circle Inside the trapezoid. At the right side of the rectangle draw the square so it touches the bottom and side of tlie larger figure. Place the triangle inside the rectangle. Choose the arrangement below that is most like yours. A. ZX H c. p E°: D.

PAGE 139

-125D-IJC Identify the mcnnlngs of words In context using synonym clues. Read each sentence carefully and then select the best meaning for the underlined word. 54. The Interval between the work and the test was so long, John failed. He liked to do the work and take the test Immadiately. A. hard work B. an intelligence teat C. space of time D. a long test 55. "The Legend of .Sleepy Hollow" la a spooky story for llollowcen. A. legal B. a nonhlatorlcal story C. a glinst D. a long book 55. The orbit or path of the Earth around the Sun Is ellptlcal: the path la closest In winter. A. object B. oxygen C. course D. el Ipse 57. The Statue of Liberty is well named because It Is a symbol of our independence. A. France B. future C. freedom D. monument

PAGE 140

•126D'17d Identify the meanings of words In context using comparison and contrast clues. Read the sentences and choose the best definition for the underlined word. 58. Wlien the light brightens, the pupils of the ryes contract; when It grows darker, they dilate . A. spread open B. decrease C. see better D. diet 59. The current administration will follow all the rules of protocol . Ceremonies will be held In proper style. A. pride B. customs C. protest D. style 60. The soldier held the ahuf t of the ax as lie aimed ot the upeedlng deer. A. shield U. blade C. sliag D. handle 61. Unlike the pearl which has a dull color the diamond Is very brilliant . A. expensive B. shiny C. cleor D. dull

PAGE 141

127D-19 I Read tile followlne paroerapl i and answer the queatlons below. I THE BIRDS HAVE IT How often have you heard that birds help people? You've probably lieard of their value as food. Egga and meat of poultry provide food for millions and millions of people. The droppings of seabirda provide fertilizer for many formers. Birds thnt feed on flower nectar provide the main means of pollinating many Important plants. Insect-eating birds keep many pests under control. Ilawks and owls feed on rodents and prevent much destruction of food crops. Some birds even eat seeds of difficult weeds. All of these ore practical benefits. There ore olao less practical, but also real benefits In the pleasure birds provide to people because of their beauty and their songa. However, the other side of the story is that there are negative aspects to birds. They spread weed seeds as well as certain cattle diseases. They kill farm poultry. They eat or ruin fruit, grain, and farm seeds. Thoy spread some plant discaaea and bore holes In trees, buildings and telephone poles. All in all, however, birds' benefits to people far exceed their detriments. 62. This story could also be called A. The Many Uses of Olrds B. Hawks and Owls C. Bird Control D. Birds and Their Songs 63. The main idea of this story Is A. Birds cause much damage. B. Birds are the main means of pollinating plants. C. Birds are beneficial and harmful. D. Birds spread disease. C-13f 64. How are birds honnful? A. by having a diet consisting of insects B. by aiding in cross-pollination C. by eating fruit, grain and farm seeds D. by providing eggs and meat 65. How are birds of benefit to man? A. they .spread weed seed B. they feed on rodents C. they bore holes in trees and buildings D. they are multi-colored

PAGE 142

128I Read the following paragrnpli and gnawer the questions below. ONLY DUST Do you ever sweep tlie floor ot home? Do you take o cloth to wipe dust off the furniture? Dust may not be welcome In your house, but you ought to know that It's mode up of things that nre Important to us in other iilocun. There are tiny bits of rock In dust. There nre bits of wood and leaves. There may be ashes from volcanoes, or even bits of meteorites. There is soot. There is ycnct. There is bacteria. There Is pollen from flowers. Sometime, if you have the chance, look ot dust under a high-power microscope. See how mony different kinds of bits ond pieces you can count. U-19 66. This story could also be called A. A welcome Mouse Guest B. Microscopes C. All About Volcanoes D. Look Again 67. This story mainly tells A. how to clean dust off furniture B. the mony components of dust C. how pollen is spread D. how to use a high-power microscope C-13e 68. According to the paragraph, which of these is not found In dust? A. yeast and bacteria B. wood and leaves C. moisture and flowers D. rocks and ashes

PAGE 143

-129D-20 Read each of the stories and choose the sentence that best answers the question below It. Florida's population Is Increasing os more and more people move to the "Sunshine State." Florida hns no state Income tax, plenty of sunshine, a subtropical climate and beautiful recreational areas. These factors make Florida one of the moat popular states. 69. Which of the following is the cause of Florida's increasing population? A. Northerners like the cold. B. New residents get high paying jobs. C. Florida offers several attractive qualities not found in many other states. D. Florida has many Job opportunities. Johnny knew he had a history test the following morning but he went to the football game anyway, and did not study. lie had not been listening well in class ond did not take notes. That morning, Johnny failed the test. 70. Which Is not a cause for Johnny falling the test? A. not listening in class B. playing In tlie football game C. not taking notes D. not studying Carol went to a party Tuesday night. She forgot to set the clock and did not get up in time to catch the bus. She was Inte for school Wednesday morning. 71. Which is not a reason Carol was late to school? A. she went to a party. B. she forgot to set the clock. C. she missed the bus. D. she did not get up in time.

PAGE 144

130Jackle seetna to hove gained weight lately. At ThanksglvlnR she ate two pumpkin plea by lierself . The Chrlstmns fruit cake ahe devoured In n matter of minutes and she baked cheese cakes for New Years Day. Now she signed up for the local Weight Control Club and made a pledge to do no more baking. 72. Wliy did Jackie gain oo much weight lately? A. D. C. D. Because she lias promised not to bake onyraore. Because she has eaten too many baked goods. Because Christmas is n holiday season. Because she Joined a Weight Control Club. D-21 Read each of the following paragraphs and then choose tlie sentence that tells what Is most likely Co happen next. Rlcliurd worked as a stock boy after achool nt the nupcrmorket for three yeors. He was never careless, lie dropped a box containing twelve bottles of vinegar. Seven of them broke. Mr. Stokea, the store manager, hurried down the aisle toward him. 73. Mlint most likely happened next? A. Mr. Stokes fired hlra. B. Hr. Stoken yelled and screamed. C. Richard threw a bottle at Mr. Stokes. D. Hr. Stokes asked him If he was hurt. Hr. Morris, who had already received two traffic tickets for speeding was pulled over today for doing 65 mph in a 30 raph zone. 71. What most likely happened next? A. He received a third ticket and a summons to appear In court. B. He now has to take the driver's test again. C. He was given a warning by the policeman. D. He will spend a year in Jail. Tacmy's parents left. her at home alone on Halloween while they went to a party. Tammy watched a horror movie on TV until midnight, she heard noises outside the door. Her heart froze. 75. What most likely happened next? A. She answered the doorbell. B. She checked to see if her pizza wos done. C. She sat back and read a magazine. D. She hurried to the phone and dialed her neighbor's number. Suddenly

PAGE 145

-131Babysitting is a good part-time Job. You can earn extra money. It Is passible to earn from S2-$5 for a few hours work. If you tiave permission, it is fun to raid the refrigerator. Some families will even pay extra money If you wash the dishes or straighten the house. 76. A conclusion based on this story would be that A. Babysitters eat too much. B. AH babysitters have to clean house. C. Either sex can babysit. D. You can earn money and have fun by babyslbtlng. E-22 Read each of the stories, really happen. Choose tlie answer that could not John and Nancy stopped to buy cokes on tlie way to the zoo to see the camels. The camels were being fed a mixture of grains from a trough. One of the camels lifted his head, walked to the fence, and asked John for a taste of Ills coke. 77. A. Jolin and Nancy went to the zoo. D. John and N.incy stopped to buy cokes. C. The camel asked for a tnote of his coke. D. The camels were being fed a mixture of grains. Stanley always watched the cartoons about Supermsn and wore his Superman T-shirt even when it had become old and torn. Pretending to be Superman one day, Stanley cllmpbcd to tlie porch roof and flew around the block. Stanley loved Superman. 78. Which event could not really happen? A. Stanley always watched the cartoons, B. Hia T-shirt became old and torn. C. He loved superman. D. lie flew around the block. Our plane went down in a remote mountain region of Central America. Fortunately, I was not hurt and could take care of our captain who had a broken leg. I contacted the Pizza Hut on the radio and they delivered a large pepperonl pizza and cokes to cure our hunger and thirst. That first night was long and lonely. 79. Which event could not really happen? A. The plane crashed in Central America. B. The captain had a broken leg. C. The Pizza Hut delivered pizza and cokes. D. The night was long and lonely.

PAGE 146

-132. The long-nosed, bare-foot robber roced away from the bank with $50,000, He carried the money In a torn bag ag he fled the scene. 80. Wliich could not be? A. a bare-foot robber. B. carry money In a Corn bag. C. steal $50,000. D. flee the scene. E-23 I Read the paragraphs below and select the sen tence that states an opinion. [ Ken Just paid $35.00 for a new blue, ten-speed bike. He enrned the money himself cutting grass, lie thinks hla bike Is the nicest bike in town. He takes very good care of it and does not let anyone else ride It. 81. Which sentence is an opinion? A. Ken paid $35.00 for a new ten-speed bike. B. The bike Is blue. C. Ken does not let anyone else ride his bike. D. It is the nicest bike in town. The newsman arrived on the scene of the landslide. Seven cars were Involved in the disaster. Five people were killed and 22 people were injured. The newsman reported that it was the worst disaster in years. He gladly helped the vlctljiis until the ambulance arrived. 82. Which sentence is an opinion? A. The newsman helped the victims. B. It was the worst disaster in years. . C. Five people were killed. D. The disaster was caused by a landslide. I in each set of sentences find the sentence that is an opinion, not fact. | 83. A. Some women have long finger nails. B. Long finger nails really looks good on girls C. I file and polish my nails often. D. A beauty shop is on the corner of State Street and Elm Avenue. 8ii. A. Some children get a dollar each week for allowance, B. Some children spend their allowance on candy. C. Some children save part of their allowance. D. Parents should give their children an allowance.

PAGE 147

-133F-26 I Anawer the questions following the diagram, table or graph shown. ENTRIES INTO CITY SCIENCE FAIR a •H u M
PAGE 148

-13487. 88. TRAIN SCHEDULE (HORNING) FROM PINE LAKE TO TIIE ZOO Hon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Frl. Leave Pine Lake Arrive AC The Zoo 8:20 A.H. 9:10 A.H. ~ 8:05 A.H. 8:53 A.H. 8:«5 A.H. 9:36 A.H. 8:30 A.H. 9:18 A.H. Uae the table above to onnwer the following queaClonB. WI>lch day of the week can you NOT ride to the zoo on the train. A. Thursday B. Wednesday C. Tuesday D. Hoitday On which two daya Is the ride only 48 minutes long? A. Honday and Wednesday B. Wednesday and Thursday C. Wednesday and Friday D. Thursday and Friday

PAGE 149

F-27 -135SAMPLE CONTENTS PAGE Section I Cliapter 1 Chopter 2 Section 11 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Section III Cliapter 5 Chapter 6 Section IV Chnpter 7 Chapter 8 Contents Prairie Animals 2 Prairie Insects 38 Composites , ,.,,...53 Legumes 60 The seasons 62 Flood, Fire, Wind on the Prairie. .. ,80 Prnlrlc Land Use 82 Nebrasko Pralrlelands 90 89, On what page would you read about prairie animals? A. B. C. D. page 1 page 2 page 38 page 61

PAGE 150

•136SAMPLE INDEX PAGE Index Bacon and egg aandwlcli, 50 and bean cnoserolo, 41 and tomato sandwich, 'iS Beef meat loaf, 20 patties, 16 stew, 10 Eggs Benedict, 6 scrambled, with ham, 7 Fish batter, 78 nnd chips, 26 stuffed, 38 Fruits orange fluff, 80 Ice cream pie, 90 sauces, 79 Lamb syros, 22 shlsh Kabob, 21 Pizza, 62 Salnd fruit, 42 tomato nnd cucumbers, 44 Soup creamed, 60 with vegetables, 58 Vegetables bean and bacon casserole, 41 creamed broccoli, 38 90. On what page could you find a recipe for fish batter? A. 26 B. 51 C. 78 D. 79

PAGE 151

•137A.ny 10 fl^c.o^di ol tapzi ^oi only $1 pZiZi luindtutg and ilU 00 pping RECORV TAPE CLUB, U.S.A. L^L^r^"^*^"^ ""^"'^ "^ """^y °'"^^'^ f""^ ^1-86 (which includes I ;^?i°^ T ^°. =«l^'=ti''"« Pl"S 86* for shipping and handling) . I agree to buy 6 ..ore selections (at regular club prices) during the next two years. After completing my obligation, 1 may cancel TckZl 0^%,4]T '"'^"^'^'' i" «following type of recordings. ( ) 8 Track Tapes $6.98 ()) Tape Cassettes S7.98 ( ) Reel Tapes S7.98 ( ) Records $6.98 My favorite kind of music is •^P"^" ' ' Teen Hits ( ) Classical ( ) country/western ( , ja»:= ( ) Folk/Rock ( ) M3. Mr. Address '^i'^y . ^State _Zip 95. The ad above tells you about A. best selling records B. membership in a record-tape club C. sales at a music store O. a free record 96. If you take advantage of their offer, you agree to Apay $1.00 for each record or tape you buy. B. buy a tape or record every month. C. buy 6 more selections over the next two years. D. listen to the music.

