Citation
A comparison of two organizational approaches to reading instruction in the middle school

Material Information

Title:
A comparison of two organizational approaches to reading instruction in the middle school
Creator:
Welsch, Vicki Lafreniere, 1948-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
x, 108 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
High school students ( jstor )
Middle schools ( jstor )
Reading centers ( jstor )
Reading comprehension ( jstor )
Reading instruction ( jstor )
Reading programs ( jstor )
Reading teachers ( jstor )
Self contained classrooms ( jstor )
Standard deviation ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Curriculum and Instruction thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Curriculum and Instruction -- UF
Reading (Secondary) ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 97-107.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Vicki Lafreniere Welsch.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
This item is presumed in the public domain according to the terms of the Retrospective Dissertation Scanning (RDS) policy, which may be viewed at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00007596/00001. The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator(ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
025839683 ( ALEPH )
03384119 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text


















A COMPARISON OF TWO ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACHES TO
READING INSTRUCTION IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL









By

VICKI LAFRENIERE WELSCH


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







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1977















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Gratefully I would like to acknowledge the support, aid, and encouragement I received from my chairperson, Dr. Ruthellen Crews. She was my guide when I was lost, my light when I was in darkness, and my strength when I was tired.

My gratitude is extended to Dr. Lawrence Smith, Dr.

Ralph Kimbrough, and Dr. Vincent McGuire for their forceful teaching and the sharing of their wise counsel.

My sincere appreciation is extended to Maria Llabre and Dr. Robert Soar who came to my assistance when Dr. Vynce Hines was taken ill. Although Dr. Hines was unable to see the study to its completion, I would like to thank him for his invaluable assistance, guidance, and friendship.

I would also like to thank my husband, Boyd, for his unending love, endurance, aid, and compassion during the inception and completion of the study.

More than anyone else I would like to thank my parents, who taught me the value of an education and gave me the opportunity to receive one. There is no way that I could ever repay them for making me what I am. Toward that end I would like to dedicate this study to my father, Robert B. LaFreniere, a man of his times and a man for all times.


ii
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................... ii

LIST OF TABLES.............................................. v

ABSTRACT.................................................. viii

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION....................................... 1

The Problem...................................... 2

Assumptions...................................... 6

Definition of Terms.............................. 6

Procedures....................................... 10

Hypotheses....................................... 14

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 16

II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE..................... 17

Rationale for Reading Instruction in the
Middle School.................................... 17

Approaches to Teaching Reading in the
Middle School.................................... 22

Summary and Implications........................ 45

III METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION.................. 48

Sample........................................... 49

Instrumentation................................. 50

Treatment........................................ 51





iii











IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA............ 61

MANOVA Results.................................. 62

Tests of the Hypotheses......................... 63

Summary of Analyses............................. 86

V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS..................... 87

Conclusions...................................... 88

Discussion and Interpretation.................. 89

Implications for Future Research............... 93

APPENDIX A PROFILE CHART................................ 95

APPENDIX B PRESCRIPTION SHEET........................... 96

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................... 97

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH....................................... 108


iv
















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Teaching Experience and Training in Reading
of Teachers Participating in Traditional
Approach........................................... 13

2 Black - Other Ratio of the Sample................ 49

3 ANOVA for Differences in Reading Comprehension
Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in
a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders
Participating in a Traditional Classroom
Approach........................................... 64

4 Means and Standard Deviations of the Pretest
Scores, Posttest Scores, and the Gain Scores
for the Reading Center Approach and the
Traditional Classroom Approach................... 65

5 ANOVA for Differences in Reading Comprehension
Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating
in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh
Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach to Reading.......................... 67

6 ANOVA for Differences in Reading Comprehension
Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating
in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth
Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach...................................... 68

7 ANOVA for Differences in Vocabulary Gains
Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating
in a Traditional Classroom Approach............. 69

8 ANOVA for Differences in Vocabulary Gains
Between Seventh Graders Participating in a
Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders
Participating in a Traditional Classroom
Approach........................................... 70


v












9 ANOVA for Differences in Vocabulary Gains
Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders
Participating in a Traditional Classroom
Approach........................................... 71

10 ANOVA for Differences in Syllabication
Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating
in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional
Classroom Approach................................ 73

11 ANOVA for Differences in Syllabication
Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating
in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh
Graders Participating in a Traditional
Classroom Approach................................ 74

12 ANOVA for Differences in Syllabication
Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating
in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth
Graders Participating in a Traditional
Classroom Approach................................ 75

13 ANOVA for Differences in Sound Discrimination
Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in
a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders
Participating in a Traditional Classroom
Approach........................................... 76

14 ANOVA for Differences in Sound Discrimination
Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in
a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders
Participating in a Traditional Classroom
Approach........................................... 77

15 ANOVA for Differences in Sound Discrimination
Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in
a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders
Participating in a Traditional Classroom
Approach........................................... 78

16 ANOVA for Differences in Blending Gains Between
Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center
Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in
a Traditional Classroom Approach................. 80


vi


Table


Page










Table Pg


17 ANOVA for Differences in Blending Gains
Between Seventh Graders Participating in
a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders
Participating in a Traditional Classroom
Approach............................................ 81

18 ANOVA for Differences in Blending Gains
Between Eighth Graders Participating in
a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders
Participating in a Traditional Classroom
Approach........................................... 82

19 ANOVA for Differences in Reading Rate Gains
Between Sixth Graders Participating in a
Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom
Approach........................................... 83

20 ANOVA for Differences in Reading Rate Gains
Between Seventh Graders Participating in a
Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders
Participating in a Traditional Classroom
Approach........................................... 84

21 ANOVA for Differences in Reading Rate Gains
Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders
Participating in a Traditional Classroom
Approach........................................... 85


vii


Page











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

A COMPARISON OF TWO ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACHES TO
READING INSTRUCTION IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL By

Vicki LaFreniere Welsch

June, 1977

Chairperson: Ruthellen Crews Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction


The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences in reading gains existed between the reading scores obtained from middle school students who participated for twelve weeks in a reading center based on the P.K. Yonge model and those scores obtained from the same middle school students who participated for the same amount of time in a traditional classroom approach to reading the following year. Gains were measured by pre and posttest scores from the following subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (SDRT), Level II: Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary, Syllabication, Sound Discrimination, Blending, and Reading Rate.

The sample for the study consisted of 704 students (360 males and 344 females) who worked on their reading skills in the reading center in a middle school in Gainesville, Florida during the 1975-76 school year and 755 students (382 males and 373 females) from the same middle


viii










school who participated in a traditional classroom approach to reading instruction during the 1976-77 school year. There were 220 sixth graders, 283 seventh graders, and 201 eighth graders who participated in the study during the 1975-76 reading center and 257 sixth graders, 238 seventh graders, and 255 eighth graders who participated in the 1976-77 traditional classroom approach. Fifty-three percent of the student body were on either free or reduced lunch, fifty-nine percent of the students were transported by bus from various parts of town, and forty-three percent of the students were Black while fifty-seven percent were classified as Other.

The treatment of the reading center group consisted of reading instruction by means of the adapted P.K. Yonge model. This model was designed to incorporate counseling techniques with reading instruction. Students were encouraged to work on specific skill needs that they identified on the basis of their pretest scores which they discussed with the teacher during an initial conference. Besides these specific needs, students also worked on other skills as were indicated by the reading teacher. Instruction in the reading center approach was scheduled on twelve week cycles with students coming to the reading center from their language arts classes on alternate days for a total of twelve weeks. During this time, students participated in the following activities: pretesting followed by an


ix










individual conference, eight weeks of skill instruction, and posttesting followed by a final individual conference during which the student and teacher discussed progress the student had made in reading.

The traditional classroom approach to reading consisted of reading instruction on a daily basis throughout the year. The materials consisted of a basal series supplemented by materials used in the reading center the previous year. For both the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach classes were homogeneously grouped according to reading achievement.

The statistical analyses of pre and post test scores were done using the statistical analysis system MANOVA procedure. The multivariate statistic used was Pillai's Trace. Univariate ANOVAs were also computed for each of the six subtests to test for significant differences in the pre and post test scores.

There were statistically significant differences

between the results of the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach to reading instruction on all of the SDRT subtests. At all three grade levels the results of the sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students favored the reading center approach.


x















CHAPTER I


INTRODUCT ION


Increasing concern has arisen because of students'

deficiencies in reading. The realization that reading plays an important role in a person's daily life activities, school progress, recreation, personal and social adjustment, and citizenship has greatly increased this concern. This concern increases when students in the middle and secondary schools are deficient in reading skills. This generalized anxious sensation has consequently led to the development and trial of many types of reading programs. Very often the innovative reading programs are implemented one year and then replaced the next year by another program that on the surface appears to be better. The situation then becomes one of constant innovation with little evaluation to perceive if significant differences were demonstrated by the various methods. In spite of great expenditures of time, money, and effort, major problems persist in the attempt to provide adequate reading instruction for all students.


1





2


The Problem


Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this investigation was to determine if significant differences in reading gains, as measured by the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Level II, existed between scores obtained from middle school students who participated in a reading center based on an adaptation of the P.K. Yonge model, and those scores obtained from the same middle school students who participated in a traditional classroom approach to reading. These differences were measured by comparing the pre and post test results of students who participated in the reading center in the 1975-76 school year and pre-posttest results of students who participated in a traditional classroom approach to reading during the 1976-77 school year. Students' results were compared on the basis of the following six subjects of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Level II: Reading

Comprehension, Vocabulary, Syllabication, Sound Discrimination, Blending, and Reading Rate. Delimitations and Limitations

The present study was confined to the 704 students who participated in the reading center during 1975-76 and 755 students who participated in a traditional approach to reading during 1976-77. All participating students were enrolled at a middle school in Gainesville, Florida.






3


Since the reading center cycled at twelve week intervals, data regarding the dependent variables for this group were gathered at twelve week intervals. In order to equate the two approaches, data for the traditional approach were gathered at twelve week intervals during 1976-77. The dependent variables included reading comprehension, vocabulary, syllabication, sound discrimination, blending, and reading rate as measued by the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Level II, in 1975-76 for the reading center group and 1976-77 for the traditional group.

The major limitation of the study appeared to be the inability to control for the history (e.g., other events occurring between the 1975-76 measurement of the reading center group and the 1976-77 measurement of the traditional group). Another limitation stemmed from the fact that the study was limited to students enrolled at one middle school in Gainesville, Florida. Since the reading center approach cycled at twelve week intervals the study was limited to a comparison of the two approaches for only twelve weeks and this again limited the generalizations that were able to be made from the study.

Justification for the Study

There were four major justifications for a comparison study of the reading gains of students in a P.K. Yonge reading center approach as opposed to those in a traditional approach.






4


The first justification revolved around the fact that reading skill deficiencies of all students have become a national concern. When students are promoted to higher grades, this concern is naturally heightened. The declining acceleration of reading gains beginning at grade four and continuing through high school has been attributed to purposeless, nonsystematic teaching strategies (Hoyt and Blackmore, 1960). Karlin (1960) stated that since the ability to solve problems depends in large measure upon the

ability to read, it is clear that success in school, particularly in the upper grades, is closely related to the ability to read. According to Glasser (1969), in most schools where children fail, the major academic failure recognizable to both the children and teachers is the failure to read. Adequate solutions to the problem have not been found so that there is still a need for studies that demonstrate which programs are significantly better or are significantly worse. Any data that would add to the knowledge of this problem area would be most beneficial to the field of reading in general and more specifically to those who plan the curricula within the schools.

The second justification dealt with the fact that there has not been much research of this nature done in the middle school. The lack of research may be attributed to the fact that the middle school is a relatively new concept of school philosophy and organization and many





5



innovative efforts have been undertaken, but because of the recency of implementation many innovations have not been adequately evaluated.

The third justification for this study lay in the

fact that, heretofore, many studies in reading dealt with the effects of different approaches on remedial students (Early, 1967; Freed, 1973; and Gordon, 1968). When establishing reading programs, schools have not taken into consideration the fact that the average reader may have potential to become a superior reader and consequently the student who is able to get by is condemned to do just that (Casters, 1963). Because reading programs often offer little in the way of a systematic program of reading instruction for all students beyond the early grades, we are creating students who may know how to read, but who do not use reading effectively. Mastery of reading skills is a longterm process and cannot be neglected beyond the beginning stages (Moray, 1975). This study was designed to deal with the effects of two types of programs on all students except those enrolled in special classes (E.M.R., Title I, and S.L.D.).

The fourth justification for the study was the practical need for such a study in the particular county where the study was conducted. The study represented an attempt to test if there were any significant differences in reading gains when different types of reading approaches






6


were used. Specifically, this study was planned to determine if the abandonment of a P.K. Yonge reading center approach as adapted for appropriate use in one specific middle school was justified in terms of statistical analysis.


Ass umpt ions

One of the essential assumptions underlying this study was that the uncontrolled variables that might have a significant effect were randomly distributed between the reading center group and the traditional group. More specifically, pre-experimental equivalence was assumed since the two groups were composed of all middle school students in the same school for a two-year period. It was also assumed that there was no threat to internal validity because of testing, the effects of a pretest on subsequent observed behavior, since equivalent forms of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test were used for the pre and post test. For both the reading center group and the traditional group, Form W constituted the pretest and Form X the post test. It was also assumed that the intervening variable of history was equivalent for both groups.


Definition of Terms

Blending referred to the Blending subtest scores obtained on the pre and posttests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, (SDRT), Level II, Forms W and X.






7


Comprehension referred to the Comprehension subtest scores obtained on the pre and posttests of the SDRT, Level II, Forms W and X. According to the authors, this test was designed to test paragraph comprehension.

Developmental reading in this study referred to a reading program which served students regardless of how efficient or inefficient a reader they may be.

Individualized reading as used in this study referred to a means of providing for individual differences. It adapted methods and materials to the wide range of individual differences.

Middle school as used in this study was a school providing a program planned for a range of older children, preadolescents, and early adolescents that built upon the elementary school program for earlier childhood and in turn was built by the high school program for adolescents

(Alexander, 1969).

P.K. Yonge model referred to the foundations of the

program for the reading center group. In this model, students came to the reading center two days one week and three days the next and this continued for eight weeks. Students came during their language arts period and the teacher accompanied them and acted as a helper when needed. Before students came to the reading center, they were given the SDRT, Level II, Form W and they had an individual conference. During the conference, the test results were






8


explained to the student and the student was asked to choose areas he felt he needed to work on. During this time in the reading center, the student concentrated on the areas of concern as identified by the reading teacher. The skill areas students were able to choose from included comprehension, vocabulary, syllabication, sound discrimination, blending, and rate. At the end of the instructional period, students were given the posttest, SDRT, Level II, Form X. After taking the posttest, students had an individual conference and their progress and their remaining needs and goals were discussed.

During the every-other-day that the student was not in reading center he/she was in language arts, and during this time the reading teacher wrote individual prescriptions in every student's folder. When students completed their reading prescriptions for the day, they, in turn, wrote comments back to the reading teacher. This program was adapted for the particular middle school used in this study in that reading instruction was for eight weeks as opposed to six weeks as used at P.K. Yonge School. The other four weeks of the cycle included two weeks for pre and posttesting and two weeks for pre and post conferencing. Also, more direct instruction was provided for students through directed reading activities than is usually provided in the P.K. Yonge model.





9


Reading center group referred to sixth, seventh, and eighth graders who participated in the reading program based on the P.K. Yonge adapted model during 1975-76. Students were homogeneously grouped in the classes that participated in this approach.

Reading rate referred to the scores obtained on the Reading Rate subtest on the SDRT, Level II, Forms W and X. According to the authors, rate of reading reflects the speed with which a person habitually reads with comprehension and the efficiency with which he is able to decode the words read.

Sound discrimination in this study referred to the scores obtained on the Sound Discrimination subtest of the SDRT, Level II, Forms W and X. According to the tes-t authors, this subtest assessed the student's knowledge of common and variant spellings of the sounds of the English language.

Syllabication in the present study referred to the

scores obtained on the Syllabication subtest of the SDRT, Level II, Forms W and X. According to the test's authors, this subtest evaluated the student's ability to divide words into syllables. Although the test itself required the student to indicate the initial syllable of a word, the authors stated that experimentation with different ways of testing this skill has revealed that the major syllabication rules can be tested most easily if the format of their syllabication test is followed.





10


Traditional classroom approach to reading in the

present study referred to the sixth, seventh, and eighth graders who in 1976-77 received their reading instruction in a regular classroom setting. In this approach the reading class met everyday for a year, was taught by one teacher, and used a basal series supplemented by other selected reading materials. Classes participating in this approach were homogeneously grouped with sub-grouping to take into account skill needs.


Procedures


Description of the Sample

The sample for the reading center group consisted of 220 sixth graders, 283 seventh graders, and 201 eighth graders who participated in the reading center program during the 1975-76 middle school year at a middle school in Gainesville, Florida. This sample was composed of students in language arts classes, and therefore E.M.R., S.L.D. and Title I students were excluded. During their time in reading center, students were taught by the same reading teacher and until January, 1976 there were two reading teachers in the center.

The sample for the traditional classroom approach to

reading consisted of 257 sixth graders, 238 seventh graders, and 255 eighth graders who were enrolled in the reading classes at the aforementioned middle school during 1976-77.





11


This sample included students who participated in the reading center approach, new students, and new sixth graders. This sample was given reading instruction by six different teachers, including the one teacher who taught students in the reading center for the entire 1975-76 school year.

Treatment of the Reading Center and Traditional Class Groups

The treatment of the reading center group consisted of reading instruction delivered by means of the adapted P.K. Yonge model. This model was designed to incorporate counseling techniques with reading, and students were encouraged to work in specific skill needs that they recognized on the basis of their pretest and initial conference. Besides these specific needs, students also worked on other skills represented by the subtests of the SDRT.

The teachers, language arts and reading, who participated in the reading center all attended a four day workshop at P.K. Yonge Laboratory School. During the workshop, the teachers went through the experience of being students in a developmental reading laboratory at their own level of competency. During the first session, a standardized reading test was administered and scored. Following this there was an interpretation of scores based on college norms. Counseling and goal setting was then experienced by each teacher while he/she developed his/her own individualized reading program. The philosophy, methodology, and





12


materials were studied within this framework during the remainder of the sessions. In this way all the involved teachers received a similar background and training for the reading center program (Guttenger and Hines, 1977).

The traditional class approach to reading consisted of reading instruction on a daily basis. The materials consisted of a basal series supplemented by materials used in the reading center. The six reading teachers met on a regular basis to plan and share materials. Students were grouped within the homogeneous class in order to insure that an individual student's skill needs were met. The SDRT was used to diagnose these needs.

Table 1 illustrates the number of years of teaching experience and the training each of the six teachers who participated in the traditional approach have had. In order to insure that instruction was similar for all students involved in the traditional approach, the reading teachers planned regular inservice meetings so that materials, ideas, and methods of organization were shared. The teachers committed themselves to this form of unified reading instruction during the period in which data was collected.

Instrumentation

The instrument used to collect data pertaining to

the dependent variables was the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (SDRT), Level II, Forms W and X. Form W was used to






13







Table 1

Teaching Experience and Training in Reading of Teachers Participating in Traditional Approach



Teacher Years of Teaching Experience Training in Reading

M.Ed. and working
1 3 on Ph.d.

2 5 M.Ed.

M.Ed. and working
3 7 on Ph.d.

4 3 working on M.Ed.

undergraduate training in elementary educa5 2 tion and reading

working on reading
6 2 certification






14


collect posttest data. Data for the reading center group were collected at twelve week intervals during the 1975-76 school year. Data for the traditional class group participating in this study were collected at the beginning and end of the twelve weeks tested in this study during the 1976-77 school year.

Standardization of the instrument was conducted in October, 1965 on 120,000 cases in six school systems. Since the norms were determined at one point in time, use of norms appeared neither easier nor more difficult than they should be. It was assumed that this effect would be approximately uniform across subtests so that identification of strengths and weaknesses would not be adversely affected.

Reliability data for the SDRT were obtained using the split-half reliability coefficients and standard errors of

measurement.

According to the test authors, the validity of the SDRT has been indicated by the evidence of the test's ability to measure the main facets of reading.


Hypotheses

The present study tried to determine if significant differences in reading gains, as measured by the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, existed between scores obtained from students who participated in a reading center, based on the P.K. Yonge model, and those scores obtained from students who participated in a traditional classroom





15


approach to reading. From this problem statement the specific null hypotheses were generated and in each instance an alpha level of .01 was used to determine if the hypotheses should be accepted.

1. There will be no statistically significant difference in reading comprehension between the

reading center group and the traditional class

group, as measured by the Reading Comprehension subtest of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test

(SDRT).

2. There will be no statistically significant difference in vocabulary between the reading center

group and the traditional class group, as measured

by the Vocabulary subtest of the SDRT.

3. There will be no statistically significant difference in syllabication between the reading center group and the traditional class group,

as measured by the Syllabication subtest of the

SDRT.

4. There will be no statistically significant difference in sound discrimination between the reading

center group and the traditional class group,

as measured by the Sound Discrimination subtest

of the SDRT.

5. There will be no statistically significant difference in blending between the reading center






16


group and the traditional class group, as measured by the Blending subtest of the SDRT.

6. There will be no statistically significant difference in reading rate between the reading center group and the traditional class group, as measured

by the Rate subtest of the SDRT.


Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Chapter II contains a review of related lieterature and research. Chapter III is a discussion of the methodology and data collection. Chapter IV presents the results of this study, and Chapter V contains a summary and conclusions of the investigation.
















CHAPTER II


REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE


A consideration of the relationship between success in reading subskills and organizational approaches used in reading instruction demands a preliminary understanding of several fields of knowledge which relate to the question. First, why are reading programs needed in the middle grades? Next, what approaches have been used in teaching reading in the middle school and what does research indicate regarding the effects of each approach? And last, what are the implications of this research for this study?


Rationale for Reading Instruction in the Middle School

As children move up the educational ladder, the spread in reading ability appears to be increased. Research studies which have presented a rationale for scholastic reading programs beyond the elementary grades have reported a lag between grade norms and mean achievement. This lag began in grade four and increased throughout the junior high and high school years according to Peyton and Below (1965), Cooper (1965), Ramsey (1963), and Young (1956). Morrison and Perry (1959) and Hoyt and Blackmore (1960) concluded that the minus deviation in achievement and expected


17






18


achievement in reading could be attributed to purposeless, nonsystematic teaching methods used in the middle grades.

The availability of federal funds in the mid-sixties stimulated the growth of many reading programs in junior high and high schools (Graham, 1968; Martin, 1969). The guidelines of the compensatory programs demanded that most of these reading programs have been successful for some students, but the remedial programs reached only a small percentage of the total school population and the costs have been high and the results often disappointing (Carrision, 1973; Evans, 1972; Ireland, 1973; Riessman, 1972). Karlin (1972) pointed out that remedial reading classes have not provided the solution to the total problem of improving the reading skills of all students. Karlin (1960) stated that since the ability to solve problems depended in a large measure upon the ability to read, it was clear that success in school, particularly in the upper grades, was closely related to the ability to read. According to Glasser (1969), in most schools where children failed, the major academic failure recognizable to both the children and teachers was failure to read.

By the fifth or sixth grade level many students have learned to recognize and call words adequately, but these skills are not the end of reading instruction. The need for advanced reading skills arises as the student advances (Strang, McCullough, and Traxler, 1967). Moray (1975)






19


stated that because reading programs often offer little in the way of a systematic program for reading instruction beyond the early grades, we were creating students who knew how to read, but who did not use reading effectively. Mastery of reading skills is a longterm process and cannot be neglected beyond the beginning stages. Moray (1975) also suggested that reading in the intermediate grades and above be taught as part of a language arts program. This was suggested so that reading would not be isolated from the other language arts skills. Weisse (1969) asserted that reading was a thinking process and in the junior high it should become more than a process that aims merely at understanding written work. At this stage reading should become heavily concerned with critical and creative evaluation and interpretation, and consequently the teaching of reading is more complicated. Gray (1948) stated that a sound reading program was:

concerned not only with correcting deficiencies
among poor readers but also with systematic
training which aims to promote increased ability
on the part of all students in harmony with the
increasing demands made on them for mature,
critical reading. (p. 59)

Harris (1969) attested to the fact that children who were already reading at an average or even slightly above average level, but who were so bright that their reading skills should be far higher than their present competence were frequently overlooked because they were not failing. The gap that existed between their estimated reading level






20


and their observed reading level was sometimes distressingly large and these students should be given the opportunity to close the gap and become superior readers.