PAGE 152

138Doi-tui-iion (patwi'/h'anl n 1 The ;ioc nl pctMiailing or the Mine III hems, pcmmdcil "Jftr prnuauim iil .1 Jini.i. fu.i11) ft« ./,„.wr. H ril /.r.( B Al:.cl...n;5n:l;p.iily. -Sec Synonyms al oplnon ll.iliii pi-Mii.iiiri. (mm pmumli-rr. In I'luslioiil 1 Mr-lMi'SivB (|.5tvwa'Mv. -/Iv) o.'/ Icn.lms ot lia.inij llic pimer In pcisuuilt; a prrsuawe urgumrnl. — p»r.«u« tlv^'iy ,t,ly OBf«U»'«tV*-n«ttf /I .11 p.rt (pwil .iJ/ P.n.r. p.....i 1. ImpuUcnlly l.nlJ: s.nuc> hitle hul IMiiiilk l-.njlish. shiiil tnr Ulil 1 fench «;..«. Miiiii|lill.ir*iiiri. open. Ifom l.alin aperiit (pasl purln-iple aixrlritl. I" open Sec «»«• in Appemln *| — psii'ly 'iJ'. — P«rt-nail n oert perlaininii , por-tHin (pallSn'l inlrv .mln.d. lainlno. ti"'""'I'' "'l^' idticnic; icLlle rviilrmr iirriuimnt In iht ovcitlrnf 2. lo licloim a% an flilinntl 01 attcNOiy ihr Imm unj all Ihr laml< k/Iii7i mfMin In II H lo he llllmi; nr suiUililc |M»lille l-.nilli%h piirirncvi. ru.ni Olil I Tenth (.iirr,-'nf. from I aim P"!!"'"'" lelacc I", lo reaih l.i : pre-, lo. Ihi llllly • irnMC U> hillcl (sec l«nm Appendii'l.l 91. How many definition entries docs the word "persuaslun nave: A. 1 entry B. 3 entries C. 4 entrl'^f D. 5 entries 92. lion mnny definition entries does tlie word "pertain" linvcT A. 1 entry B. 2 entries C. 3 entries D. 4 entries

PAGE 153

-139F-29 97. Vfliere would you look to find the £lnal score of yesterday's baseball game? A. Atlas B. Directory C. Encyclopedia D. Newspaper 98. Where would you look to find the narae of o repair shop? A. Telephone Directory B. Time table C. Atlas D. Encyclopedia 99. Miore would you look to find a map of the state of New Mexico? A. Encyclopedia B. Atlas C. Directory D. Newspaper 100. Where would you look to find out what government offices were held by Benjamin Franklin? A. Encyclopedia B. Directory C. Atlas D. Newspaper

PAGE 154

APPENDIX B THE SAN DIEGO READING ATTITUDE SURVEY (San Diego, 1961) Permission to reprint this attitude survey has been granted by the San Diego Department of Education and Macmillan Information.

PAGE 155

INVENTORY OF READING ATTITUDE San Diego, California (San Diego, 1961) Do you like to read before you go to bed? Do you think that you are a poor reader? Are you interested in what other people read? Do you like to read when your mother and dad are reading? Is reading your favorite subject at school? If you could do anything you wanted to do, would reading be one of the things you would choose to do? Do you think that you are a good reader for your age? Do you like to read catalogues? Do you think that most things are more fun than reading? Do you like to read aloud for children at school? Do you think reading recipes is fun? Do you like to tell stories? Do you like to read the newspaper? Do you like to read all kinds of books at school? Do you like to answer questions about things you have read? Yes No 16. Do you think it is a waste of time to make rhymes with words? Do you talk about books you have read? Does reading make you feel good? Do you feel that reading time is the best part of the school day? Yes No 1 Yes No 2 Yes No 3 Yes No 4 Yes No 5 Yes No 5 Yes No 7 Yes No 8 Yes No 9 Yes No 10 Yes No 11 Yes No 12 Yes No 13 Yes No 14 Yes No 15 Yes No 17 Yes No 18 Yes No 19 141-

PAGE 156

142Yes No 20. Do you find it hard to write about what you have read? Yes No 21. Would you like to have more books to read? Yes No 22. Do you like to read hard books? Yes No 23. Do you think that there are many beautiful words in poems? Yes No 24. Do you like at act out stories that you have read in books? Yes No 25. Do you like to take reading tests? Reading Inventory Key Key: Questions 2, 9, 16, and 20 should be answered NO; the remaining questions should be answered YES.

PAGE 157

APPENDIX C TEXT OF SHORT STORIES READ BY ALL TREATMENT GROUPS Permission to reprint these stories has been granted by Scholastic Book Services, a division of Scholastic Magazines, Inc.

PAGE 158

story S\ DO OR DIE by Robin Herman If asked, most people on the block would have said that Ken Rose had no friends. "I don't need any," Ken would have answered. "I have my basketball." And in a way. Ken would have been right. After school every day, Ken would go to the park and play basketball. He would shoot his ball by himself for hours. At times, he would play a game of one-on-one with another boy. But ha would never play with more than one boy or on a team. Sometimes other boys would say to Ken, "Say, man, how about some three-on-three?" "No, thanks," Ken would answer. "But I'll play any of you one-onone." Soon the boys stopped asking Ken to play. They knew what he viould say. In a one-on-one game. Ken v;as the best in the neighborhood. When he did get someone to play against him, he always won. Like him or not, the boys knew that Ken was very, very good. Often Ken would hold up his ball and say to another boy, "Do or die?" If the other boy said "yes," Ken would shoot the ball. If Ken made the shot, he would start by taking the ball out of bounds. If Ken missed the shot, the other boy would take the ball out. This is what "do or die" means. Since Ken never seemed to say anything but "do or die," the kids in the neighborhood called him that. On tlie streets, in school, and at the park, they would say, "There goes old 'Do or Die.'" "Do or Die" lived in a four-family house with his father, mother, and grandmother. He had no brothers or sisters. Mr. Rose, Ken's father, had been a good basketball player before he hurt his leg many years ago. How he fixed cars at a gas station. On Sundays, he and Ken would watch basketball games on TV. It was strange that Ken would not talk to anyone on the outside. At home, he never stopped talking. His grandmother would often laugh and joke with him about talking too much. One day, some boys talked about starting a school basketball team. The gym teacher, Mr. Wild, would be the coach. "If you have a good team," Mr. Wild said, "I'll get you games with other school teams." Since Ken was the best player in school, the boys asked him if he would play on the team. As always. Ken said that he didn't like playing on teams. The next day, Mr. Wild called Ken in to see him. "Why don't you want to play on the team?" Mr. Wild asked. "You're a pretty good player. You would have a good time. And the team would be better off with you." Ken looked long and hard at Mr. Wild. "I'm not a pretty good player," he said. "I'm a very good player. Let me think a little about the team. I'll let you know tomorrow." Ken went to Mr. Wild's office before school the next morning. "Thanks for asking me to join the team," he said. "But I want you to know how I feel. I like to play one-on-one. I'm good at it. But I wouldn't be any good on a team." •144-

PAGE 159

145DO OR DIE (continued) Mr. Wild looked at Ken. "Listen," he said. "Do you think you're the only one" who knows how to play the game? Or do you think no one Is as good as you are?" "Neither," Ken said. "I just want to be my own man." Then he went off to class. As he watched Ken Rose walk out of his office, Mr. Wild wondered what was bothering him. Then lie thought about what Ken had said. That night Mr, Wild called Ken's father and then went over to the house. Ken was playing ball at the school gym. Ken's mother made coffee for the two men, and Ken's grandmother sat down to listen to Ilr. Wild. "Why doesn't Ken like to play with the other people at school?" Mr. Wild asked. "Why won't he play on teams with tlie other boys? Why is he so afraid to lose?" At first Mr. Rose did not answer. And Mrs. Rose and Ken's grandmother could not answer. Finally, after taking a long drink of coffee, Mr. Rose said, "When I was in high school, 1 was a very good basketball player. Maybe I could have even made the pros. But In one of my last high school games a player on my team made a bad mistake. I ended up with a broken leg. The leg got better, but I never again could play as well. I guess Ken got the idea of being his own man from me. I guess he wants to answer only for his own mistakes. And to be honest, I'm not sure that the idea is a bad one." There was nothing more to say. Mr. Wild thanked the Rose family and went liome. Mr. Wild didn't bother Ken again. And Ken didn't play on the school team. But Ken's basketball playing was becoming famous in the neighborhood. The young people at the park would say, "Old 'Do or Die' is the greatest! But he's strange, baby real strange." Though Ken was only sixteen, he would play one-on-one with fellows who had finished school and would beat them. People would even come to watch him play. But If was asked to play on a team, he always said no. Now Ken never missed a "do or die" shot, and in every game he got to take the ball out first. He knew he was the greatest until the three Baker brothers moved into the neighborhood. All three brothers were very good at basketball. They beat every three-man team they played. They even joined the school team and played just as well In five-man games. Their names were Peter, Terry, and James Baker. One day Ken asked Peter to play one-on-one. "Wise up. good brother," Peter said. "Basketball is a team game. I didn't make it that way, but that's the way It Is. How, if you want to do your own thing, just go away and do it. But don't be bothering me to do it with you." Terry and James said almost the same thing to Ken. The answers from the Baker brothers iiade Ken "Do or Die" Rose very angry. He thought about the Baker brothers every day. Me hoped that he would get a chance to play with any one of them. "Why won't they play me one-on-one?" Ken asked his grandmother one night. "Are they afraid? Or are they trying to make me angry?" The old woman looked at him and said, "Are you afraid to play on a team? Are you trying to make everyone at the park and at school angry?"

PAGE 160

146DO OR DIE (continued) Ken ran,out of the house and just walked the streets. When he finally went home very late that night, he said to liis father, mother, and grandmother, "I'm not afraid. I'm getting two other guys, and I'm going to play tlie Baker brothers three-on-three." Then he went to bed. At school the next day. Ken "Do or Die" Rose talked to Bobbie Marsh and Willie "The Rabbit" Richardson. Ken asked them if they would like to play the Baker brothers on Sunday. Willie said, "This Rabbit's ears are standing up. Old 'Do or Die' wants to play on a team!" Uillie and Bobbie laughed, but they both said they would play. Everyone v;as talking about the game. It was going to be the greatest game ever played at the park. Even Mr. Rose and Mr. Wild planned to go out to see it. The game on Sunday started the way everyone knew it would Ken shot "do or die." And he made the basket. Then Bobbie threw the ball in to "The Rabbit" and the game was on. "Do or Die" did well, and Bobbie and "Tlie Rabbit" played as well as they ever did. But the three of them couldn't get it all together. The Baker brothers won 49-15. Walking home, Ken's father said to him, "What happened?" "I'm not sure," Ken said, "Let me think about it." V/hen they reached their front door, Ken said, "You know, you can't practice passing in one-on-one." "Yes, that's true," his father said, and the two of them went in to break the bad news to the rest of the family.

PAGE 161

-147story n TEXAS WEEK By Albert Hernhuter The long black car raced along the wide and straight street. It came to a stop in front of a clean white house. A man got out of the car and walked to the door. Reaching out, he pressed the bell. The door was answered by a woman. She was wearing a white and green dress. Her feet were in red shoes, and her hair was cut short. She was dressed the way the government ordered her to for that week. The man said, "Are you Mrs. Christopher Nest?" Her voice shook as she said, "Yes. And you are...?" "Hy name is Maxwell Flower. As you may know, I am the official doctor for this neighborhood." Mrs. Nest asked him to come in, and they stepped Into a clean living room. At one end was the TV, and at tlie other end were several chairs. There was nothing between the set and the chairs. They walked over to the chairs and sat down. "Now, just what is the matter with your husband, Mrs. Nest?" he asked. "I wish I knew," she answered. "All he does all day is sit In the yard and stare at the grass. He keeps saying that lie is standing on top of a cliff." Doctor Flov/er took out some paper and a pen. He wrote something down before he spoke again. "Does he get wild? Did he get angry when you told him there was no cliff?" he asked. Mrs. Nest was quiet for a minute. Then she said, "No, he didn't get wild." The doctor kept writing as he asked, "Just what did he do when you told him?" "He told me that 1 v/as crazy," she said. "Were those the words he used?" "No. He said that I was " she thought for a minute "'loco.' Yes, that was the v/ord that he used." "Your husband said that you were loco?" the doctor asked. "Yes. He said it Just like those cowboys on TV." "Maybe you had better tell me more about this," the doctor said. "When did your husband first start acting this way?" "It was right after Texas Week, Doctor. You remember that was when they showed all of those old cowboy pictures on TV for a whole week." "Yes." "Well, he stayed up every night watching them. Some nights he didn't even go to sleep. Even after the set was off, he sat in one of the chairs just staring at the TV. This morning when I got up he wasn't In the house. I looked all over but I couldn't find him. I vjas ready to phone the police when I looked out into the yard and saw him there," she said. "What was he doing?" the doctor asked. "He was just sitting there in the middle of the yard, staring. I went out and tried to bring him into the house. He told me he had to watch for someone. When I asked him wliat he was talking about, he told rae that I was loco. That was when I phoned you, Doctor."

PAGE 162

148TEXAS WEEK (continued) "That was a very wise move, Mrs. Nest. And would you show me where your husband' Is right now?" They both got up from the chairs. They walked through the living room. Then Dr. Flower stopped suddenly. "You had better stay here, Mrs. Nest." lie walked to the door and opened it. "Oh, Doctor -" Mrs. Nest called. The doctor turned to her. "Yes?" "Please be careful," she said. The doctor smiled. "I shall be, Mrs. Nest." He walked out the door and down three steps. Looking a little to his right, he saw a man squatting on his heels. Me walked up to the man. "Are you Mr. Christopher Nest?" he asked the man. The man looked up and stared at the doctor. "Yep," he answered. Then he turned and stared at the grass again. "May I ask you what you are doing?" the doctor asked. Nest answered without looking up. "I'm guarding the pass." The doctor wrote something down. "And why are you guarding the pass?" Nest rose to his feet and stared down at the doctor. "Just what are you asking all of these questions for?" The doctor saw that Nest was a big, strong man and thought it better to play along with him for a while. Nest reached into his pocket and pulled out some tobacco and some paper. Holding a piece of paper in one hand, he put a little tobacco into it. Then he rolled the paper and tobacco into a cigarette. He put the tobacco and paper back into his pocket. Me took out a match. He lit it against the bottom of his shoe and put it to his cigarette. He drew some smoke from the cigarette and threw the match away. "Why are you guarding the pass?" the doctor asked again. Nest squatted dovm on the grass again. "News is around that Dirty Dan is going to steal some of my cattle," he told the doctor. "I'm going to stop him." The doctor thought for a minute. What could he do with this man? "Mr. Nest, what would you say if I told you that there was no pass down there?" he asked, finally. "Partner, I would say you had been chewing some locoweed." "And if I could prove it to you?" the doctor asked. Nest answered after a minute. "Why, then, I guess I would be the loco one." The doctor thought it was going to be easy. "Mr. Nest, it is well-known that no one can walk 1n the air. Isn't that true?" "Sure," Nest said. "Then if i walk over there and stand above your pass, you will have to say there is no pass." "I guess so," Nest answered. The doctor began to walk in the direction of Nest's "cliff." Nest jumped to his feet and grabbed the official doctor by the arm. "What are you trying to do," Nest said, "get killed?"

PAGE 163

149TEXAS WEEK (continued) u,;,it i^;^?^^; ' !T "°« ^?,'"^ J° ''^" "^'^^l'^""a*^ ' a"" going to do fs walk n that direct on." lie pointed to where the cliff-was supposed to be. "To you It will look as if I am walking In air." if.c til fhT"^ '''' ^"J"^^ *° ^^^ =^''""'^^"' ' don't care if you die. It s just that you could upset the cattle by doing it " The doctor began to walk. He took three steps and stopped. "You see, Mr. Nest, there is no cliff." vnMii?''lLi°°''f''i' ^^"' '"'' |?"9hed. "You just take one more step and you 11 find out there ts^ a cliff!" innt Ic^•f°S?'"' *'°°^ ^""'m^'^ ^*fP ^ ^""9 one. His face had a surprised lanSe"on\h?rS^krbeiow'"' "'''' ""^' '' ""'"'' '°'' ' "'^""'^ "^^"^ '^ body.Me toik'his°ha?^?^ °' "" "'''' '"' '°°''' ''"" '' ''' ^'""^^'' ,nH i"^l'*5 little guy was real loco," Hest said. He put his hat back on rocks valley, lie saw a horse and rider behind some rlfle"""^'^^ '^*"' " ^^^* '^'''^''' ^''^" ''^ ""cached down and picked up his

PAGE 164

150story #3 LOVE, OM, LOVE By Eloise Greenfield "Someone's screaming! Someone's screaming!" Joyce lis tened for a second, then threw her magazine on the bed and ran down the stairs after her little sister. "Who 1s it?" Joyce yelled. Yvonne didn't answer. She ran out the front door, with Joyce right behind her. Tlieir mother was already running down the dark street. So were some of the neighbors. The screaming was hard on one note, screaming lil
PAGE 165

•151LOVE, OH, LOVE (continued) cheeL""SS!M?f ^^ueMlie'^afd. ''" ''' ""' ''"• '"'' °" *^°^""^ "It's not true!" Joyce said. "Joyce..." rnn,„ "^ll" ^^^J'J'^' P"^^^'^^ ^er mothui's hand away. She ran up to her room. She picked up one of her love magazines from the table, looked n,.f „l f^^^Ii' ^"'^ P"', '•^ """"^ ^9«'"Then she pulled her box of pictures ?heV: irnfcr^n^d d':%r'''' '' "''^ '^^ '-' '-'^^ ^p^-^^-^ «" nf hJJ'^J^'^^u P'"='"'"f s''e picked up was not of Rick and Cheryl. It was cL ?^^"h^!! '^^ 'iT' t^°"^ " "l** ^5 Yvonne. She was sitting in the chair she Iked best, the dark wood one her father had made when he was yoSnq Her head was turned a little to the left and her eyes were looking ?a? far away. Her mother called the picture "Dream Child " ^ * Joyce remembered when it was taken. She had thought she was in love with Freddie then, and she had been making up a stupid poem abSut Freddfe ^!'^!''' ""^ ^°'^' '''"'"''"'""^ '°'^^^" ^^ ^"^"^ " ^^°" '"^"'"' Flasl'i i "Got you." her mother "That was a real deep look vou had on your face.^^ wnat were you thTn]:i nq ahniiF?" ^== *^ ^ ' y""*^ 1 was making up a noemr" ^ poem about what?'' bi lence . I'pl wou can't tell me?" Her mother's kiss. !llt wasn't about anything. Just a poem." , She wasn't in love with Freddie now. She was in love with someone else someone she hadn't met yet. And she didn't write stupd poems about him. She just thought about him a lot. She could almost'^see him when she closed her eyes except his face, tlo matter how hard she tried, she cou dn't see his face. She knew he would be kind of cool Hut not so cool he would think she was square. She thought about him most when she listened to music especially shut JhP nnH llT^ "" watching TV in the living room. Joyce liked to Shut the door of her room and lie across the bed and listen to her records. And daydream. Everyone had been getting on her about daydreaming her mother, her teachers, everyone. Maybe if her father were alive he would understand. • ner ratner were Even Cheryl had let her down. Cheryl came up to her room just a few weeks ago. They talked about nothing much at first records things like that. But Joyce knew there was something wrong Why do you shut yo urself up in here so mu ch. Joyce?" 1 can think up h ereT^ ' You don't do your sr.hnnl unr\, an^minr" " Mama tell you to talk to me?" ^ ^She said you failed English." "1 keep telling Mama it d oesn't matter what I do in school . " What do you mean. Joyce?" ~ —

PAGE 166

152LOVE. Oil. LOVE (continued) " School doesn't matter. In a few years, I'll fall in love and get married. 1 won't have to work." ^How can you know that?" yrjust know. Cliir yiT''~~ "Now, listen to Little Mama. Joyce. You know how much I love Rick. And I know we talk a lot a bout how great l ove Is and everything. But it's not magic. You liave to help love. Even if you don't work, you need to know things..." Joyce had stopped listening. That time Cheryl had been wrong. Love didn't need help. Love was strong and good and beautiful. It was everything. That's how she knew Rick was still alive. Joyce looked once more at the picture in her hand. Then she laid 1t on the bed. She started looking again for pictures of Rick and Cheryl. She had found three when her sister came in the room. Yvonne stood without making a sound. "Look," Joyce said, holding up a small picture. "Remember that day?" "Yes." "We really laughed about Rick's singing." Yvonne looked said, "It won't be the same anymore," she said. Yvonne was making her angry, believing anything anyone said. Joyce wanted to think. She had to think. "I'm going to bed and you better go too, because I'm turning the light out," Joyce said. When it was dark, Joyce lay thinking about the wedding. All the girls would help Cheryl get dressed. And the boys would help Rick. And everyone on Bridge Street would get dressed up and go to Reverend Park's church. It would be a beautiful happy time. "Joyce," Yvonne's voice beside her made her lose the wedding. "What?" "Rick thought he might not come back." "That's crazy," Joyce said. "Remember that last night when we were all in front of Cheryl's? He and you and Freddie and Handa and the rest? Rick told us to take care of Cheryl if he didn't come back." "You know he v;as just playing around," Joyce said. "Why don't you go to sleep?" Sure, she remembered that night. She could still see his face. He was laughing, holding his head kind of to one side the way he alv/ays did. "Right. I'm going to Ham. Put there's no bullet with. my name on It. Just in case, though. ..." Joyce felt shaky. Thinking of that night, she saw something now that she hadn't noticed at the time. They had all been laughing, but for just one second there had been a different look In Rick's eyes. And at the same time Cheryl's hand had closed hard. Joyce ran It back through her mind to make sure. Yes, they had both known it could happen. Only she, Joyce, hadn't known. Or hadn't v/anted to know. She started to cry. Love. Uhat good was it if it couldn't hold Its arms around the two of you and protect you? Rick was lying somewhere across the ocean, cold, staring, thinking of no one, while Cheryl lay in her bed staring, thinking of him. "Love. Oh, love," Joyce thought, feeling old. She put her head in the pillow and cried herself to sleep.

PAGE 167

153story #1 THE WATER RATS By Harriet Hay Savitz and H. Caporale Shecktor Bucky Pace sat alone on the front steps watching the Hater Rats getting together on the corner. He wondered, Uhat are they talking about? What will they do tonight when the lights go out In the houses, and the alleys grow dark? He knew what he would dn tnnight whatho did every night. He would sit in the crowded little kitchen, tie would hear his father saying over and over like a broken record, "Ho work today," and his mother's voice, loud and angry, saying, "So wliere do I get money for food... steal it?" Gucky Pace shook his head, trying to forget the picture of his younger brothers and sisters crying because they were hungry. Me got angry inside about everything these days. And he felt worse each time his mother left for the Welfare office. Sometimes he went with her. He would sit and see the look on the lady's face as she filled out the papers and asked his mother questions that seemed more like accusations, tie would see the dead look In his mother's eyes when she left there. He wondered If she felt like he felt. That the Pace's had no business living. They were caught in a circle that would never end. His father said It every night. "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer." He said a lot of things like that. And like, "What's the use of trying?" And then he'd get out the bottle and a big fight would start. In the middle of those fights, Bucky almost wanted to shout, "Look at me, I'm here!" He wished time would fly over the twenty years to where his dreams were. He wanted to be a doctor. He wanted to fix up all the broken bodies and minds that looked out from the broken windows on Oak Street. He had seen so many knife wounds and bullet wounds, and so much blood spilling over the dirty streets. They didn't even bother putting half _of the things that happened In the newspapers. People died young on Oak Street. He wished he could take the Welfare lady and show her the Oak Street she never saw in her clean little office. He thought of her hands. Her nails were so polished. He thought of his mother's nails. They were split and broken just like his mother. It was getting darker and darker. Ducky watched the Water Rats as they laughed louder and louder. In a minute his mother would come out to get him to come Inside. The Water Rats always laughed most just before they went into action. For a crazy minute he thought of Mr. Block, his science teacher. Just the other day Mr. Block had said, "Stick with it, Ducky. You have a great mind." And then Mr. Block had waved from his new sports car and driven away. It was easy for Mr. Dlock to say, "Stick with It." Mr. Dlock lived in a safe world. Bucky hated Mr. Dlock right now. He hated him for all the nice things he had said in school. Mr. Block would lift him up so high, and then, when lie got home. Oak Street would bring him down hard.

PAGE 168

154TIIE WATER RATS (continued) From behind the door, he heard his father's voice grow louder. His brothers and sisters were shouting. He heard a slap and his mother's cries. If he went In, he would kill his father. If he stayed on the steps and listened to her crying, he would die himself. So he did the only thing he knew how to do. Instead of going inside, he walked slowly to the corner. The Water Rats had been trying to get him to join. They had warned him. He hadn't been afraid. They liked that. They wanted him even nrare. They had beaten him up once in the alley and he still hadn't joined. Tliey had liked that too. He was a challenge. They would v;a1t. Some day Oak Street would see that he joined. Skin-head watched Ducky walk toward them. He clicked his switchblade. It seemed as If he had expected Ducky to come. "Well, Duck," he said, "got any good Ideas for tonight?" Bucky knew all about the Water Rats. He knew this would be his test. If he came up with something good, he would be a Water Rat that night. He didn't belong back there In his house. He didn't belong with Mr. Block and his new sports car. If he became a Water Rat, he'd belong somewhere at last. The Water Rats weren't laughing anymore. Tony, Skin-head, and Little Joe just stood there. The only sound was from their switcliblades. Click. Click. Click. Bucky was surprised that he wasn't afraid. He was afraid of his father's drinking. He was afraid of being poor all his life. But nothing else mattered titat much not even a knife In the night. A thought went through Bucky's mind, and he smiled. A branch of the Welfare office was on Sky Street. He could get it all out of his system, and let the Water Rats do all the work. "Let's smash some store windows on Sky Street," Bucky said. "That's not bad," Skin-head answered. "We never hit Sky Street before." And then like a dark shadow the Water Rats moved off without a sound. They went toward the street with all the store fronts and glassplated windows. . .and the Welfare office. Bucky walked more slowly than the others. After coming up with the Idea, he started having second thoughts. Skin-head picked up some rocks. Little Joe picked up stones. Tony just kept clicking his switchblade. Bucky picked up a couple of empty bottles. They felt strange in his hands. They were turning the corner. Already he heard sounds of broken glass. Suddenly he didn't like the idea at all. Stealing hub caps was one thlfig. But he knew some of those store owners along Sky Street. Hr. Small, the grocer, often pushed a red apple into his hand when Bucky came to buy something for his mother. And he had made some money last summer by helping out in the luncheonette. And Miss Alice, the baker, had run over to help when his mother was sick. And even the Welfare office looking at It in the dark of night, he didn't feel' angry anymore. They couldn't understand Oak Street anymore than he could understand them. No, he couldn't throw rocks at those windows. He wanted to run home. Glass smashing In the night. . .sirens. . .and shouting Water Rats. He ran into the alley, into the shadows. He still held the bottles he hadn't thrown.