Because adequate provisions have not been made for the continuation of reading instruction beyond the elementary grades, for average or retarded readers, many previously taught skills are not reinforced or even applied. Niles (Goodman and Niles, 1970) cited the need for the student to consolidate what has been previously learned and to develop the more complex reading skills. She pointed out that many students in the elementary grades were not mature enough to understand the more advanced levels of many reading skills and, therefore, these advanced skills could be most effectively taught in the junior high and high school. Strang (1969) noted that in the middle grades:

location-of-information skills and paragraph comprehension should be oiastered; interpretative and critical reading should be introduced
as appropriate to the reading material. Reading
interests should be broadened. (p. 17)

Strang (1966) also pointed out that junior high school administrators and staff have the following three main responsibilities: 1) to give all pupils opportunities to reinforce and apply the reading skills they have already acquired, 2) to help the retarded readers make up their reading deficiencies so far as they have the mental abilities needed to do ;o, and 3) to give instruction and practice in the reading abilities needed for academic






21


success. Strang stated that young adolescents are at the crossroad; they may move in a downward direction or an upward one. According to Strang, studies have shown that the peak of reading interest begins to decline after elementary school.

A new pattern of school organization has been emerging which promises to provide more appropriate educational experiences for approximately one-third of the school population. This design was built upon the elementary school program and took human development and individual differences into account. Fillmer (1975, p. 1125) stated that:

because interest in reading is at a peak during
the middle school years and has been listed as
a developmental task of transessence, it is recommended that a planned program of skill development in reading be an integral part of the middle school curriculum. (p. 1125)

Filimer (1975, p. 1123) stated that a middle school

reading program should be based on the developmental tasks of the middle schooler. The program should be discrete and exist both for the purpose of improving reading skills and for helping students learn to receive personal satisfaction from reading. The program should be individualized in order to meet the needs of each student as he/she perceives these needs. Students should keep personal records of their progress in reading and should confer regularly with the reading teachers. The program should help students satisfy their need for intellectual development by helping them develop reading related skills for continued learning.






22


There should be a variety of reading materials on a wide range of types and readibility available for students.

Havighurst (1953, p. 2) defined a developmental task as that "which arises at or about a certain period in the life of an individual, and successful completion of which leads to unhappiness in the individual, disapproval by society, and difficulty with later tasks." Dechant (1973) stated that:

reading is a developmental task. It is a task
that the student must perform to satisfy personal needs so that he/she may satisfy the
demands made by society. There is no adequate
compensation for success in reading. In the
academic work of today's school a learner cannot succeed partially. The learner either
succeeds or does not, and without success in
reading, success in almost any other area
becomes an improbability, if not an impossibility. (p. 83)

Therefore, adequate provisions for school-wide reading programs must be made if students are to progress not only in reading but in any other areas of the curriculum in the middle school.


Approaches to Teaching Reading in the Middle School

Since the need for reading instruction has been justified, it is important to scrutinize various approaches to teaching reading in the middle school. It would also be worthwhile to note the criteria upon which the approaches should be evaluated.

Guthrie and others (1976) in an extensive study suggested that the following six components appeared to account






23


for the common success of a number of reading programs: 1) academic objectives clearly stated and/or carefully planned; 2) teacher training in the methods of the program; 3) small group or individualized instruction; 4) directly relevant instruction; 5) high treatment intensity; 6) active parental involvement. Guthrie also added two more characteristics which subjectively appeared to be present. They are the following: 1) the utilization of additional reading personnel (both specialists and aides), and 2) some sort of continuous assessment system which provided both feedback and diagnostic information.

From the studies Guthrie and others (1976) investigated, they asserted that at an organizational level, a district with successful readers has strong administrative leadership, cooperation, and involvement of staff in planning a coordinated reading program, and an atmosphere of success, rather than failure. in the studies they investigated, it was also apparent that the successful district invested its financial resources in personnel rather than facilities. The successful school program had acceptable pupil-teacher ratios, teachei aides to assist in individualizing instruction, and often a reading specialist or program coordinator. Thus, according to the research reported by Guthrie and others (1976) as well as by Wood (1976), close scrutiny of reading programs and their relative effectiveness is in order when the diverting of funds to the reading program may mean the cutting of some other program.





24


Basal Program as an Approach to Reading Instruction

The use of a series of integrated reading textbooks for several grade levels has a long history in American reading instruction. Noah Webster wrote the first series around 1790. In 1840 McGuffey presented his series which was based on grading the readers by degree of difficulty. The idea of a controlled, repeated vocabulary and the gradual introduction of new words was an integral part of his series. Supplementary readers were introduced about 1890; and in 1910 because of a change of emphasis in reading instruction, teachers' manuals were written to accompany each reader (Spache, 1972, pp. 31-32).

A basal program consists of all the suggested or prescribed materials around which competencies and interests are developed and maintained. In addition to the basal readers, the program may include enrichment readers, associate readers, independent readers, enrichment materials, and various trade books. These materials, along with workbooks and teachers' guides, are all part of the basal program. If a teacher does not use the materials that are provided or suggested for group or individual use in conjunction with the basal textbook, a lack of understanding of what constitutes a well-rounded reading program could result in problems. Basal readers alone do not provide sufficient material or sufficient variety or scope of material (Artley, 1961).





25


Spache (1972) notes that a modern basal reader series offers systematic guidance in the development of basic reading skills by carefully planned sequences. The material offered is based upon the common backgrounds, experiences, and interests of children. The basal has a core vocabulary and its materials are scaled in difficulty, controlled in vocabulary, and sequentially arranged (p. 32).

Spache (1972) also points out:

the major objections to the basal program were
that no one program could possibly compensate
for individual differences in learning rate or
even provide for variations in learning modality of children and their need for practice in skill
development. No one system could provide adequately for the varying needs at all levels of
reading development in terms of the breadth
and depth of experiences needed. (p. 33)

Other components of basal reading programs, such as

the accompanying workbooks, and the control of vocabulary, as well as, the contents of the stories included, and the sequencing of the skills presented, have been questioned regarding their effectiveness (Doctor, 1962; Harris, 1972; Rodenborn and Washborn, 1974; Saxton, 1957; and Spache, 1972). A cursory look at the current programs indicates that attempts to remedy these faults have been made by major publishers of basal series, because selected materials include a variety of subjects and types, the accompanying workbooks are more attractive and carefully planned, and filmstrips and trade books have been selected to be used for broadening the program content.





26


McCormick, Carr, and 0 Rand (1969), reported that a

junior high school in a San Francisco suburb successfully used a basal program to improve the reading of fourth, fifth, and sixth graders. Students who read at least a grade level above their grade placement were scheduled into a foreign language class and took no reading. Consequently no results for superior readers were reported. This study used pre and posttest results which reported a yearly mean gain of 1.1.

Stine (1962) investigated the differences in attitudes and reading growth between an individualized reading program and a basal reading program in a junior high school. Five pretests were used to equate the twelve groups of seventh and eighth graders used in the doctoral study. All groups made gains in vocabulary and comprehension, as measured by the California Reading Test, but these differences were not statistically significant when the scores of the individualized group and the basal group were compared. There were few differences in attitude as measured by Strang's Incomplete Sentence Test. The individualized group did not read significantly more books but they did exhibit a wider breadth of reading interests.

Dirienzo (1964) compared seventh and eighth grade pupil achievement in a basal and non-basal reading program. He used two hundred and forty students in a school with a K-8 organization. The study lasted from January until June of 1963





27


and eight instructional groups were randomly assigned to either the basal or non-basal program. He found that the reading methods employed did not significantly affect achievement in reading on the six areas of reading skills measured by the Iowa Silent Reading Test. Dirienzo concluded that the amount of planning and preparation necessary in using non-basal reading programs was not justified in terms of pupil achievement in reading or teachers' efforts.

Carline (1960) also compared students' performances in basal and individualized programs. He worked with seventy-two teachers in two large metropolitan school districts in Pennsylvania. He used the pre and posttest results of the districts' achievement testing program to conclude that there were no statistically significant differences between the two programs.

Walker (1957) did a similar study with fourth, fifth, and sixth graders in a laboratory school whose population was composed mainly of university professors' children. Students were randomly assigned to either a basal or an individualized program at each grade level but this still did not overcome the threats to the study's validity. She found no significant differences in gains for either approach, but she did find that the individualized group read more books.

The number of research studies concerning the effects of the basal program as an approach to reading instruction






28


in middle school grades is small. The studies have indicated that gains in reading skills are not significantly greater than those made in the other approaches to reading instruction. It should be noted that in many instances, few, if any generalizations may be made from those studies since they often lacked control groups and representative samples. There were threats to the studies' internal and external validity.

Individualized Approach to Reading Instruction

In recent years the interest in individualized instruction, especially with regard to reading instruction, has been reawakened. Witty (1959) states that the dissatisfaction with some outcomes of current reading instruction by educators who have recognized the high incidence of poor reading in the schools today has helped the individualized movement. He also points out that the failure of students to develop a permanent interest in reading as a leisure time activity has also helped this movement. Allan McMahan (1952) states, "It is estimated that fewer than half of the people in the United States ever read a book; fewer than one-fifth of them ever buy a book" (p. 226). The proponents of individualized reading believe that this approach would awaken interest in reading. W.A. Gray (1957) summarized the reasons the individualized approach has been advocated in the following statement:






29


The arguments advanced by its proponents run about as follows. Children differ so widely in interests, capacity to learn, and motives
that it is impossible to provide adequate
stimulation and guidance through the use of
the same materials and group instruction.
If the child is to develop individuality, creativity, and the ability to think clearly and
to interpret deeply he must not be hampered by group regimentation. Instead, he should
learn to read in an environment which stimulates motives for reading, which permits full
choice of materials to be read at his own rate,
and receive help as needed or at scheduled
times. (p. 100)

Individualized practices vary widely. Damnes (1971) describes a program in which students commence study in materials written at a level of difficulty commensurate with their grade equivalent score as being exemplary. Individualized practices based on a behavioristic learning theory, using controlled sequence and reinforcement, are becoming fairly prominent in the literature, and programs have been reported which employ such elements as specific behavioral objectives based upon diagnostic test findings, prescribed materials, system approaches, and the learner motivation which results from observing improvement by keeping a record of progress (Anderson, 1969; Cranney, 1965; and Williams, 1971). Individualized practices based on the cognitive field theory have been used when self-directed activity is emphasized. These practices range from some choice among objectives to a broad choice of materials and activities dependent upon student interests and the establishment of student goals (Klausner, 1971).





30


Various definitions and descriptions have been given for individualized reading but Mary Lazar's (1957) appears to be representative:

Individualized Reading is a way of thinking
about reading - an attitude toward the place
of reading in the curriculum, toward the
materials and methods used, and toward the
child's developmental needs. It is not a
single method or technique but a broader way
of thinking about reading which involves newer
concepts concerned with class organization,
materials, and the approach to the individual
child. The term Individualized Reading is by no means fully descriptive but for want
of a better term most proponents of this approach continue to use it. (p. 76)

Willard Olson (1952) established the concepts upon

which the individualized approach is based. His concepts of seeking, self-selection, and pacing have become very important when applied to the reading process. Olson also stated that the healthy child was continually engaged in the active exploration of his environment and was seeking experiences which coincided with his growth and needs, and that these tendencies were basic to learning. He further contended that pacing was the responsibility of the teacher who should provide each child with materials and experiences at a rate that insured success at that particular state of maturity.

Veatch (1957) states:

The individualized reading program is based upon the idea that children can and do read
better, more widely and with vastly increased
interest when allowed to choose their own reading
materials.

This is clearly in direct opposition to basal
reading programs, although it does not exclude





31


the books used in basal reading programs.
The self-selection principle discards the well
known idea of planned, sequential development
of level of difficulty programs of basals.
(p. 161)

Bohnhorst and Sellars (1959) define individualized

reading in the following manner:

In general, it may be said that a prcqram of
'individualized reading instruction' is to be
distinguished from a 'basal' program in that
no reliance is placed on a single or common
set of systematically prepared graded readers.
Instead, reliance is placed on providing the
child with as broad and rich a variety of reading
resources as it is possible to obtain, and on
guiding the child in selecting those materials
and experiences most individually suited to
his needs, interests, purposes, and abilities.
The program for each child is more nearly individually tailored to meet his situation.
Hence, the term 'individualized reading instruction'. (p. 188)

Several writers stated that individualized reading was

a means of providing for individual differences since it

adapted methods and materials to the wide range of individual differences (Beck and Bolvin, 1969; Fox and Fox, 1964;

Hassett, 1975; and Poll and Allegra, 1975). Brogan and

Fox (1961) , Frazier (1962) , Parkin (1956) , and Veatch (1961),

also believed that a major advantage of individualizaticn

was providing for individual differences, and that this

approach developed the child's desire to read. Beck and

Bolvin(1969) pointed out that individualization did not

necessarily mean isolation. Jacobs (1958) suggested that

individualized reading was not a single method, did not

eliminate group discussion, but provided for opportunities






32


for individual reading at one's own rate and one's own purpose or interest, and for the development of skills needed. Lazar (1957) pointed out that "with individualized reading the child only has to keep his own place, take care of his own assets and liabilities, and use his own interest and free selection to make him a better reader" (p. 78).

Bond and Wagner (1966) like Harris (1956) expressed doubts about the individualized approach. They found it difficult to conceive that so permissive a reading atmosphere could provide for basal reading instruction in the skills and abilities essential to mature reading. They believed that reading is a complex process that must be taught systematically and that the very nature of individualized reading tends to indicate that instruction would not be very systematic. They also questioned whether younger children could sustain their interest for the long periods in which they work alone. Harris (1956) also stated that individualized reading caused children to read more and show greater interest in reading, but there was no evidence that it was a superior method for teaching proficiency.

Davis and Lucas (1971) conducted a study with two intermediate schools, with grades six through eight, in Santa Clara, California. Both the experimental and control groups were selected at random. Approximately half of the five hundred and fifty-four students served as controls using a basal program and half as the experimental group





33


using an individualized approach. The experiment was conducted for an entire year and the results showed that the individualized group gained significantly over the control group in reading rate, but the two groups were approximately the same in vocabulary and comprehension. However, the authors concluded that an individualized reading program is better for this age group than the basal program. Generalizations from this study are limited, however, because the population consisted only of middle class white students.

Davidoff, Kravitz, and Moose (1971) reported on a study done with disadvantaged children in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The experimental group emphasized individual instruction with a large variety of materials. The scores of the experimental group were compared with those of children in a traditional basal reading program. The experimental group was individually diagnosed and specific prescriptions were written for each child but this was not done for the control group. This factor may explain why significant gains were made by the experimental group in vocabulary and comprehension.

Karlin (1957) reported the results of a study of fourth,

fifth, and sixth graders who were matched in reading ability, I.Q., and socio-economic status. The individualized reading groups showed more interest in reading and read more, but there were no significant differences between the groups





34


in their gains in reading achievement. It should be noted that matching has come into disrepute in research because it is possible to match for all variables and therefore it would improve the study if pretests were used to note for significant differences prior to the study.

Safford (1960) tried to determine if the individualized approach would be good to use with gifted children. He found no significant differences between the reading gains of the gifted and the average children. He found that after one year students had lower gains in reading achievement than had been true for the same children in previous years. It should be noted that generalizations from this study are limited since the population was white upper middle class. This would probably account for the reason why Bonhorst and Sellars (1959), using a different population, found that superior students profitted from this method of reading instruction.

Acinapuro's (1959) doctoral study involved fourth,

f if th, and sixth graders who were matched in reading ability, I.Q., and socioeconomic status. The experimental group was taught with the individualized approach and the control group with the three-ability grouping plan (above-average, average, and below average). Using a basal reading program, the two groups did equally as well in vocabulary, but the individualized group was significantly better in silent reading comprehension and in total silent and oral reading






35


achievement. Again the random assignment to the experimental and control groups did not overcome the threats posed by the matching of groups. It is impossible to control the variables that are not matched and therefore the study is weakened and fewer generalizations are able to be made.

Huser (1967) concluded from her doctoral study that

sixth graders did significantly better in reading achievement when taught by the individualized method than the basal textbook approach. Differences were not evidenced in grades four and five. It was also found that the intermediate grade students had a more favorable attitude toward readinqj when taught individually than when taught in groups. Huser concluded that the attitudes formed during the intermediate grades are as important, perhaps more so, to the future success and self-image of the preadolescent child than is reading achievement.

Schwartzberg (1962) conducted a study to determine

what children thought of individualized reading. From the literature it appears that many feel that the results of his study give credibility to the statement that individualized reading procedures enrich and strengthen an eclectic reading program and offer contributions to complement the basal reader. Since Schwartzberg only used thirty-nine gifted fifth graders, it seems difficult to conclude anything from his study.






36


Marani and Tirris (1970) attacked reading problems

in an inner-city seventh grade through a program of sequential skills development and definite motivation. This program made use of individualized pacing more than it did of individualized content. The experimental group gained

1.0 years on the average from September to June, whereas the control group gained .6 years.

Studies of Duker and Stine (Hitchner, 1968) showed

that no significant differences in reading growth occurred between junior high school classes who were using basal readers or SPA materials and those using individualized reading.

Camper (1966) matched two yronips of fourth, fifth, and sixth graders on the number of grades repeated, age, health, emotional states, socioeconomic status, reading achievement, mental ability, sex, and number of students. She found that the individual method of teaching reading was more effective with fourth, fifth, and sixth graders. Teachers and students showed a more favorable attitude toward reading and the children read significantly more books than the students taught with the group method.

Liotta (1967) concluded that individual differences and needs of pupils could be equally as well served in either individualized or ability group approaches. it should be noted that this study was undertaken with intermediate grade children who were white middle class and





37


who were predominantly able readers. Generalizations from this study are thus limited because of the population sampled.

Gold (1963) found similar results as Liotta, but his

population consisted of tenth grade public school students. The conclusions of this doctoral study are greatly limited since the population only consisted of thirty boys and ten girls.

Wilson and Harrison (1963) conducted a study to determine the change in selected reading skills, vocabulary growth and reading comprehension by comparing students using basals in a conventional grouping arrangement with comparable students in an individualized reading program. Sixth grade students at Florida State University's laboratory school were used and instructional time consisted of one hour per day for each group. They found that there appeared to be no significant difference as to the instructional approach used relative to the amount of gain made by a class in the development of vocabulary and reading comprehension during one year. Once again it should be noted that the study was undertaken in a university school and not with a representative population, and therefore generalizations are limited.

Harris (1956) and Spache (1969) have criticized individualized reading programs because they are not structured enough for below-average students. However,





38


Fader and others' (1966) program with delinquent boys which was quite unstructured reported results which favored the individualized program, not only in terms of growth in reading skills, but also in improved attitudes toward school and improved interest in reading. Green's (1968) study in Texas agrees with Spache's statement since he found that the individualized approach to reading did not work well with fourth grade students who read below grade level. The conventional grouping arrangement suited this group's needs better. Green felt that these students needed more skills before they could effectively work alone. Again it should be noted that different populations are used in each study and this factor could acccurnt for the different results and conclusions.

The research concerning the effects of an individualized approach to reading instruction, like that regarding the basal approach, seems to be inconclusive. Studies that report significant gains in reading skills in favor of the individualized approach often fail to control the threats to internal and external validity. As a consequence, few generalizations can be made from these studies. Reading Centers as an Organizatienal Method for Teaching
Reading

In the twenty-fourth yearbook of the National Society of the Study of Education (1923) the committee on reading recognized two extreme positions being proposed for the method of teaching reading - mass instruction and individu-





39


alized instruction. The committee, at that time, advocated a classroom organization that allowed for both group and individualized instruction. Most authorities agree that there is no one best method of teaching reading. As the literature and research has pointed out, there are advantages and disadvantages to be found in both the traditional basal program and the individualized program, and consequently several writers (Daniel, 1956; Dawson and Bamman, 1959; Evans, 1962; Hildreth, 1958; Kirby, 1957; McCormick, 1965; Rowe and Dornhoefer, 1957; Sharpe, 1958; Stauffer, 1960; Veatch, 1961; and Witty, 1959) favor a combination of the two approaches. They contend that such a combination provides many and varied reading opportunities for children and, at the same time, provides them with a systematic program of skill development.

Bennie (1973) stated that the increasing desire to

individualize elementary and SEcondary reading has led to the establishment of individually prescribed learning or reading centers. These programs have enabled teachers to give students, with different reading skills achievement, opportunities to expand and apply their reading skills. As the presecriptive programming becomes more precise, students will experience fewer problems with their individually prescribed reading program. Sherlock (1963) pointed out that the effective use of the reading center revolves around the following six instructional activities:





40


1) identifying, 2) diagnosing, 3) motivating, 4) teaching, 5) stimulating, and 6) evaluating.

According to Cohen (1969, pp. 230-232) a reading center program should be based on the following seven laws of learning as proposed by Hilgard's Theories of Learning:

1. When to teach what depends upon the individual's

capacity and content must, therefore, be adjusted

to this capacity and to individual needs.

2. A motivated learner acquires what is to be learned

more rapidly than one who is not motivated.

3. Individuals need practice in setting goals for thexuselves, goals neither so low as to elicit little

effort nor so high as to foreordain failure.

Realistic goal setting leads to more satisfactory

improvement than unrealistic goal setting.

4. Active participation by a learner is preferable to

passive reception.

5. Meaningful tasks are learned more effectively than

tasks not understood by the learner.

6. Information about the nature of a good performance,

knowledge of mistakes, and knowledge of successful

results aid the learner.

7. The personal history of an individual - his

reaction to authority, for example - may hamper

or enhance his ability to learn from a given

teacher.






41


The reading center approach satisfies each of the

above laws. For example, each student progresses at his own speed in a direction mandated by his own diagnosed strengths and weaknesses. This approach rewards the student by helping him/her discover his/her own skill problems and remediating those skills. The approach is built on achievement, success, and rewards and consequently the student is led to further achievement. The approach also matches materials to the student's strengths to ensure success, and to weaknesses to ensure growth. This approach also allows for both maximum and minimum contact between teacher and student and this aids in the attainment of the goal of law number seven.

Brueckman (1964) stated that the high school reading centers used in Chicago indicated that students improved in vocabulary, rate, and comprehension. The program also helped develop a power of self-analysis within the students. Johnson (1966) discussed the success of the reading center in various schools in Virginia with students of average intelligence or above who have evidenced reading problems. Students attended the laboratory three hours a week on alternate days. Casters (1963) concluded from her doctoral study that it is necessary to determine the effects of more attention for the average reader in junior high school who potentially could become superior readers. Hetherman (1968) stated that the developmental reading center in their





42


school system designed for average, above average, and remedial students greatly helped the high school students who voluntarily enrolled. Elmore (1971) also discussed the successes of their high school reading center located in Athens, Ohio. Students may voluntarily enroll as they feel a need to improve their skills but many are referred by teachers. Materials in this center are often coordinated with classroom assignments so the transfer of skills from reading center to control area classroom is made easier. Ware and Smith (1969) gave another example of a developmental reading lab in the junior high which had met with success stories. Smith and Rieback's (1971) junior high reading program consisted of students setting daily goals and experiencing their reaching them. Students were taught to examine their work and began to pinpoint the reasons for specific failures. Students, under teacher guidance, also set goals for longer periods of times. For the most part the above studies were descriptive rather than experimental.

Lurie (1972) compared the effect of three approaches to the teaching of specific reading and study skills on a group of failing junior high school students. The purpose was to assess the following three methods of teaching reading and study skills to failing junior high school students of average I.Q.: 1) traditional literature oriented reading and study skills class, 2) a core curriculum





43


with content area skills developed, 3) content area skills instruction in a reading class. As a result, Lurie recommended that study skills be taught in conjunction with the content in the subject area classroom rather than isolate them as a separate course.