PAGE 169

155TIIE WATER RATS (continued) He heard the sound of feet running down the street. The sound came closer and closer and then the feet were there. "You punk," Skin-head said as he came into the alley. "The cops are all over the place!" "And where were you?" Tony asked. But he didn't seem to care what the answer was. The rest of the Water Rats ran past the alley, with terrible fear on their faces. Only Skin-head and Tony were left. Suddenly, they were all over Bucky. Punching him, hitting him. Tony's knife here and there drawing blood from his arms. Bucky Pace fought, lie hit with the bottles. He punched hard. He used anything he had. He wasn't fighting Skin-head and Tony. He was fighting Oak Street and his father, and not enough money, and the hunger of his brothers and sisters. He was fighting everything he hated. And he was willing to fight up to the very end. Tony backed him up against the wall, the knife pressed to Bucky's stomach. "Go ahead," Bucky said, through a blood-filled mouth. "Go ahead... finish It." "That's just what I was planning to do," Tony said. But Skin-head pulled him away. "We don't need a murder rap," he said. "Not for this little punk." Bucky never remembered how he made it back home, lie remembered his mother washing his wounds and saying over and over, "Bucky, they almost killed you." But somehow he didn't feel almost dead. He felt more alive than he had in a long time. It was himself he had fought out there. And now he knew he could never be a Water Rat. The next day he went to school. He walked alone. He had a feeling that from now on he would be able to walk alone. The Water Rats saw his bandaged arms and scarred face. They smiled as he walked by. He met llr. Block in the hall. "Bucky..." Mr. Block took him by the arm, then drew his hand away as he saw the bandages. "What happened?" Bucky just looked up at him without saying a word, but something In his eyes told Mr. Block all he needed to know. Mr. Block's eyes filled with tears, lie knew there were gangs, and he knew there were fights. He knew there was fear in the alleys of Oak Street. But that it had reached Bucky, his best student... "I want to help," he said. They walked to the science class together and Mr. Block said, "I want you to come to my lab on Saturdays. There's work you can help me With." Bucky didn't answer. He just walked over to the window and stared out at his neighborhood. Mr. Block didn't really have to worry anymore. He would go to his lab on Saturdays. And Bucky knew that just the way he had fought against being a Water Rat, he v;ould fight to follow his dreams. One day he would come back to Oak Street a doctor. He would fix the wounds. And he would do It alone. Just like last night.

PAGE 170

•156story IIS SORROW FOR A MIDGET By Langston Hughes No grown man works in a hospital if he can help It the pay is too low. But I was broke, jobs hard to find, and the employment office sent me there that winter. Right in the middle of Harlem. Work wasn't hard, just cleaning up, serving food off a rolling table, pushing a mop. I didn't mind. I got plenty to eat. It was a little, special kind of hospital. There was three private rooms on my floor, and in one of them was a midget, tliss Midget a little lady who looked like a dried-up child to me. But tliey told me (so I wouldn't get scared of her) that she was a midget. She had a pocketbook as big as she v/as. It laid on a chair beside her bed. Generous too nice, that little midget lady. She gave me a tip the first day I was there. But she was dying. The nurses told me Miss Midget v/as booked to die. And I had never seen nobody die. Anyway, I hung around her. It paid off. "Take care of me good," she said. "I pay as I go. I always did know how to get what I want." She opened her big fat pocketbook and showed me a thick roll of bills. "This gets it any time, any place," she said. It got it with me, all right. I stuck by. Tips count up. That's how I knew so much about what happened in them few days she was in that hospital room, game as she could be, but booked to die. "Not even penicillin can save her," the day nurse said, "not her." That was when penicillin was new. Of course, the undertakers that year were all upset about penicillin. They used to come to the liospital looking for corpses. "Business is bad," one undertaker told me. "People don't die like they used to since penicillin came in. No, sir! In the spring, In the old days, you could always count on plenty of people dying of pneumonia and such. They were going outside catching cold before It was warm enough, and all. Funerals every other day then. Not no more. The doctors stick them with penicillin now. And they get well. Would you believe it! Business is bad for undertakers." But that midget did not have pneumonia, neither a cold. She had went without an operation she needed too long. Now operations could do her no good. And what they put in the needle for her arm was not penicillin. It was something that did her no good either. It just let up the pain. It was kept locked up, so young orderlies like me would not steal it and sell it to junkies. The nurses would not even tell me where it was locked up at. You know, I did not look too straight when I came in to tliat hospital. Short-handed not having much help they would take on just about anyone for an orderly in a hospital In Harlem. Even me. So I got the job. Right off, after the first day, I loved that midget. I said, "Little Bits, you're a good kid. I like your spunk," Midget said, "I dig this hospital jive. Them nurses aren't understanding. Nice, but they don't understand. You're the only one in here, boy, I would ask to do me a favor. Find my son."

PAGE 171

-157SORROW FOR A fllOGET (continued) "You look like a baby to me, tliss Midget. Hhere and when on earth did you get a son?" I asked. "Don't worry about that," said Hiss Midget. "I got him and he's mine. I want him right now , tie do not know I am in here sick if he did, he would come. Even if he were ashamed of the way he looked. You find my son." She gave me twenty bucks to go looking. 1 went and looked and found her son. Just like she had said he might be, he were ashamed to come to the hospital, lie v;as not doing so well. Fact is, her son was pretty bad off. But when I told him his mama was sick in the hospital, he come, lie got right up out of bed and come. "My mama has not called for me for a long time," he said. "If she calls me now, wild horses could not hold me." And he got up and dressed and went with me, quick. "That little tiny woman," I asked him in the street, "she is your mama?" "You better believe she's my mama," said the guy, who was near six feet, big, heavy-set, black, and ragged. Ilo warm coat on. I thought I was beat, but he was the most. 1 could tell he had been gone to the dogs, long gone. Still, he was a young man. From him I took 'a lesson. "I will never get this far down," I said to myself. "No, not never!" "Is she very low sick?" he asked about his mama. "Real sick?" "Man, I don't know," I said. "She is sunk way down in bed. And the sign on the door says NO VISITORS." "Then how am I going to get in?" "Family is not visitors," I said. "Besides, 1 know the nurses. Right now is not even visiting hours. Too early. But come with me. You'll get in." I felt sorry for a guy with a mama who was a midget who was dying. A midget laying dying! Had she been my mama, I guess I would have wanted to be there, even though she was a midget. I couldn't help wondering how she be so small and have this great big son? Who were his papa? Well, anyv/ay, I took him in to see Hiss Midget in that big high hospital bed, so dark and small in that wliite, white room, in that white bed. They had just given his mama a needle, so she wore not right bright. But when she saw her son, her little old face lighted up. Her little old tiny arms went almost around his neck. And she yelled, "My baby!" real loud. "My sweet baby son!" "Mama," he almost cried, "I have not been a good son to you." "You have been my onlj^ son," she said. The nurse told me,~"Let's get out of here and leave them alone." So we went. And we left them alone for a long time, until he left. That afternoon the midget died. Her son couldn't have more than gotten home when I had to go after him again. I asked hira on the way back to the hospital was he honestto-God sure enough her son. He shook his head. "Ho." That is when I felt most sorry for that midget, when I heard him say No. He explained to me that he was just a took-in son. One she had kind of adopted when he was near-about a baby. Because he had no father and no mother and she had no son. But she wanted people to think she had a son.

PAGE 172

-158SORnOU FOR A MIDGET (continued) She was just his midget mama, that's all. He never had no real mama that he' knew. But this tiny midget brought him up as best she could. Being off in side shows and carnivals most of the time, she boarded him out somewhere, in school, in the country. Uhen ho got older and came back to Harlem, he went right straight to the dogs. But she loved him and he loved her. When he found out, about 5:30 p.m., that she had died, that b1g old ragged, no-good, make-believe son of hers cried like a child.

PAGE 173

APPENDIX D TREATMENT PREQUESTIONS FOR EACH SHORT STORY

PAGE 174

QUESTIONS BEFORE THE READING Think about these questions, but do not answer. 1. "Do or Die" a. Was Ken right or wrong in refusing to play on the school basketball team at first? Why? 2. "Texas Week" a. Could anything like this story ever happen now, or in the future? Why or why not? 3. "Love, Oh Love" a. Should Joyce try to change herself in any way? Why or why not? 4. "The Water Rats" a. Considering the end of the story, was Bucky right or wrong to walk to the Water Rats that night? 5. "Sorrow for a Midget" a. Could this story have really happened? Have you ever known someone to have a "took in" son or mother? Have you ever seen a grown man cry? -16Q-

PAGE 175

APPENDIX E TREATMENT POSTQUESTIONS FOR EACH SHORT STORY Permission has been granted to reprint the postquestions from

PAGE 176

"Do or Die" (Tl) Discussion Question s 1, What doe4 tiie term "do or die" mean? 2. What reason did Ken give Mr. Wild for not v/anting to be on the school basketball team? What does Mr. Rose tell Mr. Wild about why Ken probably feels this way? 3. What do you think made Ken change his mind about playing only oneon-one? Is there anything Ken's grandmother said to him that might have convinced him to play three-on-three with the Daker brothers? What was it? 4. What do you think Ken means when he tells his father, "You know, you can't practice passing In one-on-one"? 5. What do you think the "bad news" is that Ken and Mr. Rose have to tell the rest of the family at the end of the story? 6. What is the main Idea of the story? In other words, what point Is the author trying to make by writing this story? 7. State, in one sentence. Ken's attitude about playing team basketball at the beginning of tlie story. 8. Was Ken right or wrong in refusing to play on the school basketball team at first? Why? 9. Do you agree with Ken's attitude about not playing team sports? Why? 10. Did you like this story? Why or why not? 162-

PAGE 177

163"Texas Week" (T2) Discussion Questions 1. This story takes place in the (circle one): past present future Give two examples (words, phrases) from the story to support your answer: (a) „^__ page no. (b) Paae no. 2 Mr Nest told Mrs. Nest she was crazy when she told him there was no cliff out in their yard. What was the exact word llr. Nest used for "crazy"? Uhere did Mr. Hest hear that word? 3. What was "Texas Week" (besides the name of this story!)? 4. According to Mr. tiest, what 1s "Dirty Dan" going to do? 5 Why didn't Mr. Nest want the doctor to fall off the cliff? (The answer is not that he didn't want him to hurt himself) 6. Considering the ending of the story, who is the "loco" one, Mr. Nest or Dr. Flower? Why? 7. Tell, In your own words, what happens in the last sentence of the story. 8. Could anything like this story ever happen now, or in the future? Why or why not? 9 What would Mr. Nest have done if the doctor had not fallen off the cliff, but had just kept walking "in the air" over the cliff/grass? 10. How would you rate this story (circle one)? Dull Alright Good Why did you choose this rating? great

PAGE 178

-164"Love, Oh Love" (T3) Discussion Questions 1. Inside whose head does the story take place? Who Is Yvonne? How old Is Yvonne? 2. What was Freddie and what does he have to do with the "Dream Child" picture? How does the name "Dream Child" correctly describe Joyce? 3. Uhat does It mean when the author puts certain passages In Italics? A. What did Cheryl have to fuss at Joyce about on pages 53-54? What did Cheryl tell Joyce about love? Did Joyce believe Cheryl? 5. In the scene In the middle of page 56 Joyce realizes something that Rick and Cheryl had known all along. Uhat was It? 6. Place these four characters Into one of these two columns v/hlch best describes tlieir attitude about life: Joyce Cheryl Yvonne Rick Realistic Unrealistic 7. What things about Joyce are most like you? What things about Joyce are most unlike you? 8. Should Joyce try to change herself In any way? Why or why not? 9. What Is the main Idea of the story? 10. Did you enjoy this story? Why or why not?

PAGE 179

-165"The Water Rats" (Tl) Discussion Questions 1. How did Bucky think the woman at the Welfare Office felt about his family? 2. Why did, Bucky hate Mr. Block when he said, "Stick with it" to Bucky, and then drove away in his sports car? 3. On page 92 the author writes, "A thought went through Bucky' s mind, and he smiled. A branch of the Welfare office was on Sky Street. lie could get it all out of his system, and let the Water Rats do all the work." Why does Bucky smile, and what will Bucky be able to get "out of his system"? 4. Why did Bucky begin to change his mind about breaking windows on Skv Street? 5. When Bucky fought Skin-head and Tony (p. 95) he felt he was really fighting for something bigger and more important. What was it? 6. Why does Bucky feel "more alive than he had in a long time" (p. 96) after the big fight? 7. Why did Mr. Block's eyes fill with tears when he saw Bucky after the fight? Why does he not have to worry about Bucky anymore? 8. Place the following characters from the story under one of these two columns: Bucky llr. Pace Mrs. Pace the Water Rats Mr. Block Fighters Quitters 9. Considering the end of the story, was Bucky right or wrong to walk up to the Water Rats that night? 10. Circle the word that best describes how you felt about this story: Great Good O.K. Didn't like it Hated it

PAGE 180

166"Sorrow for a Midget" (T5) Discussi o n Questions 1. Where was the hospital that the narrator worked in? 2. Why was "business bad for undertakers" since penicillin "came in"? 3. What did the author mean when he said Miss Midget's son "had been gone to the dogs"? 4. What "lesson" did the narrator take from the son? Was the son really Miss Midget's son? What was he? 5. In no more than three complete sentences, summarize what happens in this story. Write them on the back of this paper. 6. What kind of person is the narrator? Give two reasons why you think so: (a) (b) 7. Could this story have really happened? Have you ever known someone to have a "tooFln" son or mother? Have you ever seen a grown man cry? 8. Langston Hughes writes this story in a very expressive way. For instance, he uses funny lines like, "...they would take on just about anyone for an orderly in a hospital in Harlem. Even me;" and "Had she been my mama, I guess I would have wanted to be there, even though she was a midget." Did you enjoy humorous language in a story like this? Mr. Hughes also sometimes uses more words than he needs to describe something, like "...was he honest-to-God sure enough her son," and "...that big old ragged, no good, make-believe son of hers." Do you like this type of writing? Would you have rather he used less words to describe people? 9. Circle one of the words/phrases below which best describes how this story makes you feel: Happy Makes me laugh Good Mappy-Sad Funny-Sad Sad 10. You have now read five stories in this book: Do or Die . Texas Week , Lov e, Oh, Love , The Water Rats , and Sorrow for a Midget . Which story Hi3 you like the best? Why?

PAGE 181

APPENDIX F THE BARRETT TAXONOMY COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE DIMENSIONS OR READING COMPREHENSION

PAGE 182

"Do or Ule" (Tl) (1) 1.11 (Z) a-1.11~ b-1.16 (3) a-3.3 b-1.15 (4) 3.5 (5) 3.1 (6) 3.2 (7) 2.3 (8) 4.5 (9) 5.2 (10) 5.1 "Texas Week" (T2) (1) a-3.8 b-2.4 (2) a-l.ll b-1.15 (3) 1.11 (4) 1.15 (5) 1.15 (6) 3.6 (7) a-2.3 b-3.8 (8) 4.1 (9) 3.3 (10) 5.1 "Love. Oh Love" (T3 "The Uater Rats" {T4) (1) a-3.] b-2.1 (1) 1.12 c-1.11 (2) 3.2 (2) a-i.n b-3.C (3) 3.5 (4)a-1.12 (3) 3.0 b-3.5 (4) a-1.12 (5) a-1.12 b-1.11 b-3.2 c-1.11 (6) 3.6 (5) a-1.12 b-3.2 (7) 3.2 (6) a-2.1 b-4.5 (3) 2.1 (9) a-4.5 (7) a-3.6 b-5.2 b-5.2 (10) 5.1 (8) 4.5 (9) 3.2 "Sorrow for a tlidget" (10) 5.1 (2) a-1.12 b-3.2 (3) 3.0 (4) a-1.12 b-3.2 (5) 2.3 (6) a-3.6 b-4.5 (7) 4.1 (0) 5.3 (9) 5.1 10) a-5.1 b-2.4 168-

PAGE 183

APPENDIX G RESULTS OF READING SPECIALISTS' CONSENSUS ON BARRETT TAXONOMY READING COMPREHENSION TREATMENT QUESTION LEVEL

PAGE 184

THE BARRETT TAXONOMY COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE DIMENSIONS OF READING COMPREHENSION 1,0 Literal Comprehension . Literal comprehension focuses on ideas and information which are explicitly stated in the selection. Purposes for reading and teacher's questions designed to elicit responses at this level may range from simple to complex. A simple task in literal comprehension may be the recognition or recall of a single fact or incident. A more complex task might be the recognition or recall of a series of facts or the sequencing of incidents in a reading selection. Purposes and questions at this level may have the following characteristics. 1.1 Recognition requires the student to locate or Identify ideas or information ex pl icitly stated in the reading selection itself or in exercises which use the explicit ideas and information presented in the reading selection. Recognition tasks are: 1.11 Recogni tion of Details . The student is required to locate or identify facts such as the names of characters, the time of the story, or the place of the story. 1.12 Reco g nition of Main Ideas . The student is asked to locate or identify an explicit statement in or from a selection which is a main Idea of a paragraph or a larger portion of the selection. 1.13 Recognition of a Sequence . The student is required to locate or Identify the order of incidents or actions explicitly stated in the selection. . 1.14 Recognition of Comparison . The student is requested to locate or identify likenesses and differences in characters, times and places that are explicitly stated in the selection. 1.15 Recognition of Cause and Eff e ct Relationsliips . The student in this instance may~be required to locate or identify the explicitly stated reasons for certain happenings or actions in the selection. 1.16 Reco gnition of Character Traits . The student is required to identify or locate explicit statements about a character which helps to point up the type of person he Is. 1.2 Recall requires the student to produce from memory ideas and inforiDation explicitly stated in the reading selection. Recall tasks are: •170-

PAGE 185

-1711.21 RecaU of Details. The student is asked to produce from memory facts such as the names of characters, the time of the story, or the place of the story, l.'S? Recall of Main Ideas. The student is required to state a main Idea of a paragraph or a larger portion of the selection from memory, when the main idea is explicitly stated in the selection. n-iu.y 1.23 Recall of a Sequence. The student is asked to provide ISfjrlSllection?' ""'"'"'^ "'''''°"' '^'''''''y ^•2'' Re"'l of Comparisons. The student is required to call up from memory the likenesses and differences in characters, times, and places that are explicitly stated in tne selection. '•" Recall of Cause and Effect Relationships . The student is requested to produce from memory explicitly stated reasons for certain happenings or actions in the selection. '^^ Recall of Character Traits. The student is asked to call up from memory explicit statements about characters which illustrate the type of persons they are. ^° fSr^f^«^°'-?«"
PAGE 186

-1723.1 Inferring Supporting Det ails. In this instance, the student is asked to conjecture about additional facts the author might have included in the selection which would have made it more informative, interesting, or appealing. 3.2 Inferring Main Ideas . The student is required to provide the main idea, general significance, theme, or moral which is not explicitly stated in the selection. 3.3 Inferrini; Sequence . The student, in this case, may be requested to conjecture as to what action or incident might have taken place between two explicitly stated actions or incidents, or he may be asked to hypothesize about what would happen next if the selection had not ended as it did but had been extended. 3.1 Inferring Comparisons . The student is required to infer likenesses and differences in characters, times, or places. Such inferential comparisons revolve around ideas such as: "here and there," "then and now," "he and he," "he and she," and "she and she." 3.5 Inferring Cause and Effect Relationshi ps. The student is required to hypothesize about the motivations of characters and their interactions with time and place, lie may also be required to conjecture as to what caused the author to include certain ideas, words, characterizations, and actions in his writing. 3.6 Inferring Character Traits . In this case, the student is asked to hypothesize about the nature of characters on the basis of explicit clues presented in the selection. 3.7 Predicting Outcomes . The student is requested to read an initial portion of the selections and on the basis of this reading he is required to conjecture about the outcome of the selection. 3.8 Interpreting Figurative Lai lguage. The student, in this instance, IS asked to infer literal meanings from theauthor's figurative use of language. 4.0 Eval uation . Purposes for reading and teacher's questions, in this instance, require responses by the student v/hich indicate that he has made an evaluative judgment by comparing ideas presented in the selection with external criteria provided by the teacher, other authorities, or other written sources, or with internal criteria provided by the reader's experiences, knowledge, or values. In essence evaluation deals with judgment and focuses on qualities of accuracy, acceptability, desirability, worth, or probability of occurrence. Evaluative thinking may be demonstrated by asking the student to make the following judgments. 4.1 Judgments of Reality or Fantas y. Could this really happen? Such a question calls for a judgment by the reader based on his experience.

PAGE 187

1734.2 Judgments of Fact or Opinion . Does the author provide adequate support for his conclusions. Is the author attempting to sway your thinking? Questions of this type require the student to analyze and evaluate the writing on the basis of tiie knowledge he has on the subject as well as to analyze and evaluate the intent of the author. 4.3 Judgments of Adeq uac y and Validit y. Is the Information presented here in keeping with what you have read on the subject in other sources? Questions of this nature call for the reader •to compare written sources of information, with an eye toward agreement and disagreement or completeness and Incompleteness. 4.4 Judgments of Appropriateness . What part of the story best describes the main character? Such a question requires the reader to make a judgment about the relative adequacy of different parts of the selection to answer the question. 4.5 Judgments of Worth. Desirability and Acceptability . Was the character right or wrong in what he did? Was his behavior good or bad? Questions of this nature call for judgments based on the reader's moral code or his value system. 5.0 Appreciation . Appreciation Involves all the previously cited cognitive dimensions of reading, for It deals with the psychological and aesthetic impact of the selection on the reader. Appreciation calls for the student to be emotionally and aesthetically sensitive to the work and to have a reaction to the worth of its psychological and artistic elements. Appreciation includes both the knowledge of and the emotional response to literary techniques, forms, styles, and structures. 5.1 Emotional Response to the Content . The student is required to verbalize his feelings about the selection in terms of Interest, excitement, boredom, fear, hate, amusement, etc. It is concerned witli the emotional impact of the total work on the reader. 5.2 Identification witit Characters or Incidents , teacher's questions of this nature will elicit responses from the reader which demonstrate his sensitivity to, sympathy for, and empathy with characters and happenings portrayed by the author. 5.3 Reactions to tlie Author's Use of Language . In this Instance the student is required to respond to the author's craftsmanship in terms of the semantic dimensions of the selection, namely, connotations and denotations of words. 5.4 Imagery . In this instance, the reader is required to verbalize his feelings with regard to the author's artistic ability to paint word pictures which cause the reader to visualize, smell, taste, hear, or feel.

PAGE 188

APPENDIX H THE STATISTICAL TABLES

PAGE 189

Summary of Initial Differences Among Teachers and Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis One Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Objective Prescore Degrees of Type III F Source Freedom Sums of Squares Value Factor A 2 558.069 10,75* Factor B 4 346.430 3.34* A X B 8 1901.922 9.16* Note . Factor A = Teaching Strategies Factor B = Teachers *p < .05 175-

PAGE 190

-176Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis One Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Objective Postscore I Degrees of Type III F Source Freedom Sums of Squares Value Factor A 1 Factor B 2 Factor C 2 B X C 4 A X B X C 8 1890.448 219.77* 50.133 2.91 66.508 3.87* 64.081 1.86* 147.726 2.15* Note. Factor A = Reading Examination Objective Postscore I Factor B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers *p < .05

PAGE 191

177Summary of Simple Effects for Hypothesis One: Teacher One Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Objective Postscore I Degrees of Type III F Teacher Source Freedom Sums of Squares Value 1 Factor A 1 953.343 257.19 Factor B 2 14.010 1.89 1 Factor A 1 967.411 332.96** Factor B 2 63.769 10.97** A X B 2 52.286 9.00** Note. Factor A = Reading Examination Objective Prescore Factor B = Teaching Strategies **p < .001

PAGE 192

-178Summary of Simple Effects for Hypothesis One: Teacher Two Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Objective Postscore I Degrees of Type III F Teacher Source Freedom Sums of Squares Value Factor A 1 462.390 30.42 Factor B 2 76.391 2.51 Factor A 1 402.748 27.06 Factor B 2 67.953 2.28 A X B 2 47.208 1.59 Note . Factor A = Reading Examination Objective Prescore Factor B = Teaching Strategies *p < .05

PAGE 193

-179Summary of Simple Effects for Hypothesis One: Teacher Three Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Objective Postscore I Degrees of Type III F Teacher Source Freedom Sums of Squares Value Factor A 1 826.462 101.06 Factor B 2 15.440 0.94 Factor A 1 606.331 72.54 Factor B 2 7.971 0.48 A X B 2 6.092 0.36 Note . Factor A = Reading Examination Objective Prescore Factor B = Teaching Strategies *p < .05

PAGE 194

-180Summar.y of Initial Differences Among Teachers and Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Two Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Prescore Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares F Value Factor A 2 244.483 9.30* Factor B 4 241.030 4.58* A X B 8 975.766 9.28* Note. Factor A = = Teaching Strategies Factor B = Teachers *p < .05

PAGE 195

181Summary of Analysis of Covan'ance for Hypothesis Two Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Postscore I Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares F Value Factor A 1 957.976 185.34 Factor B 2 6.010 0.58 Factor C 2 27.429 2.65 B X C 4 32.735 1.58 A X B X C 8 49.263 1.19 Note . Factor A = Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Prescores Factor. B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers

PAGE 196

-182Summary of Analysis of Covan'ance for Hypothesis Two Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Postscore I Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares F Value Factor A 1 1081.447 207.39 Factor B 2 16.982 1.63 Factor C 2 28.084 2.69 B X C 4 24.192 1.16 Note. Factor A = = Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Prescores Factor B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers

PAGE 197

-183Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Two Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Postscore I Teaching Strategies N Least Squared Cell Mean Least Squared Standard Error None 61 10.02 .29 Wri tten 63 10.60 .29 Oral 59 10.72 .30 Note. N = Number of Students Probability Compai risons for Teach inq Strategies for Hype ) thesis Two Teaching Strategies None Wri tten Oral None Written Oral ,1607 .0954 .1607 .7735 .0954 .7736 Note . *p < .05

PAGE 198

184Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers for Hypothesis Two Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Postscore I Teachers N Least Squared Cell Mean Least Squared Standard Error 1 62 9.93 .29 2 59 10.55 .31 3 63 10.87 .30 Note. N = Number of Students Probability Comparisons for Teachers for Hypothesis Two Teachers 1 2 3 .1433 .0243 .1433 .4507 .0243 .4507 Note. *p < .05

PAGE 199

185Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers x Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Two Dependent Variable: Postscore I Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Teaching Strategies Teachers None N = 21 LSM = 10.00 LSSE = .50 N = 18 LSM = 9.91 LSSE = .56 N = 22 LSM = 10.15 LSSE = .50 Wri tten N = 22 LSM = 10.27 LSSE = .49 N = 18 LSM = 10.74 LSSE = .55 N = 23 LSM = 10.80 LSSE = .48 Oral N = 19 LSM = 9.51 LSSE = .53 N = 23 LSM = 10.99 LSSE = .49 N = 18 LSM = 11.67 LSSE = .54 Note . N = Number of Students LSM = Least Squared Cell Mean LSSE = Least Squared Standard Error Probability Comparisons for Teachers x Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Two Teaching Strategies Teachers 1 2 3 None vs. Written .7055 .2783 .3400 None vs. Oral .5006 .1590 .0390 Oral vs. Written .2927 .7415 .2297 Note. *p < .05

PAGE 200

186Summary of Initial Differences Among Teachers and Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Three Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Itemized Prescore Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares Factor A Factor B A X B Note . Factor A = Teaching Strategies Factor B = Teachers F Value 2 2359.506 6.36* 4 2309.000 3.11* 8 10869.021 7.33* * p < .05

PAGE 201

•187Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis Three Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Itemized Postscore I Degrees of Type III F Source Freedom Sums of Squares Value Factor A 1 Factor B 2 Factor C 2 B X C 4 A X B X C 9 Note. Factor A = Reading Examination Itemized Prescores Factor B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers 3123.231 41.71 229.510 1.53 481.245 3.21 355.770 1.19 1132.246 1.68

PAGE 202

•188Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis Three Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Itemized Postscore I Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares F Value Factor A Factor B Factor C B X C 1 2 2 4 17897.593 246.190 1270.540 437.201 230.87 1.59 8.19* 1.41 Note . Factor A = Reading Examination Itemized Prescores Factor B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers *p < .05

PAGE 203

•189Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Three Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Itemized Postscore I Teaching Least Squared Least Squared Strategies N Cell Mean Standard Error None 61 72.36 1.13 Written 63 74.83 1.13 Oral 50 74.83 1.15 Note. N = Number of Students Probability Comparisons for Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Three Teaching Strategies None Written Oral None .1236 .1276 Written .1236 .9987 Oral .1276 .9987 Note. *p < .05