Warren (1962) presented a reading center program in

which eighth graders of average mental ability were enrolled in a reading lab program three periods a week for seven weeks. The students made significant gains and the results indicated that both instruments and techniques using textual material can provide significant contributions to a reading program working with a similar population.

Cawley, Chaffin, and Brunning (1965) evaluated a junior high school reading improvement program and their results indicated that a reading improvement program conducted by teachers who structure a program adjusted to the needs of students can yield significant improvement. The authors stressed the need for further study using control groups, employing paradigms wherein subjects are treated for varying periods of time, and involving subjects with different intellectual capacities and degrees of reading disability.

Nasman (1966) undertook a study of a reading improvement program in the junior high school. The program was for

six weeks; and based on data, the students involved in the program progressed in reading ability to a much greater degree than those not receiving the instruction. There was





44


a loss of some of the reading growth after six months and it appeared that a period of reading reinforcement would be desirous. Nasman also reported that there was no difference between morning and afterncon classes or between boys and girls.

Marquis (1963) reported a study of developmental

reading in which the English classes in the high school received instruction in the reading center one day a week for two semesters. Student work was kept in folders and the reading teachers wrote prescriptions to the students in these folders. Significant gains were made in comprehension and rate. Marquis also pointed out that constant attention must be devoted to student motivation, and the writing in student folders of descriptive comments regarding progress appeared to aid in motivating students.

Miller (1962) stated that many junior high school

reading programs are voluntary and therefore many students are not reached. There needs to be a broader and more powerful attack on reading instruction so students will be less likely to think of reading skills as characteristic of certain rooms.

Thiel (1972) investigated whether retarded readerE gain wore reading achievement when taught by the regular classroom teacher using prescriptions written by the diagnostic teacher or when they were taught by the regular






45


classroom teacher using a basal approach. She found that prescriptive teaching was as effective as, but not superior to, the basal reader approach in vocabulary building. In comprehension building, the prescriptive approach was found to be superior.

Positive results have been reported for college preparatory students (Thornton, 1960; Wamba, 1961), for a twelve week class for seventh graders (Schiavone, 1960), and for one semester courses for eleventh and twelfth graders (Dobrin, 1961) participating in a reading center.

The absence of control groups and representative samples in most of these studies and the other reported studies makes it impossible to evaluate the real significance of any reported gains. The results do seem to indicate that reading instruction in a reading center after the elementary grades can have a profound effect.


Summrary and Implications

The review of the literature disclosed that the need for developmental reading beyond the elementary grades has been realized for many years. In school, students in the intermediate grades and above are expected to use reading as a tool for learning. Curriculum guides and textbooks are based on this premise, but many students have not acquired the skills necessary to successfully deal with these materials.






46


In the mid-sixties federal funds stimulated the growth of many reading programs in secondary schools but, because of the guidelines, only a small percentage of the school population was reached and the costly results were often disappointing.

This chapter has described the basal approach to teaching reading, the individualized approach, and the reading center approach. The results of research studies which tested the effects of each approach were presented and were often contradictory, perhaps, because of a lack of control groups, poor definition of terms, and the use of specialized populations. The research does seem to indicate that an approach to teaching reading based on the needs of the child produces the greatest growth in reading achievement (Austin and Morrison, 1963; Bond and Dykstra, 1967; and Bond and Wagner, 1966). Diagnosis of reading abilities and deficiencies, individual instruction, and teaching techniques and materials suited to the individual child are all implied in the above statement.

There is yet a need for additional research pertaining to the development of effective reading programs at the middle school levels. There is also a need to treat time as a variable in the instructional process. Quality materials and instructional aids have been available for many years. Thus, the problem may be defined as one of logistics, organization, and facilitation (Klein, 1975). The key to






47


effecting an optimal learning environment rests in the teacher's ability to utilize effective classroom management procedures. He/She must be able to group learners according to need, relate specific curriculum components to the those needs, and then continually check to insure appropriate success and developmental growth. If Hilgard's learning theories are taken into account, a reading center may be a successful organizational approach to teach reading.
















CHAPTER III


METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION


According to research (Austin and Morrison, 1963; Bond and Dykstra, 1967; and Bond and Wagner, 1966), it appears that an eclectic approach that is based on the individual needs of the student has the greatest advantages for promoting gains in reading growth. This statement implies that diagnosis of reading skills, individualized instruction, and teaching techniques and materials suited to the individual child are the major factors in a successful reading program.

The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences in reading gains existed between scores obtained from middle school students who participated in a reading center approach based on the P.K. Yonge model and those scores obtained from students in the same school who participated in a basal approach the following year. The present chapter will include a description of the sample selected for the study, the tests used to measure the results of reading instruction, and the two types of instructional approaches tested in the study.


48






49


Sample

The sample for the study consisted of 704 students (360 males and 344 females) who worked on their reading skills in the reading center in a middle school in Gainesville, Florida, during the 1975-76 school year and 755 students (382 males and 373 females) from the same middle school who participated in a basal approach to reading instruction during the 1976-77 school year. There were 220 sixth graders, 283 seventh graders, and 201 eighth graders participating in the study during the 1975-76 reading center and 257 sixth, 238 seventh graders, and 255 eighth graders participating in the 1976-77 traditional classroom approach. Fifty-three percent of the student body were on either free or reduced lunch and fifty-nine percent of the students were transported by bus from various parts of town.


Table 2

Black - Other Ratio of the Sample


Black Other


M F M F
Grade 6 26% 24% 28% 22%
Grade 7 23% 20% 29% 28%
Grade 8 18% 19% 35% 29%


From Table 2 it is clear that the sample is representative of many populations. It is also important to note that






50


the sample also consisted of rural farm students and upper middle class students who reside in a "'country club' setting.


Instrumentation

The instrument used to collect data pertaining to the

dependent variables was the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, (SDRT), Level II, Forms W and X. Form W was used to collect pretest data and Form X was used to collect posttest data. Data for the groups in the reading center were collected at twelve week intervals during the 1975-76 school year. All six of the following subtests of the SDRT were used to collect data: Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary, Syllabication, Sound Discrimination, Blending, and Reading Rate.

Standardization of the SDRT was conducted in October, 1965 on 120,000 cases in six school systems. Since the norms were determined at one point in time, use of norms appeared neither easier ror more difficult than they should be. It was assumed that this effect would be approximately uniform across subtests so that the identification of strengths and weaknesses would not be adversely affected.

Reliability data for the SDRT were obtained using the split-half reliability coefficients and standard errors of measurement.

According to the test authors, the validity of the SDRT has been indicated by the evidence of the test's ability to measure the main facets of reading.






51


Treatment


Reading Center Approach

During the 1975-76 school year reading was taught to

the students at a middle school in Gainesville, Florida, by means of an individualized developmental reading center. The students who participated in the program were those who were enrolled in the language arts classes. Students in Title I, Educationally Mentally Retarded (EMR), and Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) classes were not enrolled in the language arts classes and thereby did not participate in the reading center program.

The middle school with which the study was concerned was divided into six teams called "learning communities." Each learning community had its own math and language arts teachers who also shadred the responsibilities of social studies and science instruction. The entire school shared two language arts specialists who taught the more advanced students. Consequently, each team had four language arts classes, making a total of twenty-four language arts classes. The team language arts teachers taught twelve classes and the language arts specialists taught the other twelve classes. All language arts classes were non-graded (sixth, seventh, and eighth graders mixed), homogeneously grouped according to reading levels, and class size ranged from twenty-four to thirty-six. At the beginning of each twelve week cycle three language arts teachers brought two of their






52


classes to the reading center alternating between Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of one week and Tuesday and Thursday of the following week and continued to bring the same classes following this alternating schedule for a total of twelve weeks. During the first twelve week cycle of the reading center there were two reading teachers, and therefore, there were language arts classes working in the center everyday.

When a language arts class was scheduled to come to the reading center, during the first week the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (SDRT) was administered. The test administration and scoring was done by the reading teachers, and

during the second week students had an individual conference. During the conference the test results were explained in terms of stanines and a profile was plotted (see Appendix A). The scores were interpreted in terms of strengths and students were then asked to choose no more than three of the six areas tested to work on (reading comprehension, vocabulary, syllabication, sound discrimination, blending and reading rate). Students were allowed to pick any of the six areas even if the area was a definite strength. After choosing their areas, students were asked to set goals. For example, they were asked, "How far would you like to move your vocabulary or comprehension scores up on the profile chart?" Then they were asked, "How far do you think you can move this score up by the time of the posttest at





53


the end of your stay in the reading center?" Students marked their goals on their profile charts and also wrote their goals on the bottom of the profile chart. This chart was stapled inside the student's folder, underneath the work sheets so that a student's scores could be kept confidential. Students kept all their work in their folders which remained in the reading center. During the initial conference it was explained to students that there would be a posttest and another individual conference so that they would be able to see and discuss their progress. Also during this conference students were shown materials and asked to indicate their preferences of materials to use for instruction. Students were also told that if they did not like working in specific materials, they only needed to complete their one assignment and indicate to the reading teacher that they did not care to work in this material again. This was to make sure that students actually worked in materials before deciding they did not like them. it was also explained to students that they were to write on the comment sheets in their folders at the end of each period in the reading center. This was the place where students were to let the reading teachers know if they were having troubles with either their work or personal problems. This was also where students were instructed to write what they had accomplished during each period in the center. Time was alloted at the end of each period for folder writing.






54


The day following a group's time in the reading center, the reading teacher spent checking through folders, reading students' comments, and writing prescriptions for future work. Students were responsible for checking much of their own work, but it was necessary to check to see if students were following directions and completing assignments. The reading teacher wrote in every folder and explained to the student what he/she would be doing the following day in the reading center. Assignments to be done were indicated with a slash (/) on a prescription sheet (see Appendix B) that listed all the materials in the reading center by skill areas. If it were important for a student to work on a specific assignment first, it was noted in the teacher's comment to the student. Also listed on the prescription sheet were the approximate number of pages, lessons, or tapes to be completed for one assignment. When students completed this amount, they crossed the slash and wrote about what they did on their comment sheet. In this manner the reading teacher and her students maintained a continuous written dialogue concerning the student's progress and problems. Students worked on their chosen skills in the reading center for eight weeks. The class procedure consisted mainly of students getting their folders, reading the teacher's comments and prescriptions, securing the necessary materials and/or equipment, and completing assigned work. When students were identified by the SDRT as having





55


the same skill problems and goals, they were grouped for short periods of time tc receive direct instruction designed by the reading teacher to guide students to overcome these problems.

After eight weeks of skills instruction and prescriptions, students were posttested with Form X of the SDRT by the reading teacher. During the following week the reading teacher had a post conference with the student, and together, they plotted the posttest results on the profile chart. During the post conference the student and the reading teacher discussed the results of the eight weekE of work cn reading and the student was asked to set or redefine his/her goals for reading for whatever future instruction they might be given in their language arts or other classes. When a group finished their final conferences, they no longer came to the reading center, but returned to their language arts classes everyday and the twelve-week cycle began anew with another group of students.

The reading center contained a wide variety of materials including equipment, audiovisuals, paperbacks, and kits. The center itself was housed in the school media center and therefore was carpeted and air conditioned. The furniture consisted of seven rectangular tables and chairs and ten carrels. Four of the carrels were uscd with EDL controlled readers, while the other six were used with books and instructional kits of multi-level material. The kits used most often were the following: Reading for





56


Understanding (junior and senior levels) , Grolier's Reading Attainment Systems, Barnell Loft's Specific Skills Series (including Understanding Word Groups, Understanding Questions, Using a Table of Contents, and Using an Index), Science Research Associates' (SRA) We are Black, An American Album, Countries and Culture, Manpower and Natural Resources? Educational Developmental Laboratories' (EDL) Study Skill Boxes, levels C-I, Pictocabulary I and II, What's in a Name?, Words to Eat, Words to Wear. The workbooks used most often were the following: Dr. Spello, EDL's Word Clues and Looking at Words in Sentences, New Practice Readers, Phonics We Use, Target. The audiovisuals used most often were Wordcraft by Bergan Evans, EDL's Listen and Think levels D-GHI and Listen and Read levels D-GHI, Economy's programs Basic Level Clues, EDL's Skills Support Programs, Reading in the Content Area Program, controlled reader filmstrips and books for levels BB-IJ, and tach x films and books for levels D-IJ. The equipment consisted of four cassette tape recorders, 20 sets of headphones, 4 jack boxes, 2 table screens, 1 tachistoscope, 4 controlled readers, 1 language master with cards, and 4 flash x devices with accompanying flash x discs.

The staff at the reading center consisted of two

certified reading teachers who were both in advanced graduate programs. One teacher's major was in reading while the other teacher's major was in administration. In January





57


of 1976, however, the reading teacher working in administration was moved to the Title I reading program because of a loss of school funds. The reading center program continued, but since there was only one reading teacher, only three language arts classes could attend every other day. The data for this study was collected on a total of 704 students who participated sometime during the year 1975-76 during a twelve-week cycle. Basal Reading Approach

During the 1976-77 school year reading was taught at

the same middle school which used a reading center approach during the 1975-76 school year, using an individualized basal approach. The students selected to participate in this study were those who were enrolled in reading classes on each team and therefore Title I students, Educationally Mentally Retarded students (EMR), and Specifically Learning Disabled (SLD) students were not-enrolled in these classes and thereby did not participate in the reading program.

The middle school maintained the same basic organization from the 1975-76 school year, but each of the six teams added one reading teacher to its staff. The reading teacher taught reading to his/her team for four of the six periods in the day. During the other two periods the reading teachers taught interest or exploratory classes.

The reading classes were non-graded (sixth, seventh,

and eighth graders mixed) and homogeneously grouped according





58


to reading scores. Class sizes ranged from twenty-two to thirty-six. The reading class met every day for 45 minutes. The reading program changed its procedure to follow that presented in the Young American Basal Series (Rand McNally) and the school purchased one thousand of these multi-level basal readers. The reading teachers divided up the fifteen levels of the basal texts so that each classroom had the same number of books and workbooks. Students' reading levels were determined by means of dloze tests that the reading teachers made for each grade level and textbooks given to students were those that matched students' reading levels. All the reading teachers used the same tests and procedures for placing students in the basal readers. The Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test was administered as a pretest and the results were also used to compare students' reading levels obtained from the dloze tests and to ascertain students' skill needs. These results were used to group students for skill work within the classes. Students did not have individual conferences, but the test interpretation was explained to the reading class as a group and then students were given their results.

The materials that were used last year (1975-76) in the reading center were initially divided among the reading teachers based on students' needs and interests and, consequently, were rotated among the six reading teachers. Since reading was taught during different periods on different






59


teams, the sharing of materials was facilitated. Classroom organization and management for the reading classes of the six teams was basically the same since it was divided to follow the basic suggestions of the publisher of the basal series. The reading teachers decided that the best method of classroom organization would be a centers approach and therefore centers were designed for each group of students at each reading level. The first center students worked at was a vocabulary center which introduced new vocabulary words from the basal reader. Students did various exercises at this center which were suggested in the teacher's manual and which resulted from "brainstorming" by the teachers during one of the school reading meetings. Basically, students worked with the words in context, word meanings, syllabication, prefixes, and suffixes. After students completed work at the vocabulary center, they went to the story center where they had a directed reading lesson. The steps for the directed reading lesson included an introduction to the story and its author, a discussion which was designed to motivate students to read the story, and then the students were given a purpose for which to read the story. After students completed reading the story, they answered the suggested questions in the teacher's manual either responding in written or oral form. The questions represented the literal, inferential, evaluative, and creative levels of comprehension. After completing the






60


story center, students worked in a skills center which consisted of the accompanying basal workbook. When students completed the skill work that accompanied the directed reading lesson in the story center, they were directed to work in the kits, tapes, or equipment that had been used in the reading center the previous year. The last center was free reading in which students spent time reading self-selected books. The six reading teachers required book reports, but the form and type of report varied among the teachers. Students rotated among the centers in groups that were formed on the basis of their levels in the basal readers and their skills needs as diagnosed by scores on the SDRT.

Chapter IV presents the data collected from the study and describes the analysis made and the results of this analysis.















CHAPTER IV


PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA


The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences in reading gains, as measured by the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (SDRT), Level II, existed between scores obtained from middle school students who participated in a reading center based on an adaptation of the P.K. Yonge model and those scores obtained the following year from students at the same middle school who participated in a traditional classroom approach to reading. These differences were determined by comparing the gains (posttest

minus pretest) of students who participated in the reading center approach during the 1975-76 school year to the gains (posttest minus pretest scores) of students who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading during the 1976-77 school year. Comparisons were made on the following six subtests of the SDRT, Level II: Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary, Syllabication, Sound Discrimination, Blending, and Reading Rate.

The statistical analyses were done using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (Barr et. al., 1976) MANOVA procedure. The multivariate statistic used was Pillai's Trace. The Hotelling-Lawley Trace, Wilk's Criterion, and


61





62


Roy's Maximum Post Criterion were also generated, but Pillai's Trace is the only one reported since on all measures the different criteria were approximately the same. The F approximation will be reported in conjunction with Pillai's Trace. Univariate ANOVAs were also computed separately for each of the six subtests to test the specific hypotheses. The results of the MANOVA procedure are reported first and the univariate results are presented in this chapter in the order that the hypotheses were posed.


MANOVA Results

Pillai's Trace was used as the MANOVA test criteria for the hypothesis of no overall treatment effect for the sixth grade Pillai's Trace was .3561 and the F approximation with (6,470) df equalled 43.32 which was significant. These results demonstrated that when the sixth grade results were taken as a whole there were significant differences between the two approaches which favored the reading center approach.

Pillai's Trace was also used as the MANOVA test criteria for the hypothesis of no overall treatment effect for grade seven. For the seventh grade Pillai's Trace was .4669 and the F approximation with (6,514) df equalled 75.04 which was significant. These results demonstrated that when the seventh grade results were taken as a whole there were significant differences between the two approches and the reading center approach resulted in the greatest gains.






63


Pillai's Trace was used as the MANOVA test criteria

for the hypothesis of no overall treatment effect for grade eight. For the eighth grade Pillai's Trace was .4061 and the F approximation with (6,449) df equalled 51.17 which was significant. These results demonstrated that when the eighth grade results were taken as a whole there were significant differences between the two approaches which again favored the reading center approach.


Tests of the Hypotheses

Since the MANOVA statistics were significant, univariate analyses were performed in order to discover where differences might lie. Each of the hypotheses is summarized and data used to test the hypotheses are presented with reference to appropriate tables and/or figures. The alpha level of .01 was used in determining statistical significance.

Hypothesis 1. There will be no statistically significant difference in reading comprehension between the reading center group and the traditional class group,
as measured by the Reading Comprehension subtest of
the SDRT.

In order to test this hypothesis, an ANOVA was performed to compare the reading comprehension gains between the 1975-76 reading center group and the 1976-77 traditional classroom group. The degrees of freedom, sum of squares, mean squares, F value, and R-square are presented in Table 3 for the sixth grade group, Table 5 for the seventh grade group and Table 6 for the eighth grade group.





64


Table 3

ANOVA for Differences in Reading Comprehension Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional
Classroom Approach to Reading


Dependent Variable: Reading Comprehension Sixth Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 6388.2684 6388.2684 123.35 .0001 .2061 Error 475 24600.5617 51.79065
Total 476 30988.8301



The observed F value indicated a significant difference between the gains in reading comprehension of the sixth graders who participated in the reading center group and the sixth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the approaches. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of these data, the conclusion was drawn that greater gains in reading comprehension were made by the sixth graders in the reading center approach than by the sixth graders in the traditional classroom approach.




Table 4


Means and Standard Deviations of the Pretest Scores, Posttest Scores, and Gain Scores for the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Graders in the Reading Center Approach and the Traditional Classroom Approach
Reading Center Group Pretest Posttest Gain
Grade N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Reading
6 Comprehension 220 28.1727 13.2008 35.8136 12.1837 7.6409 7.1872 6 Vocabulary 220 25.2909 7.1011 27.7272 6.4989 2.4363 4.2340
6 Syllabication 220 14.7818 4.8055 17.0454 4.4678 2.2636 3.0073
Sound
6 Discrimination 220 23.1227 8.1385 24.9409 7.5465 1.8181 3.7163 6 Blending 220 18.3409 9.8836 23.1000 9.6703 4.7590 5.1143
6 Rate 220 11.5181 5.9935 16.3681 6.5783 4.8500 5.0086
Traditional
Class Group
Reading
6 Comprehension 257 29.4474 12.7051 29.7470 11.6519 0.2996 7.2045 6 Vocabulary 257 23.0739 8.1680 23.2762 7.6447 0.2023 5.5309
6 Syllabication 257 14.3579 5.0994 14.3268 4.8736 -0.0311 3.5486
Sound
6 Discrimination 257 21.1750 8.0518 21.4513 8.0208 0.2762 4.5754 6 Blending 257 18.0583 10.4724 18.8521 10.3803 0.7937 5.0086
6 Rate 257 10.7859 6.1292 11.9027 6.3210 1.1167 4.2840

Reading Center Group
Reading
7 Comprehension 283 28.5901 14.6556 36.1872 13.0042 7.5971 7.0690 7 Vocabulary 283 25.5477 7.8722 27.9328 7.2144 2.3851 4.8549
7 Syllabication 283 14.3639 5.2435 16.4770 4.6312 2.1130 3.0944
Sound
7 Discrimination 283 21.8763 8.7888 23.9116 8.0085 2.0353 4.3701
7 Blending 283 19.8021 10.8082 23.8056 9.7177 4.0035 5.9760
7 Rate 283 12.4275 6.3148 17.4310 7.9567 5.0035 5.2831


M-






Table 4 - Continued


Traditional
Class Group
Grade
Reading
7 Comprehension 238 34.0168 12.9360 33.4075 12.1317 -0.6092 5.7613 7 Vocabulary 238 26.4033 7.3252 26.4537 7.3567 0.0504 3.7356
7 Syllabication 238 16.0798 4.5523 15.7899 4.5993 -0.2899 3.1961
Sound
7 Discrimination 238 23.4705 7.6100 24.1554 7.7533 0.6848 3.1861 7 Blending 238 23.6890 9.8702 23.6260 9.4685 -0.0630 4.2247
7 Rate 238 12.5546 6.9527 13.7773 6.8753 1.2226 4.1871
Reading
Center Group
8 Reading
Comprehension 201 37.3233 13.5251 42.9601 11.8662 5.6368 6.0151
8 Vocabulary 201 30.1741 7.2169 32.1890 6.0036 2.0149 4.6276
8 Syllabication 201 16.9303 5.5294 19.0696 4.0540 2.1393 -4.01-37
Sound
8 Discrimination 201 24.0845 7.9415 26.8059 6.9718 2.7213 4.0806
8 Blending 201 25.4676 9.4541 29.0149 8.29,00 3.5472 5.0278
8 Rate 201 14.5223 6.9563 20.4825 8.0561 5.9601 5.7748
Traditional
Class Group
Reading
8 Comprehension 255 37.7058 13.8164 37.4549 11.9429 -0.2509 6.0463 8 Vocabulary 255 28.8352 7.5381 28.7019 6.9388 -0.1333 3.9362
8 Syllabication 255 16.7411 4.8354 16.3254 4.4747 -0.4156 3.3437
Sound
8 Discrimination 255 24.3254 7.7930 24.6117 8.1406 0.2862 3.4766 8 Blending 255 26.1215 9.6606 26.4431 9.3675 0.3215 4.2720
8 Rate 255 14.8352 7.6511 16.2509 8.2083 1.4156 4.6048


a> a>





67


Table 5

ANOVA for Differences in Reading Comprehension Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional
Classroom Approach to Reading


Dependent Variable: Reading Comprehension Seventh Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 8706.2837 8706.2837 205.78 .001 0.2839 Error 519 21958.7374 42.3097
Total 520 30665.0211



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in the gains in reading comprehension of the seventh graders who participated in the reading center group and the seventh graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach

produced the greatest gains it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was drawn that greater gains in reading comprehension were made by the seventh graders in the reading center approach than by the seventh graders in the traditional classroom approach.





68


Table 6

ANOVA for Differences in Reading Comprehension Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Reading Comprehension Eighth Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 3896.5203 3896.5203 107.07 .0001 0.1908 Error 454 16522.4248 36.3930
Total 455 20418.9451



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in the gains in reading comprehension of the eighth graders who participated in the reading center group and the eighth

graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in reading comprehension were made by the eighth graders in the reading center approach than by the eighth graders in the traditional classroom approach.