PAGE 204

-190Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers for Hypothesis Three Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Postscore I Teachers Least Squared Cell Mean 1 62 71.42 2 59 72.92 3 63 77.66 Note. N = = Number of Students Least Squared Standard Error 1.12 1.17 1.13 •-•---' 1 — " Teachers 1 2 3 1 .3562 .0001* 2 .3562 .0046* 3 .0001* .0046* Note. *p < .05

PAGE 205

-191Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers X Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Three Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Itemized Postscore I Teachers Teaching Strategies None N = 21 N = 18 N = 22 LSM = 72.04 LSM = 69.97 LSM = 75.06 LSSE = 1.93 LSSE = 2.13 LSSE = 1.91 Written N = 22 N = 18 N = 23 LSM = 73.05 LSM = 73.66 LSM = 77.76 LSSE = 1.88 LSSE = 2.13 LSSE = 1.83 Oral N = 19 N = 23 N = 18 LSM = 69.18 LSM = 75.14 LSM = 80.17 LSSE = 2.03 LSSE = 1.92 LSSE = 2.08 Note . N = Numbers of Students LSM = Least Squared Cell Means LSSE = Least Squared Standard Error Hypothesi s Three Teachers Teaching Strategies 1 2 3 None vs. Wri tten .7087 .2095 .3068 None vs. Oral .3110 .0797 .0713 Oral vs. Wri tten .1637 .6157 .3878 Note. *p < .05

PAGE 206

-192Summary of Im'tiaT Differences Among Teachers and Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Four Dependent Vari able: Reading Examinati on Comprehension Itemized Prescore Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares F Value Factor A 2 1828.268 9.65* Factor B 4 1532.829 4.04* A X B 8 6856.999 9.05* Note . Factor A = Teaching Strategies Factor B = Teachers *p < .05

PAGE 207

193Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis Four Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Itemized Postscore I Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares F Value Factor A 1 980.404 26.44 Factor B 2 46.805 0.63 Factor C 2 173.941 2.35 B X C 4 134.744 0.91 A X B X C g 395.656 1.19 Note. Factor A = Reading Examination Comprehension I tern i zed Prescores Factor B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers

PAGE 208

•194Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis Four Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Itemized Postscore I Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares F Value Factor A 1 9143.065 236.61 Factor B 2 84.667 1.10 Factor C 2 352.952 4.57* B X C 4 287.638 1.86 Note. Factor A = = Reading -T1 " _ Examination Comprehension rJ . J — ^ -» — Itemized Prescores Factor B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers *p < .05

PAGE 209

•195Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Four Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Itemized Postscore I Teaching Strategies N Least Squared Cell Mean Least Squared Standard Error None 61 42.83 .80 Written 63 43.93 .79 Oral 60 44.48 .81 Note. N = Number of Students Probability Comparisons for Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Four Teaching Strategies None Written Oral None .3274 -1493 Written .3274 .6317 Oral .1493 .6317 Note . *p < .05

PAGE 210

•196Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers for Hypothesis Four Dependent Variabl e: Reading Examination Postscore ] [ Teachers N Least Squared Cell Mean Least Squared Standard Error I 62 41.93 .79 2 59 43.99 .83 3 63 45.33 .80 Note. N = = Number of Students Probability Comparisons for Teachers for Hypothesis Four Teachers 12 3 1 .0738 .0032* 2 .0738 .2567 3 .0032* .2567 ' Note . *p < .05

PAGE 211

-197Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers x Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Four Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Itemized Postscore I Teaching Teachers Strategies 1 2 3 None N = 21 N = 18 N = 22 LSM = 42. 36 LSM = 41. 88 LSM = 44. 25 LSSE = 1. 36 LSSE = 1. 51 LSSE = 1. 35 Wri tten N = 22 N = 18 N = 23 LSM = 43. 23 LSM = 44. 31 LSM = 44. 27 LSSE = 1. 33 LSSE = 1. 51 LSSE = 1. 30 Oral N = 19 N = 23 N = 18 LSM = 40. 20 LSM = 45. 77 LSM = 47 76 LSSE = 1. 44 LSSE = 1. 35 LSSE = 1. 47 Note. N = Number of Students LSM = Least Squared Cell Means LSSE = Least Squared Standard Errors Probability Comparisons for Teachers x Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Four Teachers Teaching Strategies None vs. Written .6484 .2426 .9931 None vs. Oral .2804 .0609 .1072 Oral vs. Written .1236 .4773 .1045 Note. *p < .05

PAGE 212

-198Summary of Initial Differences Among Teachers and Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Five Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Objective Prescore Degrees of Type III F Source Freedom Sums of Squares Value Factor A 2 558.069 10.75* Factor B 4 346.430 3.34* A X B 8 1901.922 9.16* Note . Factor A = Teaching Strategies Factor B = Teachers *p < .05

PAGE 213

-199Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis Five Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Objective Postscore II Degrees of Type III F Source Freedom Sums of Squares Value Factor A 1 1397.772 74.41 Factor B 2 2.727 0.07 Factor C 3 187.377 3.32 B X C 6 184.621 1.64 A X B X C 11 273.494 1.32 Note. Factor A = Read ing Examination Objective Prescores Factor B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers

PAGE 214

-200Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis Five Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Objective Postscore II Degrees of Type III F Source Freedom Sums of Squares Value Factor A 1 2355.9049 123.53 Factor B 2 23.2772 .61 Factor C 3 394.0264 6.89* B X C 6 335.9222 2.94* Note. Factor A = Reading Examination Objective Prescores Factor B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers *p < .05

PAGE 215

-201Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Five Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Objective Postscore II Teaching Least Squared Least Squared Strategies N Cell Mean Standard Error .49 .51 .50 None 86 16.88 Written 84 16.84 Oral 78 17.53 Note. N = Number of Students Probability Comparisons for Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Five Teaching Strategies None Written Oral None Wri tten .9549 Oral .3599 Note. .9549 .3599 .3299 .3299 *p < .05

PAGE 216

202Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers for Hypothesis Five Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Objective Postscore II Teach ers N Least Squared Cell Mean Least Squared Standard Error 1 55 17.02 .59 2 52 17.15 .62 4 71 15.38 .53 5 70 18.77 .52 Note. N = Number of Students Probability Comparisons for Teachers for Hypothesis Five Teachers 1 2 4 5 1 .8845 .0392* .0286* 2 .8845 .0311* .0476 4 .0392* .0311* .0001* 5 .0286* . 0476* .0001* Note. *p < .05

PAGE 217

203Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers x Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Five Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Objective Postscore II Teachers Teaching Strategies None N = 21 N = 16 N = 26 N = 25 LSM = 16.42 LSM = 17.63 LSM = 14.97 LSM = 18.48 LSSE = 1.01 LSSE = 1.10 ESSE = .88 ESSE = .96 Written N = 20 N = 14 N = 25 N = 25 LSM = 18.23 LSM = 13.88 LSM = 15.82 LSM = 19.40 LSSE = .98 LSSE = 1.20 LSSE = .87 LSSE = .90 Oral N = 16 N = 22 N = 20 N = 20 LSM = 16.42 LSM = 19.93 LSM = 15.33 LSM = 18.42 LSSE = 1.09 LSSE = .95 LSSE = 1.00 LSSE = .99 Note . N = Number of Students LSM = Least Squared Cell Mean LSSE = Least Squared Standard Error Probability Comparisons for Teachers x Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Five Teaching Strategies Teachers 1 2 4 5 None vs. Wri tten .1973 .0202* .4920 .5115 None vs. Oral .9955 .1208 .7907 .9673 Oral vs. Written .2198 .0001* .7078 .4575 Note. *p < .05

PAGE 218

-204Summary of Initial Differences Among Teachers and Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Six Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Prescore Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares F Value Factor A 2 244.483 9.30* Factor B 4 241.030 4.58* A X B 8 975.766 9.28* Note. Factor A = = Teaching Strategies Factor B = Teachers *p < .05

PAGE 219

-205Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis Six Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Postscore II Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares F Value Factor A 1 741.646 71.51 Factor B 2 5.879 0.28 Factor C 3 74.822 2.40 B X C 6 54.468 0.88 A X B X C 11 99.309 0.87 Note. Factor A = = Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Prescores Factor B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers

PAGE 220

-206Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis Six Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Postscore II Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares F Value Factor A 1 1105.972 107.30 Factor B 2 7.380 0.36 Factor C 3 241.129 7.80* B X C 6 98.399 1.59 Note. Factor A = = Reading T* 1_ • _ Examination Comprehension Objective Prescores Factor B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers ^p < .05

PAGE 221

-207Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Six Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Postscore II Teaching Strategies N Least Squared Cell Mean Least Squared Standard Error None 86 9.65 .36 Written 84 9.80 .37 Oral 78 10.08 .37 Note. N = Number of Students Probability Comparisons for Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Six Teaching Strategies None Wri tten Oral None Written .7707 Oral .4052 ,7707 .5970 .4052 .5970 Note. *p < .05

PAGE 222

-208Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers for Hypothesis Six Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Postscore II Teaching Strategies N Least Squared Cell Mean Least Squared Standard Error None 86 72.62 1.38 Wri tten 86 67.47 1.42 Oral 78 74.69 1.44 Note. N = Number of Students Probability Comparisons for Teachers for Hypothesis Six Teachers 1 2 4 5 1 .5579 .1069 . 0042* 2 .5579 .0294* . 0287* 4 .1069 .0294* .0001* 5 .0042* .0287* . 0001* Note. *p < .05

PAGE 223

209Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers x Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Six Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Objective Postscore II Teaching Strategies Teachers None N = 19 N = 16 LSM = 9.21 LSM = 10.25 LSSE = .74 LSSE = .81 N = 26 LSM = 8.20 LSSE = .64 N = 25 LSM = 10.93 LSSE = .70 Written N = 20 N LSM = 10.40 LSM LSSE = .72 LSSE 14 N = 25 8.25 LSM = 8.95 .88 LSSE = .64 N = 25 LSM = 11.61 LSSE = .66 Oral N = 16 N LSM = 9.08 LSM LSSE = .81 LSSE 22 N = 20 11.31 LSM = 8.72 .70 LSSE = .74 N = 20 LSM = 11.22 LSSE = .75 Note . N = Number of Students LSN = Least Squared Cell Mean LSSE = Least Squared Standard Error Probability Comparisons for Teachers x Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Six Teachers Teaching Strategies None vs. Written None vs. Oral Oral vs. Wri tten ,2463 ,9041 ,2191 .0892 .3342 ,0081^ .4126 .5967 ,8150 .5043 .7892 .6862 Note. *p < .05

PAGE 224

-210Summary of Initial Differences Among Teachers and Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Seven Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Itemized Prescore Degrees of Type III F Source Freedom Sums of Squares Value Note . Factor A = Teaching Strategies Factor B = Teachers Factor A 2 2359.506 6.36* Factor B 4 2309.000 3.11* A X B 8 10869.021 7.33*

PAGE 225

211Summary of Analysis of Covan'ance for Hypothesis Seven Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Itemized Postscore II Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares F Value Factor A Factor B Factor C B X C A X B X C 1 2 3 6 11 14985.604 99.03 93.951 0.31 1611.516 3.55 824.875 0.91 2228.065 1.34 Note . Factor A = Reading Examination Itemized Postscore II Factor B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers

PAGE 226

•212Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis Seven Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Itemized Postscore II Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares Factor B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers ''p < .05 F Value Factor A 1 20139.534 130.99 Factor B 2 2121.212 6.90* Factor C 3 1831.854 3.97* B X C 6 6788.546 7.36* Note. Factor A = = Read! ng Examination Itemized Prescores

PAGE 227

213Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachi hg Strategies for Hypothesis Seven Dependent Variable >: Reading Examination Itemized Postscore II Teachers N Least Squared Mean Least Squared Standard Error 1 n 73.44 1.68 2 52 72.87 1.77 4 71 67.18 1.51 5 70 71.89 1.52 Note. N = = Number of Students Probability Comparisons for Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Seven Teaching Strategies None Written Oral None .0109* .3046 Written .0109* .0004* Oral .3046 .0004* Note . *p < .05

PAGE 228

-214Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers for Hypothesis Seven Dependent Va riabi e: Reading Examination Itemized Postscore II Teachers N Least Squared Cell Mean Least Squared Standard Error 1 55 9.57 .43 2 52 9.94 .45 4 71 8.62 .39 5 70 11.25 .39 Note. N = Number of Students Probability Comparisons for Teachers for Hypothesis Seven Teachers 1 .5192 .0015* .2628 2 .5192 .0150* .6771 4 .0015* .0150* .0288* 5 .2628 .6771 . 0288* Note. *p < .05

PAGE 229

-215Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers x Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Seven Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Itemized Postscore II Teaching Strategies Teachers None N = 19 LSM = 73.73 LSSE = 2.85 N = 16 LSM = 74.49 LSSE = 3.15 N = 26 LSM = 63.82 LSSE = 2.48 N = 25 LSM = 78.46 LSSE = 2.69 Wri tten N = 22 LSM = 76.90 LSSE = 2.77 N = 14 LSM = 64.11 LSSE = 3.42 N = 25 LSM = 70.24 LSSE = 2.49 N = 25 LSM = 58.62 LSSE = 2.48 Oral N = 16 N = 22 LSM = 72.69 LSM = 80.00 LSSE = 3.12 LSSE = 2.69 N = 20 LSM = 67.48 LSSE = 2.85 N = 20 LSM = 78.58 LSSE = 2.90 Note. N = Number of Students LSM = Leans Squared Cell Mean LSSE = Least Squared Standard Error Hypothesi s Seven Teaching Strategies Teachers 1 2 4 5 None vs. Written .4269 . 0235* .0692 .0001* None vs. Oral .8058 .1912* .3329 .9767 Oral vs. Wri tten .3133 .0004* .4652 .0001* Note. *p < .05

PAGE 230

-216Summary of Initial Differences Among Teachers and Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Eight Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Itemized Prescore Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares F Value Factor A 2 1828.268 9.65* Factor B 4 1532.829 4.04* A X B 8 6856.999 9.05* Note. Factor A = = Teaching Strategies Factor B = Teachers *p < .05

PAGE 231

-217Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis Eight Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Itemized Postscore II Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares F Value Factor A 1 6259.460 70.39 Factor B 2 40.024 0.23 Factor C 3 819.164 3.07 B X C 6 318.978 0.60 A X B X C 11 1047.808 1.07 Note. Factor A = = Reading Examination Comprehension Itemized Postscore II Factor B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers

PAGE 232

•218Summary of Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis Eight Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Itemized Postscore II Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares F Value Factor A 1 8736.092 97.91 Factor B Z 375.179 2.10 Factor C 3 2421.754 9.05* B X C 6 1233.634 2.30* Note. Factor A = Reading Examination Comprehension Itemized Prescores Factor B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers *p < .05

PAGE 233

-219Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Eight Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Itemized Postscore II Teaching Strategies N Least Squared Cell Mean Least Squared Standard Error None 86 41.30 1.06 Written 84 40.95 1.09 Oral 78 43.82 1.09 Note. N = Number of Students Probability Comparisons for Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Eight Teaching Strategies None Written Oral None Written Oral .8263 .8263 .1003 .1003 .0639 .0639 Note . *p < .05

PAGE 234

•220Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers for Hypothesis Eight Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Itemized Postscore II Teach ers N Least Squared Cell Mean Least Squared Standard Error 1 55 43.03 1.28 2 52 40.78 1.34 4 71 38.03 1.15 5 70 46.25 1.15 Note. N = Number of Students Probability Comparisons for Teachers for Hypothesis Eight Teachers 1 .2256 .0041* .0625 2 .2256 .1222 .0022* 4 .0041* .1222 .0001* 5 .0625 .0022* .0001* Note. *p < .05

PAGE 235

•221Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers x Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Eigfrt Dependent Variable: Reading Examination Comprehension Itemized Postscore II Teachers Teaching Strategies None N = 19 N = 16 N = 26 N = 25 LSM = 42.21 LSM = 41.23 LSM = 35.32 LSM = 46.22 LSSE = 2.17 LSSE = 2.39 LSSE = 1.90 LSSE = 2.06 Written N = 20 N = 14 N = 25 N = 25 LSM = 43.99 LSM = 34.10 LSM = 39.78 LSM = 45.95 LSSE = 2.11 LSSE = 2.58 LSSE = 1.89 LSSE = 1.95 Oral N = 16 N = 22 N = 20 N = 20 LSM = 42.89 LSM = 46.82 LSM = 38.99 LSM = 46.51 LSSE = 2.38 LSSE = 2.06 LSSE = 2.16 LSSE = 2.20 Note . N = Number of Students LSM = Least Squared Cell Mean LSSE = Least Squared Standard Error Probability Comparisons for Teachers x Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Eight Teachers Teaching Strategies 1 None vs. Written .5588 None vs. Oral .8344 Written vs. Oral .7305 .0353* .0981 .9280 .0941 .2028 .9114 .0002* .7874 .8311 Note. *p < ,05

PAGE 236

222Sutnmary of Analysis of Variance for Hypothesis Nine Dependent Van able: Reading Attitude Score Source Degrees of Freedom Type III Sums of Squares F Value Factor A 1 3.514 0.11 Factor B 2 48.346 0.79 Factor C 4 1369.832 11.18 B X C 8 415.708 1.70 Note . Factor A = Reading Attitude Scores Factor B = Teaching Strategies Factor C = Teachers

PAGE 237

-223Summary of Analysis of Variance for Hypothesis Nine Dependent Variable: Reading Attitude Score Degrees of Type III F Source Freedom Sums of Squares Value Factor A 2 64.406 1.05 Factor B 4 1331.250 10.83* A X B 8 454.576 1.85 Note. Factor A = Teaching Strategies Factor B = Teachers *p < .05

PAGE 238

224Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Nine Dependent Variable: Reading Attitude Score Teaching Least Squared Least Squared Strategies N Ce|l Mean Standard Error None 90 11.15 .54 Written 103 11.05 .59 Oral 99 12.09 .56 Note. N = Number of Students Probability Comparisons for Teaching Strategies for Hype thesis Nine Teaching Strategies None Written Oral None .9040 .2232 Written .9040 .2006 Oral .2232 .2006 Note . *p < .05

PAGE 239

-225Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers for Hypothesis Nine Dependent Variable: Reading Attitude Score Teach ers N Least Squared Cell Mean Least Squared Standard Error 1 60 9.42 .72 2 48 10.31 .86 3 63 9.79 .70 4 71 14.61 .66 5 70 13.02 .67 Note. N = Number of Students Probability Comparisons for Teachers for Hypothesis Nine Teachers 1 .4314 .7156 .0001* .0003* 2 .4314 .6422 .0001* .0131* 3 .7156 .6422 .0001* .0009* 4 .0001* .0001* .0001* .0920 5 .0003* .0131* .0009* .0920 Note. *p < .05

PAGE 240

-226Summary of Least Squared Cell Means and Least Squared Standard Errors for Teachers x Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Nine Dependent Variable: Reading Attitude Score Teachers Teaching Strategies None N=21 N=16 N=22 N=26 N=25 LSM=10,14 LSM= 7.88 LSM= 9.64 LSM=13.92 LSM=14.16 LSSE= 1.21 LSSE= 1.39 LSSE= 1.18 LSSE= 1.09 LSSE= 1.11 Written N=21 N= 9 N=23 N=25 N=25 LSM= 7.57 LSM=12.00 LSM= 9.57 LSM=15.76 LSM=10.35 LSSE= 1.21 LSSE= 1.85 LSSE= 1.56 LSSE= 1.11 LSSE= 1.11 Oral N=18 N=23 N=18 N=20 N=20 LSM=10.55 LSM=11.04 LSM=10.17 LSM=14.15 LSM=14.55 LSSE= 1.31 LSSE= 1.16 LSSE= 1.31 LSSE= 1.24 LSSE= 1.24 Note . N = Number of Students LSM = Least Squared Cell Mean LSSE = Least Squared Standard Error Probability Comparisons for Teachers x Teaching Strategies for Hypothesis Nine Teachers leacrnny Strategies 1 .1338 2 3 4 5 None vs. Written .0751 .9657 .2377 .0159* None vs. Oral .8168 .0801 .7536 .8906 .8147 Written vs. Oral .0947 .6610 .7305 .3337 .4674 Note. *p < .05

PAGE 241

REFERENCES Alexander*, J.E. (1979). Teaching reading . Boston: Little. Alexander, J.E., & Filler, R.C. (1976). Attitudes and reading (Reading Aid Series). Neward, DE: International Reading Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 126 491) Allen, D.I. (1970). Some effects of advance organizers and level of questions on the learning and retention of written social studies material. Journal of Educational Psychology , 61 , 333-339. Anderson, R.C. (1972). How to construct achievement tests to assess comprehension. Review of Educational Research , 42, 145-170. Anderson, R.C, & Biddle, B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 16-42). New York: Academic Press. Anderson, R.C, & Kulhavy, R.W. (1972). Imagery and prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology , 63, 242-244. Anderson, R.C, Kulhavy, R.W., & Andre, R. (1971). Feedback procedures in programmed instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology , 62, 148-156. Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research , 49, 280-318. Andre, T., & Sola, J. (1976). Imagery, verbatim and paraphrased questions and retention of meaningful sentences. Journal of Educational Psychology , 68 , 661-669. Arnold, R.D., & Wilcox, E. (1982). Comparing types of comprehension questions found in fourth grade readers. Reading Psychology , 3^, 43-49. Aulls, M.W. (1982). Developing readers in today's elementary school . Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Ausubel, D.P. (I960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology , 51, 267-272. -227-

PAGE 242

-228Ausubel.D.P. (1963). The Psychology of meaningful verbal learning . New York: Grune & Stratton. Ausubel.D.P. (1968). Educational psychology . New York: HoU, Rinehart, & Winston. Barrett, T.C. (1968). A taxonomy of cognitive and affective dimensions of reading comprehension. In H.M. Robinson (Ed.), Innovation and change in reading instruction (pp. 19-23). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bartelo, D.M. (1979). The effect of silent reading practice on reading achievement and attitudes in reading. Arlington, VA: ERIC Document Reproduction Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 194 887) Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Kratwohl , D.R. (Eds.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive domain . New York: David McKay. Bloom, B.S., Krathwohl, D.R., & Masia, B.B. (1964). The taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I. the cognitive domain . New York: David McKay. Borthwick, P.B. (1973). The effects of question strategy training upon the information gained from reading science-related prose selections with fifth grade students. Dissertation Abstracts International , 34, 5795-A. (University Microfilms No. 7407592) Brunner, J.F. (1983). Some comments on reading comprehension instruction from a taxonomic point of view. Reading Improvement , 20, 2-6. Buttery, T.J., & Michalak, D.A. (1978). Modifying questioning behavior via the teaching clinic process. Educational Research Quarterly , 3, 46-56. Campbell, D.T,, & Stanley, J.C. (1974). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research (10th ed.). Chicago: Rand McNally. Cole, L.C. (1983). Teachers' and supervisors' perceptions of appropriate instruction for teaching reading to good and poor readers. Dissertation Abstracts International , 44, 36-A. (University Microfilms No. 8318882) Cooke, D.A. (1970). An analysis of reading comprehension questions in basal reading series according to the Barrett taxonomy. Dissertation Abstracts International , 30, 3344-A. (University Microfilms No. 7117124) Cullinan, B.E., Harwood, K.T, , & Galda, L. (1983). The reader and the story: Comprehension and response. Journal of Research and Development in Education , 16 , 29-38.

PAGE 243

-229Danford, H.F. (1973). The effect of purposeful reading upon comprehension of and interest in social studies materials. Disser tation Abstracts International . 34, 4861-A. (University Microfilms No. 740179UJ Denzel , H. (1972). The effects of questions in text, classified according to Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives, cognitive domain, on immediate and delayed retention. Dissertation Abstracts International , 33, 4950-A. (University Microfilms No. 7222478) Drake, J. A. (1976). Teaching critical thinking: Analyzing, learning and teaching critical thinking skills . Danville, IL: Interstate Printers. Ellis, J. A., Konoske, P.J., Wulfeck, W.H., II, & Montague, W.E. (1982). Comparative effect of adjunct postquestions and instructions on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology , 6, 860-867. Felker, D.B., & Dapra, R.A. (1975). Effects of question type and question placement on problem-solving ability from prose material. Journal of Educational Psychology . 67, 380-384. Flavel, J.H., & Salatas, H. (1976). Retrieval of recently learned information: Development of strategies and control skills. Child Development , 47, 941-948. Flesch, R.F. (1974). The art of readable writing; with the Flesch readability formula . New York: Harper & Row. Floyd, W.D. (1960). An analysis of the oral questioning activity in selected Colorado primary classrooms (Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University, 1960). Dissertation Abstracts International , 22 , 46. Frase, L.T. (1967). Learning from prose material: Length of passage, knowledge of results, and position of questions. Journal of Educational Psychology , 58, 266-272. Frase, L.T. (1968a). Effect of question location, pacing and mode on retention of prose material. Journal of Educational Psychology , 59, 244-249. Frase, L.T. (1968b). Questions as aids to reading: Some research and theory. American Educational Research Journal , 5^, 319-332. Frase, L.T. (1968c). Some unpredicted effects of different questions upon learning from connected discourse. Journal of Educational Psychology . _59, 197-200. Frase, L.T. (1969a). Cybernetic control of memory while reading connected discourse. Journal of Educational Psychology , 60, 49-55.

PAGE 244

-230Frase, L.T. (1969b). Structural analysis of the knowledge that results from thinking about text. Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Supplement , 60 (6, pt. Z). Frase, L.T. (1970a). Boundary conditions for mathemagenic behaviors. Review of Educational Research . 40, 337-349. Frase, L.T. (1970b). Influence of sentence order and amount of higher level text processing upon reproductive and productive memory. American Educational Research Journal , 2» 307-319a. Frase, L.T. (1972). Maintenance and control in the acquisition of knowledge from written materials. In J.B. Carroll & R.O. Freedle (Eds.), Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 36-Jzf. Washington, DC: V.H. Winston & Sons. Fry, E.B. (1972). Reading instruction for classroom and clinic . New York: McGraw-Hi 1 1 . Gall, M.D. (1970), The use of questions in teaching. Review of Edu cational Research , 40, 707-721. Gigante, L.M. (1980). The use of the question by teachers of literature. Dissertation Abstracts International , 41, 1014-A. (University Microfilms No. 8020103) Good, T.L., & Brophy, J.E. (1978). Looking in classrooms (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Goodman, Y.M. (1968). Reading strategies: Focus on comprehension . New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Green, G.W. (1976). The effects of three different teaching strategies on the reading comprehension of middle school language arts students (Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International , 38 , 3665-A. Guszak, F.J., & Hoffman, J.V. (1980). Comprehension skills. In P. Lamb & R. Arnold (Eds.), Teaching reading: Foundations and strategies (pp. 309-340). Los Angeles, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Hargie, O.D. (1978). The importance of teacher questions in the classroom. Educational Research , 20, 99-102. Huck, C.S. (1974). Strategies for improving interest and appreciation in literature. In A. Beery, T.C. Barrett, & W.R. Powell (Eds.), Elementary reading instruction: Selected Materials (pp. 305-312). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Huck, C.S. (1979). Children's literature in the elementary school (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Hunkins, F.P. (1969). Effects of analysis and evaluation questions on various levels of achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 38, 45-58.