For all three grade levels students made significantly

greater gains in reading comprehension when they participated






69


in the reading center approach and therefore the first null hypothesis was not accepted.

Hypothesis 2. There will be no statistically significant difference in vocabulary between the reading
center group and the traditional classroom approach,
as measured by the Vocabulary subtest of the SDRT.

In order to test the second hypothesis, an ANOVA

was performed to compare the vocabulary gains between the 1975-76 reading center group and the 1976-77 traditional classroom group. The degrees of freedom, sum of squares, means squares, F value, and R-square are presented in Table 7 for the sixth grade group, Table 8 for the seventh grade group, and Table 9 for the eighth grade group.


Table 7

ANOVA for Differences in Vocabulary Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Vocabulary Sixth Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 591.5821 591.5821 23.90 .0001 0.0479
Error 475 11757.5876 24.7528
Total 476 12349.1698



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in the gains in vocabulary of the sixth graders who participated in the reading center group and the sixth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the





70


greatest gains in vocabulary, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in vocabulary were made by the sixth graders in the reading center approach than by the sixth graders in the traditional classroom approach.


Table 8

ANOVA for Differences in Vocabulary Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Vocabulary Seventh Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 704.6967 704.6967 36.74 .0001 0.0661
Error 519 9954.4126 19.1799
Total 520 106.59.1094



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in the gains in vocabulary of the seventh graders who participated in the reading center approach and the seventh graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in vocabulary, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two






71


approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in vocabulary were made by the seventh graders in the reading center approach than by the seventh graders in the traditional classroom approach.


Table 9

ANOVA for Differences in Vocabulary Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Vocabulary Eighth Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 518.7338 518.7338 28.66 .0001 0.0593
Error 454 8218.4218 18.1022
Total 455 8737.1557



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in vocabulary of the eighth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the eighth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced

the greatest gains in vocabulary, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means






72


and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in vocabulary were made by the eighth graders in the reading center approach than by the eighth graders in the traditional classroom approach.

For all three grade levels, students made significantly greater gains in vocabulary when they participated in the reading center approach and therefore the second hypothesis was not accepted.

Hypothesis 3. There will. be no statistically significant difference in syllabication between the reading
center group and the traditional classroom group,
as measured by the Syllabication subtest of the SDRT.

In order to test the third hypothesis, an ANOVA was performed to compare the syllabication gains between the 1975-76 reading center group and the 1976-77 traditional classroom group. The degrees of freedom, sum of squares, mean squares, F value, and R-square are presented in Table 10 for the sixth grade, Table 11 for the seventh grade, and Table 12 for the eighth grade.






73


Table 10

ANOVA for Differences in Syllabication Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Syllabication Sixth Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 624.1856 624.1856 56.97 .0 001 0. 107 0
Error 475 5204.4600 10.9567
Total 476 5828.6457



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in syllabication of the sixth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the sixth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in syllabication, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in syllabication were made by the sixth graders in the reading center approach than by the sixth graders in the traditional classroom approach.





74


Table 11

ANOVA for Differences in Syllabication Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Syllabication Seventh Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 746.4997 624.1856 75.65 .0001 0.1272 Error 519 5121.3774 10.9567
Total 520 5876.8771



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in syllabication of the seventh graders who participated in the reading center approach and the seventh graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in syllabication, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. on the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in syllabication were made by the seventh graders in the reading center approach than by the seventh graders in the traditional classroom approach.





75


Table 12

ANOVA f or Differences in Syllabication Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Syllabication Eighth Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Sqaure Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 733.7527 733.7527 54.95 .0001 0.1079 Error 454 6062.0367 13.3525
Total 455 6705.7894



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in syllabication of the eighth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the eighth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in syllabication, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in syllabication were made by the eighth graders in the reading center approach than by the eighth graders in the traditional classroom approach.





76


For all three grade levels, students made significantly greater gains in syllabication when they participated in the reading center approach and therefore the third hypothesis was not accepted.

Hypothesis 4. There will be no statistically significant difference in sound discrimination between the reading center group and the traditional classroom group, as measured by the Sound Discrimination
subest of the SDRT.

In order to test the fourth hypothesis, an ANOVA was

performed to compare the sound discrimination gains between the 1975-76 reading center group and the 1976-77 traditional classroom group. The degrees of freedom, sum of squares, mean squares, F value, and R-square are presented in Table 13 for the sixth grade, Table 14 for the seventh grade, and Table 15 for the eighth grade.


Table 13

AINOVA for Differences in Sound Discrimination Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Sound Discrimination Sixth Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 281.8120 281.8120 15.97 .001 0.0325
Error 475 8384.1124 17.6507
Total 475 8665.9245



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in sound discrimination of the sixth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the sixth






77


graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in sound discrimination, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in sound discrimination were made by the sixth graders in the reading center approach than by the sixth graders in the traditional classroom approach.


Table 14

ANOVA for Differences in Sound Discrimination Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Sound Discrimination Seventh Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 235.7709 235.7709 13.93 .002 0.0261
Error 519 8783.0121 16.9229
Total 520 9018.7831



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in sound discrimination of the seventh graders who participated in the reading center approach and the seventh graders who participated in the traditional classroom









approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in sound discrimination, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in sound discrimination were made by the seventh graders in the reading center approach than by the seventh graders in the traditional classroom approach.


Table 15

ANOVA for Differences in Sound Discrimination Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Sound Discrimination Eighth Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 666.5175 666.5175 47.28 .0001 0.0943
Error 454 6400.4999 14.0980
Total 455 7067.0175



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in sound discrimination of the eighth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the eighth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in sound discrimination, it was





79


necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in sound discrimination were made by the eighth graders in the reading center approach than by the eighth graders in the traditional classroom approach.

For all three grade levels, students made significantly greater gains in sound discrimination when they participated in the reading center approach and therefore the fourth null hypothesis was not accepted.

Hypothesis 5. There will be iio statistically significant difference in blending between the reading center group and the traditional classroom group, as measured
by the Blending subtest of the SDRT.

In order to test the fifth hypothesis, an ANOVA was

performed to compare the blending gains betweeen the 1975-76 reading center group and the 1976-77 traditional classroom group. The degrees of freedom, sum of square, mean squares, F value, and R-square are presented in Table 16 for the sixth grade, Table 17 for the seventh grade, and Table 18 f or the eighth grade.


I






80


Table 16

ANOVA for Differences in Blending Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Blending Sixth Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF _Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 1863.7736 1863.7736 72.86 .0001 0.1329 Error 475 12150.3018 25.5795
Total 476 14014.0754



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in blending of the sixth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the sixth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in blending, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in blending were made by the sixth graders in the reading center approach than by the sixth graders in the traditional classroom approach.





81


Table 17

ANOVA for Differences in Blending Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Blending Seventh Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 2137.8625 2137.8625 77.59 .0001 0.1300 Error 519 14301.0510 27.5550
Total 520 16438.9136



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in blending of the seventh graders who participated in the reading center approach and the seventh graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in blending, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. on the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in blending were made by the seventh graders in the reading center approach than by the seventh graders in the traditional approach.






82


Table 18

ANOVA for Differences in Blending Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Blending Eighth Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 1169.5478 1169.5478 54.79 .0001 0.1076 Error 454 9691.4323 21.3467
Total 455 10860.9802



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in blending of the eighth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the eighth graders who participated i~n the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the

greatest gains in blending, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in blending were made by the eighth graders in the reading center approach than by the eighth graders in the traditional classroom approach.

For all three grade levels, students made significantly greater gains in blending when they participated in the reading center approach and therefore the fifth null hypothesis was not accepted.






83


Hypothesis 6. There will be no statistically significant difference in reading rate between the
reading center group and the traditional classroom group, as measured by the Rate subtest of the SDRT.

In order to test the sixth hypothesis, an ANOVA was

performed to compare the blending gains between the 1975-76 reading center group and the 1976-77 traditional classroom group. The degrees of freedom, sum of squares, mean squares, F value, and R-square are presented in Table 19 for the sixth grade, Table 20 for the seventh grade, and Table 21 for the eighth grade.


Table 19

ANOVA for Differences in Reading Rate Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Reading Rate Sixth Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 1652.0221 1652.0221 76.99 .0001 0.1394 Error 475 10192.5480 21.4579
Total 476 11844.5702



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in reading rate of the sixth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the sixth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in reading rate, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents






84


the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in reading rate were made by the sixth graders in the reading center approach than by the sixth graders in the traditional classroom approach.


Table 20

ANOVA for Differences in Reading Rate Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Reading Rate Seventh Grade
Sum of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 1848.0056 1848.0056 79.75 .0001 0.1331 Error 519 12026.1939 23.1718
Total 520 13874.1996



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in reading rate of the seventh graders who participated in the reading center approach and the seventh graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in reading rate, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was






85


made that greater gains in reading rate were made by the seventh graders in the reading center approach than by the seventh graders in the traditional classroom approach.


Table 21

ANOVA for Differences in Reading Rate Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach


Dependent Variable: Reading Rate Eighth Grade
Suim of Mean F R
Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square

Treatment 1 2321.3789 2321.3789 87.42 .0001 0.1614 Error 454 12055.6188 26.5542
Total 455 14376.9978



The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in reading rate of the eighth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the eighth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in reading rate, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. on the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in reading rate were made by the eighth graders in the reading center approach than by the eighth graders in the traditional classroom approach.






86


For all three grade levels, students made significantly greater gains in reading rate when they participated in the reading center approach and as a consequence the sixth hypothesis was not accepted.


Summary of Analyses

In summary, there were statistically significant

differences between the results of reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach to reading instruction on all six hypotheses. The MANOVA procedure indicated that there were significant differences between the two approaches when the individual hypotheses were treated as a whole. The ANOVA procedure was then used to determine where specific significant differences might lie. From these analyses, it was learned that none of the six hypotheses at any of the three grade levels were accepted since there were significant differences in each instance. By examining the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach it was learned that for each of the six hypotheses in all three grade levels, the reading center approach produced the greatest gains in reading test scores.















CHAPTER V


CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS


The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences in reading gains existed between scores obtained from middle school students who participated in a reading center based on an adaptation of the P.K. Yonge model and those scores obtained from the same middle school students who participated in a traditional classroom approach to reading the following year. The reading center approach was taught by two teachers, both of whom had completed the training program at the P.K. Yonge Laboratory School which gave them the skills needed to implement this approach. The traditional approach was taught by six experienced reading teachers who met during the data collection period to insure that similar techniques and materials were being used to teach the students participating in this program.

The two approaches were compared by analyzing gains made between the pre and posttest scores of the following subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (SDRT), Level II: Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary, Syllabication, Sound Discrimination, Blending, and Reading Rat-e. For both groups, Form W of the SDRT was used as the pretest and Form X as the posttest.


87






88


Conclusions

In order to investigate the differences in the two

organizational approaches to teaching reading, six related hypotheses were tested. The hypotheses were tested by means of the Statistical Analysis System (Barr and others, 1976) MANOVA procedure. The multivariate statistic used was Pillai's Trace and an F approximation was reported in conjunction with this statistic. Univariate ANOVAs were also computed separately for each of the six subtests to test the specific hypotheses and an alpha level of .01 was used to determine statistical significance. The hypotheses are restated below followed by the conclusions drawn from the results of the study.

Hypothesis 1. There will be no statistically significant difference in reading comprehension between the reading center group and the traditional class group,
as measured by the Reading Comprehension subtest of
the SDRT.

Hypothesis 2. There will be no statistically significant difference in vocabulary between the reading
center group and the traditional class group, as
measured by the Vocabulary subtest of the SDRT.

Hypothesis 3. There will be no statistically significant difference in syllabication between the reading
center group and the traditional class group, as
measured by the Syllabication subtest of the SDRT.

Hypothesis 4. There will be no statistically significant difference in sound discrimination between the
reading center group and the traditional class group,
as measured by the Sound Discrimination subtest of the
SDRT.

Hypothesis 5. There will be no statistically significant difference in blending between the reading center
group and the traditional class group, as measured by
the Blending subtest of the SDRT.






89


Hypothesis 6. There will be no statistically significant difference in reading rate between the reading
center group and the traditional class group, as measured by the Reading Rate subtest of the SDRT.

The multivariate analyses that were performed indicated that there were significant differences between the two treatments. In order to ascertain where the differences were, univariate analyses were performed. On the basis of these statistical analyses, the conclusion was drawn that there were significant differences between the two approaches for all six of the previously stated hypotheses at the sixth, seventh, and the eighth grade levels. By studying the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gains, it was impossible to conclude that the reading center approach produced the greatest gains for all six subtests at all three grade levels. As a consequence, none of the six null hypotheses were accepted.


Discussion and Interpretation

The statistical analyses of the six hypotheses in this study indicated significance in favor of the reading center approach, and this was viewed as helpful in the evaluation of two types of reading programs designed to meet the needs of middle school students. However, the limited population and duration of the study preclude generalized inferences beyond the local setting of the middle school in Gainesville, Florida.






90


It appeared that the reading center had several factors which may have contributed tc its success. For example, a major factor could have been the active involvement students had in the learning process, which may have resulted in an increased student sense of responsibility. This may also have spurred them on to work harder while they were in the rE'ading center. After students were pretested for the reading center approach, they had an individual conference. During this time their test results were explained to them in terms of their strengths and they were asked to choose skill areas to work on during their time in the reading center. Students also were asked to set attainable goals for the posttest so that they had some tangible measure for which to work. Furthermore, students took part in the selecting of materials that they worked in during the reading center. Students played an active role in the learning process of this approach. They were aware of the fact that the assignments they were prescribed were designed to improve the skill areas that they chose to work on. The continuous dialogue that the comment sheets in student folders provided, also aided in establishing rapport and communication between the student and the reading teacher. The structure of this approach demanded that the reading teacher and the student work cooperatively.




Full Text

PAGE 1

A COMPARISON OF TWO ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACHES TO READING INSTRUCTION IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL By VICKI LAFRENIERE WELSCH A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1977

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Gratefully I would like to acknowledge the support, aid, and encouragement I received from my chairperson. Dr. Ruthellen Crews. She was my guide when I was lost, my light when I was in darkness, and my strength when I was tired. My gratitude is extended to Dr. Lawrence Smith, Dr. Ralph Kimbrough, and Dr. Vincent McGuire for their forceful teaching and the sharing of their wise counsel. My sincere appreciation is extended to Maria Llabre and Dr. Robert Soar who came to my assistance when Dr. Vynce Hines was taken ill. Although Dr. Hines was unable to see the study to its completion, I would like to thank him for his invaluable assistance, guidance, and friendship I would also like to thank my husband, Boyd, for his unending love, endurance, aid, and compassion during the inception and completion of the study. More than anyone else I would like to thank my parents who taught me the value of an education and gave me the opportunity to receive one. There is no way that I could ever repay them for making me what I am. Toward that end I would like to dedicate this study to my father, Robert B. LaFreniere, a man of his times and a man for all times.

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i i LIST OF TABLES v ABSTRACT viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 The Problem 2 Assumptions 6 Definition of Terms 6 Procedures 10 Hypotheses 14 Organization of the Remainder of the Study... 16 II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 17 Rationale for Reading Instruction in the Middle School 17 Approaches to Teaching Reading in the Middle School 22 Summary and Implications 4 5 III METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION 4 8 Sample 49 Instrumentation 50 Treatment 51 iii

PAGE 4

IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 61 MANOVA Results 62 Tests of the Hypotheses 63 Sununary of Analyses , 86 V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 8 7 Conclusions 88 Discussion and Interpretation 89 Implications for Future Research 93 APPENDIX A PROFILE CHART 95 APPENDIX B PRESCRIPTION SHEET 96 BIBLIOGRAPHY 97 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 108 iv

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Teaching Experience and Training in Reading of Teachers Participating in Traditional Approach 13 2 Black Other Ratio of the Sample 49 3 ANOVA for Differences in Reading Comprehension Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach 64 4 Means and Standard Deviations of the Pretest Scores, Posttest Scores, and the Gain Scores for the Reading Center Approach and the Traditional Classroom Approach 65 5 ANOVA for Differences in Reading Comprehension Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach to Reading 67 6 ANOVA for Differences in Reading Comprehension Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach 68 7 ANOVA for Differences in Vocabulary Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach 69 8 ANOVA for Differences in Vocabulary Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach 7 0 V

PAGE 6

ANOVA for Differences in Vocabulary Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach , ANOVA for Differences in Syllabication Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach ANOVA for Differences in Syllabication Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach ANOVA for Differences in Syllabication Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach ANOVA for Differences in Sound Discrimination Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach ANOVA for Differences in Sound Discrimination Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach ANOVA for Differences in Sound Discrimination Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach ANOVA for Differences in Blending Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach

PAGE 7

ANOVA for Differences in Blending Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach ANOVA for Differences in Blending Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach ANOVA for Differences in Reading Rate Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach ANOVA for Differences in Reading Rate Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach ^ ANOVA for Differences in Reading Rate Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach vii

PAGE 8

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy A COMPARISON OF TWO ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACHES TO READING INSTRUCTION IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL By Vicki LaFreniere Welsch June, 1977 Chairperson: Ruthellen Crews Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences in reading gains existed between the reading scores obtained from middle school students who participated for twelve weeks in a reading center based on the P.K. Yonge model and those scores obtained from the same middle school students who participated for the same amount of time in a traditional classroom approach to reading the following year. Gains were measured by pre and posttest scores from the following subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (SORT), Level II: Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary, Syllabication, Sound Discrimination, Blending, and Reading Rate. The sample for the study consisted of 7 04 students (360 males and 344 females) who worked on their reading skills in the reading center in a middle school in Gainesville, Florida during the 1975-76 school year and 755 students (382 males and 373 females) from the same middle viii

PAGE 9

school who participated in a traditional classroom approach to reading instruction during the 1976-77 school year. There were 220 sixth graders, 283 seventh graders, and 201 eighth graders who participated in the study during the 197576 reading center and 257 sixth graders, 238 seventh graders, and 255 eighth graders who participated in the 197677 traditional classroom approach. Fifty-three percent of the student body were on either free or reduced lunch, fifty-nine percent of the students were transported by bus from various parts of town, and forty-three percent of the students were Black while fifty-seven percent were classified as Other. The treatment of the reading center group consisted of reading instruction by means of the adapted P.K. Yonge model. This model was designed to incorporate counseling techniques with reading instruction. Students were encouraged to work on specific skill needs that they identified on the basis of their pretest scores which they discussed with the teacher during an initial conference. Besides these specific needs, students also worked on other skills as were indicated by the reading teacher. Instruction in the reading center approach was scheduled on twelve week cycles with students coming to the reading center from their language arts classes on alternate days for a total of twelve weeks. During this time, students participated in the following activities: pretesting followed by an ix

PAGE 10

individual conference, eight weeks of skill instruction, and posttesting followed by a final individual conference during which the student and teacher discussed progress the student had made in reading. The traditional classroom approach to reading consisted of reading instruction on a daily basis throughout the year. The materials consisted of a basal series supplemented by materials used in the reading center the previous year. For both the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach classes were homogeneously grouped according to reading achievement. The statistical analyses of pre and post test scores were done using the statistical analysis system MANOVA procedure. The multivariate statistic used was Pillai's Trace. Univariate ANOVAs were also computed for each of the six subtests to test for significant differences in the pre and post test scores. There were statistically significant differences between the results of the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach to reading instruction on all of the SORT subtests. At all three grade levels the results of the sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students favored the reading center approach. X

PAGE 11

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Increasing concern has arisen because of students' deficiencies in reading. The realization that reading plays an important role in a person's daily life activities, school progress, recreation, personal and social adjustment, and citizenship has greatly increased this concern. This concern increases when students in the middle and secondary schools are deficient in reading skills. This generalized anxious sensation has consequently led to the development and trial of many types of reading programs. Very often the innovative reading programs are implemented one year and then replaced the next year by another program that on the surface appears to be better. The situation then becomes one of constant innovation with little evaluation to perceive if significant differences were demonstrated by the various methods. In spite of great expenditures of time, money, and effort, major problems persist in the attempt to provide adequate reading instruction for all students . 1

PAGE 12

The Problem Statement of the Problem The purpose of this investigation was to determine if significant differences in reading gains, as measured by the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Level II, existed between scores obtained from middle school students who participated in a reading center based on an adaptation of the P.K. Yonge model, and those scores obtained from the same middle school students who participated in a traditional classroom approach to reading. These differences were measured by comparing the pre and post test results of students who participated in the reading center in the 1975-76 school year and pre-posttest results of students who participated in a traditional classroom approach to reading during the 1976-77 school year. Students' results were compared on the basis of the following six subjects of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Level II: Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary, Syllabication, Sound Discrimination, Blending, and Reading Rate. Delimitations and Limitations The present study was confined to the 704 students who participated in the reading center during 1975-76 and 755 students who participated in a traditional approach to reading during 1976-77. All participating students were enrolled at a middle school in Gainesville, Florida.

PAGE 13

3 Since the reading center cycled at twelve week intervals, data regarding the dependent variables for this group were gathered at twelve week intervals. In order to equate the two approaches, data for the traditional approach were gathered at twelve week intervals during 1976-77. The dependent variables included reading comprehension, vocabulary, syllabication, sound discrimination, blending, and reading rate as measued by the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test , Level II, in 1975-76 for the reading center group and 1976-77 for the traditional group. The major limitation of the study appeared to be the inability to control for the history (e.g., other events occurring between the 1975-76 measurement of the reading center group and the 1976-77 measurement of the traditional group) . Another limitation stemmed from the fact that the study was limited to students enrolled at one middle school in Gainesville, Florida. Since the reading center approach cycled at twelve week intervals the study was limited to a comparison of the two approaches for only twelve weeks and this again limited the generalizations that were able to be made from the study. Justification for the Study There were four major justifications for a comparison study of the reading gains of students in a P.K. Yonge reading center approach as opposed to those in a traditional approach.

PAGE 14

4 The first justification revolved around the fact that reading skill deficiencies of all students have become a national concern. When students are promoted to higher grades, this concern is naturally heightened. The declining acceleration of reading gains beginning at grade four and continuing through high school has been attributed to purposeless, nonsystematic teaching strategies (Hoyt and Blackmore, 1960) . Karlin (1960) stated that since the ability to solve problems depends in large measure upon the ability to read, it is clear that success in school, particularly in the upper grades, is closely related to the ability to read. According to Glasser (1969), in most schools where children fail, the major academic failure recognizable to both the children and teachers is the failure to read. Adequate solutions to the problem have not been found so that there is still a need for studies that demonstrate which programs are significantly better or are significantly worse. Any data that would add to the knowledge of this problem area would be most beneficial to the field of reading in general and more specifically to those who plan the curricula within the schools. The second justification dealt with the fact that there has not been much research of this nature done in the middle school. The lack of research may be attributed to the fact that the middle school is a relatively new concept of school philosophy and organization and many

PAGE 15

5 innovative efforts have been undertaken, but because of the recency of implementation many innovations have not been adequately evaluated. The third justification for this study lay in the fact that, heretofore, many studies in reading dealt with the effects of different approaches on remedial students (Early, 1967; Freed, 1973; and Gordon, 1968). When establishing reading programs, schools have not taken into consideration the fact that the average reader may have potential to become a superior reader and consequently the student who is able to get by is condemned to do just that (Casters, 1963) . Because reading programs often offer little in the way of a systematic program of reading instruction for all students beyond the early grades, we are creating students who may know how to read, but who do not use reading effectively. Mastery of reading skills is a longterm process and cannot be neglected beyond the beginning stages (Moray, 1975) . This study was designed to deal with the effects of two types of programs on all students except those enrolled in special classes (E.M.R., Title I, and S.L.D.). The fourth justification for the study was the practical need for such a study in the particular county where the study was conducted. The study represented an attempt to test if there were any significant differences in reading gains when different types of reading approaches

PAGE 16

6 were used. Specifically, this study was planned to determine if the abandonment of a P.K. Yonge reading center approach as adapted for appropriate use in one specific middle school was justified in terms of statistical analysis. Assumptions One of the essential assumptions underlying this study was that the uncontrolled variables that might have a significant effect were randomly distributed between the reading center group and the traditional group. More specifically, pre-experimental equivalence was assumed since the two groups were composed of all middle school students in the same school for a two-year period. It was also assumed that there was no threat to internal validity because of testing, the effects of a pretest on subsequent observed behavior, since equivalent forms of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test were used for the pre and post test For both the reading center group and the traditional group Form W constituted the pretest and Form X the post test. It was also assiamed that the intervening variable of history was equivalent for both groups. Definition of Terms Blending referred to the Blending subtest scores obtained on the pre and posttests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test , (SORT), Level II, Forms W and X.

PAGE 17

7 Comprehension referred to the Comprehension subtest scores obtained on the pre and posttests of the SORT , Level II, Forms W and X. According to the authors, this test was designed to test paragraph comprehension. Developmental reading in this study referred to a reading program which served students regardless of how efficient or inefficient a reader they may be. Individualized reading as used in this study referred to a means of providing for individual differences. It adapted methods and materials to the wide range of individual differences. Middle school as used in this study was a school providing a program planned for a range of older children, preadolescents, and early adolescents that built upon the elementary school program for earlier childhood and in turn was built by the high school program for adolescents (Alexander, 1969) . P.K. Yonge model referred to the foundations of the program for the reading center group. In this model, students came to the reading center two days one week and three days the next and this continued for eight weeks. Students came during their language arts period and the teacher accompanied them and acted as a helper when needed. Before students came to the reading center, they were given the SORT , Level II, Form W and they had an individual confe rence. During the conference, the test results were

PAGE 18

8 explained to the student and the student was asked to choose areas he felt he needed to work on. During this time in the reading center, the student concentrated on the areas of concern as identified by the reading teacher. The skill areas students were able to choose from included comprehension, vocabulary, syllabication, sound discrimination, blending, and rate. At the end of the instructional period, students were given the posttest, SORT, Level II, Form X. After taking the posttest, students had an individual conference and their progress and their remaining needs and goals were discussed. During the every-other-day that the student was not in reading center he/she was in language arts, and during this time the reading teacher wrote individual prescriptions in every student's folder. When students completed their reading prescriptions for the day, they, in turn, wrote coimnents back to the reading teacher. This program was adapted for the particular middle school used in this study in that reading instruction was for eight weeks as opposed to six weeks as used at P.K. Yonge School. The other four weeks of the cycle included two weeks for pre and posttesting and two weeks for pre and post conferencing. Also, more direct instruction was provided for students through directed reading activities than is usually provided in the P.K. Yonge model.

PAGE 19

9 Reading center group referred to sixth, seventh, and eighth graders who participated in the reading program based on the P.K. Yonge adapted model during 1975-76. Students were homogeneously grouped in the classes that participated in this approach. Reading rate referred to the scores obtained on the Reading Rate subtest on the SORT , Level II, Forms W and X. According to the authors, rate of reading reflects the speed with which a person habitually reads with comprehension and the efficiency with which he is able to decode the words read. Sound discrimination in this study referred to the scores obtained on the Sound Discrimination subtest of the SORT , Level II, Forms W and X. According to the test authors, this subtest assessed the student's knowledge of common and variant spellings of the sounds of the English language. Syllabication in the present study referred to the v scores obtained on the Syllabication subtest of the SORT , Level II, Forms W and X. According to the test's authors, this subtest evaluated the student's ability to divide words into syllables. Although the test itself required the student to indicate the initial syllable of a word, the authors stated that experimentation with different ways of testing this skill has revealed that the major syllabication rules can be tested most easily if the format of their syllabication test is followed.

PAGE 20

10 Traditional classroom approach to reading in the present study referred to the sixth, seventh, and eighth graders who in 1976-77 received their reading instruction in a regular classroom setting. In this approach the reading class met everyday for a year, was taught by one teacher, and used a basal series supplemented by other selected reading materials. Classes participating in this approach were homogeneously grouped with sub-grouping to take into account skill needs. Procedures Description of the Sample The sample for the reading center group consisted of 220 sixth graders, 283 seventh graders, and 201 eighth graders who participated in the reading center program during the 1975-76 middle school year at a middle school in Gainesville, Florida. This sample was composed of students in language arts classes, and therefore j.M.R^, S.L.D. and Title I students were excluded. During their time in reading center, students were taught by the same reading teacher and until January, 1976 there were two reading teachers in the center. The sample for the traditional classroom approach to reading consisted of 257 sixth graders, 238 seventh graders, and 255 eighth graders who were enrolled in the reading classes at the aforementioned middle school during 1976-77.

PAGE 21

11 This sample included students who participated in the reading center approach, new students, and new sixth graders. This sample was given reading instruction by six different teachers, including the one teacher who taught students in the reading center for the entire 1975-76 school year. Treatment of the Reading Center and Traditional Class Groups The treatment of the reading center group consisted of reading instruction delivered by means of the adapted P.K. Yonge model. This model was designed to incorporate counseling techniques with reading, and students were encouraged to work in specific skill needs that they recognized on the basis of their pretest and initial conference. Besides these specific needs, students also worked on other skills represented by the subtests of the SORT . The teachers, language arts and reading, who participated in the reading center all attended a four day workshop at P.K. Yonge Laboratory School. During the workshop, the teachers went through the experience of being students in a developmental reading laboratory at their own level of competency. During the first session, a standardized reading test was administered and scored. Following this there was an interpretation of scores based on college norms. Counseling and goal setting was then experienced by each teacher while he/she developed his/her own individualized reading program. The philosophy, methodology, and

PAGE 22

12 materials were studied within this framework during the remainder of the sessions. In this way all the involved teachers received a similar background and training for the reading center program (Guttenger and Hines, 1977). The traditional class approach to reading consisted of reading instruction on a daily basis. The materials consisted of a basal series supplemented by materials used in the reading center. The six reading teachers met on a regular basis to plan and share materials. Students were grouped within the homogeneous class in order to insure that an individual student's skill needs were met. The SORT was used to diagnose these needs. Table 1 illustrates the number of years of teaching experience and the training each of the six teachers who participated in the traditional approach have had. * In order to insure that instruction was similar for all / students involved in the traditional approach, the reading teachers planned regular inservice meetings so that materials, ideas, and methods of organization were shared. The teachers committed themselves to this form of unified reading instruction during the period in which data was collected. Instrumentation The instrument used to collect data pertaining to the dependent variables was the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (SORT), Level II, Forms W and X. Form W was used to

PAGE 23

13 Table 1 Teaching Experience and Training in Reading of Teachers Participating in Traditional Approach Teacher Years of Teaching Experience Training in Reading M.Ed, and working 1 3 on Ph.d. 2 5 M.Ed. M.Ed, and working 3 7 on Ph.d. 4 3 working on M.Ed. undergraduate training in elementary educa5 2 tion and reading 6 2 working on reading certification

PAGE 24

14 collect posttest data. Data for the reading center group were collected at twelve week intervals during the 1975-76 school year. Data for the traditional class group participating in this study were collected at the beginning and end of the twelve weeks tested in this study during the 1976-77 school year. Standardization of the instrument was conducted in October, 1965 on 120,000 cases in six school systems. Since the norms were determined at one point in time, use of norms appeared neither easier nor more difficult than they should be. It was assumed that this effect would be approximately uniform across subtests so that identification of strengths and weaknesses would not be adversely affected. Reliability data for the SORT were obtained using the split-half reliability coefficients and standard errors of measurement. According to the test authors, the validity of the SORT has been indicated by the evidence of the test's ability to measure the main facets of reading. Hypotheses The present study tried to determine if significant differences in reading gains, as measured by the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test , existed between scores obtained from students who participated in a reading center, based on the P.K. Yonge model, and those scores obtained from students who participated in a traditional classroom

PAGE 25

15 approach to reading. From this problem statement the specific null hypotheses were generated and in each instance an alpha level of .01 was used to determine if the hypotheses should be accepted. 1. There will be no statistically significant difference in reading comprehension between the reading center group and the traditional class group, as measured by the Reading Comprehension subtest of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test ( SORT ) . 2. There will be no statistically significant difference in vocabulary between the reading center group and the traditional class group, as measured by the Vocabulary subtest of the SORT . 3. There will be no statistically significant difference in syllabication between the reading center group and the traditional class group, as measured by the Syllabication subtest of the SORT . 4. There will be no statistically significant difference in sound discrimination between the reading center group and the traditional class group, as measured by the Sound Discrimination subtest of the SORT. 5. There will be no statistically significant difference in blending between the reading center

PAGE 26

16 group and the traditional class group, as measured by the Blending subtest of the SORT . 6. There will be no statistically significant difference in reading rate between the reading center group and the traditional class group, as measured by the Rate subtest of the SORT . Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter II contains a review of related lieterature and research. Chapter III is a discussion of the methodology and data collection. Chapter IV presents the results of this study, and Chapter V contains a summary and conclusions of the investigation.

PAGE 27

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A consideration of the relationship between success in reading subskills and organizational approaches used in reading instruction demands a preliminary understanding of several fields of knowledge which relate to the question. First, why are reading programs needed in the middle grades? Next, what approaches have been used in teaching reading in the middle school and what does research indicate regarding the effects of each approach? And last, what are the implications of this research for this study? Rationale for Reading Instruction in the Middle School As children move up the educational ladder, the spread in reading ability appears to be increased. Research studies which have presented a rationale for scholastic reading programs beyond the elementary grades have reported a lag between grade norms and mean achievement. This lag began in grade four and increased throughout the junior high and high school years according to Peyton and Below (1965) , Cooper (1965), Ramsey (1963), and Young (1956). Morrison and Perry (1959) and Hoyt and Blackmore (1960) concluded that the minus deviation in achievement and expected 17

PAGE 28

18 achievement in reading could be attributed to purposeless, nonsystematic teaching methods used in the middle grades. The availability of federal funds in the mid-sixties stimulated the growth of many reading programs in junior high and high schools (Graham, 1968; Martin, 1969). The guidelines of the compensatory programs demanded that most of these reading programs have been successful for some students, but the remedial programs reached only a small percentage of the total school population and the costs have been high and the results often disappointing (Carrision, 1973; Evans, 1972; Ireland, 1973; Riessman, 1972). Karlin (1972) pointed out that remedial reading classes have not provided the solution to the total problem of improving the reading skills of all students. Karlin (1960) stated that since the ability to solve problems depended in a large measure upon the ability to read, it was clear that success in school, particularly in the upper grades, was closely related to the ability to read. According to Glasser (1969) , in most schools where children failed, the major academic failure recognizable to both the children and teachers was failure to read. By the fifth or sixth grade level many students have learned to recognize and call words adequately, but these skills are not the end of reading instruction. The need for advanced reading skills arises as the student advances (Strang, McCullough, and Traxler, 1967). Moray (1975)

PAGE 29

19 stated that because reading programs often offer little in the way of a systematic program for reading instruction beyond the early grades, we were creating students who knew how to read, but who did not use reading effectively. Mastery of reading skills is a longterm process and cannot be neglected beyond the beginning stages. Moray (1975) also suggested that reading in the intermediate grades and above be taught as part of a language arts program. This was suggested so that reading would not be isolated from the other language arts skills. Weisse (1969) asserted that reading was a thinking process and in the junior high it should become more than a process that aims merely at understanding written work. At this stage reading should become heavily concerned with critical and creative evaluation and interpretation, and consequently the teaching of reading is more complicated. Gray (1948) stated that a sound reading program was : concerned not only with correcting deficiencies among poor readers but also with systematic training which aims to promote increased ability on the part of all students in harmony with the increasing demands made on them for mature, critical reading. (p. 59) Harris (1969) attested to the fact that children who were already reading at an average or even slightly above average level, but who were so bright that their reading skills should be far higher than their present competence were frequently overlooked because they were not failing. The gap that existed between their estimated reading level

PAGE 30

20 and their observed reading level was sometimes distressingly large and these students should be given the opportunity to close the gap and become superior readers. Because adequate provisions have not been made for the continuation of reading instruction beyond the elementary grades, for average or retarded readers, many previously taught skills are not reinforced or even applied. Niles (Goodman and Niles, 1970) cited the need for the student to consolidate what has been previously learned and to develop the more complex reading skills. She pointed out that many students in the elementary grades were not mature enough to understand the more advanced levels of many reading skills and, therefore, these advanced skills could be most effectively taught in the junior high and high school. Strang (1969) noted that in the middle grades: location-of-inf ormation skills and paragraph comprehension should be mastered; interpretative and critical reading should be introduced as appropriate to the reading material. Reading interests should be broadened. (p. 17) Strang (1966) also pointed out that junior high school administrators and staff have the following three main responsibilities: 1) to give all pupils opportunities to reinforce and apply the reading skills they have already acquired, 2) to help the retarded readers make up their reading deficiencies so far as they have the mental abilities needed to do so, and 3) to give instruction and practice in the reading abilities needed for academic

PAGE 31

21 success. Strang stated that young adolescents are at the crossroad; they may move in a downward direction or an upward one. According to Strang, studies have shown that the peak of reading interest begins to decline after elementary school. A new pattern of school organization has been emerging which promises to provide more appropriate educational experiences for approximately one-third of the school population. This design was built upon the elementary school program and took human development and individual differences into account. Fillmer (1975, p. 1125) stated that: because interest in reading is at a peak during the middle school years and has been listed as a developmental task of transessence , it is recommended that a planned program of skill development in reading be an integral part of the middle school curriculum. (p. 1125) Fillmer (1975, p. 1123) stated that a middle school reading program should be based on the developmental tasks of the middle schooler. The program should be discrete and exist both for the purpose of improving reading skills and for helping students learn to receive personal satisfaction from reading. The program should be individualized in order to meet the needs of each student as he/she perceives these needs. Students should keep personal records of their progress in reading and should confer regularly with the reading teachers. The program should help students satisfy their need for intellectual development by helping them develop reading related skills for continued learning.

PAGE 32

22 There should be a variety of reading materials on a wide range of types and readibility available for students. Havighurst (1953, p. 2) defined a developmental task as that "which arises at or about a certain period in the life of an individual, and successful completion of which leads to unhappiness in the individual, disapproval by society, and difficulty with later tasks." Dechant (1973) stated that: reading is a developmental task. It is a task that the student must perform to satisfy personal needs so that he/she may satisfy the demands made by society. There is no adequate compensation for success in reading. In the academic work of today's school a learner cannot succeed partially. The learner either succeeds or does not, and without success in reading, success in almost any other area becomes an improbability, if not an impossibility, (p. 83) Therefore, adequate provisions for school-wide reading programs must be made if students are to progress not only in reading but in any other areas of the curriculum in the middle school. Approaches to Teaching Reading in the Middle School Since the need for reading instruction has been justified, it is important to scrutinize various approaches to teaching reading in the middle school. It would also be worthwhile to note the criteria upon which the approaches should be evaluated. Guthrie and others (1976) in an extensive study suggested that the following six components appeared to account

PAGE 33

23 for the common success of a number of reading programs: 1) academic objectives clearly stated and/or carefully planned; 2) teacher training in the methods of the program; 3) small group or individualized instruction; 4) directly relevant instruction; 5) high treatment intensity; 6) active parental involvement. Guthrie also added two more characteristics which subjectively appeared to be present. They are the following: 1) the utilization of additional reading personnel (both specialists and aides) , and 2) some sort of continuous assessment system which provided both feedback and diagnostic information. From the studies Guthrie and others (197 6) investigated, they asserted that at an organizational level, a district with successful readers has strong administrative leadership, cooperation, and involvement of staff in planning a coordinated reading program, and an atmosphere of success, rather than failure. In the studies they investigated, it was also apparent that the successful district invested its financial resources in personnel rather than facilities. The successful school program had acceptable pupil-teacher ratios, teacher aides to assist in individualizing instruction, and often a reading specialist or program coordinator. Thus, according to the research reported by Guthrie and others (1976) as well as by Wood (1976), close scrutiny of reading programs and their relative effectiveness is in order when the diverting of funds to the reading program may mean the cutting of some other program.

PAGE 34

24 Basal Program as an Approach to Reading Instruction The use of a series of integrated reading textbooks for several grade levels has a long history in American reading instruction. Noah Webster wrote the first series around 1790. In 1840 McGuffey presented his series which was based on grading the readers by degree of difficulty. The idea of a controlled, repeated vocabulary and the gradual introduction of new words was an integral part of his series. Supplementary readers were introduced about 1890; and in 1910 because of a change of emphasis in reading instruction, teachers' manuals were written to accompany each reader (Spache, 1972, pp. 31-32). A basal program consists of all the suggested or prescribed materials around which competencies and interests are developed and maintained. In addition to the basal readers, the program may include enrichment readers, associate readers, independent readers, enrichment materials, and various trade books. These materials, along with workbooks and teachers' guides, are all part of the basal program. If a teacher does not use the materials that are provided or suggested for group or individual use in conjunction with the basal textbook, a lack of understanding of what constitutes a well-rounded reading program could result in problems. Basal readers alone do not provide sufficient material or sufficient variety or scope of material (Artley, 1961) .

PAGE 35

25 Spache (1972) notes that a modern basal reader series offers systematic guidance in the development of basic reading skills by carefully planned sequences. The material offered is based upon the common backgrounds, experiences, and interests of children. The basal has a core vocabulary and its materials are scaled in difficulty, controlled in vocabulary, and sequentially arranged (p. 32) . Spache (1972) also points out: the major objections to the basal program were that no one program could possibly compensate for individual differences in learning rate or even provide for variations in learning modality of children and their need for practice in skill development. No one system could provide adequately for the varying needs at all levels of reading development in terms of the breadth and depth of experiences needed. (p. 33) Other components of basal reading programs, such as the accompanying workbooks, and the control of vocabulary, as well as, the contents of the stories included, and the sequencing of the skills presented, have been questioned regarding their effectiveness (Doctor, 1962; Harris, 1972; Rodenborn and Washborn, 1974; Saxton, 1957; and Spache, 1972), A cursory look at the current programs indicates that attempts to remedy these faults have been made by major publishers of basal series, because selected materials include a variety of subjects and types, the accompanying workbooks are more attractive and carefully planned, and filmstrips and trade books have been selected to be used for broadening the program content.

PAGE 36

26 McCormick, Carr, and O'Rand (1969) , reported that a junior high school in a San Francisco suburb successfully used a basal program to improve the reading of fourth, fifth, and sixth graders. Students who read at least a grade level above their grade placement were scheduled into a foreign language class and took no reading. Consequently no results for superior readers were reported. This study used pre and posttest results which reported a yearly mean gain of 1.1. Stine (1962) investigated the differences in attitudes and reading growth between an individualized reading program and a basal reading program in a junior high school. Five pretests were used to equate the twelve groups of seventh and eighth graders used in the doctoral study. All groups made gains in vocabulary and comprehension, as measured by the California Reading Test , but these differences were not statistically significant when the scores of the individualized group and the basal group were compared. There were few differences in attitude as measured by Strang's Incom plete Sentence Test. The individualized group did not read significantly more books but they did exhibit a wider breadth of reading interests. Dirienzo (1964) compared seventh and eighth grade pupil achievement in a basal and non-basal reading program. He used two hundred and forty students in a school with a K-8 organization. The study lasted from January until June of 1963

PAGE 37

27 and eight instructional groups were randomly assigned to either the basal or non-basal program. He found that the reading methods employed did not significantly affect achievement in reading on the six areas of reading skills measured by the Iowa Silent Reading Test . Dirienzo concluded that the amount of planning and preparation necessary in using non-basal reading programs was not justified in terms of pupil achievement in reading or teachers' efforts. Carline (1960) also compared students' performances in basal and individualized programs. He worked with seventy-two teachers in two large metropolitan school districts in Pennsylvania. He used the pre and posttest results of the districts' achievement testing program to conclude that there were no statistically significant differences between the two programs. Walker (1957) did a similar study with fourth, fifth, and sixth graders in a laboratory school whose population was composed mainly of university professors' children. Students were randomly assigned to either a basal or an individualized program at each grade level but this still did not overcome the threats to the study's validity. She found no significant differences in gains for either approach, but she did find that the individualized group read more books. The number of research studies concerning the effects of the basal program as an approach to reading instruction

PAGE 38

28 in middle school grades is small. The studies have indicated that gains in reading skills are not significantly greater than those made in the other approaches to reading instruction. It should be noted that in many instances, few, if any generalizations may be made from those studies since they often lacked control groups and representative samples. There were threats to the studies' internal and external validity. Individualized Approach to Reading Instruction In recent years the interest in individualized instruction, especially with regard to reading instruction, has been reawakened. Witty (1959) states that the dissatisfaction with some outcomes of current reading instruction by educators who have recognized the high incidence of poor reading in the schools today has helped the individualized movement. He also points out that the failure of students to develop a permanent interest in reading as a leisure time activity has also helped this movement. Allan McMahan (1952) states, "It is estimated that fewer than half of the people in the United States ever read a book; fewer than one-fifth of them ever buy a book" (p. 226) . The proponents of individualized reading believe that this approach would awaken interest in reading. W.A. Gray (1957) summarized the reasons the individualized approach has been advocated in the following statement:

PAGE 39

29 The arguments advanced by its proponents run about as follows. Children differ so widely in interests, capacity to learn, and motives that it is impossible to provide adequate stimulation and guidance through the use of the same materials and group instruction. If the child is to develop individuality, creativity, and the ability to think clearly and to interpret deeply he must not be hampered by group regimentation. Instead, he should learn to read in an environment which stimulates motives for reading, which permits full choice of materials to be read at his own rate, and receive help as needed or at scheduled times. (p. 100) Individualized practices vary widely. Darnes (1971) describes a program in which students commence study in materials written at a level of difficulty commensurate with their grade equivalent score as being exemplary. Individualized practices based on a behavioristic learning theory, using controlled sequence and reinforcement, are becoming fairly prominent in the literature, and programs have been reported which employ such elements as specific behavioral objectives based upon diagnostic test findings, prescribed materials, system approaches, and the learner motivation which results from observing improvement by keeping a record of progress (Anderson, 1969; Cranney, 1965; and Williams, 1971) . Individualized practices based on the cognitive field theory have been used when self -directed activity is emphasized. These practices range from some choice among objectives to a broad choice of materials and activities dependent upon student interests and the establishment of student goals (Klausner, 1971) .

PAGE 40

30 Various definitions and descriptions have been given for individualized reading but Mary Lazar's (1957) appears to be representative: Individualized Reading is a way of thinking about reading an attitude toward the place of reading in the curriculum, toward the materials and methods used, and toward the child's developmental needs. It is not a single method or technique but a broader way of thinking about reading which involves newer concepts concerned with class organization, materials, and the approach to the individual child. The term Individualized Reading is by no means fully descriptive but for want of a better term most proponents of this approach continue to use it. (p. 76) Willard Olson (1952) established the concepts upon which the individualized approach is based. His concepts of seeking, self-selection, and pacing have become very important when applied to the reading process. Olson also stated that the healthy child was continually engaged in the active exploration of his environment and was seeking experiences which coincided with his growth and needs, and that these tendencies were basic to learning. He further contended that pacing was the responsibility of the teacher who should provide each child with materials and experiences at a rate that insured success at that particular state of maturity. Veatch (1957) states: The individualized reading program is based upon the idea that children can and do read better, more widely and with vastly increased interest when allowed to choose their own reading materials . This is clearly in direct opposition to basal reading programs, although it does not exclude

PAGE 41

31 the books used in basal reading programs. The self-selection principle discards the well known idea of planned, sequential development of level of difficulty programs of basals. . .. (p. 161) Bohnhorst and Sellars (1959) define individualized reading in the following manner: In general, it may be said that a program of 'individualized reading instruction' is to be distinguished from a 'basal' program in that no reliance is placed on a single or common set of systematically prepared graded readers. Instead, reliance is placed on providing the child with as broad and rich a variety of reading resources as it is possible to obtain, and on guiding the child in selecting those materials and experiences most individually suited to his needs, interests, purposes, and abilities. The program for each child is more nearly individually tailored to meet his situation. Hence, the term 'individualized reading instruction', (p. 188) Several writers stated that individualized reading was a means of providing for individual differences since it adapted methods and materials to the wide range of individual differences (Beck and Bolvin, 1969; Fox and Fox, 1964; Hassett, 1975; and Poll and Allegra, 1975). Brogan and Fox (1961), Frazier (1962), Parkin (1956), and Veatch (1961), also believed that a major advantage of individualizaticn was providing for individual differences, and that this approach developed the child's desire to read. Beck and Bolvin (1969) pointed out that individualization did not necessarily mean isolation. Jacobs (1958) suggested that individualized reading was not a single method, did not eliminate group discussion, but provided for opportunities

PAGE 42

32 for individual reading at one's own rate and one's own purpose or interest, and for the development of skills needed. Lazar (1957) pointed out that "with individualized reading the child only has to keep his own place, take care of his own assets and liabilities, and use his own interest and free selection to make him a better reader" (p. 78) . Bond and Wagner (1966) like Harris (1956) expressed doubts about the individualized approach. They found it difficult to conceive that so permissive a reading atmosphere could provide for basal reading instruction in the skills and abilities essential to mature reading. They believed that reading is a complex process that must be taught systematically and that the very nature of individualized reading tends to indicate that instruction would not be very systematic. They also questioned whether younger children could sustain their interest for the long periods in which they work alone. Harris (1956) also stated that individualized reading caused children to read more and show greater interest in reading, but there was no evidence that it was a superior method for teaching proficiency. Davis and Lucas (1971) conducted a study with two intermediate schools, with grades six through eight, in Santa Clara, California. Both the experimental and control groups were selected at random. Approximately half of the five hundred and fifty-four students served as controls using a basal program and half as the experimental group

PAGE 43

33 using an individualized approach. The experiment was conducted for an entire year and the results showed that the individualized group gained significantly over the control group in reading rate, but the two groups were approximately the same in vocabulary and comprehension. However, the authors concluded that an individualized reading program is better for this age group than the basal program. Generalizations from this study are limited, however, because the population consisted only of middle class white students . Davidoff, Kravitz, and Moose (1971) reported on a study done with disadvantaged children in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The experimental group emphasized individual instruction with a large variety of materials. The scores of the experimental group were compared with those of children in a traditional basal reading program. The experimental group was individually diagnosed and specific prescriptions were written for each child but this was not done for the control group. This factor may explain why significant gains were made by the experimental group in vocabulary and comprehension. Karlin (1957) reported the results of a study of fourth, fifth, and sixth graders who were matched in reading ability, I.Q., and socio-economic status. The individualized reading groups showed more interest in reading and read more, but there were no significant differences between the groups

PAGE 44

34 in their gains in reading achievement. It should be noted that matching has come into disrepute in research because it is possible to match for all variables and therefore it would improve the study if pretests were used to note for significant differences prior to the study. Safford (1960) tried to determine if the individualized approach would be good to use with gifted children. He found no significant differences between the reading gains of the gifted and the average children. He found that after one year students had lower gains in reading achievement than had been true for the same children in previous years. It should be noted that generalizations from this study are limited since the population was white upper middle class. This would probably account for the reason why Bonhorst and Sellars (1959), using a different population, found that superior students profitted from this method of reading instruction. Acinapuro's (1959) doctoral study involved fourth, fifth, and sixth graders who were matched in reading ability, I.Q., and socioeconomic status. The experimental group was taught with the individualized approach and the control group with the three-ability grouping plan (above-average, average, and below average) . Using a basal reading program, the two groups did equally as well in vocabulary, but the individualized group was significantly better in silent reading comprehension and in total silent and oral reading

PAGE 45

35 achievement. Again the random assignment to the experimental and control groups did not overcome the threats posed by the matching of groups. It is impossible to control the variables that are not matched and therefore the study is weakened and fewer generalizations are able to be made. Huser (1967) concluded from her doctoral study that sixth graders did significantly better in reading achievement when taught by the individualized method than the basal textbook approach. Differences were not evidenced in grades four and five. It was also found that the intermediate grade students had a more favorable attitude toward reading when taught individually than when taught in groups. Huser concluded that the attitudes formed during the intermediate grades are as important, perhaps more so, to the future success and self-image of the preadolescent child than is reading achievement. Schwartzberg (1962) conducted a study to determine what children thought of individualized reading. From the literature it appears that many feel that the results of his study give credibility to the statement that individualized reading procedures enrich and strengthen an eclectic reading program and offer contributions to complement the basal reader. Since Schwartzberg only used thirty-nine gifted fifth graders, it seems difficult to conclude anything from his study.

PAGE 46

36 Marani and Tirris (1970) attacked reading problems in an inner-city seventh grade through a program of sequential skills development and definite motivation. This program made use of individualized pacing more than it did of individualized content. The experimental group gained 1.0 years on the average from September to June, whereas the control group gained .6 years. Studies of Duker and Stine (Hitchner, 1968) showed that no significant differences in reading growth occurred between junior high school classes who were using basal readers or SRA materials and those using individualized reading. Camper (1966) matched two groups of fourth, fifth, and sixth graders on the number of grades repeated, age, health, emotional states, socioeconomic status, reading achievement, mental ability, sex, and number of students. She found that the individual method of teaching reading was more effective with fourth, fifth, and sixth graders. Teachers and students showed a more favorable attitude toward reading and the children read significantly more books than the students taught with the group method. Liotta (1967) concluded that individual differences and needs of pupils could be equally as well served in either individualized or ability group approaches. It should be noted that this study was undertaken with intermediate grade children who were white middle class and

PAGE 47

37 who were predominantly able readers. Generalizations from this study are thus limited because of the population sampled. Gold (1963) found similar results as Liotta, but his population consisted of tenth grade public school students. The conclusions of this doctoral study are greatly limited since the population only consisted of thirty boys and ten girls . Wilson and Harrison (1963) conducted a study to determine the change in selected reading skills, vocabulary growth and reading comprehension by comparing students using basals in a conventional grouping arrangement with comparable students in an individualized reading program. Sixth grade students at Florida State University's laboratory school were used and instructional time consisted of one hour per day for each group. They found that there appeared to be no significant difference as to the instructional approach used relative to the amount of gain made by a class in the development of vocabulary and reading comprehension during one year. Once again it should be noted that the study was undertaken in a university school and not with a representative population, and therefore generalizations are limited. Harris (1956) and Spache (1969) have criticized individualized reading programs because they are not structured enough for below-average students. However,

PAGE 48

38 Fader and others' (1966) program with delinquent boys which was quite unstructured reported results which favored the individualized program, not only in terms of growth in reading skills, but also in improved attitudes tovcard school and improved interest in reading. Green's (1968) study in Texas agrees with Spache's statement since he found that the individualized approach to reading did not work well with fourth grade students who read below grade level. The conventional grouping arrangement suited this group's needs better. Green felt that these students needed more skills before they could effectively work alone. Again it should be noted that different populations are used in each study and this factor could account for the different results and conclusions. The research concerning the effects of an individualized approach to reading instruction, like that regarding the basal approach, seems to be inconclusive. Studies that report significant gains in reading skills in favor of the individualized approach often fail to control the threats to internal and external validity. As a consequence, few generalizations can be made from these studies. Reading Centers as an Organizaticnal Method for Teaching Reading In the twenty-fourth yearbook of the National Society of the Study of Education (1923) the committee on reading recognized two extreme positions being proposed for the method of teaching reading mass instruction and individu-

PAGE 49

39 alized instruction. The committee, at that time, advocated a classroom organization that allowed for both group and individualized instruction. Most authorities agree that there is no one best method of teaching reading. As the literature and research has pointed out, there are advantages and disadvantages to be found in both the traditional basal program and the individualized program, and consequently several writers (Daniel, 1956; Dawson and Bamman, 1959; Evans, 1962; Hildreth, 1958; Kirby, 1957; McCormick, 1965; Rowe and Dornhoefer, 1957; Sharpe, 1958; Stauffer, 1960; Veatch, 1961; and Witty, 1959) favor a combination of the two approaches. They contend that such a combination provides many and varied reading opportunities for children and, at the same time, provides them with a systematic program of skill development. Bennie (1973) stated that the increasing desire to individualize elementary and secondary reading has led to the establishment of individually prescribed learning or reading centers. These programs have enabled teachers to give students, with different reading skills achievement, opportunities to expand and apply their reading skills. As the presecriptive programming becomes more precise, students will experience fewer problems with their individually prescribed reading program. Sherlock (1963) pointed out that the effective use of the reading center revolves around the following six instructional activities:

PAGE 50

40 1) identifying, 2) diagnosing, 3) motivating, 4) teaching, 5) stimulating, and 6) evaluating. According to Cohen (1969, pp. 230-232) a reading center program should be based on the following seven laws of learning as proposed by Hilgard's Theories of Learning : 1. When to teach what depends upon the individual's capacity and content must, therefore, be adjusted to this capacity and to individual needs. 2. A motivated learner acquires what is to be learned more rapidly than one who is not motivated. 3. Individuals need practice in setting goals for themselves, goals neither so low as to elicit little effort nor so high as to foreordain failure. Realistic goal setting leads to more satisfactory improvement than unrealistic goal setting. 4. Active participation by a learner is preferable to passive reception. 5. Meaningful tasks are learned more effectively than tasks not understood by the learner. 6. Information about the nature of a good performance, knowledge of mistakes, and knowledge of successful results aid the learner. 7. The personal history of an individual his reaction to authority, for example may hamper or enhance his ability to learn from a given teacher.

PAGE 51

41 The reading center approach satisfies each of the above laws. For example, each student progresses at his own speed in a direction mandated by his own diagnosed strengths and weaknesses. This approach rewards the student by helping him/her discover his/her own skill problems and remediating those skills. The approach is built on achievement, success, and rewards and consequently the student is led to further achievement. The approach also matches materials to the student's strengths to ensure success, and to weaknesses to ensure growth. This approach also allows for both maximum and minimum contact between teacher and student and this aids in the attainment of the goal of law number seven. Brueckman (1964) stated that the high school reading centers used in Chicago indicated that students improved in vocabulary, rate, and comprehension. The program also helped develop a power of self-analysis within the students. Johnson (1966) discussed the success of the reading center in various schools in Virginia with students of average intelligence or above who have evidenced reading problems. Students attended the laboratory three hours a week on alternate days. Casters (1963) concluded from her doctoral study that it is necessary to determine the effects of more attention for the average reader in junior high school who potentially could become superior readers. Hetherman (1968) stated that the developmental reading center in their

PAGE 52

42 school system designed for average, above average, and remedial students greatly helped the high school students who voluntarily enrolled. Elmore (1971) also discussed the successes of their high school reading center located in Athens, Ohio. Students may voluntarily enroll as they feel a need to improve their skills but many are referred by teachers. Materials in this center are often coordinated with classroom assignments so the transfer of skills from reading center to control area classroom is made easier. Ware and Smith (1969) gave another example of a developmental reading lab in the junior high which had met with success stories. Smith and Rieback's (1971) junior high reading program consisted of students setting daily goals and experiencing their reaching them. Students were taught to examine their work and began to pinpoint the reasons for specific failures. Students, under teacher guidance, also set goals for longer periods of times. For the most part the above studies were descriptive rather than experimental. Lurie (1972) compared the effect of three approaches to the teaching of specific reading and study skills on a group of failing junior high school students. The purpose was to assess the following three methods of teaching reading and study skills to failing junior high school students of average I.Q.: 1) traditional literature oriented reading and study skills class, 2) a core curriculum

PAGE 53

43 with content area skills developed, 3) content area skills instruction in a reading class. As a result, Lurie recommended that study skills be taught in conjunction with the content in the subject area classroom rather than isolate them as a separate course. Warren (1962) presented a reading center program in which eighth graders of average mental ability were enrolled in a reading lab program three periods a week for seven weeks. The students made significant gains and the results indicated that both instruments and techniques using textual material can provide significant contributions to a reading program working with a similar population. Cawley, Chaffin, and Brunning (1965) evaluated a junior high school reading improvement program and their results indicated that a reading improvement program conducted by teachers who structure a program adjusted to the needs of students can yield significant improvement. The authors stressed the need for further study using control groups, employing paradigms wherein subjects are treated for varying periods of time, and involving subjects with different intellectual capacities and degrees of reading disability. Nasman (1966) undertook a study of a reading improvement program in the junior high school. The program was for six weeks; and based on data, the students involved in the program progressed in reading ability to a much greater degree than those not receiving the instruction. There was

PAGE 54

44 I a loss of some of the reading growth after six months and it appeared that a period of reading reinforcement would be desirous. Nasman also reported that there was no difference between morning and afternoon classes or between boys and girls. Marquis (1963) reported a study of developmental reading in which the English classes in the high school received instruction in the reading center one day a week for two semesters. Student work was kept in folders End the reading teachers wrote prescriptions to the students in these folders. Significant gains were made in comprehension and rate. Marquis also pointed out that constant attention must be devoted to student motivation, and the writing in student folders of descriptive comments regarding progress appeared to aid in motivating students. Miller (1962) stated that many junior high school reading programs are voluntary and therefore many students are not reached. There needs to be a broader and more powerful attack on reading instruction so students will be less likely to think of reading skills as characteristic of certain rooms. Thiel (1972) investigated whether retarded readers gain more reading achievement when taught by the regular classroom teacher using prescriptions written by the diagnostic teacher or when they were taught by the regular

PAGE 55

45 classroom teacher using a basal approach. She found that prescriptive teaching was as effective as, but not superior to, the basal reader approach in vocabulary building. In comprehension building, the prescriptive approach was found to be superior. Positive results have been reported for college preparatory students (Thornton, 1960; Wamba, 1961), for a twelve week class for seventh graders (Schiavone, 1960) , and for one semester courses for eleventh and twelfth graders (Dobrin, 1961) participating in a reading center. The absence of control groups and representative samples in most of these studies and the other reported studies makes it impossible to evaluate the real significance of any reported gains. The results do seem to indicate that reading instruction in a reading center after the elementary grades can have a profound effect. Summary and Implications The review of the literature disclosed that the need for developmental reading beyond the elementary grades has been realized for many years. In school, students in the intermediate grades and above are expected to use reading as a tool for learning. Curriculum guides and textbooks are based on this premise, but many students have not acquired the skills necessary to successfully deal with these materials .

PAGE 56

46 In the mid-sixties federal funds stimulated the growth of many reading programs in secondary schools but, because of the guidelines, only a small percentage of the school population was reached and the costly results were often disappointing . This chapter has described the basal approach to teaching reading, the individualized approach, and the reading center approach. The results of research studies which tested the effects of each approach were presented and were often contradictory, perhaps, because of a lack of control groups, poor definition of terms, and the use of specialized populations. The research does seem to indicate that an approach to teaching reading based on the needs of the child produces the greatest growth in reading achievement (Austin and Morrison, 1963; Bond and Dykstra, 1967; and Bond and Wagner, 1966). Diagnosis of reading abilities and deficiencies, individual instruction, and teaching techniques and materials suited to the individual child are all implied in the above statement. There is yet a need for additional research pertaining to the development of effective reading programs at the middle school levels. There is also a need to treat time as a variable in the instructional process. Quality materials and instructional aids have been available for many years. Thus, the problem may be defined as one of logistics, organization, and facilitation (Klein, 1975) . The key to

PAGE 57

47 effecting an optimal learning environment rests in the teacher's ability to utilize effective classroom management procedures. He/She must be able to group learners according to need, relate specific curriculum components to the those needs, and then continually check to insure appropriate success and developmental growth. If Hilgard's learning theories are taken into account, a reading center may be a successful organizational approach to teach reading.

PAGE 58

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION According to research (Austin and Morrison, 1963; Bond and Dykstra, 1967; and Bond and Wagner, 1966), it appears that an eclectic approach that is based on the individual needs of the student has the greatest advantages for promoting gains in reading growth. This statement implies that diagnosis of reading skills, individualized instruction, and teaching techniques and materials suited to the individual child are the major factors in a successful reading program. The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences in reading gains existed between scores obtained from middle school students who participated in a reading center approach based on the P.K. Yonge model and those scores obtained from students in the same school who participated in a basal approach the following year. The present chapter will include a description of the sample selected for the study, the tests used to measure the results of reading instruction, and the two types of instructional approaches tested in the study. 48

PAGE 59

49 Sample The sample for the study consisted of 704 students (360 males and 344 females) who worked on their reading skills in the reading center in a middle school in Gainesville, Florida, during the 1975-76 school year and 755 students (382 males and 373 females) from the same middle school who participated in a basal approach to reading instruction during the 1976-77 school year. There were 220 sixth graders, 283 seventh graders, and 201 eighth graders participating in the study during the 1975-76 reading center and 257 sixth, 238 seventh graders, and 255 eighth graders participating in the 1976-77 traditional classroom approach. Fifty-three percent of the student body were on either free or reduced lunch and fifty-nine percent of the students were transported by bus from various parts of town. Table 2 Black Other Ratio of the Sample Black Other M F M F Grade Grade Grade 6 7 8 26% 23% 18% 24% 20% 19% 28% 22% 29% 28% 35% 29% From Table 2 it is clear that the sample is representative of many populations. It is also important to note that

PAGE 60

50 the sample also consisted of rural farm students and upper middle class students who reside in a "country club" setting Instrumentation The instrument used to collect data pertaining to the dependent variables was the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test ( SORT ) , Level II, Forms W and X. Form W was used to collect pretest data and Form X was used to collect posttest data. Data for the groups in the reading center were collected at twelve week intervals during the 1975-76 school year. All six of the following subtests of the SORT were used to collect data: Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary, Syllabication, Sound Discrimination, Blending, and Reading Rate. Standardization of the SDRT was conducted in October, 1965 on 120,000 cases in six school systems. Since the norms were determined at one point in time, use of norms appeared neither easier nor more difficult than they should be. It was assumed that this effect would be approximately uniform across subtests so that the identification of strengths and weaknesses would not be adversely affected. ' Reliability data for the SDRT were obtained using the split-half reliability coefficients and standard errors of measurement. According to the test authors, the validity of the SDRT has been indicated by the evidence of the test's ability to measure the main facets of reading.

PAGE 61

51 Treatment Reading Center Approach During the 1975-76 school year reading was taught to the students at a middle school in Gainesville, Florida, by means of an individualized developmental reading center. The students who participated in the program were those who were enrolled in the language arts classes. Students in Title I, Educationally Mentally Retarded (EMR) , and Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) classes were not enrolled in the language arts classes and thereby did not participate in the reading center program. The middle school with which the study was concerned was divided into six teams called "learning communities." Each learning community had xts own math and language arts teachers who also shared the responsibilities of social studies and science instruction. The entire school shared two language arts specialists who taught the more advanced students. Consequently, each team had four language arts classes, making a total of twenty-four language arts classes. The team language arts teachers taught twelve classes and the language arts specialists taught the other twelve classes. All language arts classes were non-graded (sixth, seventh, and eighth graders mixed) , homogeneously grouped according to reading levels, and class size ranged from twenty-four to thirty-six. At the beginning of each twelve week cycle three language arts teachers brought two of their

PAGE 62

52 classes to the reading center alternating between Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of one week and Tuesday and Thursday of the following week and continued to bring the same classes following this alternating schedule for a total of twelve weeks. During the first twelve week cycle of the reading center there were two reading teachers, and therefore, there were language arts classes working in the center everyday. When a language arts class was scheduled to come to the reading center, during the first week the Stanford Diagnos tic Reading Test ( SORT ) was administered. The test administration and scoring was done by the reading teachers, and during the second week students had an individual conference. During the conference the test results were explained in terms of stanines and a profile was plotted (see Appendix A) . The scores were interpreted in terms of strengths and students were then asked to choose no more than three of the six areas tested to work on (reading comprehension, vocabulary, syllabication, sound discrimination, blending and reading rate) . Students were allowed to pick any of the six areas even if the area was a definite strength. After choosing their areas, students were asked to set goals. For example, they were asked, "How far would you like to move your vocabulary or comprehension scores up on the profile chart?" Then they were asked, "How far do you think you can move this score up by the time of the posttest at

PAGE 63

53 the end of your stay in the reading center?" Students marked their goals on their profile charts and also wrote their goals on the bottom of the profile chart. This chart was stapled inside the student's folder, underneath the work sheets so that a student's scores could be kept confidential. Students kept all their work in their folders which remained in the reading center. During the initial conference it was explained to students that there would be a posttest and another individual conference so that they would be able to see and discuss their progress. Also during this conference students were shown materials and asked to indicate their preferences of materials to use for instruction. Students were also told that if they did not like working in specific materials, they only needed to complete their one assignment and indicate to the reading teacher that they did not care to work in this material again. This was to make sure that students actually worked in materials before deciding they did not like them. It was also explained to students that they were to write on the comment sheets in their folders at the end of each period in the reading center. This was the place where students were to let the reading teachers know if they were having troubles with either their work or personal problems. This was also where students were instructed to write what they had accomplished during each period in the center. Time was alloted at the end of each period for folder writing.

PAGE 64

54 The day following a group's time in the reading center, the reading teacher spent checking through folders, reading students' comments, and writing prescriptions for future work. Students were responsible for checking much of their own work, but it was necessary to check to see if students were following directions and completing assignments. The reading teacher wrote in every folder and explained to the student what he/she would be doing the following day in the reading center. Assignments to be done were indicated with a slash (/) on a prescription sheet (see Appendix B) that listed all the materials in the reading center by skill areas. If it were important for a student to work on a specific assignment first, it was noted in the teacher's comment to the student. Also listed on the prescription sheet were the approximate number of pages, lessons, or tapes to be completed for one assignment. When students completed this amount, they crossed the slash and wrote about what they did on their comment sheet. In this manner the reading teacher and her students maintained a continuous written dialogue concerning the student's progress and problems. Students worked on their chosen skills in the reading center for eight weeks. The class procedure consisted mainly of students getting their folders, reading the teacher's comments and prescriptions, securing the necessary materials and/or equipment, and completing assigned work. When students were identified by the SORT as having

PAGE 65

55 the same skill problems and goals, they were grouped for short periods of time to receive direct instruction designed by the reading teacher to guide students to overcome these problems. After eight weeks of skills instruction and prescriptions, students were posttested with Form X of the SORT by the reading teacher. During the following week the reading teacher had a post conference with the student, and together, they plotted the posttest results on the profile chart. During the post conference the student and the reading teacher discussed the results of the eight weeks of work on reading and the student was asked to set or redefine his/her goals for reading for whatever future instruction they might be given in their language arts or other classes. When a group finished their final conferences, they no longer came to the reading center, but returned to their language arts classes everyday and the twelve-week cycle began anew with another group of students. The reading center contained a wide variety of materials including equipment, audiovisuals , paperbacks, and kits. The center itself was housed in the school media center and therefore was carpeted and air conditioned. The furniture consisted of seven rectangular tables and chairs and ten carrels. Four of the carrels were used with EDL controlled readers, while the other six were used with books and instructional kits of multi-level material. The kits used most often were the following: Reading for

PAGE 66

56 Understanding (junior and senior levels), Grolier's Reading Attainment Systems , Barnell Loft's Specific Skills Series (including Understanding Word Groups , Understanding Ques tions , Using a Table of Contents , and Using an Index ) , Science Research Associates' (SRA) We are Black , An American Album , Countries and Culture , Manpower and Natural Resources , Educational Developmental Laboratories' (EDL) Study Skill Boxes , levels C-I, Pictocabulary I and II, What's in a Name?, Words to Eat , Words to Wear . The workbooks used most often were the following: Dr. Spello , EDL's Word Clues and Looking at Words in Sentences , New Practice Readers , Phonics We Use, Target. The audiovisuals used most often were Wordcraft by Bergan Evans, EDL's Listen and Think levels D-GHI and Listen and Read levels D-GHI, Economy's programs Basic Level Clues , EDL's Skills Support Programs , Reading in the Content Area Program , controlled reader filmstrips and books for levels BB-IJ, and tach x films and books for levels D-IJ. The equipment consisted of four cassette tape recorders, 20 sets of headphones, 4 jack boxes, 2 table screens, 1 tachistoscope , 4 controlled readers, 1 language master with cards, and 4 flash x devices with accompanying flash x discs. The staff at the reading center consisted of two certified reading teachers who were both in advanced graduate programs. One teacher's major was in reading while the other teacher's major was in administration. In January

PAGE 67

57 of 197 6, however, the reading teacher working in administration was moved to the Title I reading program because of a loss of school funds. The reading center program continued; but since there was only one reading teacher, only three language arts classes could attend every other day. The data for this study was collected on a total of 704 students who participated sometime during the year 1975-76 during a twelve-week cycle. Basal Reading Approach During the 1976-77 school year reading was taught at the same middle school which used a reading center approach during the 1975-76 school year, using an individualized basal approach. The students selected to participate in this study were those who were enrolled in reading classes on each team and therefore Title I students. Educationally Mentally Retarded students (EMR) , and Specifically Learning Disabled (SLD) students were not enrolled in these classes and thereby did not participate in the reading program. The middle school maintained the same basic organization from the 1975-76 school year, but each of the six teams added one reading teacher to its staff. The reading teacher taught reading to his/her team for four of the six periods in the day. During the other two periods the reading teachers taught interest or exploratory classes. The reading classes were non-graded (sixth, seventh, and eighth graders mixed) and homogeneously grouped according

PAGE 68

58 to reading scores. Class sizes ranged from twenty-two to thirty-six. The reading class met every day for 45 minutes. The reading program changed its procedure to follow that presented in the Young American Basal Series (Rand McNally) and the school purchased one thousand of these multi-level basal readers. The reading teachers divided up the fifteen levels of the basal texts so that each classroom had the same number of books and workbooks. Students' reading levels were determined by means of cloze tests that the reading teachers made for each grade level and textbooks given to students were those that matched students' reading levels. All the reading teachers used the same tests and procedures for placing students in the basal readers. The Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test was administered as a pretest and the results were also used to compare students' reading levels obtained from the cloze tests and to ascertain students' skill needs. These results were used to group students for skill work within the classes. Students did not have individual conferences, but the test interpretation was explained to the reading class as a group and then students were given their results. The materials that were used last year (1975-76) in the reading center were initially divided among the reading teachers based on students' needs and interests and, consequently, were rotated among the six reading teachers. Since reading was taught during different periods on different

PAGE 69

59 teams, the sharing of materials was facilitated. Classroom organization and management for the reading classes of the six teams was basically the same since it was divided to follow the basic suggestions of the publisher of the basal series. The reading teachers decided that the best method of classroom organization would be a centers approach and therefore centers were designed for each group of students at each reading level. The first center students worked at was a vocabulary center which introduced new vocabulary words from the basal reader. Students did various exercises at this center which were suggested in the teacher's manual and which resulted from "brainstorming" by the teachers during one of the school reading meetings. Basically, students worked with the words in context, word meanings, syllabication, prefixes, and suffixes. After students completed work at the vocabulary center, they went to the story center where they had a directed reading lesson. The steps for the directed reading lesson included an introduction to the story and its author, a discussion which was designed to motivate students to read the story, and then the students were given a purpose for which to read the story. After students completed reading the story, they answered the suggested questions in the teacher's manual either responding in written or oral form. The questions represented the literal, inferential, evaluative, and creative levels of comprehension. After completing the

PAGE 70

60 story center, students worked in a skills center which consisted of the accompanying basal workbook. When students completed the skill work that accompanied the directed reading lesson in the story center, they were directed to work in the kits, tapes, or equipment that had been used in the reading center the previous year. The last center was free reading in which students spent time reading self-selected books. The six reading teachers required book reports, but the form and type of report varied among the teachers. Students rotated among the centers in groups that were formed on the basis of their levels in the basal readers and their skills needs as diagnosed by scores on the SORT . Chapter IV presents the data collected from the study and describes the analysis made and the results of this analysis.

PAGE 71

CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences in reading gains, as measured by the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (SDRT) , Level II, existed between scores obtained from middle school students who participated in a reading center based on an adaptation of the P.K. Yonge model and those scores obtained the following year from students at the same middle school who participated in a traditional classroom approach to reading. These differences were determined by comparing the gains (posttest minus pretest) of students who participated in the reading center approach during the 197 5-7 6 school year to the gains (posttest minus pretest scores) of students who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading during the 1976-77 school year. Comparisons were made on the following six subtests of the SDRT , Level II: Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary, Syllabication, Sound Discrimination, Blending, and Reading Rate. The statistical analyses were done using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (Barr et. al., 1976) MANOVA procedure. The multivariate statistic used was Pillai's Trace. The Hotelling-Lawley Trace, Wilk's Criterion, and 61

PAGE 72

62 Roy's Maximum Post Criterion were also generated, but Pillai's Trace is the only one reported since on all measures the different criteria were approximately the same. The F approximation will be reported in conjunction with Pillai's Trace. Univariate ANOVAs were also computed separately for each of the six subtests to test the specific hypotheses. The results of the MANOVA procedure are reported first and the univariate results are presented in this chapter in the order that the hypotheses were posed. MANOVA Results Pillai's Trace was used as the MANOVA test criteria for the hypothesis of no overall treatment effect for the sixth grade Pillai's Trace was .3561 and the F approximation with (6,470) df equalled 43.32 which was significant. These results demonstrated that when the sixth grade results were taken as a whole there were significant differences between the two approaches which favored the reading center approach. Pillai's Trace was also used as the MANOVA test criteria for the hypothesis of no overall treatment effect for grade seven. For the seventh grade Pillai's Trace was .4 669 and the F approximation with (6,514) df equalled 75.04 which was significant. These results demonstrated that when the seventh grade results were taken as a whole there were significant differences between the two approches and the reading center approach resulted in the greatest gains.

PAGE 73

63 Pillai's Trace was used as the MANOVA test criteria for the hypothesis of no overall treatment effect for grade eight. For the eighth grade Pillai's Trace was .4061 and the F approximation with (6,449) df equalled 51.17 which was significant. These results demonstrated that when the eighth grade results were taken as a whole there were significant differences between the two approaches which again favored the reading center approach. Tests of the Hypotheses Since the MANOVA statistics were significant, univariate analyses were performed in order to discover where differences might lie. Each of the hypotheses is summarized and data used to test the hypotheses are presented with reference to appropriate tables and/or figures. The alpha level of .01 was used in determining statistical significance . Hypothesis 1 . There will be no statistically significant difference in reading comprehension between the reading center group and the traditional class group, as measured by the Reading Comprehension subtest of the SORT . In order to test this hypothesis, an ANOVA was performed to compare the reading comprehension gains between the 1975-76 reading center group and the 1976-77 traditional classroom group. The degrees of freedom, sum of squares, mean squares, F value, and R-square are presented in Table 3 for the sixth grade group. Table 5 for the seventh grade group and Table 6 for the eighth grade group.

PAGE 74

64 Table 3 ANOVA for Differences in Reading Comprehension Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach to Reading Dependent Variable: Reading Comprehens ion Sixth Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 6388.2684 6388 . 2684 123.35 . 0001 .2061 Error 475 24600. 5617 51.79065 Total 476 30988. 8301 The observed F value indicated a significant difference between the gains in reading comprehension of the sixth graders who participated in the reading center group and the sixth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the approaches. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of these data, the conclusion was drawn that greater gains in reading comprehension were made by the sixth graders in the reading center approach than by the sixth graders in the traditional classroom approach.

PAGE 75

65 Q CO H C (0 0) P w 0) +J m O Q CO Q 04 a. o o M (U 4J c u c H 03 CM 00 o m (N O y3 n 00 (N ro CO CN CO CM o CM G H •a fd o o n (N CN CTl 00 00 in o in CO 00 o o fN in in o 00 OS o CN in 00 00 0) (d U O CN CN c o •H -P (0 O H ;Q CIS Ho ro in o^ iH o 00 <^ o CO t N m 1 ^ 00 Q rH r-H 00 1 ^ 00 CN f*^ 00 OO * * * • 00 o\ in CN 00 in GO o t r\ U 1 r^ iH a\ iH O ro cr^ .H a^ ro rH in rsj o oo ro in CO in O ro CN CN r— 1 1 r\ u r ^* vo O CN ro I in in CO 00 00 • * « • • • « • ro 00 iH 00 t r^ CO m VI' rH CN CN CM CN rH CN rH rH CN CN rH CM rH rH I ^ * 1 m * 1 » 1 ro CO ro CN CN CN 1 r\ Ll ) 1 pi Ll 1 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN ^1 CN I N V N f* >-i o r\ U /-\ Vi a r* Ui r\ kJ •H U u i-t P 0 ri -P •H H -P O •H 1 -ri fd to >\ 1 t -P to H CO i>i 1 1 (O C I , M lO Tf\ ^ rH -H Vh 1 1 tnx; iH •H .J •ri . 1 •ri r-( IJ •f-t 1 n 0) r-i H -H H M rU fo Tj -P •H M Xi <0 rr< Lj 'O H rrt Ij U iH a 10 iH G U /i\ /—I fo ii\ w fl) 4J (d (J tH 0 CO CD 4J Q) (d a Q (H 0 to +J •H .H C 0 0) 0 0 >i O -H rH U 0 0 >i O -H rH 03 Q pq 0 « u > cn CO a PQ u > CO CO Q 0^ H o tn -P C H 03 •H W -a IX) (C (d IX) (d 0) Eh u

PAGE 76

n rH rH 00 00 ro CN UJ iH IT) KD in fO 0 ro \^ CN «^ yo ro CTi CO 00 rH CN rH CO CN ( ' 1 I 1 iH CN 1 — 1 ro CN • • • • • • IT) ro ro ro lO in ro ro ro Cvl CTi 00 0 rH *>_^ lo VO LO 0 in CO 00 CN ro ro CN 1 U ) * ' 1 r~i 00 L N 0 CN 0 CN r-| lO CN rH CN ro • • • • • » • • • * 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 rH in CN (N CN CO U ) 1 1 0 1 ro ro in ro CN 0 CO 0 rH CTi 00 in r~ 0 lO I* 1 V.O ro LD 00 00 0 CN (J 1 rT\ ^Ji rH ro CN • • • • • * * * * (N rH CO 00 1 1 — \ 0^ m rH ( — 1 r~i 0 ro rH 0 in CT> CTi rH ro 01 in r~ 0^ LO CN uo rH ro Q IT) 00 in CN r~ 00 rH 00 U 1 I N LO I— 1 0 CO I* 1 CN • • • * • • * * * * * in ro ro CN CN 0 CjO ro CN r-H CN 1 4-1 n3 W >1 -P (d CO P fO C U (0 G Sh C! u (d C OJ (d U •H tji (1) (d u •rl Cr» (d u •H (J» en 4:; H (d T3 U (13 rrt f \ \j r* »-» rM n frt *-* \J c frt r( frt >-< d) C 0 (d W cH U) 0) -P Id W u rH 1 0 H rH (0 0 Q) 0 0 >i 0 -H rH rd 0 u (U 0 0 >1 0 •H rH •H o u > CO cn Q Pi Cn « u > CO W Q CQ H 0 0^ u > Q m +J C Jh -P •H w H 0) •H w 'd W -a p tn m (0 1^ a 00 00 00 00 00 00 nJ (d 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 IH rH EH u o u Eh u

PAGE 77

67 Table 5 ANOVA for Differences in Reading Comprehension Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach to Reading Dependent Variable: Reading Comprehension Seventh Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 8706. 2837 8706.2837 205.78 .001 0.2839 Error 519 21958.7374 42. 3097 Total 520 30665. 0211 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in the gains in reading comprehension of the seventh graders who participated in the reading center group and the seventh graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was drawn that greater gains in reading comprehension were made by the seventh graders in the reading center approach than by the seventh graders in the traditional classroom approach.

PAGE 78

68 Table 6 ANOVA for Differences in Reading Comprehension Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditiona Classroom Approach Dependent Variable: Reading Comprehens ion Eighth Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 3896. 5203 3896. 5203 107.07 .0001 0.1908 Error 454 16522.4248 36.3930 Total 455 20418.9451 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in the gains in reading comprehension of the eighth graders who participated in the reading center group and the eighth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in reading comprehension were made by the eighth graders in the reading center approach than by the eighth graders in the traditional classroom approach. For all three grade levels students made significantly greater gains in reading comprehension when they participated

PAGE 79

69 in the reading center approach and therefore the first null hypothesis was not accepted. Hypothesis 2 . There will be no statistically significant difference in vocabulary between the reading center group and the traditional classroom approach, as measured by the Vocabulary subtest of the SORT . In order to test the second hypothesis, an ANOVA was performed to compare the vocabulary gains between the 1975-76 reading center group and the 1976-77 traditional classroom group. The degrees of freedom, sum of squares, means squares, F value, and R-square are presented in Table 7 for the sixth grade group. Table 8 for the seventh grade group, and Table 9 for the eighth grade group. Table 7 ANOVA for Differences in Vocabulary Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach Dependent Variable: Vocabulary Sixth Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 591. 5821 591. 5821 23.90 . 0001 0. 0479 Error 475 11757. 5876 24.7528 Total 476 12349. 1698 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in the gains in vocabulary of the sixth graders who participated in the reading center group and the sixth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the

PAGE 80

70 greatest gains in vocabulary, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in vocabulary were made by the sixth graders in the reading center approach than by the sixth graders in the traditional classroom approach. Table 8 ANOVA for Differences in Vocabulary Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach Dependent Variable: Vocabulary Seventh Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 704.6967 704.6967 36.74 . 0001 0. 0661 Error 519 9954.4126 19.1799 Total 520 106.59.1094 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in the gains in vocabulary of the seventh graders who participated in the reading center approach and the seventh graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in vocabulary, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two

PAGE 81

71 approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in vocabulary were made by the seventh graders in the reading center approach than by the seventh graders in the traditional classroom approach. Table 9 ANOVA for Differences in Vocabulary Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach Dependent Variable: Vocabulary Eighth Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 518.7338 518.7338 28.66 .0001 0. 0593 Error 454 8218. 4218 18.1022 Total 455 8737.1557 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in vocabulary of the eighth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the eighth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in vocabulary, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means

PAGE 82

72 and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in vocabulary were made by the eighth graders in the reading center approach than by the eighth graders in the traditional classroom approach. For all three grade levels, students made significantly greater gains in vocabulary when they participated in the reading center approach and therefore the second hypothesis was not accepted. Hypothesis 3 . There will be no statistically significant difference in syllabication between the reading center group and the traditional classroom group, as measured by the Syllabication subtest of the SORT . In order to test the third hypothesis, an ANOVA was performed to compare the syllabication gains between the 1975-76 reading center group and the 1976-77 traditional classroom group. The degrees of freedom, sum of squares, mean squares, F value, and R-square are presented in Table 10 for the sixth grade. Table 11 for the seventh grade, and Table 12 for the eighth grade.

PAGE 83

73 Table 10 ANOVA for Differences in Syllabication Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach Dependent Variable: Syllabication Sixth Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 624. 1856 624.1856 56. 97 .0001 0.1070 Error 475 5204.4600 10.9567 Total 476 5828. 6457 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in syllabication of the sixth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the sixth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in syllabication, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in syllabication were made by the sixth graders in the reading center approach than by the sixth graders in the traditional classroom approach.

PAGE 84

74 Table 11 ANOVA for Differences in Syllabication Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach Dependent Vari able : Syll abication Seventh Grade Sura of Mean F R Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 746. 4997 624. 1856 75. 65 . 0001 0.1272 Error 519 5121 .3774 10. 9567 Total 520 5876 .8771 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in syllabication of the seventh graders who participated in the reading center approach and the seventh graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in syllabication, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in syllabication were made by the seventh graders in the reading center approach than by the seventh graders in the traditional classroom approach.

PAGE 85

75 Table 12 ANOVA for Differences in Syllabication Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach Dependent Vari able : Syll abication Eighth Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squares Sqaure Value PR F Square Treatment 1 733. 7527 733.7527 54.95 . 0001 0.1079 Error 454 6062 . 0367 13.3525 Total 455 6705 .7894 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in syllabication of the eighth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the eighth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in syllabication, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in syllabication were made by the eighth graders in the reading center approach than by the eighth graders in the traditional classroom approach.

PAGE 86

76 For all three grade levels, students made significantly greater gains in syllabication when they participated in the reading center approach and therefore the third hypothesis was not accepted. Hypothesis 4 . There will be no statistically significant difference in sound discrimination between the reading center group and the traditional classroom group, as measured by the Sound Discrimination subest of the SORT . In order to test the fourth hypothesis, an ANOVA was performed to compare the sound discrimination gains between the 1975-76 reading center group and the 1976-77 traditional classroom group. The degrees of freedom, sum of squares, mean squares, F value, and R-square are presented in Table 13 for the sixth grade. Table 14 for the seventh grade, and Table 15 for the eighth grade. Table 13 ANOVA for Differences in Sound Discrimination Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach Dependent Vari able : Sound Discrimina tion Sixth Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 281. 8120 281.8120 15. 97 .001 0. 0325 Error 475 8384 . 1124 17. 6507 Total 475 8665 . 9245 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in sound discrimination of the sixth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the sixth

PAGE 87

77 graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in sound discrimination, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in sound discrimination were made by the sixth graders in the reading center approach than by the sixth graders in the traditional classroom approach. Table 14 ANOVA for Differences in Sound Discrimination Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach Dependent Vari able : Sound Discrimination Seventh Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squ ares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 235. 7709 235.7709 13.93 .002 0.0261 Error 519 8783 . 0121 16. 9229 Total 520 9018 .7831 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in sound discrimination of the seventh graders who participated in the reading center approach and the seventh graders who participated in the traditional classroom

PAGE 88

78 approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in sound discrimination, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in sound discrimination were made by the seventh graders in the reading center approach than by the seventh graders in the traditional classroom approach. Table 15 ANOVA for Differences in Sound Discrimination Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach Dependent Variable: Sound Discrimination Eiqhth Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 Error 454 Total 455 666.5175 6400.4999 7067. 0175 666. 5175 14. 0980 47.28 .0001 0.0943 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in sound discrimination of the eighth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the eighth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in sound discrimination, it was

PAGE 89

79 necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in sound discrimination were made by the eighth graders in the reading center approach than by the eighth graders in the traditional classroom approach. For all three grade levels, students made significantly greater gains in sound discrimination when they participated in the reading center approach and therefore the fourth null hypothesis was not accepted. Hypothesis 5. There will be no statistically significant difference in blending between the reading center group and the traditional classroom group, as measured by the Blending subtest of the SDRT. In order to test the fifth hypothesis, an ANOVA was performed to compare the blending gains betweeen the 197 5-7 6 reading center group and the 1976-77 traditional classroom group. The degrees of freedom, sum of square, mean squares, F value, and R-square are presented in Table 16 for the sixth grade. Table 17 for the seventh grade, and Table 18 for the eighth grade.

PAGE 90

80 Table 16 ANOVA for Differences in Blending Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach Dependent Variable: Blendi ng Sixth Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 1863.7736 1863.7736 72.86 .0001 0.1329 Error 475 12150.3018 25. 5795 Total 476 14014. 0754 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in blending of the sixth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the sixth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in blending, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in blending were made by the sixth graders in the reading center approach than by the sixth graders in the traditional classroom approach.

PAGE 91

81 Table 17 ANOVA for Differences in Blending Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach Dependent Vari able : Blend ing Seventh Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squa res Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 2137. 8625 2137.8625 77.59 . 0001 0. 1300 Error 519 14301 . 0510 27. 5550 Total 520 16438 . 9136 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in blending of the seventh graders who participated in the reading center approach and the seventh graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in blending, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in blending were made by the seventh graders in the reading center approach than by the seventh graders in the traditional approach.

PAGE 92

82 Table 18 ANOVA for Differences in Blending Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach Dependent Variable: Blending Eighth Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 1169. 5478 1169. 5478 54.79 .0001 0. 1076 Error 454 9691. 4323 21.3467 Total 455 10860. 9802 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in blending of the eighth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the eighth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in blending, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in blending were made by the eighth graders in the reading center approach than by the eighth graders in the traditional classroom approach. For all three grade levels, students made significantly greater gains in blending when they participated in the reading center approach and therefore the fifth null hypothesis was not accepted.

PAGE 93

83 Hypothesis 6 . There will be no statistically significant difference in reading rate between the reading center group and the traditional classroom group, as measured by the Rate subtest of the SORT. In order to test the sixth hypothesis, an ANOVA was performed to compare the blending gains between the 197 5-7 6 reading center group and the 1976-77 traditional classroom group. The degrees of freedom, sum of squares, mean squares, F value, and R-square are presented in Table 19 for the sixth grade. Table 20 for the seventh grade, and Table 21 for the eighth grade. Table 19 ANOVA for Differences in Reading Rate Gains Between Sixth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Sixth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach Dependent Variable: Reading Rate Sixth Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 1652.0221 1652.0221 76.99 .0001 0.1394 Error 475 10192. 5480 21.4579 Total 476 11844.5702 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in reading rate of the sixth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the sixth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in reading rate, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents

PAGE 94

84 the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in reading rate were made by the sixth graders in the reading center approach than by the sixth graders in the traditional classroom approach. Table 20 ANOVA for Differences in Reading Rate Gains Between Seventh Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Seventh Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach Dependent Variable: Reading Rate Seventh Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 1848.0056 1848.0056 79.75 .0001 0.1331 Error 519 12026.1939 23. 1718 Total 520 13874. 1996 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in reading rate of the seventh graders who participated in the reading center approach and the seventh graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in reading rate, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was

PAGE 95

85 made that greater gains in reading rate were made by the seventh graders in the reading center approach than by the seventh graders in the traditional classroom approach. Table 21 ANOVA for Differences in Reading Rate Gains Between Eighth Graders Participating in a Reading Center Approach and Eighth Graders Participating in a Traditional Classroom Approach Dependent Variable: Reading Rate Eighth Grade Sum of Mean F R Source DF Squares Square Value PR F Square Treatment 1 2321.3789 2321.3789 87.42 .0001 0.1614 Error 454 12055.6188 26.5542 Total 455 14376. 9978 The observed F value indicated a significant difference in gains in reading rate of the eighth graders who participated in the reading center approach and the eighth graders who participated in the traditional classroom approach to reading. In order to discover which approach produced the greatest gains in reading rate, it was necessary to examine the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gain scores. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores. On the basis of this statistical analysis, the conclusion was made that greater gains in reading rate were made by the eighth graders in the reading center approach than by the eighth graders in the traditional classroom approach.

PAGE 96

86 For all three grade levels, students made significantly greater gains in reading rate when they participated in the reading center approach and as a consequence the sixth hypothesis was not accepted. Summary of Analyses In summary, there were statistically significant differences between the results of reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach to reading instruction on all six hypotheses. The MANOVA procedure indicated that there were significant differences between the two approaches when the individual hypotheses were treated as a whole. The ANOVA procedure was then used to determine where specific significant differences might lie. From these analyses, it was learned that none of the six hypotheses at any of the three grade levels were accepted since there were significant differences in each instance. By examining the means and standard deviations of the pretest scores, the posttest scores, and the gain scores for the reading center approach and the traditional classroom approach it was learned that for each of the six hypotheses in all three grade levels, the reading center approach produced the greatest gains in reading test scores.

PAGE 97

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences in reading gains existed between scores obtained from middle school students who participated in a reading center based on an adaptation of the P.K. Yonge model and those scores obtained from the same middle school students who participated in a traditional classroom approa to reading the following year. The reading center approach was taught by two teachers, both of whom had completed the training program at the P.K. Yonge Laboratory School which gave them the skills needed to implement this approach. The traditional approach was taught by six experienced reading teachers who met during the data collection period to insure that similar techniques and materials were being used to teach the students participating in this program. The two approaches were compared by analyzing gains made between the pre and posttest scores of the following subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (SDRT) , Level II: Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary, Syllabication Sound Discrimination, Blending, and Reading Rate. For both groups. Form W of the SDRT was used as the pretest and Form X as the posttest. 87

PAGE 98

88 Conclusions In order to investigate the differences in the two organizational approaches to teaching reading, six related hypotheses were tested. The hypotheses were tested by means of the Statistical Analysis System (Barr and others, 1976) MANOVA procedure. The multivariate statistic used was Pillai's Trace and an F approximation was reported in conjunction with this statistic. Univariate ANOVAs were also computed separately for each of the six subtests to test the specific hypotheses and an alpha level of .01 was used to determine statistical significance. The hypotheses are restated below followed by the conclusions drawn from the results of the study. Hypothesis 1 . There will be no statistically significant difference in reading comprehension between the reading center group and the traditional class group, as measured by the Reading Comprehension subtest of the SORT . Hypothesis 2 . There will be no statistically significant difference in vocabulary between the reading center group and the traditional class group, as measured by the Vocabulary subtest of the SORT . Hypothesis 3 . There will be no statistically significant difference in syllabication between the reading center group and the traditional class group, as measured by the Syllabication subtest of the SORT . Hypothesis 4 . There will be no statistically significant difference in sound discrimination between the reading center group and the traditional class group, as measured by the Sound Discrimination subtest of the SORT . Hypothesis 5. There will be no statistically significant difference in blending between the reading center group and the traditional class group, as measured by the Blending subtest of the SORT.

PAGE 99

89 Hypothesis 6 . There will be no statistically significant difference in reading rate between the reading center group and the traditional class group, as measured by the Reading Rate subtest of the SORT . The multivariate analyses that were performed indicated that there were significant differences between the two treatments. In order to ascertain where the differences were, univariate analyses were performed. On the basis of these statistical analyses, the conclusion was drawn that there were significant differences between the two approache for all six of the previously stated hypotheses at the sixth seventh, and the eighth grade levels. By studying the means and standard deviations of the two approaches and their respective gains, it was impossible to conclude that the reading center approach produced the greatest gains for all six subtests at all three grade levels. As a consequence, none of the six null hypotheses were accepted. Discussion and Interpretation The statistical analyses of the six hypotheses in this study indicated significance in favor of the reading center approach, and this was viewed as helpful in the evaluation of two types of reading programs designed to meet the needs of middle school students. However, the limited population and duration of the study preclude generalized inferences beyond the local setting of the middle school in Gainesville, Florida.

PAGE 100

90 It appeared that the reading center had several factors which may have contributed tc its success. For example, a major factor could have been the active involvement students had in the learning process, which may have resulted in an increased student sense of responsibility. This may also have spurred them on to work harder while they were in the reading center. After students were pretested for the reading center approach, they had an individual conference. During this time their test results were explained to them in terms of their strengths and they were asked to choose skill areas to work on during their time in the reading center. Students also were asked to set attainable goals for the posttest so that they had some tangible measure for which to work. Furthermore, students took part in the selecting of materials that they worked in during the reading center. Students played an active role in the learning process of this approach. They were aware of the fact that the assignments they were prescribed were designed to improve the skill areas that they chose to work on. The continuous dialogue that the comment sheets in student folders provided, also aided in establishing rapport and communication between the student and the reading teacher. The structure of this approach demanded that the reading teacher and the student work cooperatively .

PAGE 101

91 Another reason the reading center approach had significantly greater gains may have been the fact that students attended only every other day and consequently, the reading teacher had an entire school day to prescribe for the students who would come the following day. The fact that students attended every other day may have piqued their interest in participating in the center also. The traditional approach seemed to have several factors which may have influenced the scores of the students who participated in this program. The traditional classroom approach was mandated from the county office, while the reading center approach was instituted as a result of a local school decision. Chesler and Barakat (1967) report that teachers' participation in the policy-making process of the school leads to less alienation, greater sharing of ideas, possibly better teaching, and possibly greater receptivity to change. Sarason (1971) purports that involvement is essential since it makes it more likely that responsibility will be assumed and not attributed to others, that problems of goals and attitudes will surface and be dealt with, and it increases the chances that the alternative ways the problem can be formulated and resolved will be scrutinized and act as a control against premature closure. Willower (1963) further points out that when teachers are threatened by a change without prior involvement, their resistance to change may take the form of verbal hostility.

PAGE 102

92 sloppy implementation, or apathetic indifference. Since there was relatively little teacher involvement in the decision to change from the reading center approach to the basal approach, teachers may have felt less than enthusiastic about the traditional approach. Since classes were scheduled to the reading teachers, they did not have time to write in students' folders so that students may have felt less involvement in this approach. Because of the organization of the traditional approach, students were not able to have an individual pre or post conference. They were informed of their test results, but they did not have the opportunity to discuss what they felt their skill needs were or to set personal goals. Consequently, this may have also affected the students' perceptions of the traditional approach and its possibilities for responding to their individual needs. Reading teachers also did not have an entire school day to prepare lessons for students since their classes met everyday. Also because of the structure of the traditional approach, students did not have as much choice in the selection of materials they would prefer to work with. Many factors could have affected the results of this study, but since the results were so overwhelmingly in favor of the reading center approach, it is suggested that this approach be further evaluated and investigated as an organizational method for teaching reading in the middle school .

PAGE 103

93 Implications for Future Research The attempt to improve the reading skills of middle school students offers scope for continued research in a number of areas that appear to hold promise. This section presents a few of these areas in the form of needs as a conclusion of this study. 1. There is a need to test the traditional approach and the reading center approach over time (two to three years) to measure their long-range effectiveness. The two approaches need to be compared by means of independent but comparable samples over a period of time, in order to discover which approach had the most lasting gains, and if an approach seemed to result in greater gains than the other at any point in time in the reading development of a middle school student. 2. There is a need for studies of the cost effectiveness of the various approaches to teaching reading. In these studies the number of teachers, teacher aides, the amount of material and equipment, and the type of facility, need to be taken into account. The age of accountability demands that programs be cost effective if they are to endure. 3. There is a need for studies to test additional methods and materials with students who do not make significant gains in reading. Students usually are able to adapt to various approaches, but they seem to benefit more when

PAGE 104

94 the approach is suited to their preferred learning style. There is a need for additional studies in order to understand the effects of learning styles on reading instructional approaches. 4. There is a need for studies with experimental designs that more closely account for the teacher variable. This is needed to determine if there is a factor in the conduct of a teacher as well as the training needed by a teacher that would aid the use of a specific approach. 5. There is a need for studies that test students' perceptions of their skill improvement in the various types of organizational approaches for teaching reading . It would be beneficial to be aware of whether the type of organization affected students' perceptions of their own skills and if these perceptions were related to significant changes in reading skills. Unfortunately, there is no panacea for the problems encountered in teaching students to read. Therefore it appears that research will continue to look for that "best" approach or that "best" combination program.

PAGE 105

0) H Q Z fit Eh O ^^ H P4 -a (U Eh 0) P Id a +j H C 0) rH 0 •H •4-> (0 C H e H -a U c O ;3 cn 0 •H C/J Q c o •H -P (0 o •H ^ (0 iH rH >i cn >i ta rH ^1 J3 fO u 0 > c 0 •H c 0) C 0) -H u
PAGE 106

Level — — Level — i I hpikndix b bes c ;< iption sheet 7"V / Dr. SipeA to SK, ) \eve\ »3 3a-37 I R.H.S. (red boi^) Color i level ^ n n Word Col5r To Wear choice Clues Color__ Uie Use U)r,f e leval G-0 I e ve XL J-TZ /.eve/ . /ess OA'S ^ I J5 It-v/e i m (I "f I :t Ct-flrollcJl Die Uve\ E I Uvel (jtsso /i/s t\tA
PAGE 107

BIBLIOGRAPHY Acinapuro, P. A con-parative study of the results of two instructional reading programs An individualized and a three ability group pattern. (Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College Columbia University, 1959). Dissertation Abstracts, 1959, 20/08, 2620. Alexander, W. The emergent middle school . New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969. Anderson, C. A description of the Flint Community Junior College Reading Program. Arlington, Va. : Eric Docvirrient Reproduction Service, 1969, ED 036 395. Anderson, I.H. The relationship between reading achievement and the method of teaching reading. University of Michi ga n School of Education Bulletin , April, 1956, 27, 104-108. Artley, A.S. Basal materials in reading: Use and misuse. Education , May, 1961, 81., 533-536. Austin, M..C. and Morrison, C. The first R The Harvard Report on reading in elementary schools . New York: Macmillan Co., 1963. Barr, A., Goodnight, J., Sail, J., and Helwig, J. A user's guid e to S.A.S. '7 6. North Carolina: Sparks Press, T976T Beck, I.L., and Bolvin, J.U. Model for non-gradedness : The reading program for individually prescribed instruction. Elementary English , February, 1969, 46, 130-135. Bennie, F. Pupil attitudes toward individually prescribed lab programs. Journal of Reading , November, 1973, 17, 108-112. Bond, G. , and Dykstra, R. The first grade reading studies: Findings of individual investigations. (Cooperative Research Project No. X-001) Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, 1967. 97

PAGE 108

98 Bond, G. , and Wagner, E.B. Teaching the child to read . New York: Macmillan Co., 1966. Bonhorst, B. , and Sellars, S. Individual reading instruction vs. basal textbook instruction: Some tentative explorations. Elementary English , March, 1959, 36, 185-190. Brogan, P., and Fox, L. Helping children read . New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961. Brueckman, E. High schoo] reading lab aids student development. Chicago Schools Journal , May, 1964, 45, 373376. Camper, V. A comparison of two methods of teaching reading, individualized, and group, in the teaching of reading skills in conibined classrooms to selected fourth, fifth, and sixth grade children in the public schools of Howard Co., Maryland. (Doctoral dissertation. New York University, 1966) . Dissertation Abstracts , 1966, 27/31-A, 3768. Carline, D. An investigation of individualized reading and basal test reading through pupil achievement and teacher performance. (Doctoral dissertation, Penn. State, 1960). Dissertation Abstracts , 1960, 21/09, 2623. ~~~ Carrison, M.P. On reading: Ritual or right? Intellect, 1973, 101, 513-515. Casters, A. A comparison of two organizational approaches to reading instruction for below grade level readers in a seventh grade. (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, 1963). Dissertation Abstracts, 1863, 24/07, 2733. Cawley, J., Chaffin, J., and Brunning, H. An evaluation of a junior high school reading improvement program. Journ al of Reading, October, 1965, % 26-29. Chesler, M. , and Barakat, K, The innovati on and sharing of teaching practices: A study of professional roles and social structures in schools . Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1967.

PAGE 109

99 Cohen, S.A. Teach them all to read . New York: Random House, 1969. Cooper, B. An analysis of the reading achievement of White and Negro pupils of certain public schools of Georgia. School Review , 1965, 72^, 462-471. Cranney, G. The evolution of the Minnesota Reading Program. The philosophical and sociological bases of reading. Fourteenth Yearbook of the Nationa l Reading Conference . Milwaukee, Wisconsin: National Reading Conference, 1965. Daniel, M. You can individualize your reading program too. Elementary English , November, 1956, 32, 444-446. Dames, R. Exemplary practices in junior college reading instruction. Arlington, Va.: Eric Document Reproduction Service, 1971, ED 050 710. Davidoff, S.H., Kravitz, I., and Moose, N. A comprehensive attack on reading problems commonly encountered in urban schools. Philadelphia, Penn. : Eric Document Reproduction Service, February, 1971, ED 047 892. Davis, F., and Lucas, J, An experiment in individualized reading. The Reading Teacher, May, 1971, 24, 737743, 747. — Dawson, M.A. , and Bamman , H.A. Fundamentals of basic reading instruction . New York: Longmans, Green and Co. , 1959. Dechant, E. Reading improvement in the secondary schools. Eng 1 ewood Olitts, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973, 83 8 4 Dirienzo, A. A comparison of seventh and eighth grade pupil achievement in basal and non-basal reading programs. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut, 1964). Dissertation Abstracts, 1964 25/08, 4491. — Dobrin, R. The Massapequa story. Journal of D evelopmental Reading , Spring, 1961, 4, 159-172. Doctor, R. Reading workbooks: Boon or busy work? Elementary English , March, 1962, 39, 224-228*.

PAGE 110

100 Early, M. Reading: In and out of the English curriculum. Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals , November, 1967, 51^, 47'-59. Early, M.J. What does research in reading reveal about successful reading programs? English Journal , April, 1969, 58^, 534-547. Elmore, E. Our high school reading center. Today ' s Education, January, 1971, 60^, 40. Evans, H.M. Remedial reading in secondary schools: Still a matter of faith. Journal of Reading , November, 1972, 16, 111-114. Evans, N. Individualized reading Myths and facts. Elementary English , October, 1962, 39^, 580-583. Fader, D. , and McNeil, E. Hooked on books; Program and proof . New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1966. Fillmer, H.T. Middle-schoolers reading program. Language Arts , November, 1975, 52, 1123-1126. Fox, G. , and Fox, R. The individualized reading controversy. The National Elementary Principal , September, 1964, 44^, 46-49. Frazier, A. Individualized reading More than new forms and formulas. Elementary English , December, 1962, 3^, 809-814. Freed, B.F, Secondary reading: State of the art. Journal of Reading , December, 1973, r7, 195-201. Freed, R. Developing a high school reading laboratory. Journal of Secondary Education , November, 1965, £0, 303-309. Glasser, W. Schools without failure . New York: Harper and Row, 1969. Gold, L. A comparative study of group and individual reading instruction with high school students: An evaluation of the effectiveness of group and of individualized reading instruction for the improvement of reading achievement and personality adjustment of tenth grade students. (Doctoral dissertation. New York University, 1963) . Dissertation Abs tracts, 1963, 25/02, 1042.

PAGE 111

101 Goodman, K.S., and Niles, 0. Reading; Process and program . Champaign, Illinois: National council of Teachers of English, 1970, ERIC ED 072 2431. Gordon, W.M. A study of reading programs in the three year junior high schools of the State of Indiana. Dissertation Abstracts . Ann Arbor, Mighigan: University Microfilms, 1968, 29^, no. 6, 1674-A. Graham, H.V. Present practices in reading programs in secondary schools in California with suggestions for their improvement. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1968). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1968, 69-1207. Gray, W.A. Nature and scope of a sound reading program. In N.B. Henry (Ed.), Reading in the High School and College , Forty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 1948, 47, 46-68. Gray, W.A. Role of group and individualized teaching in a sound reading program. The Reading Teacher, December. 1957, 11, 99-104. Green, C. Individual approach to reading. Texa s Outlook, December, 1968, 52, 36. [ Guthrie, J., Samuels, J., Martuza, V., Seifert, M. , Tyler, J., and Edwell, G. A study of the locus and nature of reading problems in the elementary school. International Reading Association, Newark, Delaware: National Institute of Education, June 30, 1976. Guttenger, H. , and Hines, V. Field testing and diffusion of an experiment in developmental, individualized reading at the middle and high school levels. Research Monograph , No. 20, P.K. Yonge Laboratory School"; College of Education, University of Florida, January Harris, A. How to increase reading ability . New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1956. Harris, A. Key factors in a successful reading program. Elementary English , January, 1969, 46, 69-76. Harris, A. New dimensions in basal readers. Reading Teacher, January, 1972, 25, 310-315. ssett, J. Individualized learning in a reading class. Reading Improvement , Winter, 1975, 12, 203-206.

PAGE 112

102 Havighurst, R.J. Human development and education , Longmans, Green and Co., 1953 (1st ed.). Heffernan, H. What is individualized reading? Grade Teacher , 1965, 82_, 28, 141. Hetherman, M.A. Keene Reading Center helps on many levels. Nations Schools , October, 1968, 8^, 75. Hildreth, G. Teaching reading . New York: Henry Holt and Co. , 1958. Hitchner, E.P. A study of individualized reading in the seventh grade. Master's thesis. Glassboro, N.J.: Glassboro State College, 1964. Cited by S. Duker, Individualized Reading , Metuchen, N. J. : Scarecrow Press, 1968. Hoyt, J.S., and Blackmore, D. Fifty seventh graders: A comparison of their reading achievement and expected achievement in grades one through seven. Journal of Educational Research , January, 1960, 53_, 163-171. Huser, M. Reading and more reading. Elementary English , April, 1967, 4A, 378-382. Ireland, R.J. Let's throw out reading! Reading Teacher , March, 1973, 26^, 584-588. Jacobs, L.B. Individualizing reading practices . (Ed. Alice Miel) New York : Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958. Johnson, J. Laboratory centers for reading. Virginia Journal of Education , October, 1966, 60^, 14-15, 50. Karlin, R. Some reactions to individualized reading. Reading Teacher , December, 1957, 1]^, 95-98. Karlin, R. Some reactions to individualized reading. Reading Teacher , December, 1959, 11, 95-98. Karlin, R. Research in reading. Elementary English , March, 1960, 3J_, 177-183. Karlin, R. Teaching reading in high school . (2nd ed . ) New York: Bobbs-Merrill , 1972. Kirby, M. Test-a-tete lessons develop independent readers. Elementary English , May, 1957, 34, 302-303.

PAGE 113

103 Klausner, D. A counseling approach to the improvement of reading. Arlington, Va.: Eric Document Reproduction Service, 1971, ED 074 402. Klein, M. Reading program and classroom management: Panacea or perversion. Elementary Englis h, March, 1975, 52, 351-355. Lazar, M. Individualized reading: A dynam.ic approach. The Reading Teacher , December, 1957, 10, 75-83. Liotta, C. Individualized reading vs. ability group reading in the reading growth of intermediate grade children. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1967). Dissertation Abstracts , 1967, 28/04-A, 1343. Lurie, L. A comparison of the effect of three approaches to the teaching of specific reading and study skills on a group of failing junior high school students. (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1972) . Dissertation Abstracts , 1972, 33/04-A, 1323. Marani, S.D. , and Tirris, J. Successful reading program for the disadvantaged. The Reading Teacher, 197 0, 24, 39-41. Martin, W.R. The impact of federal programs of financial aid on the teaching of reading in upper midwest secondary schools. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1969). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1969, 69-6830. Marquis, B. Developmental reading. New Albany High School. Journal of Developme ntal Reading, Autumn, 1963. 7. 58-62. Mccormick, I., Carr, L. , and O'Rand, B. Improving the reading achievement level in a junior high school. Journal of Reading , May, 1969, 12, 627-633. Mccormick, N. Individualized reading in action. The Instructor , September, 1965, 15, 73. McMahan, A. Make friends with your bookseller. The Wonderful World of Books . New York: New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1952, 226. Miller, D. Junior high school reading program. Clearing House , October, 1962, 37, 86-90.

PAGE 114

104 Moray, G. Intermediate grades: Crucial years in the reading development of children. Reading Improvement , Winter, 1975, 12^, 228-232. Morrison, I.E., and Perry, I.F. Spelling and reading relationships with incidence of retardation and acceleration. Journal of Educational Research , 1959, 52, 224-22?: Nasman, J. A study of a reading improvement program in junior high school. Elementary English, April, 1966, 42, 383-385. Olson, W. Seeking, self-selection, and pacing in the use of books by children. The Packet . Boston, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Co., Spring, 1952. Parkin, P. An individual program of reading. Educational Leadership , October, 1956, L4, 34-38. Peyton, J., and Below, R. The need for reading instruction in Kentucky high schools. School Servi c e R eport, 1965, 6, 2-7. Poll, D. , and Allegra, M. Are individualized reading programs helpful? Educational Technology , November, 1975, 15, 30-33. "~~ Ramsey, W.Z. The Kentucky reading study. The Reading Teacher , 1963, 16, 178-181. Riessmann, F. Can schools teach children: What is stopping them What is to be done? Journal of Educational Research and Development , 1972 , 5(1) , 83-90. Rodenborn, L.V. , and Washburn, E. Some implications of the new basal readers. Elementary English, September, 1974, 51, 885-888. Rowe, R. , and Dornhoefer, E. Individualized reading. Childhood Education , November, 1957, 34, 118-122. Safford, A.L. Evaluation of an individualized reading program. Reading Teacher , April, 1960, 13.' 266-270. Sarason, S. The culture of the school and the problem of change . Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc., 1971. Saxton, H. An investigation of the values in basal reading materials for superior readers. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Conn., 1957). Dissertation Abstracts, 1957, 17/10, 2225.

PAGE 115

105 Schiavone, J. A seventh grade reading enricliment program. Journal of Developmental Reading , Winter, 1960, 3^, 106-114. Schwartzberg, H. What children think of individualized reading. The Reading Teacher , November, 1962, 16 , 86-89. Sharpe, M.W. An individualized reading program. Elementary English , December, 1958, 35^, 507-512. Sherlock, R.P. The reading laboratory. Journal of Secon dary Education , October, 1963, 3£, 19-21. Smith, L.L., and Rieback, J. A middle school tries contractual reading. Clearing House , March, 1971, 45, 404-406. Smith, N.B. Reading instruction for today's children . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1963. Spache, G. , and Spache, E. Reading in the elementary school . (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1969. Spache, G. The teaching of reading . Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Foundation, 1972, 32-40. Stauffer, R. Individualized and group type directed reading instruction. Elementary English , October, 1960, 32/ 375-382. Stine, R.M. An investigation of individualized reading and basal reading in a junior high school. (Doctoral dissertation, Penn. State, 1962) . Dissertation Abstracts , 1962, 23/07, 2429. Strang, R. Role of the junior high school in the teaching of reading. High School Journal , December, 1966, 50, 133-136. Strang, R. Guidance and the teaching of reading . International Reading Association, Newark, Delaware, 1969. Strang, R. , McCullough, M. , and Traxler, A.E. The improve ment of re ading (4th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, T967: Thiel, N. An analysis of the effectiveness of the teaching of reading by individual prescriptions. Moorhead State College, Minnesota: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, May, 1972, ED 061 690.

PAGE 116

106 Thornton, C. Two high school reading improvement programs. Journal of Developmental Reading , Winter, 1960, 3^, 115-122. Twenty-Fourth Yearbook of the National Society of the Study of Education . Chicago, Illinois: University Press, 1923. Veatch, J. Children's interests and individualized reading. The Reading Teacher , February, 1957, 10^, 160-165. Veatch, J. Can all teachers individualize? Library Journal , December, 1961, £6, 4326. Walker, C. An evaluation of two programs of reading in grades 4, 5 and 6 of the elementary school: A study of the basal text program and the extensive individualized reading program in the intermediate grades to determine comparative growth in reading attitudes, habits, and skills. (Doctoral dissertation. New York University, 1957) . Dissertation Abstracts , 1957, 19/02, 256. Wamba, D.E. Reading in high school: Some programs in action. Claremont College Reading Conference, 1961, 123-131. Ware, O.H,, and Smith, D,D. Reading labs: Proving grounds for success. Texas Outlook , April, 1969, 53^, 22-23. Warren, M. The Massapequa Junior High School Reading Program. Journal of Developmental Reading , Summer, 1962, 5, 245-255. Weisse, E. Teaching trends in junior high reading. Reading Improvement , Spring, 1969, 6^(1), 16-17, 20. Williams, G. Prescriptive teaching linked to a learning and tutorial center. Arlington, Va.: Eric Document Reproduction Service, 1971, ED 056 833. Willower, D. Barriers to change in educational organizations. Theory into Practice , December, 1963, 257-263. Wilson, R. , and Harrison, R. Skill growth with individualized reading. Elementary English , April, 1963, £0, 433-435. Witty, P. Individualized reading: A summary and evaluation. Elementary English , October, 1959, 3_6, 401-412.

PAGE 117

107 Wood, P. A. Judging the value of a reading program. Journal of Reading , May, 1976, 19, 618-620. Young, C.A. A qualitative analysis of reading achievement in Edmonton schools. Alberta Journal of Educa tional Research , 1956, 2, 135-150. '

PAGE 118

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Vicki LaFreniere Welsch was born in Huntington, New York^ on April 3, 1948, She received her Bachelor's degree in English from Stetson University in 1969, and her Master of Education degree from the University of Florida, in 1972. She has taught English in grades ten and eleven and reading in grades six through twelve. She has been an English Department chairperson in a rural high school, a language arts vertical committee chairperson in the same middle school, and a team leader in the middle school. She has taught a reading inservice component for Alachua County and has served on several county level task committees. All of her eight years of teaching experience have been in Gainesville, Florida. She is married to Boyd D. Welsch who is currently in dental school. She is a member of the International Reading Association, Florida State Reading Association, and the Alachua County Education Association. 108

PAGE 119

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. Rilthellen Crews, Chairperson Professor of Curriculum and Instruction 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. Ralphr B. Kimbrough Professor of Educational Administration 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. Lawrence L. Smith Assistant Professor of Curriculum and Instruction 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^Df j^hilosophy. H.T. Fillmer Professor of Curriculum and Instruction 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^Jiotrtor of Philosophy. Vincent McQuire Professor of Curriculum and Instruction

PAGE 120

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. June, 1977 Dean, Graduate School