PAGE 245

-231Hunkins, F.P. (1972). Questioning strategies and techniques . Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Hunkins, F.P. (1976). Involving students in questioning . Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Hyman, R.T. (1979). Strategic questioning . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall . Johnson, 6.F. (1980). The effectiveness of the basal and humanistic methods of teaching reading on student achievement and attitudes toward reading (Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International , 41 , 85-A. Laine, C.H.C. (1981). A comparison of the content of oral and written responses of the tenth-grade students to selected passages. Dissertation Abstracts International , 41, 4317-A. (University Microfilms No. 8107597) Lamb, P., & Arnold, R. (Eds.). (1980). Teaching reading: Foundations and strategies (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Langford, J.C. (1978). The effects of uninterrupted sustained silent reading and their achievement in reading. Dissertation Abstracts International , 39, 4047 -A. (University Microfilms No. 7900160) Lawson, H.D. (1968). Effects of free reading on the reading achievement of sixth grade pupils. In J. A. Figurel (Ed.), Forging ahead in reading (pp. 501-504). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Lehr, F. (1982). Identifying and assessing reading attitudes. Journal of Reading , 26 , 80-83. Malvern, K.T. (1980). The effect of higher cognitive questioning techniques on student achievement after teacher retraining in questioning strategies. Dissertation Abstracts International , 41., 1546-A. (University Microfilms No. 8023614) Mangieri, J.N. (1974, May). Self-concept and reading . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, New Orelans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 103 826) Markle, G,, & Capie, W. (1976). The effect of the position of inserted questions on learning from an activity centered science module. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 13 , 167-170. McConkie, G.W., Rayner, K., & Wilson, S. (1973). Experimental manipulation of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology , 65, 1-8.

PAGE 246

-232McCracken, R.A., & McCracken, M.J. (1978). Modeling: The key to sustained silent reading. The Reading Teacher , 31 , 406-408. McGraw., B., & Grotelueschen, A. (1972). Direction of the effect of questions in prose material. Journal of Educational Psychology , 63, 580-588. McKenzie, G.R. (1972). Some effects of frequent quizzes on inferential thinking. American Educational Research Journal , 9^5 231-340. Minturn, S. , & Diggs, J. (Eds.) (1973). Double action short stories (pp. 22-30; 40-47; 48-56; 88-97; 98-104). New York: Scholastic Book Services. Moore, J.C, Jones, C.J., & Miller, D.C. (1980). What we know after a decade of sustained silent reading. The Reading Teacher , 33, 445-450. Nicholson, J.I. (1977). An analysis of the levels of comprehension required by questions in teachers' manuals of selected basic reading textbooks. Dissertation Abstracts International , 38, 3936-A. (University Microfilms No. 7728562) Noakes, A.M. (1969). The effects of conditions of prequestioning upon comprehension of fiction and non-fiction selections with fifth grade children. Dissertation Abstracts International , 30 , 2912-A. (University Microfilms No. 6921968) Otto, P.B., & Schuck, R.F. (1983). The effect of a teacher questioning strategy training program on teacher behavior, student achievement and retention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 20, 521-528. Owen, S.K. (1973). The functions of three types of inserted questions as strategy cues in prose material. Dissertation Abstracts Inter national . 34, 7053-A. (University Microfilms No. 7410168) Pappas, H. (1980). Effect of drama-related activities on reading achievement and attitudes of elementary children. Dissertation Abstracts International , 40, 5806-A. (University Microfilms No. 8009727) Pfau, D.W. (1966). An investigation of the effects of planned recreational reading programs in first and second grade. Dissertation Abstracts International , 27 , 1719-A. (University Microfilms No. 6613086) Ransbury, M. (1972). Critical factors in the development of attitudes toward reading and reading achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 4251-A. (University Microfilms No. 726681)

PAGE 247

233Ray, C.L. (1979). A comparative laboratory study of the effects of lower level and higher level questions on students' abstract reasoning and critical thinking in two non-directive high school chemistry classrooms. Dissertation Abstracts International , 40 , 3220-A. (University Microfilms No. 7926803) Rickards, J. P. (1976a). Interaction of position and conceptual level of adjunct questions on immediate and delayed retention of text. Journal of Educational Psychology , 68 , 210-217. Rickards, J. P. (1976b). Stimulating high-level comprehension by interspersing questions in text passages. Educational Technology , I6» 13-17. Rickards, J. P. (1979). Adjunct postquestions in text: A critical review of methods and processes. Review of Educational Research , 49, 181-196. Rickards, J. P., & Denner, P.R. (1978). Inserted questions as aids to reading text. Instructional Science , 7^, 313-346. Rickards, J. P., & DiVesta, F.J. (1974). Type and frequency of questions in processing textual material. Journal of Educational Psychology , 66, 354-362. Rickards, J. P., & Hatcher, C.W. (1978). Interspersed meaningful learning questions as semantic cues for poor comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly , 13 , 538-553. Rickards, J. P., McCormick, C.B., & Anderson, M.C. (1976). Processing effects of common-word and number questions inserted in reading material. Journal of Educational Research , 69, 274-277. Roach, T.M. (1980). The effects of a directed team study approach to personal reading of the attitudes of high school students toward reading. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 2038-A. (University Microfilms No. 8024150) Rosenshine, B. (1971). Teaching behaviors and student achievement . London: National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales. Rosenshine, B. (1976). Classroom instruction. In N.L. Gage (Ed.), The psychology of teaching methods (pp. 335-371). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time and direct instruction. In P.L. Peterson & H.L. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications . (pp. 28-56). Berkeley: McCutchan.

PAGE 248

-234Rothkopf, E.I. (1963). Some conjectures about inspection behavior in learning from written sentences and the response made problem In programmed self-instruction. Journal of Programmed Instruction ; 2, 31-45. Rothkopf, E.Z. (1966). Learning from written instructive material: An exploration of the control of inspection behavior by test-like events. American Educational Research Journal , 3^, 241-249. Rothkopf, E.Z. (1972). Variable adjunct question schedules, interpersonal interaction, and incidental learning from written material. Journal of Educational Psychology , 63 , 87-92. Rothkopf, E.Z., & Billington, M.J. (1974). Indirect review and priming through questions. Journal of Educational Psychology , 66 , 669679. Rothkopf, E.Z., & Bisbicos, E. (1967). Selective facilitative effects of interspersed questions on learning from written materials. Journal of Educational Psychology , 58, 56-61. Rothkopf, E.Z., & Bloom, R.D. (1970). Effects of interpersonal interaction on the instructional value of adjunct questions in learning from written material. Journal of Educational Psychology , 61, 417-422. Sadoski, M.C. (1980). An attitude survey for sustained silent reading programs. Journal of Reading , 23, 721-726. Salenger, H.K. (1981). The relationship between the quality and quantity of teachers' verbal questions and student achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International , 42, 1939-A. (University Microfilms No. 8122325) San Diego County Department of Education. (1961). An inventory of reading attitude. In Improving reading instruction, monograph 4 . San Diego, CA: San Diego County Department of Education. (ERIC Educational Reproduction No. ED 028-893) Sanders, J.R. (1973). Retention effects of adjunct questions in written and aural discourse. Journal of Educational Psychology , 65, 181-186. Sanders, N.M. (1966). Classroom questions: What kinds? New York: Harper and Row. Scheffler, I. (1973). Reason and teaching . Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. Shavelson, R.J., Berliner, D.C., Ravitch, M.M., & Loeding, D. (1974). Effects of position and type of question on learning from prose material: Interaction of treatment with individual differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 40-48.

PAGE 249

-235Singer, H. (1983). A century landmark in reading and learning from text at the high school level: Research, theories, and instructional strategies. Journal of Reading , 26 , 332-342. Smith, C.W. (1974). Questioning behavior that facilitates cognitive development in reading . Northern Illinois University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 098 528) Smith, F. (1975). Comprehension and learning . New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Snavely, A.E. (1962). The effectiveness of purpose statements and marginal notes as aids to reading comprehension. Dissertation Abstracts International , 22, 2711. (University Microfilms No. 6105611) Soar, R.S., & Soar, R.M. (1973). Classroom behavior, pupil characteristics and pupil growth for the school year and summer . Gainesville: Institute for Development of Human Resources, College of Education, University of Florida. 213 pp. Stallings, 0., & Kaskowitz, D. (1974). Follow-through classroom observation evaluation . Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute. Stevens, R. (1912). The question as a measure of efficiency in instruction: A critical study of classroom practice . New York: Teachers College, Columbia. Swanson, B. (1982). The relationship attitude toward reading and reading achievement. Educational Psychology , 42 , 1303-1304. Swenson, I., & Kulhavy, R.W. (1974). Adjunct questions and the comprehension of prose by children. Journal of Educational Psychology , 66, 212-215. Taba, H. (1965). The teaching of thinking. Elementary English , 42, 534-542. Taba, H. (Ed.). (1971). Teacher's handbook for elementary social studies (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addi son-Wesley. Tierney, R.J., Readence, J.E., & Dishner, E.K. (1980). Reading strategies and practices: A guide to improving instruction . Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Van Jura, W.J. (1982). The role of questioning in developing reading comprehension in the social studies. Journal of Reading , 26, 214-216. Watts, G.H. (1973). Effects of prequestions on control of attention in written instruction. The Australian Journal of Education , 18, 6-12.

PAGE 250

-236Watts, G.H., & Anderson, R.C. (1971). Effects of three types of inserted questions on learning from prose. Journal of Educational Psychology , 62, 387-394. Wiesendanger, K.D. (Ed.). (1982). A summary of studies related to the effect of question placement on reading comprehension. Reading Horizon , 23, 15-21. Wiesendanger, K.D., & Wollenberg, J. P. (1978). Prequestioning inhibits third graders' reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher , 31 , 892-895. Wilen, W.W. (1982). Questioning skills for teachers . Washington, DC: National Education Association. Wilmot, M.P. (1975). An investigation of the effect upon the reading performance and attitude toward reading of elementary grade students including in the reading program a period of sustained silent reading. Dissertation Abstracts International , 36 , 5029-A. (University Microfilms No. 7603968) Wilson, M.M. (1979). Processing strategies of average and below average readers answering factual and inferential questions c three equivalent passages. Journal of Reading Behavior , 11 , 234-245. on Winne, P.H. (1979). Experiments relating teacher's use of higher cognitive questions to students' achievement. Review of Educational Research, 49, 13-50.

PAGE 251

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jeffrey Stuart Kaplan was born in Albany, New York, on June 5, 1951. He lived in Colonie, New York, until he was 10 years old, whereupon he moved to Plainview, Long Island. For 10 summers, he worked as a counselor, instructor, and camp director at the Dorothy P. Flint 4-H Camp in Riverhead, on the eastern end of the island. In June, 1969, he graduated with a Regents diploma from the Plainview Old-Bethpage High School. The following September, Mr. Kaplan entered the State University of New York at Binghamton and graduated four years later with a Bachelor of Arts degree in theater and a minor in biology. The Master of Arts degree in theater was conferred upon him in December, 1975, from the State University of New York at Albany. From September, 1974, to May, 1975, Mr. Kaplan did advanced graduate study work in theater and education at Florida State University in Tallahassee. Mr. Kaplan first became associated with the University of Florida in Gainesville when he entered the College of Education in September, 1976. During the winter quarter of 1977, he student taught at Vanguard High School in Ocala, Florida, and during the spring quarter, he practice taught at the P.K. Yonge Laboratory School in Gainesville, Florida, under Ms. Christine Morris. In May, 1977, he received certification by the state of Florida to teach English, theater, and speech on the secondary and college level. -237-

PAGE 252

238Mr. Kaplan was married on November, 28, 1976, to Renee Maiman. Presently, Renee is the Gifted Education Coordinator for Marion County, Florida, Public Schools. From September, 1977, to May, 1980, Mr. Kaplan was a seventh grade language arts teacher at Lake Weir Middle School in Summerfield, Florida. During his tenure, he received continuing contract, was chairman of the language arts department and his seventh grade team, began the school literary magazine and after-school drama program, worked for adult education, and supervised the school trip to Washington, DC. Mr. Kaplan was also Teacher of the Year for 1980 and 1981. In September, 1980, Mr. Kaplan moved to Forest High School in Ocala where he taught ninth grade English and drama, sponsored the school plays, and chaired the English department. While teaching, Mr. Kaplan also did graduate work in education. In September, 1980, Mr. Kaplan took professional leave for two years to become a graduate assistant in the Division of Curriculum and Instruction and Department of Subject Specialization in Teacher Education at the University of Florida College of Education. The position coincided with the beginning of his work on the Ph.D. degree. His duties involved assisting and teaching in such classes as English methods, college teaching, curriculum and instruction theory, and general curriculum courses. While a graduate student, Mr. Kaplan became certified in supervision and administration in the state of Florida for kindergarten through twelfth grade. In September, 1984, Mr. Kaplan resumed his position as English and drama instructor at Forest High School in Ocala, Florida.

PAGE 253

239Mr. Kaplan's previous scholarly work includes articles on education and the teaching of English in Techniques in Education , The Florida English Journal , The English Journal , and The School Counselor . In addition, he has a book review in Phi Delta Kappan . Mr. Kaplan is a member of the professional organization Phi Delta Kappa. His professional activities have included the following: presenter at the Florida Council of Teachers of English conventions (1980, 1981, 1982); weeklong seminar leader on Teaching Gifted Students in the Classroom (1981, 1982, 1983); presenter at the National Council of Teachers of English convention (1983); session chairman at the National Council Teachers of English Adolescent Literature Conference (1983). Presently, Mr, Kaplan is a teacher of English at Lake Weir High School in Candler, Florida.

PAGE 255

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. H.T. Fillmer, Chairman Professor of Instruction and Curriculum I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation^ for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Ri^ert G. Wright Associate Professor of Instruc and Curriculum I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. iuqen !^*<.^_— fi--^^ Ebgene A. Todd Professor of Instruction Curriculum and

PAGE 257

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Robert E. Jes Associate Pra of Education Foundations I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. IbeJii^WeiTr&urg ^fofessor of Theater This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, December 1985 j J^cJ d.^Ml/Wj^ Dean, College of Education Dean, Graduate School


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E5XVA1ELK_9V1VKR INGEST_TIME 2014-09-11T21:37:29Z PACKAGE AA00025215_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES