Citation
The Use of oral prompts as an effective teaching strategy in oral reading activities

Material Information

Title:
The Use of oral prompts as an effective teaching strategy in oral reading activities
Creator:
Seely, Patricia Butcka ( Dissertant )
Powell, William R. ( Thesis advisor )
Algina, James J. ( Reviewer )
Smith, Lawrence ( Reviewer )
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1981
Language:
English
Physical Description:
viii, 94 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic achievement ( jstor )
Analysis of variance ( jstor )
Classrooms ( jstor )
Educational strategies ( jstor )
Oral reading ( jstor )
Reading teachers ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Transfer students ( jstor )
Curriculum and Instruction thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Curriculum and Instruction -- UF
Oral reading ( lcsh )
Prompting (Education) ( lcsh )
Reading (Elementary) ( lcsh )
Volusia County ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
A primary purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which teachers adopted a method of teacher prompts when working with average fifth-grade readers in oral reading acitvities. A second purpose of this study was to examine the use of teacher prompts as an effective teaching strategy with average readers in fifth grade in oral reading activities. Three main objectives were included in the investigation. 1. Teacher ability to adopt a prompting condition when correcting student oral reading errors. 2. Student achievement gains when teacher prompts were used in oral reading activities. 3. Effectiveness of four designated prompting conditions among one another. The six schools selected for the three-and-one-half month studywere located in Volusia County, Florida, and represented the three different socioeconomic groups. Twelve teacher subjects were randomly selected. Three teachers were randomly assigned to one of four prompting conditions: 1) uncorrected,2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, or 4) repeat. They were instructed to use the assigned prompts as often as possible when correcting the average fifth-grade readers' oral reading errors during the daily 30-minute instructional period. Each teacher was observed 14 times during the study. The 72 average fifth-grade readers were selected from a larger population of fifth-graders. In the final analysis, 67 students were considered. The results of the study suggested that teachers could adopt assigned prompts when working with average fifth-grade readers. The uncorrected and semantic prompts recorded significant adoptability. The repeat prompt showed no difference in adoptability in relation to the other prompts. The graphophonic prompt recorded no significance in adoptability. The results of the student achievement gains indicated that the uncorrected prompt produced significant student gains whereas the graphophonic, semantic, and repeat prompts produced no significant differences during the three-and-one-half month study.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1981.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 88-92.
Original Version:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Patricia Butcka Seely.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
028150627 ( AlephBibNum )
08101191 ( OCLC )
ABS2770 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











THE USE OF ORAL PROMPTS AS AN EFFECTIVE
TEACHING STRATEGY IN ORAL READING ACTIVITIES













BY

PATRICIA BUTCKA SEELY


















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

































Copyright 1981

by

Patricia Butcka Seely














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I wish to express my sincere appreciation to all members of my

committee.

Dr. William Powell, chairman of the advisory committee, was helpful

in many ways. His support and encouragement through the various stages

of my doctoral work and dissertation were invaluable. He epitomizes the

true professional educator in every way.

My special thanks to Dr. James Algina for his willingness to help

me through various trying moments. I appreciated his support and words

of encouragement.

Dr. Lawrence Smith was a helpful and supportive member of my

committee. I appreciated his help and advice.

My thanks go to Dr. Timothy Blair and Dr. Doyle Casteel who

offered their assistance and advice during the various stages of my

dissertation.

Also appreciated was the help of Dianne Downing who helped with

the typing of dissertation drafts.

I owe a special note of gratitude to Linda Davidson, my best

friend, who was always supportive with a kind work and thoughtful

deed.

I owe a great deal to my stepfather, Bill Lastinger, and to my

sister and brother, Debbie McCullough and Walter Butcka, who helped me

in their own special ways.









To my mother, Anne Lastinger, I owe an exceptional debt of

thanks for providing an atmosphere filled with love and encouragement

to become the best I could be. Her continuous love and support have

filled my life in a way that only she and I will understand.















TABLE OF CONTENTS


PAGES


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . .

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . .

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . .
Objectives and Research Questions . . . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . .
Basic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . .
Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . . . .
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. . . . . .


Rationale for Oral Reading Instruction
Feedback . . . . . . . .
Teacher Conceptualizations . . .
Teacher-Student Interaction. . . .
Use of Prompts . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER III PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY

Pilot Studies . . . . . .
Research Study . . . . . .
Sample . . . . . . . .
Instruments. . . . . . . .
Procedure . . .. .
Method of Analysis . . . . .


. . . . 10
. . . . 12
. . . . 14
. . . . 17
. . . . 21
. . . . 24

. . . . 26

. . . . 26
. . . . 29
. . . . 30
. . . . 31
. . . . 34
. . . . 37


CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF THE STUDY . . . . . . .

Results . . . . . . . . .
Summary and Discussions . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . .









PAGES

APPENDIX A SAN DIEGO QUICK ASSESSMENT WORD LISTS . 73

APPENDIX B INFORMAL READING INVENTORY . . . ... 75

APPENDIX C POWELL CRITERIA . . . . . .... 82

APPENDIX D CODING SHEET FOR RECORDING TEACHERS'
ADOPTABILITY OF ASSIGNED PROMPTS . . .. .87

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . ... 88

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. . . . . . . . . 93














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



THE USE OF ORAL PROMPTS AS AN
EFFECTIVE TEACHING STRATEGY IN
ORAL READING ACTIVITIES

By

Patricia Butcka Seely

August 1981

Chairman: William R. Powell
Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction



A primary purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which

teachers adopted a method of teacher prompts when working with average

fifth-grade readers in oral reading acitvities.

A second purpose of this study was to examine the use of teacher

prompts as an effective teaching strategy with average readers in fifth

grade in oral reading activities.

Three main objectives were included in the investigation.

1. Teacher ability to adopt a prompting condition when

correcting student oral reading errors.

2. Student achievement gains when teacher prompts were used

in oral reading activities.

3. Effectiveness of four designated prompting conditions

among one another.









The six schools selected for the three-and-one-half month study

were located in Volusia County, Florida, and represented the three

different socioeconomic groups.

Twelve teacher subjects were randomly selected. Three teachers

were randomly assigned to one of four prompting conditions: 1) un-

corrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, or 4) repeat. They were in-

structed to use the assigned prompts as often as possible when correcting

the average fifth-grade readers' oral reading errors during the daily

30-minute instructional period. Each teacher was observed 14 times

during the study.

The 72 average fifth-grade readers were selected from a larger

population of fifth-graders. In the final analysis, 67 students were

considered.

The results of the study suggested that teachers could adopt as-

signed prompts when working with average fifth-grade readers. The

uncorrected and semantic prompts recorded significant adoptability.

The repeat prompt showed no difference in adoptability in relation to

the other prompts. The graphophonic prompt recorded no significance

in adoptability.

The results of the student achievement gains indicated that the

uncorrected prompt produced significant student gains whereas the

graphophonic, semantic, and repeat prompts produced no significant dif-

ferences during the three-and-one-half month study.














CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


During an oral reading task the reader is likely to give an in-

correct response. The teacher must then decide how to react to the

error and whether to provide feedback to the reader. The first decision

is concerned with whether to signify to the reader that an error had

been made or whether to withhold reaction. Secondly, the teacher must

decide at what point she will provide feedback to the student that a

specific error had been make. The final decision for the teacher is

concerned with the type of prompt she will use to provide feedback to

the oral reader.

Many educators believe that immediate correction of student errors

is most facilitative to oral reading instruction while others support

different methods including delayed feedback, cuing, and repeating.

Although a variety of instructional techniques are available, reading

programs of the past and recent years have favored the immediate feedback

approach whereby the teacher corrects a student's errors at the time they

occur. Teachers adopting this approach believe that failure to correct

errors in oral reading promotes learning of incorrect responses (Niles,

Graham, and Winstead, 1977). However, Pehrsson (1974) found that teacher

interruptions of student oral reading caused recall to decline. Similarly,

Buschke (1974) found that recall with young oral readers would also

decline through teacher interruptions during the oral reading stage

unless the students were probed at the conclusion of the task.









Gattegno (Mlitchell, 1979) suggested that not only must teachers

be concerned with the errors made by students during oral reading

activities but with effective methods of dealing with them. Inter-

rupting a student's oral reading performance should not be the only

strategy used by a teacher. Goodman (1970) stated that teachers must

go beyond the errors. Therefore, educators cannot merely correct

errors but must examine effective strategies to use with students.

Brophy and Good (1978) argued that teacher education programs

do not provide teachers with the necessary skills to work effectively

in this domain. They believed that teachers are not trained to adopt

different strategies for classroom use nor given practice in refining

such strategies. This suggests that teacher responses to errors may

be guided to provide valuable and meaningful instruction.

This study was concerned with the examination of the different

methods of providing feedback to student oral reading errors. The

methods under investigation included the following: 1) uncorrected,

2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, and 4) repeat. Specifically, each

method was examined with average readers in the fifth grade who were

taught by teachers who employed one of the methods during oral reading

instruction.

This study served as a facilitative examination of the use of

prompts as an effective teaching strategy and an impetus for future

investigations and research.


Statement of the Problem

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the extent to

which teachers adopted a method of teacher prompts when working with










average fifth-grade readers in oral reading activities using basal

readers as the primary source of instructional reading material.

Since four different types of prompts were studied, each type was

observed to gauge its adoptability as a teaching strategy.

A second purpose of this study was to examine the use of teacher

prompts as an effective teaching strategy with average readers in

fifth grade in oral reading activities. Student achievement gains

were studied after students had been exposed to one of four designated

teacher prompts for a three-and-one-half month period. The four

identified prompts were 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic,

and 4) repeat.


Objectives and Research Questions


Listed below were the objectives of this study. Immediately

following each objective were the specific questions that were studied.


Objective I

To investigate the use of teacher prompts as an effective

teaching strategy with average readers in the fifth grade.


Question IA

Are teacher prompts an effective teaching strategy with average

readers in the fifth grade?


Objective II

To investigate teacher adoptability of particular prompting

procedures.









Question IIA

Will there be differences in teacher adoptability among the

different prompting procedures?


Question IIB

Will one prompting procedure produce more significant adopt-

ability than the others?


Objective III

To investigate student achievement gains between prompting

procedures.


Question IIIA

Will there be differences in student achievement gains between

the different prompting procedures?


Question IIIB

Will one prompting procedure produce more significant gains than

the others?


Hypotheses


The research hypotheses were stated in the null form and are

listed below. An explanation for the statistical analysis for each

hypothesis will be presented later in the study.


Hypothesis IA

There will be no significant adoptability by teachers among the

different prompting conditions.









Hypothesis IB

There will be no significant adoptability of a particular prompting

condition over the others.


Hypothesis IIA

There will be no significant achievement gains by students between

the different prompting conditions.


Hypothesis IIB

There will be no significant achievement gains by students of a

particular prompting condition.


Basic Assumptions


It was assumed in this study that:

1. All fifth-grade students involved with this study received

the same basic oral reading skills training as set forth by county

and state regulations.

2. All fifth-grade students involved with this study received

equal amounts of teacher time, instruction, and materials although

the material goods varied.

3. All oral reading instruction was directed by the participating

teacher rather than from outside help (aides, interns, volunteers,

etc.).

4. Since the subjects were randomly grouped, home background,

prior school background, and prior instruction in oral reading were

equal in all classes.

5. Teacher ability to adopt a new oral reading teaching

strategy was equal.










6. Outside variables were evenly distributed among all

classes.


Definition of Terms


For the purpose of this study certain terms will be defined

according to their usage in this study.


Basal Readers

Basal readers are referred to as foundation readers. They may be

of two types: 1) method readers where the material is primarily selected

with reference to phonetic difficulties so that the reader will more

readily acquire the independent power to pronounce words from the

printed page, and 2) non-method readers where phonetic and diacritical

factors are quite subordinated to the thought of the material presented.


Coding

Coding is a process by which a researcher collects units of

teacher behavior at specified intervals.


Graphophonic

A graphophonic prompt is a type of teacher prompt whereby a

teacher is concerned with the visual characteristics and sound charac-

teristics of a word and encourages the student to consider one or both

characteristics.


Informal Reading Inventory

The informal reading inventory is an individual test to determine

oral and silent reading achievement. It consists of graded word lists,









graded reading passages and comprehension questions for each passage.

An informal reading inventory is used to determine an individual's

independent, instructional, and frustration reading levels.


Instructional Level

An instructional level is the highest level at which instruction

in reading may be inaugurated. Materials for this level should be

difficult enough to be challenging but not so difficult as to be

frustrating.


Powell Criteria

The Powell criteria are the differentiated criteria set by

William Powell (1969, 1978) for determining reading levels.


Prompt

A prompt is an external source of information which helps the

student to arrive at a correct response to a problem. A prompt may

be given to reinforce the reader's correct response or may serve as a

cue to the reader that an incorrect response was given. The study

included four types of prompts: 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic,

3) semantic, and 4) repeat.


Random Sampling

Random sampling permits each member of the population to have the

same chance for selection in the sample.


Repeat

A repeat prompt is a type of teacher prompt whereby the teacher

provides feedback to students' oral reading performance after the









reading passage or complex thought was completed. The prompt is used

to cue the reader that the oral reading was different from the printed

text. The repeat prompt does not cue the reader to specific errors

but to discrepancies between the oral reading and printed text.


Semantic

A semantic prompt is a type of teacher prompt whereby the teacher

provides feedback to students' oral reading performance after the

reading passage or complex thought was completed. The prompt is used

to cue the reader that a change in the author's meaning or intent

resulted from the error. Although the semantic prompt does not cue

the reader to specific errors, the reader is made aware of discrepancies

in what he orally read and the printed text.


Standardized Tests

Standardized tests provide a sample of achievement or ability.

They may be norm-referenced or criterion-referenced with individual

scores reported in derived scores (grade equivalents, percentiles or

stanines).


Transfer

Transfer is regarded as a shift in responsibility for correcting

a student's oral reading errors from teacher to student. Transfer may

be regarded as a terminal process which would eventually cause the

student to be self-sufficient when correcting oral reading errors.


Uncorrected

An uncorrected teacher prompt is a type of teacher prompt whereby

the teacher provides no feedback to students when an oral reading

error occurs.










Limitations of the Study


The findings and conclusions reached in this study were limited

to a random sample of fifth-grade students and teachers in Volusia

County, Florida, during the 1980-1981 school year and do not necessarily

reflect the use of prompts as an effective teaching strategy for all

fifth-grade students and teachers in other settings.

Each teacher subject received a one-hour training session con-

cerning the use of the assigned prompt. No additional training was

given nor was feedback given during the study. This insured that all

teacher subjects received the same amount of teacher training throughout

the study.

The study's limited focus was on fifth-grade students who were

receiving oral reading instruction on the fifth-grade level. The

fifth grade was selected for the study because there were no additional

remedial or enrichment reading programs offered at this level which

could have affected the amount of oral reading instruction each student

was given.

The study was concerned with the students' ability to make

significant achievement gains in oral reading activities. Student

achievement gains for each type of prompt were also studied.

The study did not take into account the different grouping

processes among the different classrooms. That is, differences

between departmentalized, self-contained, and open-space groupings were

not studied.














CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Rationale for Oral Reading Instruction


Oral reading instruction must be a prime consideration of the

total reading program. Harris (1961), Sipay (1969) and Durkin (1970)

have deemed oral reading as a necessary component of reading in-

struction which must be fostered with great care. It should provide

the student with the necessary skills and confidence to function in

an everchanging world. Moody (1974) described the oral reading process

as

.a necessary social and pedagogical skill,
and indeed a valid modification, or extension,
of skill in spoken English, which can be neglected
only to the detriment of any community in which
the language has an important role. (315)

Although oral reading serves as an integral means of communication,

the goal of oral reading should go beyond this basic need. Efforts

should be exerted to guide students from teacher-dependency to self-

sufficiency. That is, an ultimate goal of oral reading instruction

should make the reader more responsible for his own oral reading in-

struction. To acquire the necessary skills for self-sufficiency in

oral reading the individual must be taught to automatically confront

new ideas, overcome vocabulary,and assimilate new thoughts as a

simultaneous process. Teachers must make a conscientious effort to

guide students through this developmental process using practices and









strategies appropriate to the learning task. "Not only must oral

reading be regarded as an integral part of the instructional program

but . teachers should use the most pedagogically sound method of

practicing reading which will best develop essential oral reading

skills" (Cox and Shrigley, 1980, p. 306).

Weinstein (1976) believed that oral reading is the teacher's

best method for gauging student growth in reading. The teacher has

the opportunity to point out accurate and inaccurate responses to

print and to engage the student in meaningful dialogue. Such dialogue

between teacher and student provides the essence of good oral reading

instruction (Hoffman and Baker, 1981). The dialogue typically involves

the teacher giving feedback or instruction to the student's oral

reading performance and allows the student to accept or reject the

teacher feedback and move on.

Pearson (1976) maintained that a goal of good oral reading in-

struction should allow the student to regulate his own oral language

and to detect oral reading errors. To do this Pearson suggests a three-

step system: 1) student must see the relationship between oral speech

and print, 2) student's anxiety level must be minimized to promote

fluent reading rather than mere guessing, and 3) student must see that

both oral speech and print involve the student's own experiences.

If the goal of oral reading instruction is to cause students to

become more independent, self-sufficient readers, instruction must be

designed to guide students through a developmental process which allows

them to accept the responsibility of regulating oral reading. Various

researchers have maintained the need for teacher awareness and involve-

ment in the guidance process while using appropriate teaching practices









to aid students (Cox and Shrigley, 1980; Weinstein, 1976; Pearson,

1976). Oral reading instruction cannot be regarded as a continuous

dialogue between teacher and student in and of itself; rather, the

dialogue between teacher and student evolves into a monologue by the

student with himself in control of the total oral reading process.


Feedback


According to Bourne (1966), feedback is an external source of

information which helps the student to arrive at a correct response

to a problem. Feedback may be given to reinforce the reader's correct

response or may serve as a cue to the reader that an incorrect response

was given. Niles and Tech (1980) believe that teachers give feedback

for two main reasons: 1) for the purpose of assisting comprehension,

or 2) for the acquisition or recognition purpose. Although it would

be difficult to approach the two purposes as separate skills that are

segregated from one another, the teacher must decide her purpose for

using feedback and adjust her strategies to meet her goals. If the

primary concern of the teacher is to build comprehension skills,her

feedback strategies to students might be quite different than those

strategies used to build word recognition skills. Therefore, a teacher

must identify her purpose for the oral reading task and adjust her

feedback strategies to meet the purpose.

When the student makes an oral reading error the teacher may

choose from three strategies. The reader can be informed 1) of both

right and wrong answers, 2) of right answers only, or 3) of wrong

answers only. At that time the teacher makes a decision as to whom

should accept the responsibility for correcting the error. If the









teacher decides to supply the correct word or cue to the student for

both correct and incorrect responses, she accepts the responsibility

for correction of the error. If, on the other hand, the teacher decides

to cue the student that a wrong response was given, she is transferring

the responsibility for correction to the student.

During the transfer of responsibility for correction from teacher

to student the reader must adopt a set of behaviors to meet the oral

reading feedback situations. The process involves three main steps:

1) The reader recognizes that a deviation has occurred and must decide

whether to accept the response or to correct the response; 2) The reader

decides whether to correct immediately or to delay correction; and

3) The reader decides what strategies to use in the correction. The

process is concerned with both the timing factor of correction (im-

mediate or delayed) and the type of correction used. Thus, the student

must assume responsibility for two decisions when he accepts self-

correction.

Niles and Tech (1980) stated that the reader must process feedback

at the two separate levels simultaneously. While the reader contends

with the major task of deriving meaning from print, he must also judge

his own oral responses. A reader who receives feedback from the teacher

and who accepts responsibility for correction of the oral reading error

must process information on two higher levels of thought than a reader

who does not receive some type of feedback (Niles and Tech, 1980).

Therefore, a reader who receives feedback and accepts responsibility

for oral reading corrections may be confronted with a more complicated

reading task which encourages the reader to be more self-sufficient.









Teacher use of feedback when instructing students in oral reading

activities may be very beneficial if the teacher has identified her

purpose for providing feedback and the specific strategies to use to

achieve the goals. Feedback may also be advantageous in involving

students in the correction process through transfer of responsibility

for oral reading corrections. If a teacher's ultimate goal in oral

reading instruction is to make students self-sufficient in oral reading,

feedback may be regarded as an important and necessary factor for

students.


Teacher Conceptualizations


Although research has been conducted on oral reading errors

during the early decades of the century (Madden and Pratt, 1941;

McCullough, 1946; Monroe, 1928, 1932), investigations were most often

limited to remedial situations where teachers were removed from the

normal classroom environment. Additionally, teacher practices and

strategies for dealing with student oral reading errors were overlooked

in favor of analyzing specific student miscues during the oral reading

task. This resulted in little practical advice to teachers for ef-

fective methods for dealing with student errors.

Various researchers of the 1960s recognized the need for in-

vestigations into teacher involvement in the oral reading process

(Conrad, 1964; Corder, 1967; Wickelgren, 1965). They contended that

the teacher must be regarded as an important factor in oral reading

programs when assessing specific student miscues. Although lacking

in theoretical consideration, they did progress the idea that a teacher

should be able to aid students with text discrepancies.









Spiegel and Rogers (1980) stated that teacher feedback may be a

viable part of the reading instruction program. The teacher's feed-

back may aid the student in word identification in actual reading

situations. Also, the way by which a teacher offers feedback could

provide valuable insight into the teacher's theoretical perception

of reading and her expectations of student oral reading performance.

For example, teachers who rely on the interrupted method may be

primarily concerned with the student's ability to accurately pronounce

the printed words on a page. Teachers who rely most often on delayed

feedback may be more concerned with the overall meaning or intent of

the author.

Investigations in the 1970s were conducted by researchers who

focused on the behavioral aspects of the teacher when dealing with

student errors. Anderson and Brophy (1976), Brophy and Evertson (1974)

and Terry and Cohen (1977) believed that a teacher's behavior in

providing feedback to student miscues was an integral part of the

student correction process. They further believed that such teacher

behavior could provide an understanding of particular theoretical

frameworks held by individual teachers (Mitchell, 1979).

Carroll and Chall (1975) suggested that teacher beliefs about

reading heavily influence their instructional practices. Harste and

Burke (1977) agreed and stated further that teachers do indeed have

identifiable models of reading which are reflected in their teaching

strategies.

Bawden, Burke and Duffy (1979) identified five conceptualizations

of reading which serve as models of reading: 1) linear skills,










2) basal text, 3) natural language, 4) interest, and 5) integrated

curriculum. Their study of 23 teachers showed that 20 of them had

at least two overlapping conceptualizations. The researchers con-

cluded that teachers were more easily identifiable by content centered

(linear skills, basal text) and child centered (natural language,

interest, integrated curriculum). Additionally, the years of teacher

experience affected conceptualizations of reading with more experienced

teachers being more child centered. However, the results showed that

although teacher conceptualizations were a major force in oral reading

feedback, other factors as reading ability, grade level and other con-

text variables were of more importance when the two sets of conceptuali-

zations were compared. This would indicate that teacher conceptuali-

zations are very important in guiding students to correct oral reading

responses but should be considered in light of other factors.

The investigations of Conrad (1964), Corder (1967), Wickelgren

(1965) and Spiegel and Rogers (1980) emphasized the importance of

teacher involvement in oral reading programs. Not only is the teacher

facilitative in teaching word recognition skills to students during

oral reading instruction but integral in guiding the students to be-

come self-sufficient readers. Through the use of feedback a teacher

may provide students with the necessary training and skills to become

more independent readers.

The ability to guide students towards independence in reading

relies heavily on teacher conceptualizations of reading. Carroll and

Chall (1975), Bawden, Burke and Duffy (1979) and Harste and Burke

(1977) agreed that teachers do hold specific beliefs concerning reading

which affect their behavior when instructing students in oral reading.









Although research is scarce concerning the actual possibility of

teachers being able to adopt new teaching strategies in light of

preconceived strategies, indications are that teachers could adopt

new practices if sufficient training and experience were provided.

Even with preconceived teacher conceptualizations of reading, teachers

should be able to effectively provide meaningful feedback to students

which would aid the readers in assuming control of the correction

process in oral reading activities.


Teacher-Student Interaction


Feedback in oral reading situations is viewed as an effective

way to improve word recognition (Biemiller, 1970; Brady and Lynch,

1976; Jenkins and Larson, 1978). However, the researchers regarded

teacher feedback as a terminal practice which would transfer the re-

sponsibility of feedback from teacher to student. In this way the

student would adopt an independent feedback process comprised of three

different prompts: 1) graphophonic, 2) syntactic, and 3) semantic.

Biemiller (1970), Goodman (1970) and Weber (1970) believed that

the student would progress from teacher responsibility for providing

feedback to accepting responsibility for providing his own feedback.

The researchers regarded this as a developmental process shared equally

by the student and teacher.

Investigations have shown that teachers do use different strategies

for providing feedback to students that are based on teacher conceptuali-

zations. Although most teachers favor a transfer of feedback responsi-

bility from teacher to student, in practice they most often fail to









transfer the responsibility. Additionally, teacher perceptions of a

student's reading ability could be a major factor in a teacher's

adoption and transfer of feedback.

Anderson, Brophy, and Everston (1977) and Anderson and Brophy

(1976) also recognized the need for transfer of feedback from teacher

to student but found that teachers would most often supply the word

rather than lead the student through the necessary steps to allow for

transfer of feedback. The studies used first-grade students as sub-

jects in situations where a faster reading pace was of more importance

than interrupting a student to employ a particular prompt. Different

results might occur if older students were studied.

Investigations by Brady and Lynch (1976) found that teachers did

not practice a systematic guidance process which would progress from

teacher responsibility for providing feedback to student responsibility

for providing his own feedback. Instead, most teachers studied were

grouped into one of three categories: 1) teachers who used all types

of prompts with little consideration of their appropriateness, 2) teachers

who used no prompts, and 3) teachers who used a variety of prompts but

with little effort to use particular prompts at appropriate times or

with little attention given to the guidance of feedback responsibility

from teacher to student.

Although the transfer feedback process was well accepted in con-

cept, in actual practice it was not adopted by most teachers. This

suggests two possibilities for the apparent lack of adoptability:

1) the teachers were not trained to transfer the responsibility of

providing feedback to students or, 2) the teachers could not do so.









Pehrsson (1974) studied the process of providing feedback from

both a teacher's and student's viewpoint. He was interested in

establishing whose responsibility it was to provide feedback when

fifth-graders read orally from 200-word sixth-grade passages. The

students read under one of three conditions: 1) uncorrected in which

the students received no help, 2) corrected in which the students

were asked to pay attention to words,and 3) unaided in which the

students were asked to pay close attention to words. Pehrsson found

that readers could indeed provide their own feedback if the teacher

provided some type of meaning orientation. Therefore, Pehrsson sug-

gested that the transfer of responsibility for providing feedback may

vary between types of errors, particular prompts, and the meaning

orientation established between teacher and student.

The transfer of responsibility for providing feedback could also

be affected by the teacher's perceptions of student reading ability.

Gumperz and Hernandez-Chavez (1972) found that teachers did indeed

vary the amount of feedback between good and poor readers with poor

readers receiving more interrupted feedback than the good readers.

Allington (1980) investigated the same issue with 20 teachers and

147 good and 120 poor readers on the primary level. The tapes of the

oral reading selections were analyzed for the selection (no response),

timing (point of feedback),and the content of the prompt graphemess,

phonemes, semantic/syntactic, teacher pronounce and other). The pro-

portion scores showed that poor readers received more feedback than

good readers, 74% to 31% respectively. For semantically unacceptable

responses, the poor readers again received more feedback, 76% to 54%.









For teacher-pronounced words the poor readers also received more

feedback, 50% to 38% for good readers.

The results of the Allington study suggested that teachers felt

a greater need to help the poorer readers who showed difficulties in

fluent reading and comprehension whereas teachers thought the good

readers could figure out the correct responses by themselves. This

would indicate that teachers could adjust their conceptualizations

according to their perceptions of a student's reading ability.

The studies by Biemiller (1970), Brady and Lynch (1976) and

Jenkins and Larson (1978) regarded feedback in oral reading activities

as a terminal process which must progress in a developmental manner from

teacher-directed to student-directed. Anderson, Brophy, and Everston

(1977) and Anderson and Brophy (1976) found that teachers do recognize

the need to guide students through the transfer process although in

actual practice teachers often disregard the developmental steps

necessary in the transfer process. This would indicate that teachers

vary in the concepts they hold concerning the transfer of feedback and

actual practice when working with students in oral reading activities.

The studies cited suggest the need for further research into the

teacher-student transfer process of feedback in oral reading. Research

is necessary to determine the extent to which teachers can instigate

their concepts concerning the transfer of feedback into actual practice

when instructing students in oral reading activities and their effective-

ness in guiding students to accept responsibility of the feedback process.









Use of Prompts


Niles and Tech (1980) suggested that not only must we be con-

cerned with the necessity of feedback in oral reading and the ability

of the teacher to transfer the responsibility for providing feedback

to the student but with the amount and type of feedback. To be more

explicit, what type of prompts should be used and how much prompting

should occur by the teacher and by the student?

Pearson (1976) stated that teachers have long regarded oral

reading errors as things that should be corrected. Although teachers

were unsure as to the type of prompt to use in particular situations

or how often to prompt, they did believe that failure to correct would

promote learning incorrect responses among the students. Pearson re-

garded the popularity of such practices by teachers as having ". . a

seductive rationale behind them." He gave the example often used by

teachers in correcting oral reading errors as having the student read

a word off a flashcard or making lists of words missed to be read and

reread by the student. Such practices, Pearson believed, placed total

responsibility for prompting on the teacher who would more than likely

use the same prompting condition for all miscues. Little attention or

responsibility was given to the student to decide his own prompting

strategies. Instead, Pearson believed that the ultimate goal of

prompting should place the responsibility and choice of prompting on

the student with care given that the student be trained to use prompts

and prompting strategies effectively.

Pearson's ideas for student involvement may be traced to the

Goodman line of thought. Goodman (1970) maintained that the student









is the main provider of feedback and little teacher feedback is

needed. Goodman stated further that errors were ever-present

when a student was learning new material and should be taught how

to provide his own prompts for guiding instruction. From this view-

point the teacher plays a minor role in prompting and the type and

amount of prompting becomes the major issue.

Jenkins and Larson (1978), however, viewed the issue in a re-

versed way from Goodman. If one accepts the Jenkins and Larson (1978)

belief then one accepts the belief that the teacher is the main pro-

vider of prompts with minimal student responsibility. Using a case

study/experimental approach with five junior high students, the re-

searchers studied the effects of five different prompting conditions

with remedial readers. Of the prompting conditions studied (no cor-

rection, sentence repeat, end of page review with teacher-pronounced

words, word meaning with teacher providing the word and teacher or

student providing the definition, and drill with the word correctly

taught to mastery), results indicated that drill was superior with the

teacher guiding the prompting process. The least effective prompting

condition was the no correction condition where the teacher did not

guide the student in the prompting process. The results suggested that

teacher involvement and guidance in providing prompts would affect

student learning.

Niles, Graham and Winstead (1977), working with fourth-grade

students, studied two types of prompts to gauge the effects of student-

directed feedback where the teacher did not provide a correction con-

dition and teacher-directed feedback where the teacher provided a










graphophonic prompt. The results of the study showed that students

could provide their own feedback effectively when the goal of the

oral reading task was to express the meaning of the passage. The

results also indicated that teacher use of the graphophonic prompt to

aid student corrections could be as effective. However, since only

one teacher prompt was studied, it would be impossible to predict the

effectiveness of other prompts on the basis of this study.

Niles (1979),using third-graders, expanded the original study

to include two additional prompting conditions: 1) a semantic

prompting condition in which the teacher asked if a meaning change

deviation made sense,and 2) a repeat condition in which the teacher

asked the reader to repeat a sentence which contained a meaning change

but was not explicitly told there was a change. The results indicated

that the graphophonic prompt produced less semantically acceptable

responses and more responses which changed the author's meaning. The

semantic and repeat conditions produced results similar to the uncor-

rected condition with no significant differences recorded across any

of the four conditions. This would indicate that the graphophonic

prompt relied mainly on graphic level information already in the text

while the other prompts relied on the semantic level information.

The results of the series of studies (Jenkins and Larson, 1978;

Niles, 1979; Niles, Graham and Winstead, 1977; Pearson, 1976) investi-

gated prompting conditions in a limited scope. The researchers attempted

to study the effects of particular prompts on teacher-student inter-

action and the transfer of responsibility for prompting. They did not,

however, sufficiently explore the effectiveness of particular prompts









on student achievement, the ability of teachers to adopt particular

prompts, nor the amount of prompting necessary for student achieve-

ment. Such concerns should be given increased attention to progress

the understanding of prompts and feedback in oral reading instruction.


Summary


If the goal of oral reading instruction is to guide students

toward independency in oral reading tasks, teachers must practice

appropriate strategies to aid students during this developmental

process. Teachers must be aware of the purpose of oral reading in-

struction and adjust their instructional practices to meet these

purposes.

The use of feedback to students during oral reading activities

has been viewed as an advantageous instructional practice when used

correctly by teachers (Bourne, 1966; Niles and Tech, 1980). It is

imperative, however, that teachers understand the different types of

feedback and use appropriate types when guiding students in the cor-

rection of oral reading errors. Teachers must be aware of their own

conceptualizations of reading and be willing and able to adjust their

beliefs to meet the needs of individual readers. As Spiegel and Rogers

(1980) suggested, feedback may be a viable part of the instruction

program if teachers could adjust their use of feedback strategies with

their perceptions of reading. Indeed, teachers must strive to provide

meaningful feedback to students which would promote reader self-

sufficiency in the oral correction process.

The goal of oral reading instruction should not begin and end

as a teacher-student dialogue. Instead, efforts should be exerted to




25




establish effective teacher use of feedback which ultimately transfers

the responsibility of oral reading instruction from the teacher to the

student. It should be regarded as a sequential process with the end

result being reader independence.















CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY


Pilot


During the summer and fall of 1980,two pilot studies were con-

ducted by the researcher. The primary purpose of each study was to

compare the extent to which teachers adopted four methods of prompting

when working with average readers in oral reading activities using

basal readers as the primary instructional reading material.

A second purpose of each study was to compare the use of the

four teacher prompts as an effective teaching strategy in relationship

to student achievement.

Each study was conducted in public schools in Volusia County,

Florida, with teachers who were willing to participate. The schools

represented the three socioeconomic classes as determined from avail-

able data on free lunches and reduced lunches to students.

The studies were exploratory in nature rather than quantitative.

Emphasis was on studying oral prompting methods in broad terms from

which specific questions for indepth research would evolve.

A discussion of each pilot study is presented below.


Pilot Study I

Twenty-four students of varying ages and reading levels were

selected from a summer school program in Volusia County, Florida. All

participants were attending a remedial math program and were not









designated as deficient readers. Test results from the Comprehensive

Tests of Basic Skills (reading subtests) and from the Nelson-Denny

Reading Test (grade 10), administered during the spring of 1980 on a

countywide basis, indicated that all participants were average readers

on their appropriate grade levels. The student groups yielded the

following information: 1) Group I consisted on eight third-grade

students from a school of middle socioeconomic status; 2) Group II con-

sisted of eight sixth-grade students from a school of low socioeconomic

status; and 3) Group III consisted of eight tenth-grade students from

a school of high socioeconomic status.

Within each group two students were assigned to each of the

following prompting conditions: 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic,

3) semantic, and 4) repeat. Each student orally read an assigned

passage of approximately 200 words to the researcher on two occasions

with the researcher supplying the appropriate prompting condition when

the student made an oral reading error. The students were asked to

recall all they remembered. Only the second readings were considered

for evaluation.

The results showed that students in grade three could recall more

information through use of the repeat prompt. Students in grade six

could also recall more information through use of the repeat prompt.

Students in grade ten could recall more information through use of

the uncorrected prompt.

The results of Pilot Study I formulated several questions for

further research into the use of oral prompts as an effective

teaching strategy.









Pilot Study II

The primary purpose of the study was to examine the extent to

which teachers were able to adopt an assigned prompting condition

when working with average readers on the fourth-grade level.

The student subjects included 48 fourth-grade students selected

from five public schools in Volusia County, Florida,during the fall

of 1980. The students were identified as average readers from scores

on the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (reading subtests). Six

students were randomly chosen from eight classrooms and remained

unidentified to the teachers.

Eight teachers were selected from the five schools and were

randomly assigned to one of four prompting conditions. They were

instructed to use the assigned prompt as often as possible when in-

structing the average readers in oral reading activities for approxi-

mately 30 minutes per day for a one-month period.

The researcher observed both teacher and student subjects one

day per week during the study and used a coding process to gauge the

extent to which each participant adopted the assigned prompt. The

four prompting conditions included the following: 1) uncorrected,

2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, and 4) repeat.

At the conclusion of the one-month study it was found that

teachers could adopt one of the assigned prompting conditions with

little difficulty. Although the teachers seemed to adopt the uncor-

rected and repeat prompts more readily, little variation in adopta-

bility was recorded among the four conditions.









Pilot Study II held several implications for further research:

1. The study should be replicated over an extended period.

2. The study should provide qualitative data for analysis.

3. The effects of student achievement associated with the

different prompting conditions should be studied.

The pilot studies generated several questions for further

indepth study. First, could teachers adopt a particular prompting

condition over an extended period of time when working with students

in oral reading activities? Although the pilot studies indicated

that teachers could adopt a particular prompting condition over a

short period of time, the adoptability of prompting conditions over

a longer period was not established. Second, would student achievement

in oral reading increase through teacher adoptability of particular

prompting conditions? The pilot studies did not adequately assess

student achievement. An extended study would be recommended to measure

student achievement gains.

Pilot Studies I and II provided the researcher with background

information for indepth study into the effectiveness of oral prompts

as a teaching strategy. The researcher instigated a three-and-one-

half-month study to gauge the extent to which teachers adopted a

method of prompting and the subsequent effect on student achievement.

A description of the study follows.


Research Study

The researcher conducted a three-and-one-half-month study to

gauge the effectiveness of oral prompts as a teaching strategy.









Specifically, the study was concerned with the extent to which

teachers could adopt a particular prompting condition when working

with average readers in the fifth grade and the effect of the

prompting conditions on student achievement. The four prompting

conditions under investigation included the following: 1) uncorrected,

2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, and 4) repeat.


Sample


The subjects were 72 fifth-grade students who were selected

from a larger population from six public schools in Volusia County,

Florida. The students were randomly selected from a pool of average

fifth-grade readers with six students selected from each of 12 class-

rooms. The students involved in the study were unidentified to the

teachers. All subjects were enrolled in one of the participating

schools on September 8, 1980.

The six schools selected for the study included the following:

Bonner Elementary School, Minerva Bond Long Lake Helen Elementary

School, Ormond Elementary School, Pierson Elementary School, Port

Orange Elementary School, and Spruce Creek Elementary School. The

schools were selected because they contained kindergarten through

grade six and had principals and faculties who were willing to partici-

pate in the study. The schools also represented the three different

socioeconomic levels as determined by available data on free and re-

duced lunch counts for each school. Since free and reduced lunches

to students are based on family income, classification of the schools

into socioeconomic groups may be indicated.









Bonner Elementary School and Minerva Bond Long Lake Helen

Elementary School were considered the low socioeconomic schools with

over two-thirds of the students in each school qualifying for free

or reduced lunch. Pierson Elementary School and Port Orange Elementary

School were considered middle socioeconomic schools with between one-

third and two-thirds of the students qualifying for free or reduced

lunch. Ormond Elementary School and Spruce Creek Elementary School

were considered high socioeconomic schools with less than one-third

of the students qualifying for free or reduced lunch.

Twelve fifth-grade teachers were selected from the six schools

and were randomly assigned to one of four oral prompting conditions

(uncorrected, graphophonic, semantic, or repeat). The teacher sub-

jects were observed prior to the study as favoring immediate correction

of student oral reading errors.

None of the teachers were involved in the pilot studies nor given

advanced knowledge of the study. It was assumed that all teacher

subjects had equal opportunity for adopting the assigned prompting

condition.


Instruments


The student subjects were designated as average readers from

scores obtained from a standardized test, the Comprehensive Tests of

Basic Skills (reading subtests) and from scores on an informal reading

inventory (using Powell criteria).

The Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS) was selected for

use in the study since it was administered on a countywide basis. The









results of the reading subtests for each student served as a locater

for the teacher to identify a group of average readers.

All designated average readers were then administered an informal

reading inventory (IRI) by the researcher. The passages administered

ranged in readability from grade five to grade seven. Powell criteria

were used to determine the reading instructional level of each student.

Only students who were determined to be on the fifth-grade instructional

level were given an opportunity to be included in the study.


Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS)

As validation for the use of the reading subtests scores of the

CTBS, the following information was provided. The standardization of

the CTBS (Form Q) at all levels was based on a probability sample of

the entire national school population. Included in the sample were

approximately 212,000 students from grades 2 through 10 from both public

and Catholic schools from all fifty states. Geographically, the sample

also represented different types of communities and various socioeconomic

levels.

The Kuder-Richardson formula #20 was used to determine internal

consistency for Form Q. Reliability statistics were calculated on the

reading subtests and include the following information:


Mean S.D. KR#20

Total Reading 48.2 17.74 .95


The validity of the CTBS (Form Q) is based on correlation co-

efficients with the California Achievement Tests at appropriate levels









and the California Short-Form Test of Mental Maturity. Although the

data produce an acceptable measure of validity, caution must be taken

when generalizing to other situations.


Informal Reading Inventory (IRI)

An IRI is a practical technique for determining a student's

skills or lack of skills in comprehension and word recognition. An

IRI consists of graded word lists, graded reading passages,and com-

prehension questions for each passage. Results from an IRI can produce

an independent, instructional,and frustration reading level for each

reader.

An IRI was administered to each subject in the study to determine

the instructional level for each subject. The San Diego Quick Assess-

ment (Graded Word Lists) (La Pray and Ross, 1969) was used for the

graded word list section (see Appendix A). Each list consisted of

ten words which were read orally by each subject to determine the level

at which the reading passages should begin.

The reading passages were read by each subject to determine reading

instructional level. Each passage contained approximately 180 words on

levels five through seven and were arbitrarily assigned a reading level

of 5.0, 6.0, or 7.0 to equal the readability levels of the grades they

were designed to measure (see Appendix B).

Each IRI was scored using Powell criteria (see Appendix C). The

criteria was used to score the oral readings and to determine the

reading instructional levels.









Reliability

The reliability of the IRI may be more consistent at the lower

grade levels than at the upper grade levels. This may be attributed

to increased vocabulary, language structure and content.

The IRI used in the study may be regarded as a reliable test

instrument using Powell criteria for scoring.


Validity

An IRI is considered to be valid if the readability of the

reading passage is equal to the grade level it is designed for. Second,

the administration of the IRI should approximate techniques used in

normal classroom instruction (Powell, 1969).

The IRI used in the study adhere to the two aspects of validity

and is regarded as being a valid test instrument.


Procedure


Testing

The CTBS was administered on a countywide basis prior to the

study. The results of the reading subtests for each student served

as a locater for the teacher to identify a group of average readers

for possible inclusion in the study. Other than locating possible

average readers for the study, the CTBS results were not used for

specific analysis.

An IRI was administered by the researcher to each student who

was designated an average fifth-grade reader from the CTBS scores.

The IRI consisted of graded word lists, oral reading passages, and










oral comprehension questions. Students whose instructional level was

fifth grade according to the IRI results were considered average

readers.

At the conclusion of the study the researcher again administered

an IRI to each subject to determine possible changes in reading in-

structional levels. The same IRI form was used as in the initial

testing of the three-and-one-half-month study. The final IRI testing

was conducted with all student subjects during the same week under

similar situations.

It was the intent of the researcher to determine reading in-

structional levels only. Independent and frustration reading levels

were not considered for inclusion in the study.


Assignment of Teachers

The 12 teacher subjects were randomly assigned to one of four

identified prompting conditions for correcting student oral reading

errors. Three teachers were assigned to each of the following oral

prompt conditions: 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, or

4) repeat. Six average fifth-grade readers, who remained unidentified

to the teachers, were observed during oral reading activities.

During the three-and-one-half-month study each teacher was in-

structed to use the assigned prompting condition with all average

readers during oral reading activities. Each teacher was expected to

instruct the average readers in oral reading activities for approxi-

mately 30 minutes per day using the reading materials already in use

in the classroom.










Teacher Training

All teacher subjects were observed prior to the study as being

immediate prompters when instructing average readers in oral reading

activities. When a student makes an oral reading error an immediate

prompter corrects the error when it occurs. The teachers were en-

couraged to become delayed prompters when working with their assigned

prompting condition.

Each teacher received a one-hour training session on an individual

basis concerning the use and instructions of the particular prompt.

The teachers were instructed to use the assigned prompt whenever possible

when instructing the average readers in oral reading activities. The

following terms were selected for each prompt:

1. uncorrected

a. (Teachers did not attempt to correct student errors

but would provide feedback within a five-ten second

interval for unknown words.)

2. graphophonic

a. "Look closely at the word and see if the word part

looks like "

b. "Look closely at the word and see if the word part

sounds like

3. semantic

a. "Does the sentence/passage make sense?"

b. "Do you think that is what the author meant?"

4. repeat

a. "Repeat the sentence/passage."

b. "Try that sentence/passage once again."









No additional training was given to the teachers nor was feed-

back offered during the study concerning their use of the prompt.

This insured that all teachers received an equal amount of teacher

training with assigned prompts throughout the study.


Observations

The teacher and student subjects were observed one time per week

for a 30-minute period during the study. Although observation visits

were limited to specific times when the average readers met for reading

instruction, the visits were made on different days of the week to in-

sure an equal observation schedule among the classrooms.

Each classroom was visited 14 times during the study for ob-

servation purposes. To control for researcher bias a trained coder

was used on two visits to each classroom. A tape recorder was used on

two additional visits to each classroom after which the researcher coded

the responses. The researcher visited the classrooms on the other ten

visits.

On each visit a code sheet was used (see Appendix D) to record

the possibility for teacher use of the prompt, whether the prompt was

adopted, and the result of the prompt on student correction of the oral

reading error.


Method of Analysis


All data cards were punched onto IBM cards for analysis. The

SAS Introductory Guide for the Social Sciences (Helwig, 1978) was used

to aid computation. The computation of data was done by computer

analysis at the University of Florida Computing Center, Gainesville,

Florida,using the SAS programs for scientific data.









The research hypotheses are stated in null form. An explanation

for the statistical analysis is given for the hypotheses.


Hypothesis IA

There will be no significant adoptability by teachers among the

different prompting conditions.


Hypothesis IB

There will be no significant adoptability of a particular

prompting condition over the others.

An analysis of variance model was used to gauge the significance

of the teachers' ability to adopt the particular assigned prompting

condition and to determine if one prompting condition showed more

significant gains than the others.

These hypotheses were tested at a significance level of

a = .0.


Hypothesis IIA

There will be no significant achievement gains by students among

the different prompting conditions.


Hypothesis IIB

There will be no significant achievement gains by students of

a particular prompting condition.

A hierarchical design was used to gauge treatment effects between

methods of prompts and student groups. The hierarchical design was

used to determine the influence of the social unit of the subjects.

Therefore, each score was subjected to a treatment effect, a group

effect, and a residual component reflecting error of measurement.














CHAPTER IV
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Results
A primary purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which

teachers adopted a method of teacher prompts when working with average

fifth-grade readers in oral reading activities.

A second purpose of this study was to examine the use of teacher

prompts as an effective teaching strategy with average readers in fifth

grade in oral reading activities. Student achievement gains were studied

after students had been exposed to one of four designated teacher prompts

for a three-and-one-half month period. The four identified prompts were

1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, and 4) repeat.

The factors involved in the analysis were teacher observations and

prompting conditions. Each of the 12 teacher subjects were observed 14

times to gauge the extent to which each adopted the assigned prompt.

Three teachers were assigned to each of the four prompting conditions.

Table I reported the identification process for teacher assignment to

prompting conditions and the prompt IDs.

The results for the testing of each hypothesis were presented along

with a discussion of those results.

Hypothesis IA--There will be no significant adoptability by teachers

among the different prompting conditions.

Hypothesis IB--There will be no significant adoptability of a par-

ticular prompting condition over the others.

















Table I. Identification Process for Teacher Assignment to
Prompting Conditions and Prompt Identification




Prompt Prompt ID Teacher ID

Uncorrected A 1, 2, 3

Graphophonic B 4, 5, 6

Semantic C 7, 8, 9

Repeat D 10, 11, 12









Percentages were determined between the possibility for teacher

adoptability of the prompt and actual adoptability by the teacher for

each of the 14 observations for each teacher. Results were recorded in

Table II.

The percentages suggested a variance in adoptability among the

four prompting conditions. An analysis of variance was used to test

for differences in adoptability among the four prompting conditions.

Table III reported the results. The value of the F statistic (16.34)

indicated that differences did occur among the adoptability of the

four prompting conditions at the .05 level.

An analysis of variance was used to test for interaction between

the observations and prompting conditions. The value of the F statistics

showed no interactions at the .05 level. Table IV reported the results

in an abbreviated table.

A Modified Bonferroni test was used to make Pairwise Comparisons

among the prompting conditions at the .01 level. The results indicated

that the uncorrected and semantic prompting conditions were not

significantly different in adoptability between one another. The

graphophonic prompting condition was significantly different in adopt-

ability from the uncorrected and semantic prompting conditions. The

repeat prompting condition was not significantly different in adopt-

ability from the uncorrected, semantic, nor graphophonic prompting

conditions. Table V reported the results. This indicated that the

uncorrected and semantic prompting conditions were more readily adopted

in the study than were the repeat or graphophonic prompting conditions.

The graphophonic prompting condition was reported as one prompting

condition in the initial reported results. The condition, however,


























SCDCOOCDOO- C OCrOOC m 3










.




a U)
C D a C D r- C D D ) -d- r ,
o o r 00 o CjZ0r D nor ^r r moco m D










- 0 0O Cr000O C r-O


u o

4-



0
a


3 u C


4--'







0 u
aC CDCLL >r rl C '3 m U)
.-C C . .9 .C . . . r- r
5-
0 -
0 (U
0 a








-C-



-- E -







41 CL
000 OG
















Table III. Analysis of Variance Abbreviated Table for
Prompting Conditions


Source df SS MS F

Prompt 3 .917 .306 16.34* .0009

Error 8 .150 .019


* < .05

















Table IV. Analysis of Variance Abbreviated Table for Inter-
actions Between Observations and Prompting Condi-
tions.


Source df SS MS F

Observations 13 .767 .059 1.58** .103

Observations 39 1.47 .038 1.01** .474
and Prompts

Error 104 3.88 .034


**e .05











Table V. Pairwise Comparisons Among Prompting Conditions
Using a Modified Bonferroni Procedure




Prompt Mean Grouping*

Uncorrected .76 A

Semantic .76 A

Repeat .67 A B

Graphophonic .58 B


*2 < .01

*Means with the same letter are not significantly different.









obviously consisted of two integrated but separable processes: the

visual or grapho dimension and the auditory or phonic dimension. For

the purpose of analysis, the graphophonic condition was also considered

as two separate subcategories.

With the grapho prompt the teacher would prompt the reader to

correct an oral reading error by cuing him to examine the error

visually. The teacher would use a particular statement to prompt the

reader to the visual characteristics: "Look closely at the word and

see if the word part looks like ."

The second category was the phonic prompt which was concerned with

the sound characteristics of a word. Using the phonic prompt the teacher

would prompt the reader to correct an oral reading error by cuing him

to examine the error through sound. The teacher would use the following

statement to prompt the reader to the second characteristics: "Look

closely at the word and see if the word part sounds like ."

Since the teachers used either one or a combination of the two

subcategories, specific results for each category were reported. Table

VI depicted teacher adoptability of the grapho prompt in relation to

the remaining three identified prompting conditions (uncorrected, seman-

tic, and repeat). The grapho prompt was used during all but two ob-

servations of the graphophonic prompting condition. Therefore, the

results of the grapho prompt are very similar to the overall grapho-

phonic prompt results.

A mean of .58 was recorded by the grapho prompt which suggested

a variance in adoptability when compared with the uncorrected prompting

mean (.76), the semantic prompting mean (.76), and the repeat prompting

mean (.67).















w r- Ln(DLnU)rDC)r, m )





+-i 0 noo q0 ooCiaDoon ko








) DC)CCr00C ,n0000 N.
. . . . . o N U



-o
41 ( C)Dr-1DC9 C)9 )-Or Ck k





h C
S- u





- CL




















4o . 0. 0- . 0 . .
u C) D CC)Lc)co O r L Lr-.c'Mc)-) M






o
- ...... C) C ) .c) C C C -

CT) a)


0 O
C= *r- CD CD CD CD m moroCoD C) r-,m m ) O co
3) U) C 9 . .r-.r. c *

- C)U



0C)


E
Co=

4- CD c) CDoCoDoCDnoU cD L O C:)Cm- r r o



- S- C)
M- CD C M r--D-C ),D-M -C) m' U

* (I -
5- )


0) CD CD m o o:11 o D c))C) m C Co
r-N DLlU)U) 9)Co Co 1)9 )lD )C' L0
C) - -







I--






u E

F- Cl-
4'1

S) o o o o r r -----r r OMCn rC) :I

a) a)
CD : =









An analysis of variance was used to determine if significant

differences in adoptability by the teachers did occur with the grapho

prompt when compared with the three remaining prompting conditions.

Table VII depicted an analysis of variance abbreviated table for the

grapho prompt. The value of the F statistic (16.34) indicated that a

significant difference did occur.

Pairwise Comparisons among the prompting conditions were made

to determine the difference between the grapho prompt and the other

three prompting conditions. A Modified Bonferroni procedure was used

with a .01 significance level. Table VIII recorded the results which

showed that the grapho prompt mean was significantly different from

the means of the other three prompting conditions at the .01 level.

The lower mean of the grapho prompt indicated that the prompting

condition was not as easily adopted by the teachers in the study as

were the other three prompting conditions.

Table IX depicted teacher adoptability of the phonic prompt in

relation to the remaining three prompts (uncorrected, semantic, and

repeat). The mean of the phonic prompt (.00) suggested low adoptability

of the particular prompt by the teachers in the study.

An analysis of variance was used to determine if significant

differences in adoptability by the teachers did occur with the phonic

prompt in relation to the remaining three prompting conditions. Table X

reported the analysis of variance abbreviated table with the value of

the F statistic recorded as 25.28 at the .05 level. This indicated

that the phonic prompt was significantly different in adoptability from

the other three prompting conditions.

















Table VII. Analysis of Variance Abbreviated Table for
Grapho Prompt


Source df SS MS F

Grapho Prompt 8 .917 .306 16.34* .0009

Error 8 .150 .019

Observations 13 .767 .060 1.58 .1026

Observations 39 1.466 .038 1.01 .4743
and Prompts

Error 104 3.883 .037


*P < .05

















Table VIII. Pairwise Comparisons Among Prompting Condi-
tions Using a Modified Bonferroni Procedure:
Grapho Prompt



Prompt Mean Grouping*

Uncorrected .76 A

Semantic .76 A

Repeat .67 A B

Grapho .58 B


*_ <-.01

*Means with the same letter are not significantly different.























CD CD C- coo n CD CD CD O m
.-. .. 0 .0 ,. . .







0 )



o C o to c- C 'otCD CDo k0
4- Cc 9i Cci -C!-. C1cimoroLo 9 0 10
00 COror1CO0oo.C-0C')OC^c C-



E -
0 U
S-* *
S+ 00000ro000m00000oo 0 0





+0 000 C 00nLLC-z0i rCLU o o0 O

-' . . . . . .


S00 ,00000000000 0


cO

-: -a
'U OOO1 O QO NOOD OOOOO 0 0








u 0
i- a

C- ID- CDc CD CD 0C C CD CD CD 0C 0C C 0C C-
. . ..o a. . . . o
444 4!1
oC
0000mooVO0h onom m 0






OS- L oo o0cSS SCD CD iE) CDcr-L D -D







U -U O


00 U
u -



1L -P
aj O- 9 00-c9 0 o00 0909 0 0 0 L0 r-0

1- 0







I-







0-
o 4-'
C

















> E
0 m o
o a) -



S-CO CO

al, -0 -0
cI n
0 :

















Table X. Analysis of Variance Abbreviated Table for
Phonic Prompt


Source df SS MS F

Phonic Prompt 1 .655 .655 25.38*

Error 4 .103 .026

Observations 13 .598 .046 1.15

Observations 13 .300 .023 .58
and Prompts

Error 52 2.078 .040


*S < .05










Table XI recorded the results of the Pairwise Comparisons among

the phonic prompt and the remaining three prompting conditions. Using

a Modified Bonferroni procedure at the .01 level, the results showed

that the phonic prompt was different in adoptability than the other

three prompts. The results indicated that the phonic prompt was not

as readily adopted by the teachers in the study in relation to the other

prompts.

Hypothesis IA was rejected. Significant adoptability did exist

among the different prompting conditions. The results indicated that

the uncorrected and semantic prompting conditions were not different

between one another whereas the graphophonic prompt was significantly

different from both the uncorrected and semantic prompts. The repeat

prompt did not show significant differences in relation to the other

three prompting conditions.

Hypothesis IB was rejected. Significant adoptability by teachers

of one prompt from another did exist. The results indicated that the

uncorrected and semantic prompts were more readily adopted by the

teachers than the repeat or graphophonic prompts.

Several factors could have influenced the order of adoptability

of the four prompting conditions. The teacher correction statement

for particular prompting conditions could have varied in difficulty.

The uncorrected teacher prompt required no verbal statement whereas

the graphophonic prompting conditions required specific graphic and

phonic statements. The semantic and repeat prompting conditions each

used a one-statement correction.

The use of instructional materials in oral reading activities

could have influenced the order of prompt adoptability. Although each

















Table XI. Pairwise Comparisons Among Prompting Condi-
tions Using a Modified Bonferroni Procedure:
Phonic Prompt


Prompt Mean Grouping*

Uncorrected .76 A

Semantic .76 A

Repeat .67 A B

Phonic .00 B


S< .01

*Means with the same letter are not significantly different.









teacher used a basal text and materials designated for fifth-grade

readers, the basal texts were not from the same series or publisher.

Readability, content, and vocabulary approach could have differed

among the materials used in each classroom. This could have affected

the teachers' use of the assigned prompts and the students' ability to

handle the material.

A third factor of concern in the order of teacher adoptability of

the prompting conditions was the actual use of the assigned prompt when

the researcher was not visiting the individual classrooms. Although

each teacher subject was instructed to use the assigned prompt as often

as possible when correcting the average students' oral reading errors,

the researcher could not be certain that the instructions were carried

out during the instructional reading periods when the researcher was

not present. This could have affected the amount of practice each

teacher received in the use of the assigned prompt and the student

achievement gains.

A fourth consideration of the results of the order of teacher

adoptability of the prompting conditions was the grouping of students

among the six schools. Certain teacher subjects taught in a depart-

mentalized situation and taught only reading to the entire fifth-grade

population. This particular grouping situation could have provided

the teachers with more opportunity to practice the assigned prompt

than teachers in a self-contained classroom situation who taught

reading on a lesser time plan.

A fifth factor could have been the interest of individual teachers

in participating in the study. Although the teacher subjects were

willing to participate at the beginning of the study, certain teachers










showed a lack of interest in using the assigned prompt towards the

conclusion of the study. This could have affected the teachers'

adoptability of the assigned prompt.

A final consideration could have been the control of the students

by individual teachers to maintain order in certain classrooms. Two

particular teachers showed difficulty in managing student behavior

which affected the amount of time spent on actual instruction. Thus,

teacher adoptability of particular prompting conditions could have been

affected.

Hypothesis IIA stated that there would be no significant achieve-

ment gains by students between the different prompting conditions.

Hypothesis IIB stated that there would be no significant achieve-

ment gains by students of a particular prompting condition.

Table XII depicted the means and standard deviations for student

scores from an informal reading inventory. As discussed in Chapter

III, the IRI score values were arbitrarily assigned as 5.0, 6.0, and

7.0 based upon the grade levels the passages represented. The pretest

and posttest means for each prompting condition were recorded. Table

XIII recorded the number of student subjects in the final analysis,

the mean scores, and standard deviations for student posttest scores

by each teacher.

Table XIV recorded the frequency and percentage of students on

instructional reading levels 5, 6, and 7 at the conclusion of the study.

The results indicated that of the 67 student subjects included in the

final analysis, 22 were on the fifth-grade instructional reading level,

42 were on the sixth-grade instructional reading level, and 3 were on

the seventh-grade instructional reading level.

















Table XII. Means and Standard Deviations for IRI Scores


Pretest Posttest

Prompt x S x S

Uncorrected 5.00 0 6.06 .57

Graphophonic 5.00 0 5.71 .47

Semantic 5.00 0 5.66 .49

Repeat 5.00 0 5.44 .51

















Table XIII. Mean and Standard
Scores by Teacher


Prompt


Uncorrected



Graphophonic



Semantic



Repeat


Teacher ID


1
2
3

4
5
6

7
8
9

10
11
12


Deviations of Student IRI


Mean


6.14
5.75
6.17

5.67
5.67
5.80

6.00
5.33
5.67

5.40
5.60
5.33


Standard
Deviations

.41
.50
.75

.52
.52
.45

.45
.00
.52

.55
.55
.52

















Table XIV. Frequency and Percentage of Students: Prompt-
ing Condition by Instructional Reading Levels






Prompt Instructional Reading Levels TOTAL
5 6 7

Uncorrected 2 11 3 16
2.99 16.42 4.48 23.88

Graphophonic 5 12 0 17
7.46 17.91 0.00 25.37

Semantic 6 12 0 18
8.96 17.91 0.00 26.87

Repeat 9 7 0 16
13.43 10.45 0.00 23.88


TOTAL 22 42 3 67
32.84 62.69 4.48 100.00










This indicated that 33% of the student subjects scored on the

fifth-grade instructional reading level, 63% scored on the sixth-

grade instructional reading level, and 4% scored on the seventh-grade

instructional reading level. The results suggested that more students

were on a sixth-grade instructional reading level at the conclusion

of the study than on a fifth-grade or seventh-grade instructional

reading level. Since average readers at the end of fifth grade would

be expected to be on a 5.9 instructional reading level, the results

indicated that achievement gains for the majority of the student sub-

jects were average.

An analysis of variance was used to test for significant differences

in student achievement gains within prompting conditions. Table XV re-

ported the results. The value of the F statistic (3.48) indicated that

significant differences in student achievement gains were recorded

among the different prompting conditions.

Duncan's Multiple Range Test was used to determine which prompting

condition realized significant student achievement gains in relation to

the others at the .05 level. Table XVI recorded the results which

indicated that student achievement gains were significantly higher for

the uncorrected prompting condition. The graphophonic, semantic, and

repeat prompting conditions recorded no significant differences in stu-

dent achievement gains in relation to one another.

Pairwise Comparisons using the Bonferroni T-test at the .01 level

were conducted to determine differences in student achievement gains

among the different prompting conditions. The results showed a signifi-

cant difference between the uncorrected prompting condition and the

















Table XV. Analysis of Variance Abbreviated Table Within
Prompting Conditions.


Source df SS MS F

Prompt 3 2.711 .904 3.48*

Teachers Within 8 2.121 .265 1.02**
a Prompt

Error 55 14.283 .259


*.05
**R<.05

















Table XVI. Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Variable IRI


Prompt N Mean Grouping*

Uncorrected 16 6.06 A

Graphophonic 17 5.71 B

Semantic 18 5.66 B

Repeat 16 5.44 B


p < .05

*Means with the same letter


are not significantly different.










three remaining prompting conditions. No significant differences were

recorded among the other prompting conditions.

Hypothesis IIA was rejected. Significant achievement gains were

recorded between the different prompting conditions.

Hypothesis IIB was rejected. Significant achievement gains were

recorded by students of a particular prompting condition. The uncorrected

prompt produced significant student achievement gains whereas the

graphophonic, semantic, and repeat prompting conditions did not.


Summary and Discussions


A primary consideration of the study was to examine the extent to

which teachers adopted a method of teacher prompts when working with

average fifth-grade readers in oral reading activities.

A second purpose of the study was to examine the use of teacher

prompts as an effective teaching strategy with average readers in fifth

grade in oral reading activities. Student achievement gains were

studied after students had been exposed to one of four designated

teacher prompts for a three-and-one-half month period. The four desig-

nated prompts were 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, and

4) repeat.

The reported results indicated a variance in adoptability among

the four prompting conditions. The uncorrected and semantic prompting

conditions showed the highest percentages between possibility for

teacher adoptability and actual adoptability by the teacher for each

of the 14 observations for each teacher. The repeat prompt showed

the third highest percentages between the possibility for teacher










adoptability and actual adoptability by the teacher. The grapho-

phonic prompt showed the fourth highest percentages. The uncorrected

and semantic prompts recorded significant adoptability in relation to

the other three prompts whereas the repeat prompt showed no difference.

The graphophonic prompt recorded no significance in adoptability in the

study.

The findings differed with the investigations by Brady and Lynch

(1976) who found that teachers would not prompt students in oral reading

errors in actual practice even though the concept of oral prompts was

accepted in concept. The difference in findings could be a result of

the extended observation period of this research study compared with a

shorter observation period designed by Brady and Lynch.

Pehrsson (1974) found similar results with this researcher. He

maintained that particular prompts could be adopted by teachers if a

meaning orientation was established between teacher and student.

Gumperz and Hernandez-Chavez (1972) also found that teachers could

adopt particular prompting conditions although the amount and type

would vary from teacher to teacher.

The graphophonic prompting condition was divided into two sub-

categories for purposes of further analysis. The grapho subcategory

was concerned with the visual characteristics of the word part when

cuing a student that an oral reading error had occurred. The phonic

subcategory was concerned with the sound characteristics of the word

part when an oral reading error occurred.

The results indicated a strong preference for the grapho sub-

category rather than for the phonic subcategory. The three teachers










who were assigned to the graphophonic prompting condition used the

grapho prompt 40 times of the total 42 observations. This would

indicate that the teachers who adopted the graphophonic prompt ap-

proached the correction of student oral reading errors from a visual

standpoint rather than from a phonic standpoint. These results coin-

cided with the findings of Niles (1979) who reported that teachers

relied mainly on graphic level information rather than phonic in-

formation. Indications supported the idea that the grapho prompt may

be more effective than the phonic prompt with intermediate-aged readers.

The results could not necessarily be applied to primary-aged readers,

however.

The results of the student achievement gains suggested that students

who were prompted by the uncorrected condition showed the highest gain.

The graphophonic, semantic, and repeat prompts yielded very similar

achievement gains by the students assigned to those prompting conditions

although none produced significant student achievement gains. The results

indicated that the three prompting conditions were not facilitative in

producing significant student achievement gains during the study.

The results indicated that teachers could adopt a designated

prompting condition over a three-and-one-half month period with minimal

training. The uncorrected and semantic prompts were the most easily

adopted prompts with the repeat prompt the third most easily adopted

prompt. The graphophonic prompt was fourth in adoptability.

The results differed with the findings of Niles (1979) who indi-

cated that the semantic, repeat and uncorrected conditions produced

similar results with the repeat prompt producing much lower results.










Bawden, Burke and Duffy (1979) stated that students could achieve

in correction of oral reading errors if more than one identified prompt-

ing condition was used. Therefore, identification of the effectiveness

of one prompting condition over the others may produce insignificant

results when compared with overall student achievement gains.

The study was effective in identifying the possibility that teach-

ers could adopt a particular prompting condition with minimal training

over a three-and-one-half month period when working with average readers

in the fifth grade. Certain prompting conditions were found to be more

readily adopted by the teachers in the study. Significant achievement

gains by average fifth-grade readers in oral reading activities were

found for the uncorrected prompting condition. The study did provide

evidence that teacher prompts in oral reading activities on the fifth-

grade level could promote instruction of oral reading strategies which

could aid students to become more self-sufficient readers.














CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


A primary purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which

teachers adopted a method of teacher prompts when working with average

fifth-grade readers in oral reading acitvities.

A second purpose of this study was to examine the use of teacher

prompts as an effective teaching strategy with average fifth-grade read-

ers in oral reading activities. Student achievement gains were studied

after students had been exposed to one of four designated teacher prompts

for a three-and-one-half month period. The four identified prompts were

1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, and 4) repeat.

Three main objectives were included in the investigation.

1. Teacher ability to adopt a prompting condition when correcting

student oral reading errors.

2. Student achievement gains when teacher prompts were used in

oral reading activities.

3. Effectiveness of four designated conditions among one

another.

The six schools selected for the study represented the three

different socioeconomic levels as determined by available data on

free and reduced lunch counts for each school. All schools contained

kindergarten through grade six.

Twelve teachers were selected from six schools and were assigned

to one of four oral prompt conditions (uncorrected, graphophonic,









semantic, or repeat). A one-hour training session was given to each

teacher on an individual basis concerning the proper use of the assigned

prompt when correcting student oral reading errors. The teachers were

instructed to use the prompt as often as possible when correcting the

average students' oral reading errors during the daily 30-minute in-

structional period.

The student subjects were 72 fifth-grade students who were selected

from a larger population from six schools in Volusia County, Florida,

during the 1980-1981 school year. The students were selected from a

pool of average fifth-grade readers with six students selected from each

of 12 classrooms. Sixty-seven students were included in the final

analysis.

All student subjects were determined to be average readers from

scores obtained from the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (reading

subtests) and from scores on an informal reading inventory (using Powell

criteria). The student scores from the informal reading inventory were

recorded as 5.0, 6.0, or 7.0 to designate grade levels and were used to

determine instructional reading levels. The researcher again adiinis-

tered an informal reading inventory at the conclusion of the study to

determine possible changes in instructional reading levels.

During the three-and-one-half month study all teacher and student

subjects were observed 14 times to determine the extent to which each

teacher adopted the assigned prompt and the effect of the prompting con-

ditions on the students' oral reading correction process. The researcher

used a coding process to examine the percentage of times the individual

teachers adopted the assigned prompt compared with the possibility for

adopting the prompt.









Four hypotheses were tested in the study.

1. Hypothesis IA stated that there would be no differences in

adoptability by teachers among the different prompting conditions.

2. Hypothesis IB stated that there would be no significant

adoptability of a particular prompting condition over the others.

Percentage scores were determined between the possibility for

teacher adoptability of the prompt and actual adoptability by teachers

for each of the 14 observations for each teacher.

An analysis of variance was used to test for differences in adopta-

bility among the four prompting conditions at the .05 level. Since the

test indicated that differences did occur, Hypothesis IA was rejected.

A Modified Bonferroni test was used to make Pairwise Comparisons

among the prompting conditions at the .01 level. The results indicated

that the uncorrected and semantic prompting conditions were not signifi-

cantly different from one another in adoptability by the teachers in the

study. The repeat prompt was not significantly different from the other

three prompts in adoptability. The graphophonic prompt was significantly

different from the other three prompts. The results indicated that the

uncorrected and semantic prompting conditions were more readily adopted

by the teachers in the study than were the repeat or graphophonic prompts.

Therefore, Hypothesis IB was rejected. Significant adoptability of a

particular prompting condition over the others did occur.

Two factors could have influenced the inability of the teachers to

adopt the graphophonic prompting condition to a significant degree. The

particular prompt required specific grapho and phonic statements whereas

the other three prompts required a brief correction statement by the

teachers.









The ages of the student subjects could have also influenced the

low adoptability of the graphophonic prompt. Whereas younger readers

often approach unfamiliar words using phonetic skills, more mature read-

ers often use a contextual approach. Therefore, the average readers in

the study relied most often on the uncorrected, semantic, or repeat

prompting conditions than the graphophonic prompting condition.

3. Hypothesis IIA stated that there would be no significant

achievement gains by students between the different prompting conditions.

4. Hypothesis IIB stated that there would be no significant

achievement gains by students of a particular prompting condition.

An analysis of variance was used to test for significant differences

in student achievement gains among the prompting conditions at the .05

level. Since the test indicated that differences did occur, Hypothesis

IIA was rejected.

The Duncan Multiple Range Test was used to determine which prompt-

ing condition realized significant student achievement gains at the .05

level. The results indicated that student achievement gains were sig-

nificantly higher for the uncorrected prompting condition. The grapho-

phonic, semantic, and repeat prompting conditions recorded no signifi-

cant differences in student achievement gains. Therefore, Hypothesis

IIB was rejected.

The results reflected the achievement gains of students in the

study and should not be readily compared with students in other situa-

tions. Since the only significant achievement gains were recorded for

students in the uncorrected prompting group, caution should be given in

making widespread conclusions or applications as to the effectiveness

of one prompting condition over another to gauge student achievement

gains.





71



The results of the study indicated that the teacher subjects

could adopt assigned prompts after a one-hour training session although

particular prompts would be more readily adopted than others. The

results also indicated that significant achievement gains could be re-

alized by the average fifth-grade readers in the study during a three-

and-one-half month period although for only one prompting condition.

































APPENDIX A

SAN DIEGO QUICK ASSESSMENT WORD LISTS









Graded Word Lists*


4

decided
served
amazed
silent
wrecked
improved
certainly
entered
realized
interrupted


8

capacious
limitation
pretext
intrigue
delusion
immaculate
ascent
acrid
binocular
embankment


Primer


see
play
me
at
run
go
and
look
can
here


you
come
not
with
jump
help
is
work
are
this


*LaPray, Margaret and Ross, Ramon,
Gauge of Reading Ability." Journ
January, 1969, pp. 305-307.


"The Graded Word List: Quick
al of Reading. Vol. 12, No. 4,


1

road
live
thank
when
bigger
how
always
night
spring
today


5

scanty
business
develop
considered
discussed
behaved
splendid
acquainted
escaped
grim


9

conscientious
isolation
molecule
ritual
momentous
vulnerable
kinship
conservatism
jaunty
inventive


2

our
please
myself
town
early
send
wide
believe
quietly
carefully


6

bridge
commercial
abolish
trucker
apparatus
elementary
comment
necessity
gallery
relativity


10

zany
jerkin
nausea
gratuitous
linear
inept
legality
aspen
amnesty
barometer


3

city
middle
moment
frightened
exclaimed
several
lonely
drew
since
straight


7

amber
dominion
sundry
capillary
impetuous
blight
wrest
enumerate
daunted
condescend


11

galore
rotunda
capitalism
prevaricate
risible
exonerate
superannuate
luxuriate
piebald
crunch































APPENDIX B

INFORMAL READING INVENTORY






FIFTH READER (51)


New Days and Deeds (186 words)

Initial procedure

A boy is studying for something he thinks is important. Read aloud
from here to here to find out what it is, and how his family feels about
it.



Robert Beacham sat with his eyes

closed so that he could not see the

dictionary page before him. He spelled

aloud, "Re-spon-"

Just then Mrs. Beacham called from

the farm kitchen. "Bobby! Come to

supper."

The boy was absorbed in his study and

did not hear the call. He continued spelling.

"-si-bil-i-ty."

His brother bellowed, "Supper, Bobby!"

This time Robert heard. He marched out

of the room spelling, "Re-spon-si-bil-i-ty."

Striding into the warm country kitchen, he

exclaimed, "Look here, Dick! Please quit

calling me Bobby. Anybody who can spell a

big word like responsibility is no baby."

Dick Beacham walked over to the table,

carrying a pitcher of milk. "Anybody who

can spell that word really should know what

it means," he teased. "I noticed, Bobby,

that you haven't fed the hens or the calves.

You haven't done any of your chores."
75-






Robert scowled and clenched his fist.

He said angrily to his eighteen-year-old

brother, "My studying for the spelling match

at school is more important than chores.

Nothing on this whole big farm is as

important as that spelldown--to me, at

least."





Comprehension check

1. Why was Robert studying spelling? (for contest, match)

2. What does the word "absorbed" mean? (very interested)

3. Why did Dick say, "anybody who can spell that word really should
know what it means?" (Bobby wasn't doing his chores, taking care
of his responsibilities)

4. Where did Bobby live? (farm)

5. What does the word "bellowed" mean? (called very loudly)

6. How did Robert show he was angry? (scowled, clenched his fist)



5th Recapitulation

Silent or Oral

WR %
Comp. %
Time sec
WPM






SIXTH READER (61)

New People and Progress. Pages 60-61 (190 words)

Initial procedure

Brad is ready to take part in a contest, but something unexpected
happens. Read orally from here to here to find out what happened.


Meanwhile, in one of the cottages at

Derbytown, Brad was talking earnestly with

Mr. Rod Black of the Bay City Times-Post.

This newspaper had sponsored the soapbox races

in Brad's home town. The two were discussing

a letter, signed "One Who Knows," that had

been received yesterday by the Derby officials.

It stated that Brad's father had helped Brad

build his racer, and now the officials were

challenging Brad's right to race.

The statement in the letter was not true,

and it really hurt. Though Brad had said

nothing about it, he was pretty sure that

Pidge had written the letter because of some-

thing that had happened two months ago.

"Well, don't worry," said the newspaperman

as he rose to leave the cottage. "The in-

spectors are fair, and they don't want to

doubt your word. But there have been a

few cases where the contestants have said

they made their racers when they didn't.

So the inspectors can't afford to overlook

any hint of cheating. I'm sure, though,






that you passed the test they gave you

this morning at the trade school on

using tools needed to build a racer."


Comprehension check

1. Why were they challenging Brad's right to race? (letter said he had
help building his racer)

2. What is a "Derby"? (race)

3. Why do you think they called the place where Brad stayed "Derbytown"?
(where those in the race lived, where race was held)

4. Who sponsored the race in Brad's home town? (newspaper)

5. What does the word "contestant" mean? (one who competes)

6. Who did Brad think wrote the letter? (Pidge)

7. What does the word "earnestly" mean? (seriously)

8. What kind of test did Brad take to help prove he built the racer?
(use of tools)


6th Recapitulation

Silent or oral
WR %
Comp. %
Time sec
WPM






SEVENTH READER (71)

Parades. Pages 17-18 (182 words)

Initial procedure

Muffy would like to play in the City Orchestra, but she has one fault.
Read orally from here to here to discover what her musical and social
troubles are.



For her age, she was an excellent

musician. She could read music easily at

first sight, and no one had to drive her to

do her practicing. She took good care of her

instrument, always soaking the reed so that

it would function properly in the oboe's

mouthpiece. But every time she had to play a

solo, she either produced a series of wild

squeaks or remained mute while the accompani-

ment plunked on alone.

When she met Lucinda later, she found her

friend full of cahtter about the recital to be held

that night at the high school. There was to be

a party afterwards for all the participants.

"What are you going to wear?" Lucinda

demanded. "My mother got me a new pink

taffeta dress. And Don Everta asked me to

go with him to the party. Did anyone ask you?"

Muffy shook her head. "I guess I'll wear my

white pique," she said tiredly.

"But you've worn that all summer everywhere

you've gone!" Lucinda wailed. "Why, you've--






"Who cares about clothes--or

dates?" cried Muffy. "Stop picking

on me."


Comprehension check

1. What was Muffy's musical trouble? (couldn't play a solo)

2. How can you tell she liked music? (practiced willingly, took care
of instrument)

3. Why did Muffy soak the reed? (so it would work properly)

4. What does the word "mute" mean? (silent)

5. What part of the story tells you that the oboe is not a string
instrument? (mouthpiece, reed)

6. What is a recital? (musical program)

7. About how old was Muffy? (13/18, high school age)
Why do you think so? (dating, recital at high school)

8. What is a participant? (one who takes part)


7th Recapitulation

Silent or oral
WR %
Comp. %
Time sec
WPM






























APPENDIX C

POWELL CRITERIA








Comprehension Score as a Percentage


Number answered
correctly: 1/2

1

1 1/2

2

2 1/2

3

3 1/2

4

4 1/2

5

5 1/2

6

6 1/2

7

7 1/2

8

8 1/2

9

9 1/2

10


Number of questions asked
4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(Percent)


13 10 8

25 20 17

38 30 25

50 40 33

63 50 42

75 60 50

88 70 58

100 80 67

90 75

100 83

92

100









The numbers in
the table are
percentages
rounded to
whole numbers.


7 6 6

14 13 11

21 19 17

29 25 22

36 31 28

43 38 33

50 44 39

57 50 44

64 56 50

71 63 56

79 69 61

86 75 67

93 81 72

100 88 78

93 83

100 89

94

100








Finding Independent, Instructional, and Frustration Levels


When each passage has been tallied, and when the word recogni-
tion error ratios and the comprehension percentages have been
computed, the scores should be entered in a summary table as in
the following example.

Passage W.R. Ratio Level Comp. % Level


Primer

12


1/36


The child's independent, instructional, and frustration levels
may now be ascertained by reference to the following criteria. They
should be found and entered in the spaces in the summary table.

Examples of summary tables for the total test record, word
recognition errors, and comprehension responses may be found in the
appendix.


Criteria for Ascertaining Reading Levels


1. COMPREHENSION:

For passages at all graded levels.


90% or better
70% 89%
69% or less


= Independent level
= Instructional level
= Frustration level


2. WORD RECOGNITION:

a. For passages at graded levels 1 and 2.

1 error or less per 50 running words =
1 error per 8 to 1 error per 49
running words
1 error or more per 7 running words =


Independent

Instructional
Frustration




84



b. For passages at graded levels 3, 4 and 5.

1 error or less per 50 running words = Independent
1 error per 13 to 1 error per 49
running words = Instructional
1 error or more per 12 running words = Frustration

c. For passages at graded level 6 and above.

1 error or less per 50 running words = Independent
1 error per 18 to 1 error per 49
running words = Instructional
1 error or more per 17 running words = Frustration









Informal Reading Inventory
Scoring Criteria by Performance Level
and Condition


Diagnosis Developmental Lesson
Teaching Evaluation

W/R Comp. W/R Comp. W/R Comp.

Independent
Level

1 2 1/17+ 80+ 1/17+ 80+ 1/17+ 80+

3 5 1/27+ 85+ 1/27+ 85+ 1/27+ 85+

6+ 1/35+ 90+ 1/35+ 90+ 1/36+ 90+


Instructional
Level

1 2 1/8 -1/16 55-80 1/12-1/16 70-80 Converted to

3 5 1/13-1/26 60-86 1/20-1/26 75-85 Independent

6+ 1/18-1/35 65-90 1/26-1/36 80-90 Level


Frustration
Level

1 2 1/7 55- 1/11- 70-

3 5 1/12- 60- 1/11- 75-

6+ 1/17- 65- 1/25- 80-



Powell, W. Measuring reading performance informally. Paper presented
at the International Reading Association Preconvention Institute on
Perspectives on Testing, Houston, 1978.






























APPENDIX D

CODING SHEET FOR RECORDING
TEACHERS' ADOPTABILITY OF
ASSIGNED PROMPTS








Date

School

Teacher prompt


Possibility for use
of prompt


Did teacher adopt the
specified prompt?


Did student correct
oral reading error?


Yes No _
























Tota Totl Ttal ota


Total


Total


Total


Total













BIBLIOGRAPHY


Allington, R. Teacher interrupting behaviors during primary-grade
oral reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1980, 72(2),
311-377.

Anderson, L., & Brophy, J. An experimental investigation of first
grade reading group instruction (Report No. 77-1). Austin, Texas:
Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, 1976.

Anderson, L., Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. An experimental investigation
of teacher feedback behaviors in first grade reading groups (Report
No. 77-3). Austin, Texas: Research and Development Center for
Teacher Education, 1977.

Bawden, R., Burke, S., & Duffy, G. Teacher conceptions of reading and
their influence on instruction (Report No. 47). East Lansing,
Mich.: Institute for Research on Teaching, 1979.

Betts, E. Foundations of reading instruction with emphasis on
differentiated guidance. New York: American Book Co., 1950.

Biemiller, A. The development of the use of graphic and contextual
information as children learn to read. Reading Research Quarterly,
1970, 6, 75-76.

Bourne, L. Human conceptual behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
1966.

Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. The Texas teacher effectiveness project:
Presentation of non-linear relationships and summary discussion
(Report No. 74-6) Austin, Texas: Research and Development Center
for Teacher Education, 1974.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. Looking in classrooms. New York: Harper &
Row, 1978.

Brady, M., & Lynch, W. Observing reading teachers: A critique of
systems and the development of an instrument specific to teaching
word recognition. Paper presented at American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, 1976.

Buschke, H. Components of verbal learning in children: Analysis by
selected reminding. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
December 1974, 18(3), 488-496.








Carroll, J., & Chall, J. Toward a literate society: The report of
the committee on reading of the National Academy of Education.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Claus, K. Effects of modeling and feedback treatments on the develop-
ment of teachers' questioning skills. Technical Report, Stanford
Center for Research and Development in Teaching, June 1969, 6.

Conrad, R. Acoustic confusion in immediate memory. British Journal
of Psychology, 1964, 55, 75-83.

Corder, S. The significance of learner's errors. IRAL, 1967, 4(5),
161-169.

Cox, R., & Shrigley, R. Comparing three methods of practicing reading
to reduce errors in oral reading. Reading Improvement, 1980,
17, 306-310.

Danner, F., & Day, M. Eliciting formal operations. Child Development,
December 1977, 48(4), 1600-1606.

Durkin, D. Teaching them to read. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
1970.

Gaddy, C. An analysis of the relative effect of prompt and feedback
on the comprehension of compressed speech. (Doctoral dissertation,
The American University, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, 1975, 36, 2590A. (University Microfilms No. 75-25,
896)

Gattegno, C. On mistakes. Educational Solutions Newsletter, December
1976.

Gibson, E., & Levin, H. The psychology of reading. Cambridge, Mass.:
The MIT Press, 1975.

Goodman, Y. Using children's miscues for teaching reading strategies.
Reading Teacher, 1970, 23, 455-459.

Goodman, Y., & Burke, C. Reading miscue inventory. New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1972.

Gumperz, J., & Hernandez-Chavez, E. Bilingualism, bidialectism, and
classroom interaction. In C. Cazden, V. John & D. Hymes (Eds.),
Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Teachers
College Press, 1972.

Hansen, C. The generalization of skills and drills versus corrective
feedback instruction to the independent reading performance of
intermediate aged learning disabled boys. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Washington, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, 1976, 37, 4280A. (University Microfilms No. 77-00, 582)








Harris, A. How to increase reading ability. New York: David McKay
Co., Inc., 1961.

Harste, J., & Burke, C. A new hypothesis for reading teacher research:
Both the teaching and learning of reading are theoretically based.
In P. David Pearson (Ed.), Reading: Theory, research and practice.
Twenty-sixth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, Clemson,
S.C.: The National Reading Conference, Inc., 1977, 32-40.

Hauff, A. An evaluation of programmed instruction analogues of prompt
and feedback in training for the comprehension of compressed speech.
(Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1973). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1973, 34, 4987A. (University Microfilms
No. 74-02,589)

Helwig, J. SAS introductory guide. Raleigh, N.C.: SAS Institute, Inc.,
1978.

Hershberger, W., & Terry, D. Complexity of typographical cueing in
programmed and conventional texts. Technical Report, American
Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, December 1963,
7.

Hoffman, H., & Baker, J. Effects of teacher feedback on beginning
reader's oral reading behavior: A review. In J. Niles & V. Tech
(Eds.), Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Reading Conference, San Diego, 1981.

Jenkins, J., & Larson, K. Evaluating error correction procedures for
oral reading (Report No. 55). Champaign, Ill.: Center for the
Study of Reading, University of Illinois, 1978.

Keller, D., & Cunningham, D. A comparison of prompting and adjunct
questions in learning from text. Paper presented at the annual
convention of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, 1973, 102.

LaPray, M., & Ross, R. The graded word list: Quick gauge of reading
ability. Journal of Reading, January 1969, 12(4), 305-307.

Madden, M., & Pratt, J. An oral reading survey as a teaching aid.
Elementary English Review, 1941, 18, 122-126.

McCormick, C., & Lesgold, A. Effects of imagery training on reading
comprehension ability in third and fourth graders. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
tion, Chicago, 1974.

McCullough, D. Problems in the improvement of reading. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1946.








Mitchell, K. Patterns of teacher-student responses to oral reading
errors as related to teachers' theoretical frameworks. (Doctoral
dissertation, New York University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1979, 39, 7258A. (University Microfilms No. 79-11,
252)

Monroe, M. Methods for diagnosis and treatment of cases of reading
disability. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1928, 4, 335-456.

Monroe, M. Children who cannot read. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1932.

Moody, H. Techniques and art in reading aloud. English Language
Teaching Journal, 1974, 28, 315-324.

Morasky, R., & Willcox, H. Time required to process information as
a function of question placement. American Educational Research
Journal, November 1970, 7(4), 561-567.

Niles, J. The effects of selected teacher prompting strategies on
oral reading performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, 1979.

Niles, J., Graham, R.,& Winstead, J. The effects of teacher feedback
responses on children's oral reading performance. Paper presented
at the meeting of the International Reading Association, Miami,
1977.

Niles, J., & Tech, V. Effects of teacher feedback on beginning reader's
oral reading behavior: A review. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Diego, 1980.

Pearson, P. A psycholinguistic model of reading. Language Arts, 1976,
53, 309-314.

Pehrsson, D. Are you a helper, Mr. Gelpher? Journal of Reading, 1974,
19(8), 617-621.

Powell, W. The informal reading inventory. Unpublished monograph,
Center for Reading Research and Instruction, University of Illinois,
1969.

Powell, W. Measuring reading performance informally. Paper presented
at the International Reading Association Preconvention Institute
on Perspectives on Testing, Houston, 1978.

Sipay, E. A comparison of standardized reading achievement test scores
and functional reading levels. (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Connecticut, 1961). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1961,
22, 2639. (University Microfilms No. 61-05, 431)








Sipay, E. Evaluative look at the cooperative studies of reading in
first and second grade. In Reading and Realism. International
Reading Association Conference Proceedings, 1969, 588-596.

Spiegel, D., & Rogers, C. Teacher responses to miscues during oral
reading by second-grade students. Journal of Educational Research,
September-October 1980, 74(1), 8-12.

Terry, P., & Cohen, D. The effects of different teacher prompting
techniques on pupil success in decoding for high and low level
readers during oral reading. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the International Reading Association, Miami Beach, 1977.

Weber, R. A linguistic analysis of first grade errors. Reading Re-
search Quarterly, 1970, 5, 428-451.

Weinstein, R. Reading group membership in first grade: Teacher
behaviors and pupil experiences over time. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1976, 68, 103-116.

Wickelgren, W. Similarity and intrusion in the short-term memory of
consonant-vowel diagrams. quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1965, 17, 241-246.




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE USE OF ORAL PROMPTS AS AN EFFECTIVE TEACHING STRATEGY IN ORAL READING ACTIVITIES BY PATRICIA BUTCKA SEELY 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 IIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1981

PAGE 2

Copyright 1981 by Patricia Butcka Seely

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to all members of my committee. Dr. William Powell, chairman of the advisory committee, was helpful in many ways. His support and encouragement through the various stages of my doctoral work and dissertation were invaluable. He epitomizes the true professional educator in eyery way. My special thanks to Dr. James Algina for his willingness to help me through various trying moments. I appreciated his support and words of encouragement. Dr. Lawrence Smith was a helpful and supportive member of my committee. I appreciated his help and advice. My thanks go to Dr. Timothy Blair and Dr. Doyle Casteel who offered their assistance and advice during the various stages of my dissertation. Also appreciated was the help of Dianne Downing who helped with the typing of dissertation drafts. I owe a special note of gratitude to Linda Davidson, my best friend, who was always supportive with a kind work and thoughtful deed. I owe a great deal to my stepfather, Bill Lastinger, and to my sister and brother, Debbie McCullough and Walter Butcka, who helped me in their own special ways. m

PAGE 4

To my mother, Anne Lastinger, I owe an exceptional debt of thanks for providing an atmosphere filled with love and encouragement to become the best I could be. Her continuous love and support have filled my life in a way that only she and I will understand. IV

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii ABSTRACT vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Objectives and Research Questions 3 Hypotheses 4 Basic Assumptions 5 Definitions of Terms 6 Limitations of the Study 9 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 10 Rationale for Oral Reading Instruction 10 Feedback 12 Teacher Conceptualizations 14 Teacher-Student Interaction 17 Use of Prompts 21 Summary 24 CHAPTER III PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY 26 Pilot Studies 26 Research Study 29 Sample 30 Instruments 31 Procedure 34 Method of Analysis 37 CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF THE STUDY 39 Results 39 Summary and Discussions 63 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 67

PAGE 6

PAGES APPENDIX A SAN DIEGO QUICK ASSESSMENT WORD LISTS .... 73 APPENDIX B INFORMAL READING INVENTORY 75 APPENDIX C POWELL CRITERIA 82 APPENDIX D CODING SHEET FOR RECORDING TEACHERS' ADOPTABILITY OF ASSIGNED PROMPTS 87 BIBLIOGRAPHY 88 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 93 VI

PAGE 7

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE USE OF ORAL PROMPTS AS AN EFFECTIVE TEACHING STRATEGY IN ORAL READING ACTIVITIES By Patricia Butcka Seely August 1981 Chairman: William R. Powell Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction A primary purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which teachers adopted a method of teacher prompts when working with average fifth-grade readers in oral reading acitvities. A second purpose of this study was to examine the use of teacher prompts as an effective teaching strategy with average readers in fifth grade in oral reading activities. Three main objectives were included in the investigation. 1. Teacher ability to adopt a prompting condition when correcting student oral reading errors. 2. Student achievement gains when teacher prompts were used in oral reading activities. 3. Effectiveness of four designated prompting conditions among one another.

PAGE 8

The six schools selected for the three-and-one-half month study were located in Volusia County, Florida, and represented the three different socioeconomic groups. Twelve teacher subjects were randomly selected. Three teachers were randomly assigned to one of four prompting conditions: 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, or 4) repeat. They were instructed to use the assigned prompts as often as possible when correcting the average fifth-grade readers' oral reading errors during the daily 30-minute instructional period. Each teacher was observed 14 times during the study. The 72 average fifth-grade readers were selected from a larger population of fifth-graders. In the final analysis, 67 students were considered. The results of the study suggested that teachers could adopt assigned prompts when working with average fifth-grade readers. The uncorrected and semantic prompts recorded significant adoptability. The repeat prompt showed no difference in adoptability in relation to the other prompts. The graphophonic prompt recorded no significance in adoptability. The results of the student achievement gains indicated that the uncorrected prompt produced significant student gains whereas the graphophonic, semantic, and repeat prompts produced no significant differences during the three-and-one-half month study. vi n

PAGE 9

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION During an oral reading task the reader is likely to give an incorrect response. The teacher must then decide how to react to the error and whether to provide feedback to the reader. The first decision is concerned with whether to signify to the reader that an error had been made or whether to withhold reaction. Secondly, the teacher must decide at what point she will provide feedback to the student that a specific error had been make. The final decision for the teacher is concerned with the type of prompt she will use to provide feedback to the oral reader. Many educators believe that immediate correction of student errors is most facilitative to oral reading instruction while others support different methods including delayed feedback, cuing, and repeating. Although a variety of instructional techniques are available, reading programs of the past and recent years have favored the immediate feedback approach whereby the teacher corrects a student's errors at the time they occur. Teachers adopting this approach believe that failure to correct errors in oral reading promotes learning of incorrect responses (Niles, Graham, and Winstead, 1977). However, Pehrsson (1974) found that teacher interruptions of student oral reading caused recall to decline. Similarly, Buschke (1974) found that recall with young oral readers would also decline through teacher interruptions during the oral reading stage unless the students were probed at the conclusion of the task.

PAGE 10

Gattegno (Mitchell, 1979) suggested that not only must teachers be concerned with the errors made by students during oral reading activities but with effective methods of dealing with them. Interrupting a student's oral reading performance should not be the only strategy used by a teacher. Goodman (1970) stated that teachers must go beyond the errors. Therefore, educators cannot merely correct errors but must examine effective strategies to use with students. Brophy and Good (1978) argued that teacher education programs do not provide teachers with the necessary skills to work effectively in this domain. They believed that teachers are not trained to adopt different strategies for classroom use nor given practice in refining such strategies. This suggests that teacher responses to errors may be guided to provide valuable and meaningful instruction. This study was concerned with the examination of the different methods of providing feedback to student oral reading errors. The methods under investigation included the following: 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, and 4) repeat. Specifically, each method was examined with average readers in the fifth grade who were taught by teachers who employed one of the methods during oral reading instruction. This study served as a facilitative examination of the use of prompts as an effective teaching strategy and an impetus for future investigations and research. Statement of the Problem The primary purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which teachers adopted a method of teacher prompts when working with

PAGE 11

average fifth-grade readers in oral reading activities using basal readers as the primary source of instructional reading material. Since four different types of prompts were studied, each type was observed to gauge its adoptability as a teaching strategy. A second purpose of this study was to examine the use of teacher prompts as an effective teaching strategy with average readers in fifth grade in oral reading activities. Student achievement gains were studied after students had been exposed to one of four designated teacher prompts for a three-and-one-half month period. The four identified prompts were 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, and 4) repeat. Objectives and Research Questions Listed below were the objectives of this study. Immediately following each objective were the specific questions that were studied. Objective I To investigate the use of teacher prompts as an effective teaching strategy with average readers in the fifth grade. Question IA Are teacher prompts an effective teaching strategy with average readers in the fifth grade? Objective II To investigate teacher adoptability of particular prompting procedures.

PAGE 12

Question HA Will there be differences in teacher adoptability among the different prompting procedures? Question I IB Will one prompting procedure produce more significant adoptability than the others? Objective III To investigate student achievement gains between prompting procedures. Question II IA Will there be differences in student achievement gains between the different prompting procedures? Question IIIB Will one prompting procedure produce more significant gains than the others? Hypotheses The research hypotheses were stated in the null form and are listed below. An explanation for the statistical analysis for each hypothesis will be presented later in the study. Hypothesis IA There will be no significant adoptability by teachers among the different prompting conditions.

PAGE 13

Hypothesis IB There will be no significant adoptability of a particular prompting condition over the others. Hypothesis HA There will be no significant achievement gains by students between the different prompting conditions. Hypothesis I IB There will be no significant achievement gains by students of a particular prompting condition. Basic Assumptions It was assumed in this study that: 1. All fifth-grade students involved with this study received the same basic oral reading skills training as set forth by county and state regulations. 2. All fifth-grade students involved with this study received equal amounts of teacher time, instruction, and materials although the material goods varied. 3. All oral reading instruction was directed by the participating teacher rather than from outside help (aides, interns, volunteers, etc.). 4. Since the subjects were randomly grouped, home background, prior school background, and prior instruction in oral reading were equal in all classes. 5. Teacher ability to adopt a new oral reading teaching strategy was equal.

PAGE 14

6. Outside variables were evenly distributed among all classes. Definition of Terms For the purpose of this study certain terms will be defined according to their usage in this study. Basal Readers Basal readers are referred to as foundation readers. They may be of two types: 1) method readers where the material is primarily selected with reference to phonetic difficulties so that the reader will more readily acquire the independent power to pronounce words from the printed page, and 2) non-method readers where phonetic and diacritical factors are quite subordinated to the thought of the material presented. Coding Coding is a process by which a researcher collects units of teacher behavior at specified intervals. Graphophonic A graphophonic prompt is a type of teacher prompt whereby a teacher is concerned with the visual characteristics and sound characteristics of a word and encourages the student to consider one or both characteristics. Informal Reading Inventory The informal reading inventory is an individual test to determine oral and silent reading achievement. It consists of graded word lists,

PAGE 15

graded reading passages, and comprehension questions for each passage. An informal reading inventory is used to determine an individual's independent, instructional, and frustration reading levels. Instructional Level An instructional level is the highest level at which instruction in reading may be inaugurated. Materials for this level should be difficult enough to be challenging but not so difficult as to be frustrating. Powell Criteria The Powell criteria are the differentiated criteria set by William Powell (1969, 1978) for determining reading levels. Prompt A prompt is an external source of information which helps the student to arrive at a correct response to a problem. A prompt may be given to reinforce the reader's correct response or may serve as a cue to the reader that an incorrect response was given. The study included four types of prompts: 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, and 4) repeat. Random Sampling Random sampling permits each member of the population to have the same chance for selection in the sample. Repeat A repeat prompt is a type of teacher prompt whereby the teacher provides feedback to students' oral reading performance after the

PAGE 16

reading passage or complex thought was completed. The prompt is used to cue the reader that the oral reading was different from the printed text. The repeat prompt does not cue the reader to specific errors but to discrepancies between the oral reading and printed text. Semantic A semantic prompt is a type of teacher prompt whereby the teacher provides feedback to students' oral reading performance after the reading passage or complex thought was completed. The prompt is used to cue the reader that a change in the author's meaning or intent resulted from the error. Although the semantic prompt does not cue the reader to specific errors, the reader is made aware of discrepancies in what he orally read and the printed text. Standardized Tests Standardized tests provide a sample of achievement or ability. They may be norm-referenced or criterion-referenced with individual scores reported in derived scores (grade equivalents, percentiles or stanines). Transfer Transfer is regarded as a shift in responsibility for correcting a student's oral reading errors from teacher to student. Transfer may be regarded as a terminal process which would eventually cause the student to be self-sufficient when correcting oral reading errors. Uncorrected An uncorrected teacher prompt is a type of teacher prompt whereby the teacher provides no feedback to students when an oral reading error occurs.

PAGE 17

Limitations of the Study The findings and conclusions reached in this study were limited to a random sample of fifth-grade students and teachers in Volusia County, Florida, during the 1980-1981 school year and do not necessarily reflect the use of prompts as an effective teaching strategy for all fifth-grade students and teachers in other settings. Each teacher subject received a one-hour training session concerning the use of the assigned prompt. No additional training was given nor was feedback given during the study. This insured that all teacher subjects received the same amount of teacher training throughout the study. The study's limited focus was on fifth-grade students who were receiving oral reading instruction on the fifth-grade level. The fifth grade was selected for the study because there were no additional remedial or enrichment reading programs offered at this level which could have affected the amount of oral reading instruction each student was given. The study was concerned with the students' ability to make significant achievement gains in oral reading activities. Student achievement gains for each type of prompt were also studied. The study did not take into account the different grouping processes among the different classrooms. That is, differences between departmentalized, self-contained, and open-space groupings were not studied.

PAGE 18

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Rationale for Oral Reading Instruction Oral reading instruction must be a prime consideration of the total reading program. Harris (1961), Sipay (1969) and Durkin (1970) have deemed oral reading as a necessary component of reading instruction which must be fostered with great care. It should provide the student with the necessary skills and confidence to function in an everchanging world. Moody (1974) described the oral reading process as ... a necessary social and pedagogical skill, and indeed a valid modification, or extension, of skill in spoken English, which can be neglected only to the detriment of any community in which the language has an important role. (315) Although oral reading serves as an integral means of communication, the goal of oral reading should go beyond this basic need. Efforts should be exerted to guide students from teacher-dependency to selfsufficiency. That is, an ultimate goal of oral reading instruction should make the reader more responsible for his own oral reading instruction. To acquire the necessary skills for self-sufficiency in oral reading the individual must be taught to automatically confront new ideas, overcome vocabulary, and assimilate new thoughts as a simultaneous process. Teachers must make a conscientious effort to guide students through this developmental process using practices and 10

PAGE 19

11 strategies appropriate to the learning task. "Not only must oral reading be regarded as an integral part of the instructional program but . . . teachers should use the most pedagogically sound method of practicing reading which will best develop essential oral reading skills" (Cox and Shrigley, 1980, p. 306). Weinstein (1976) believed that oral reading is the teacher's best method for gauging student growth in reading. The teacher has the opportunity to point out accurate and inaccurate responses to print and to engage the student in meaningful dialogue. Such dialogue between teacher and student provides the essence of good oral reading instruction (Hoffman and Eaker, 1981). The dialogue typically involves the teacher giving feedback or instruction to the student's oral reading performance and allows the student to accept or reject the teacher feedback and move on. Pearson (1976) maintained that a goal of good oral reading instruction should allow the student to regulate his own oral language and to detect oral reading errors. To do this Pearson suggests a threestep system: 1) student must see the relationship between oral speech and print, 2) student's anxiety level must be minimized to promote fluent reading rather than mere guessing, and 3) student must see that both oral speech and print involve the student's own experiences. If the goal of oral reading instruction is to cause students to become more independent, self-sufficient readers, instruction must be designed to guide students through a developmental process which allows them to accept the responsibility of regulating oral reading. Various researchers have maintained the need for teacher awareness and involvement in the guidance process while using appropriate teaching practices

PAGE 20

12 to aid students (Cox and Shrigley, 1980; Weinstein, 1976; Pearson, 1976). Oral reading instruction cannot be regarded as a continuous dialogue between teacher and student in and of itself; rather, the dialogue between teacher and student evolves into a monologue by the student with himself in control of the total oral reading process. Feedback According to Bourne (1966), feedback is an external source of information which helps the student to arrive at a correct response to a problem. Feedback may be given to reinforce the reader's correct response or may serve as a cue to the reader that an incorrect response was given. Niles and Tech (1980) believe that teachers give feedback for two main reasons: 1) for the purpose of assisting comprehension, or 2) for the acquisition or recognition purpose. Although it would be difficult to approach the two purposes as separate skills that are segregated from one another, the teacher must decide her purpose for using feedback and adjust her strategies to meet her goals. If the primary concern of the teacher is to build comprehension skills, her feedback strategies to students might be quite different than those strategies used to build word recognition skills. Therefore, a teacher must identify her purpose for the oral reading task and adjust her feedback strategies to meet the purpose. When the student makes an oral reading error the teacher may choose from three strategies. The reader can be informed 1) of both right and wrong answers, 2) of right answers only, or 3) of wrong answers only. At that time the teacher makes a decision as to whom should accept the responsibility for correcting the error. If the

PAGE 21

13 teacher decides to supply the correct word or cue to the student for both correct and incorrect responses, she accepts the responsibility for correction of the error. If, on the other hand, the teacher decides to cue the student that a wrong response was given, she is transferring the responsibility for correction to the student. During the transfer of responsibility for correction from teacher to student the reader must adopt a set of behaviors to meet the oral reading feedback situations. The process involves three main steps: 1) The reader recognizes that a deviation has occurred and must decide whether to accept the response or to correct the response; 2) The reader decides whether to correct immediately or to delay correction; and 3) The reader decides what strategies to use in the correction. The process is concerned with both the timing factor of correction (immediate or delayed) and the type of correction used. Thus, the student must assume responsibility for two decisions when he accepts selfcorrection. Niles and Tech (1980) stated that the reader must process feedback at the two separate levels simultaneously. While the reader contends with the major task of deriving meaning from print, he must also judge his own oral responses. A reader who receives feedback from the teacher and who accepts responsibility for correction of the oral reading error must process information on two higher levels of thought than a reader who does not receive some type of feedback (Niles and Tech, 1980). Therefore, a reader who receives feedback and accepts responsibility for oral reading corrections may be confronted with a more complicated reading task which encourages the reader to be more self-sufficient.

PAGE 22

14 Teacher use of feedback when instructing students in oral reading activities may be very beneficial if the teacher has identified her purpose for providing feedback and the specific strategies to use to achieve the goals. Feedback may also be advantageous in involving students in the correction process through transfer of responsibility for oral reading corrections. If a teacher's ultimate goal in oral reading instruction is to make students self-sufficient in oral reading, feedback may be regarded as an important and necessary factor for students. Teacher Conceptualizations Although research has been conducted on oral reading errors during the early decades of the century (Madden and Pratt, 1941; McCullough, 1946; Monroe, 1928, 1932), investigations were most often limited to remedial situations where teachers were removed from the normal classroom environment. Additionally, teacher practices and strategies for dealing with student oral reading errors were overlooked in favor of analyzing specific student miscues during the oral reading task. This resulted in little practical advice to teachers for effective methods for dealing with student errors. Various researchers of the 1960s recognized the need for investigations into teacher involvement in the oral reading process (Conrad, 1964; Corder, 1967; Wickelgren, 1965). They contended that the teacher must be regarded as an important factor in oral reading programs when assessing specific student miscues. Although lacking in theoretical consideration, they did progress the idea that a teacher should be able to aid students with text discrepancies.

PAGE 23

15 Spiegel and Rogers (1980) stated that teacher feedback may be a viable part of the reading instruction program. The teacher's feedback may aid the student in word identification in actual reading situations. Also, the way by which a teacher offers feedback could provide valuable insight into the teacher's theoretical perception of reading and her expectations of student oral reading performance. For example, teachers who rely on the interrupted method may be primarily concerned with the student's ability to accurately pronounce the printed words on a page. Teachers who rely most often on delayed feedback may be more concerned with the overall meaning or intent of the author. Investigations in the 1970s were conducted by researchers who focused on the behavioral aspects of the teacher when dealing with student errors. Anderson and Brophy (1976), Brophy and Evertson (1974) and Terry and Cohen (1977) believed that a teacher's behavior in providing feedback to student miscues was an integral part of the student correction process. They further believed that such teacher behavior could provide an understanding of particular theoretical frameworks held by individual teachers (Mitchell, 1979). Carroll and Chall (1975) suggested that teacher beliefs about reading heavily influence their instructional practices. Harste and Burke (1977) agreed and stated further that teachers do indeed have identifiable models of reading which are reflected in their teaching strategies. Bawden, Burke and Duffy (1979) identified five conceptualizations of reading which serve as models of reading: 1) linear skills,

PAGE 24

16 2) basal text, 3) natural language, 4) interest, and 5) integrated curriculum. Their study of 23 teachers showed that 20 of them had at least two overlapping conceptualizations. The researchers concluded that teachers were more easily identifiable by content centered (linear skills, basal text) and child centered (natural language, interest, integrated curriculum). Additionally, the years of teacher experience affected conceptualizations of reading with more experienced teachers being more child centered. However, the results showed that although teacher conceptualizations were a major force in oral reading feedback, other factors as reading ability, grade level and other context variables were of more importance when the two sets of conceptualizations were compared. This would indicate that teacher conceptualizations are very important in guiding students to correct oral reading responses but should be considered in light of other factors. The investigations of Conrad (1964), Corder (1967), Wickelgren (1965) and Spiegel and Rogers (1980) emphasized the importance of teacher involvement in oral reading programs. Not only is the teacher facilitative in teaching word recognition skills to students during oral reading instruction but integral in guiding the students to become self-sufficient readers. Through the use of feedback a teacher may provide students with the necessary training and skills to become more independent readers. The ability to guide students towards independence in reading relies heavily on teacher conceptualizations of reading. Carroll and Chall (1975), Bawden, Burke and Duffy (1979) and Harste and Burke (1977) agreed that teachers do hold specific beliefs concerning reading which affect their behavior when instructing students in oral reading.

PAGE 25

17 Although research is scarce concerning the actual possibility of teachers being able to adopt new teaching strategies in light of preconceived strategies, indications are that teachers could adopt new practices if sufficient training and experience were provided. Even with preconceived teacher conceptualizations of reading, teachers should be able to effectively provide meaningful feedback to students which would aid the readers in assuming control of the correction process in oral reading activities. Teacher-Student Interaction Feedback in oral reading situations is viewed as an effective way to improve word recognition (Biemiller, 1970; Brady and Lynch, 1976; Jenkins and Larson, 1978). However, the researchers regarded teacher feedback as a terminal practice which would transfer the responsibility of feedback from teacher to student. In this way the student would adopt an independent feedback process comprised of three different prompts: 1) graphophonic, 2) syntactic, and 3) semantic. Biemiller (1970), Goodman (1970) and Weber (1970) believed that the student would progress from teacher responsibility for providing feedback to accepting responsibility for providing his own feedback. The researchers regarded this as a developmental process shared equally by the student and teacher. Investigations have shown that teachers do use different strategies for providing feedback to students that are based on teacher conceptualizations. Although most teachers favor a transfer of feedback responsibility from teacher to student, in practice they most often fail to

PAGE 26

transfer the responsibility. Additionally, teacher perceptions of a student's reading ability could be a major factor in a teacher's adoption and transfer of feedback. Anderson, Brophy, and Everston (1977) and Anderson and Brophy (1976) also recognized the need for transfer of feedback from teacher to student but found that teachers would most often supply the word rather than lead the student through the necessary steps to allow for transfer of feedback. The studies used first-grade students as subjects in situations where a faster reading pace was of more importance than interrupting a student to employ a particular prompt. Different results might occur if older students were studied. Investigations by Brady and Lynch (1976) found that teachers did not practice a systematic guidance process which would progress from teacher responsibility for providing feedback to student responsibility for providing his own feedback. Instead, most teachers studied were grouped into one of three categories: 1) teachers who used all types of prompts with little consideration of their appropriateness, 2) teachers who used no prompts, and 3) teachers who used a variety of prompts but with little effort to use particular prompts at appropriate times or with little attention given to the guidance of feedback responsibility from teacher to student. Although the transfer feedback process was well accepted in concept, in actual practice it was not adopted by most teachers. This suggests two possibilities for the apparent lack of adoptability: 1) the teachers were not trained to transfer the responsibility of providing feedback to students or, 2) the teachers could not do so.

PAGE 27

19 Pehrsson (1974) studied the process of providing feedback from both a teacher's and student's viewpoint. He was interested in establishing whose responsibility it was to provide feedback when fifthgraders read orally from 200-word sixth-grade passages. The students read under one of three conditions: 1) uncorrected in which the students received no help, 2) corrected in which the students were asked to pay attention to words, and 3) unaided in which the students were asked to pay close attention to words. Pehrsson found that readers could indeed provide their own feedback if the teacher provided some type of meaning orientation. Therefore, Pehrsson suggested that the transfer of responsibility for providing feedback may vary between types of errors, particular prompts, and the meaning orientation established between teacher and student. The transfer of responsibility for providing feedback could also be affected by the teacher's perceptions of student reading ability. Gumperz and Hernandez-Chavez (1972) found that teachers did indeed vary the amount of feedback between good and poor readers with poor readers receiving more interrupted feedback than the good readers. Allington (1980) investigated the same issue with 20 teachers and 147 good and 120 poor readers on the primary level. The tapes of the oral reading selections were analyzed for the selection (no response), timing (point of feedback), and the content of the prompt (graphemes, phonemes, semantic/syntactic, teacher pronounce and other). The proportion scores showed that poor readers received more feedback than good readers, 74% to 31% respectively. For semantically unacceptable responses, the poor readers again received more feedback, 76% to 54%.

PAGE 28

20 For teacher-pronounced words the poor readers also received more feedback, 50% to 38% for good readers. The results of the Allington study suggested that teachers felt a greater need to help the poorer readers who showed difficulties in fluent reading and comprehension whereas teachers thought the good readers could figure out the correct responses by themselves. This would indicate that teachers could adjust their conceptualizations according to their perceptions of a student's reading ability. The studies by Biemiller (1970), Brady and Lynch (1976) and Jenkins and Larson (1978) regarded feedback in oral reading activities as a terminal process which must progress in a developmental manner from teacher-directed to student-directed. Anderson, Brophy, and Everston (1977) and Anderson and Brophy (1976) found that teachers do recognize the need to guide students through the transfer process although in actual practice teachers often disregard the developmental steps necessary in the transfer process. This would indicate that teachers vary in the concepts they hold concerning the transfer of feedback and actual practice when working with students in oral reading activities. The studies cited suggest the need for further research into the teacher-student transfer process of feedback in oral reading. Research is necessary to determine the extent to which teachers can instigate their concepts concerning the transfer of feedback into actual practice when instructing students in oral reading activities and their effectiveness in guiding students to accept responsibility of the feedback process.

PAGE 29

21 Use of Prompts Niles and Tech (1980) suggested that not only must we be concerned with the necessity of feedback in oral reading and the ability of the teacher to transfer the responsibility for providing feedback to the student but with the amount and type of feedback. To be more explicit, what type of prompts should be used and how much prompting should occur by the teacher and by the student? Pearson (1976) stated that teachers have long regarded oral reading errors as things that should be corrected. Although teachers were unsure as to the type of prompt to use in particular situations or how often to prompt, they did believe that failure to correct would promote learning incorrect responses among the students. Pearson regarded the popularity of such practices by teachers as having ". . .a seductive rationale behind them." He gave the example often used by teachers in correcting oral reading errors as having the student read a word off a flashcard or making lists of words missed to be read and reread by the student. Such practices, Pearson believed, placed total responsibility for prompting on the teacher who would more than likely use the same prompting condition for all miscues. Little attention or responsibility was given to the student to decide his own prompting strategies. Instead, Pearson believed that the ultimate goal of prompting should place the responsibility and choice of prompting on the student with care given that the student be trained to use prompts and prompting strategies effectively. Pearson's ideas for student involvement may be traced to the Goodman line of thought. Goodman (1970) maintained that the student

PAGE 30

22 is the main provider of feedback and little teacher feedback is needed. Goodman stated further that errors were ever-present when a student was learning new material and should be taught how to provide his own prompts for guiding instruction. From this viewpoint the teacher plays a minor role in prompting and the type and amount of prompting becomes the major issue. Jenkins and Larson (1978), however, viewed the issue in a reversed way from Goodman. If one accepts the Jenkins and Larson (1978) belief then one accepts the belief that the teacher is the main provider of prompts with minimal student responsibility. Using a case study/experimental approach with five junior high students, the researchers studied the effects of five different prompting conditions with remedial readers. Of the prompting conditions studied (no correction, sentence repeat, end of page review with teacher-pronounced words, word meaning with teacher providing the word and teacher or student providing the definition, and drill with the word correctly taught to mastery), results indicated that drill was superior with the teacher guiding the prompting process. The least effective prompting condition was the no correction condition where the teacher did not guide the student in the prompting process. The results suggested that teacher involvement and guidance in providing prompts would affect student learning. Niles, Graham and Winstead (1977), working with fourth-grade students, studied two types of prompts to gauge the effects of studentdirected feedback where the teacher did not provide a correction condition and teacher-directed feedback where the teacher provided a

PAGE 31

23 graphophonic prompt. The results of the study showed that students could provide their own feedback effectively when the goal of the oral reading task was to express the meaning of the passage. The results also indicated that teacher use of the graphophonic prompt to aid student corrections could be as effective. However, since only one teacher prompt was studied, it would be impossible to predict the effectiveness of other prompts on the basis of this study. Niles (1979), using third-graders, expanded the original study to include two additional prompting conditions: 1) a semantic prompting condition in which the teacher asked if a meaning change deviation made sense, and 2) a repeat condition in which the teacher asked the reader to repeat a sentence which contained a meaning change but was not explicitly told there was a change. The results indicated that the graphophonic prompt produced less semantically acceptable responses and more responses which changed the author's meaning. The semantic and repeat conditions produced results similar to the uncorrected condition with no significant differences recorded across any of the four conditions. This would indicate that the graphophonic prompt relied mainly on graphic level information already in the text while the other prompts relied on the semantic level information. The results of the series of studies (Jenkins and Larson, 1978; Niles, 1979; Niles, Graham and Winstead, 1977; Pearson, 1976) investigated prompting conditions in a limited scope. The researchers attempted to study the effects of particular prompts on teacher-student interaction and the transfer of responsibility for prompting. They did not, however, sufficiently explore the effectiveness of particular prompts

PAGE 32

24 on student achievement, the ability of teachers to adopt particular prompts, nor the amount of prompting necessary for student achievement. Such concerns should be given increased attention to progress the understanding of prompts and feedback in oral reading instruction. Summary If the goal of oral reading instruction is to guide students toward independency in oral reading tasks, teachers must practice appropriate strategies to aid students during this developmental process. Teachers must be aware of the purpose of oral reading instruction and adjust their instructional practices to meet these purposes. The use of feedback to students during oral reading activities has been viewed as an advantageous instructional practice when used correctly by teachers (Bourne, 1966; Niles and Tech, 1980). It is imperative, however, that teachers understand the different types of feedback and use appropriate types when guiding students in the correction of oral reading errors. Teachers must be aware of their own conceptualizations of reading and be willing and able to adjust their beliefs to meet the needs of individual readers. As Spiegel and Rogers (1980) suggested, feedback may be a viable part of the instruction program if teachers could adjust their use of feedback strategies with their perceptions of reading. Indeed, teachers must strive to provide meaningful feedback to students which would promote reader selfsufficiency in the oral correction process. The goal of oral reading instruction should not begin and end as a teacher-student dialogue. Instead, efforts should be exerted to

PAGE 33

25 establish effective teacher use of feedback which ultimately transfers the responsibility of oral reading instruction from the teacher to the student. It should be regarded as a sequential process with the end result being reader independence.

PAGE 34

CHAPTER III PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY Pilot During the summer and fall of 1980, two pilot studies were conducted by the researcher. The primary purpose of each study was to compare the extent to which teachers adopted four methods of prompting when working with average readers in oral reading activities using basal readers as the primary instructional reading material. A second purpose of each study was to compare the use of the four teacher prompts as an effective teaching strategy in relationship to student achievement. Each study was conducted in public schools in Volusia County, Florida, with teachers who were willing to participate. The schools represented the three socioeconomic classes as determined from available data on free lunches and reduced lunches to students. The studies were exploratory in nature rather than quantitative. Emphasis was on studying oral prompting methods in broad terms from which specific questions for indepth research would evolve. A discussion of each pilot study is presented below. Pilot Study I Twenty-four students of varying ages and reading levels were selected from a summer school program in Volusia County, Florida. All participants were attending a remedial math program and were not 26

PAGE 35

27 designated as deficient readers. Test results from the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (reading subtests) and from the Nelson-Denny Reading Test (grade 10), administered during the spring of 1980 on a countywide basis, indicated that all participants were average readers on their appropriate grade levels. The student groups yielded the following information: 1) Group I consisted on eight third-grade students from a school of middle socioeconomic status; 2) Group II consisted of eight sixth-grade students from a school of low socioeconomic status; and 3) Group III consisted of eight tenth-grade students from a school of high socioeconomic status. Within each group two students were assigned to each of the following prompting conditions: 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, and 4) repeat. Each student orally read an assigned passage of approximately 200 words to the researcher on two occasions with the researcher supplying the appropriate prompting condition when the student made an oral reading error. The students were asked to recall all they remembered. Only the second readings were considered for evaluation. The results showed that students in grade three could recall more information through use of the repeat prompt. Students in grade six could also recall more information through use of the repeat prompt. Students in grade ten could recall more information through use of the uncorrected prompt. The results of Pilot Study I formulated several questions for further research into the use of oral prompts as an effective teaching strategy.

PAGE 36

28 Pilot Study II The primary purpose of the study was to examine the extent to which teachers were able to adopt an assigned prompting condition when working with average readers on the fourth-grade level. The student subjects included 48 fourth-grade students selected from five public schools in Volusia County, Florida, during the fall of 1980. The students were identified as average readers from scores on the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (reading subtests). Six students were randomly chosen from eight classrooms and remained unidentified to the teachers. Eight teachers were selected from the five schools and were randomly assigned to one of four prompting conditions. They were instructed to use the assigned prompt as often as possible when instructing the average readers in oral reading activities for approximately 30 minutes per day for a one-month period. The researcher observed both teacher and student subjects one day per week during the study and used a coding process to gauge the extent to which each participant adopted the assigned prompt. The four prompting conditions included the following: 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, and 4) repeat. At the conclusion of the one-month study it was found that teachers could adopt one of the assigned prompting conditions with little difficulty. Although the teachers seemed to adopt the uncorrected and repeat prompts more readily, little variation in adoptability was recorded among the four conditions.

PAGE 37

29 Pilot Study II held several implications for further research: 1. The study should be replicated over an extended period. 2. The study should provide qualitative data for analysis. 3. The effects of student achievement associated with the different prompting conditions should be studied. The pilot studies generated several questions for further indepth study. First, could teachers adopt a particular prompting condition over an extended period of time when working with students in oral reading activities? Although the pilot studies indicated that teachers could adopt a particular prompting condition over a short period of time, the adoptability of prompting conditions over a longer period was not established. Second, would student achievement in oral reading increase through teacher adoptability of particular prompting conditions? The pilot studies did not adequately assess student achievement. An extended study would be recommended to measure student achievement gains. Pilot Studies I and II provided the researcher with background information for indepth study into the effectiveness of oral prompts as a teaching strategy. The researcher instigated a three-and-onehalf-month study to gauge the extent to which teachers adopted a method of prompting and the subsequent effect on student achievement. A description of the study follows. Research Study The researcher conducted a three-and-one-half-month study to gauge the effectiveness of oral prompts as a teaching strategy.

PAGE 38

30 Specifically, the study was concerned with the extent to which teachers could adopt a particular prompting condition when working with average readers in the fifth grade and the effect of the prompting conditions on student achievement. The four prompting conditions under investigation included the following: 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, and 4) repeat. Sample The subjects were 72 fifth-grade students who were selected from a larger population from six public schools in Volusia County, Florida. The students were randomly selected from a pool of average fifth-grade readers with six students selected from each of 12 classrooms. The students involved in the study were unidentified to the teachers. All subjects were enrolled in one of the participating schools on September 8, 1980. The six schools selected for the study included the following: Bonner Elementary School, Minerva Bond Long Lake Helen Elementary School, Ormond Elementary School, Pierson Elementary School, Port Orange Elementary School, and Spruce Creek Elementary School. The schools were selected because they contained kindergarten through grade six and had principals and faculties who were willing to participate in the study. The schools also represented the three different socioeconomic levels as determined by available data on free and reduced lunch counts for each school. Since free and reduced lunches to students are based on family income, classification of the schools into socioeconomic groups may be indicated.

PAGE 39

31 Bonner Elementary School and Minerva Bond Long Lake Helen Elementary School were considered the low socioeconomic schools with over two-thirds of the students in each school qualifying for free or reduced lunch. Pierson Elementary School and Port Orange Elementary School were considered middle socioeconomic schools with between onethird and two-thirds of the students qualifying for free or reduced lunch. Ormond Elementary School and Spruce Creek Elementary School were considered high socioeconomic schools with less than one-third of the students qualifying for free or reduced lunch. Twelve fifth-grade teachers were selected from the six schools and were randomly assigned to one of four oral prompting conditions (uncorrected, graphophonic, semantic, or repeat). The teacher subjects were observed prior to the study as favoring immediate correction of student oral reading errors. None of the teachers were involved in the pilot studies nor given advanced knowledge of the study. It was assumed that all teacher subjects had equal opportunity for adopting the assigned prompting condition. Instruments The student subjects were designated as average readers from scores obtained from a standardized test, the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (reading subtests) and from scores on an informal reading inventory (using Powell criteria). The Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS) was selected for use in the study since it was administered on a countywide basis. The

PAGE 40

32 results of the reading subtests for each student served as a locater for the teacher to identify a group of average readers. All designated average readers were then administered an informal reading inventory (IRI) by the researcher. The passages administered ranged in readability from grade five to grade seven. Powell criteria were used to determine the reading instructional level of each student. Only students who were determined to be on the fifth-grade instructional level were given an opportunity to be included in the study. Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS) As validation for the use of the reading subtests scores of the CTBS , the following information was provided. The standardization of the CTBS (Form Q) at all levels was based on a probability sample of the entire national school population. Included in the sample were approximately 212,000 students from grades 2 through 10 from both public and Catholic schools from all fifty states. Geographically, the sample also represented different types of communities and various socioeconomic levels. The Kuder-Richardson formula #20 was used to determine internal consistency for Form Q. Reliability statistics were calculated on the reading subtests and include the following information: Mean S^L KR#20 Total Reading 48.2 17.74 .95 The validity of the CTBS (Form 0) is based on correlation coefficients with the California Achievement Tests at appropriate levels

PAGE 41

33 and the California Short-Form Test of Mental Maturity . Although the data produce an acceptable measure of validity, caution must be taken when generalizing to other situations. Informal Reading Inventory ( I RI ) An IRI is a practical technique for determining a student's skills or lack of skills in comprehension and word recognition. An IRI consists of graded word lists, graded reading passages, and comprehension questions for each passage. Results from an IRI can produce an independent, instructional, and frustration reading level for each reader. An IRI was administered to each subject in the study to determine the instructional level for each subject. The San Diego Quick Assessment (Graded Word Lists) (La Pray and Ross, 1969) was used for the graded word list section (see Appendix A). Each list consisted of ten words which were read orally by each subject to determine the level at which the reading passages should begin. The reading passages were read by each subject to determine reading instructional level. Each passage contained approximately 180 words on levels five through seven and were arbitrarily assigned a reading level of 5.0, 6.0, or 7.0 to equal the readability levels of the grades they were designed to measure (see Appendix B). Each IRI was scored using Powell criteria (see Appendix C). The criteria was used to score the oral readings and to determine the reading instructional levels.

PAGE 42

34 Reliability The reliability of the IRI may be more consistent at the lower grade levels than at the upper grade levels. This may be attributed to increased vocabulary, language structure and content. The IRI used in the study may be regarded as a reliable test instrument using Powell criteria for scoring. Validity An IRI is considered to be valid if the readability of the reading passage is equal to the grade level it is designed for. Second, the administration of the IRI should approximate techniques used in normal classroom instruction (Powell, 1969). The IRI used in the study adhere to the two aspects of validity and is regarded as being a valid test instrument. Procedure Testing The CTBS was administered on a countywide basis prior to the study. The results of the reading subtests for each student served as a locater for the teacher to identify a group of average readers for possible inclusion in the study. Other than locating possible average readers for the study, the CTBS results were not used for specific analysis. An IRI was administered by the researcher to each student who was designated an average fifth-grade reader from the CTBS scores. The IRI consisted of graded word lists, oral reading passages, and

PAGE 43

35 oral comprehension questions. Students whose instructional level was fifth grade according to the IRI results were considered average readers. At the conclusion of the study the researcher again administered an IRI to each subject to determine possible changes in reading instructional levels. The same IRI form was used as in the initial testing of the three-and-one-half-month study. The final IRI testing was conducted with all student subjects during the same week under similar situations. It was the intent of the researcher to determine reading instructional levels only. Independent and frustration reading levels were not considered for inclusion in the study. Assignment of Teachers The 12 teacher subjects were randomly assigned to one of four identified prompting conditions for correcting student oral reading errors. Three teachers were assigned to each of the following oral prompt conditions: 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, or 4) repeat. Six average fifth-grade readers, who remained unidentified to the teachers, were observed during oral reading activities. During the three-and-one-half-month study each teacher was instructed to use the assigned prompting condition with all average readers during oral reading activities. Each teacher was expected to instruct the average readers in oral reading activities for approximately 30 minutes per day using the reading materials already in use in the classroom.

PAGE 44

36 Teacher Training All teacher subjects were observed prior to the study as being immediate prompters when instructing average readers in oral reading activities. When a student makes an oral reading error an immediate prompter corrects the error when it occurs. The teachers were encouraged to become delayed prompters when working with their assigned prompting condition. Each teacher received a one-hour training session on an individual basis concerning the use and instructions of the particular prompt. The teachers were instructed to use the assigned prompt whenever possible when instructing the average readers in oral reading activities. The following terms were selected for each prompt: 1. uncorrected a. (Teachers did not attempt to correct student errors but would provide feedback within a five-ten second interval for unknown words.) 2. graphophonic a. "Look closely at the word and see if the word part looks like . " b. "Look closely at the word and see if the word part sounds like . " 3. semantic a. "Does the sentence/passage make sense?" b. "Do you think that is what the author meant?" 4. repeat a. "Repeat the sentence/passage." b. "Try that sentence/passage once again."

PAGE 45

37 No additional training was given to the teachers nor was feedback offered during the study concerning their use of the prompt. This insured that all teachers received an equal amount of teacher training with assigned prompts throughout the study. Observations The teacher and student subjects were observed one time per week for a 30-minute period during the study. Although observation visits were limited to specific times when the average readers met for reading instruction, the visits were made on different days of the week to insure an equal observation schedule among the classrooms. Each classroom was visited 14 times during the study for observation purposes. To control for researcher bias a trained coder was used on two visits to each classroom. A tape recorder was used on two additional visits to each classroom after which the researcher coded the responses. The researcher visited the classrooms on the other ten visits. On each visit a code sheet was used (see Appendix D) to record the possibility for teacher use of the prompt, whether the prompt was adopted, and the result of the prompt on student correction of the oral reading error. Method of Analysis All data cards were punched onto IBM cards for analysis. The SAS Introductory Guide for the Social Sciences (Helwig, 1978) was used to aid computation. The computation of data was done by computer analysis at the University of Florida Computing Center, Gainesville, Florida, using the SAS programs for scientific data.

PAGE 46

38 The research hypotheses are stated in null form. An explanation for the statistical analysis is given for the hypotheses. Hypothesis I A There will be no significant adoptability by teachers among the different prompting conditions. Hypothesis IB There will be no significant adoptability of a particular prompting condition over the others. An analysis of variance model was used to gauge the significance of the teachers' ability to adopt the particular assigned prompting condition and to determine if one prompting condition showed more significant gains than the others. These hypotheses were tested at a significance level of a = .03. Hypothesis HA There will be no significant achievement gains by students among the different prompting conditions. Hypothesis IIB There will be no significant achievement gains by students of a particular prompting condition. A hierarchical design was used to gauge treatment effects between methods of prompts and student groups. The hierarchical design was used to determine the influence of the social unit of the subjects. Therefore, each score was subjected to a treatment effect, a group effect, and a residual component reflecting error of measurement.

PAGE 47

CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF THE STUDY Results A primary purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which teachers adopted a method of teacher prompts when working with average fifth-grade readers in oral reading activities. A second purpose of this study was to examine the use of teacher prompts as an effective teaching strategy with average readers in fifth grade in oral reading activities. Student achievement gains were studied after students had been exposed to one of four designated teacher prompts for a three-and-one-half month period. The four identified prompts were 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, and 4) repeat. The factors involved in the analysis were teacher observations and prompting conditions. Each of the 12 teacher subjects were observed 14 times to gauge the extent to which each adopted the assigned prompt. Three teachers were assigned to each of the four prompting conditions. Table I reported the identification process for teacher assignment to prompting conditions and the prompt IDs. The results for the testing of each hypothesis were presented along with a discussion of those results. Hypothesis IA--There will be no significant adoptability by teachers among the different prompting conditions. Hypothesis IB— There will be no significant adoptability of a particular prompting condition over the others. 39

PAGE 48

40 Table I. Identification Process for Teacher Assignment to Prompting Conditions and Prompt Identification Prompt Prompt ID Teacher ID Uncorrected A 1, 2, 3 Graphophonic B 4, 5, 6 Semantic C 7, 8, 9 Repeat D 10, 11, 12

PAGE 49

41 Percentages were determined between the possibility for teacher adoptability of the prompt and actual adoptability by the teacher for each of the 14 observations for each teacher. Results were recorded in Table II. The percentages suggested a variance in adoptability among the four prompting conditions. An analysis of variance was used to test for differences in adoptability among the four prompting conditions. Table III reported the results. The value of the F statistic (16.34) indicated that differences did occur among the adoptability of the four prompting conditions at the .05 level. An analysis of variance was used to test for interaction between the observations and prompting conditions. The value of the F statistics showed no interactions at the .05 level. Table IV reported the results in an abbreviated table. A Modified Bonferroni test was used to make Pairwise Comparisons among the prompting conditions at the .01 level. The results indicated that the uncorrected and semantic prompting conditions were not significantly different in adoptability between one another. The graphophonic prompting condition was significantly different in adoptability from the uncorrected and semantic prompting conditions. The repeat prompting condition was not significantly different in adoptability from the uncorrected, semantic, nor graphophonic prompting conditions. Table V reported the results. This indicated that the uncorrected and semantic prompting conditions were more readily adopted in the study than were the repeat or graphophonic prompting conditions. The graphophonic prompting condition was reported as one prompting condition in the initial reported results. The condition, however,

PAGE 50

42 cor^Lr)OLr>or^.oor~-«u")omo oooLnooooooLnoocoi^. coooMflinmodNoionio i — cmooooi — i — or->.ooooo"> NonninowNrNOLnoninn oooi — or^ooo*3-or~or^ lDOLfHDCOlDC0 03 0tDtLnLno(M Lor-^oooocoooooor^-nro looooooor^-r^oi^oocoto oootoooroLnouoooor^Ln ooooocooiDNstoso'tinN cooooi — r^oor^i — ouii — r^. o LOLnooro>^-oncoOLnoon NNOioujiootocoiDNOLnN Nro«tirnflisoooiOi — cm cn
PAGE 51

43 Table III. Analysis of Variance Abbreviated Table for Prompting Conditions Source df SS MS F Prompt 3 .917 .306 16.34* .0009 Error 8 .150 .019 *£ <_.05

PAGE 52

44 Table IV. Analysis of Variance Abbreviated Table for Interactions Between Observations and Prompting Conditions. Source

PAGE 53

45 Table V. Pairwise Comparisons Among Prompting Conditions Using a Modified Bonferroni Procedure Prompt Mean Grouping* Uncorrected .76 A Semantic .76 /\ Repeat .67 A B Graphophonic .58 B *£-<.. 01 "Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

PAGE 54

46 obviously consisted of two integrated but separable processes: the visual or grapho dimension and the auditory or phonic dimension. For the purpose of analysis, the graphophonic condition was also considered as two separate subcategories. With the grapho prompt the teacher would prompt the reader to correct an oral reading error by cuing him to examine the error visually. The teacher would use a particular statement to prompt the reader to the visual characteristics: "Look closely at the word and see if the word part looks like . " The second category was the phonic prompt which was concerned with the sound characteristics of a word. Using the phonic prompt the teacher would prompt the reader to correct an oral reading error by cuing him to examine the error through sound. The teacher would use the following statement to prompt the reader to the second characteristics: "Look closely at the word and see if the word part sounds like . " Since the teachers used either one or a combination of the two subcategories, specific results for each category were reported. Table VI depicted teacher adoptability of the grapho prompt in relation to the remaining three identified prompting conditions (uncorrected, semantic, and repeat). The grapho prompt was used during all but two observations of the graphophonic prompting condition. Therefore, the results of the grapho prompt are very similar to the overall graphophonic prompt results. A mean of .58 was recorded by the grapho prompt which suggested a variance in adoptability when compared with the uncorrected prompting mean (.76), the semantic prompting mean (.76), and the repeat prompting mean (.67).

PAGE 55

47 44-> O QE C O o s•io_ +j io O -C D. CL O re SS_ Q. CD oor^LnOLOOr^oor^Lnoroo

PAGE 56

48 An analysis of variance was used to determine if significant differences in adoptability by the teachers did occur with the grapho prompt when compared with the three remaining prompting conditions. Table VII depicted an analysis of variance abbreviated table for the grapho prompt. The value of the F statistic (16.34) indicated that a significant difference did occur. Pairwise Comparisons among the prompting conditions were made to determine the difference between the grapho prompt and the other three prompting conditions. A Modified Bonferroni procedure was used with a .01 significance level. Table VIII recorded the results which showed that the grapho prompt mean was significantly different from the means of the other three prompting conditions at the .01 level. The lower mean of the grapho prompt indicated that the prompting condition was not as easily adopted by the teachers in the study as were the other three prompting conditions. Table IX depicted teacher adoptability of the phonic prompt in relation to the remaining three prompts (uncorrected, semantic, and repeat). The mean of the phonic prompt (.00) suggested low adoptability of the particular prompt by the teachers in the study. An analysis of variance was used to determine if significant differences in adoptability by the teachers did occur with the phonic prompt in relation to the remaining three prompting conditions. Table X reported the analysis of variance abbreviated table with the value of the F statistic recorded as 25.28 at the .05 level. This indicated that the phonic prompt was significantly different in adoptability from the other three prompting conditions.

PAGE 57

49 Table VII. Analysis of Variance Abbreviated Table for Grapho Prompt Source

PAGE 58

50 Table VIII. Pairwise Comparisons Among Prompting Conditions Using a Modified Bonferroni Procedure: Grapho Prompt Prompt Mean Grouping* Uncorrected .76 A Semantic .76 A Repeat .67 A B Grapho .58 B *£ <-.01 *Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

PAGE 59

51 44-> O OB c o o s•iD+-> sa o iQC o o S-C D. QcOMnouiosooMnono ooiorNiDrxc3iDinouDNO
PAGE 60

52 Table X. Analysis of Variance Abbreviated Table for Phonic Prompt Source

PAGE 61

53 Table XI recorded the results of the Pairwise Comparisons among the phonic prompt and the remaining three prompting conditions. Using a Modified Bonferroni procedure at the .01 level, the results showed that the phonic prompt was different in adoptability than the other three prompts. The results indicated that the phonic prompt was not as readily adopted by the teachers in the study in relation to the other prompts. Hypothesis IA was rejected. Significant adoptability did exist among the different prompting conditions. The results indicated that the uncorrected and semantic prompting conditions were not different between one another whereas the graphophonic prompt was significantly different from both the uncorrected and semantic prompts. The repeat prompt did not show significant differences in relation to the other three prompting conditions. Hypothesis IB was rejected. Significant adoptability by teachers of one prompt from another did exist. The results indicated that the uncorrected and semantic prompts were more readily adopted by the teachers than the repeat or graphophonic prompts. Several factors could have influenced the order of adoptability of the four prompting conditions. The teacher correction statement for particular prompting conditions could have varied in difficulty. The uncorrected teacher prompt required no verbal statement whereas the graphophonic prompting conditions required specific graphic and phonic statements. The semantic and repeat prompting conditions each used a one-statement correction. The use of instructional materials in oral reading activities could have influenced the order of prompt adoptability. Although each

PAGE 62

54 Table XI. Pairwise Comparisons Among Prompting Conditions Using a Modified Bonferroni Procedure: Phonic Prompt Prompt Mean Grouping* Uncorrected .76 A Semantic .76 A Repeat .67 A B Phonic .00 B £ < .01 *Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

PAGE 63

55 teacher used a basal text and materials designated for fifth-grade readers, the basal texts were not from the same series or publisher. Readability, content, and vocabulary approach could have differed among the materials used in each classroom. This could have affected the teachers' use of the assigned prompts and the students' ability to handle the material . A third factor of concern in the order of teacher adoptability of the prompting conditions was the actual use of the assigned prompt when the researcher was not visiting the individual classrooms. Although each teacher subject was instructed to use the assigned prompt as often as possible when correcting the average students' oral reading errors, the researcher could not be certain that the instructions were carried out during the instructional reading periods when the researcher was not present. This could have affected the amount of practice each teacher received in the use of the assigned prompt and the student achievement gains. A fourth consideration of the results of the order of teacher adoptability of the prompting conditions was the grouping of students among the six schools. Certain teacher subjects taught in a departmentalized situation and taught only reading to the entire fifth-grade population. This particular grouping situation could have provided the teachers with more opportunity to practice the assigned prompt than teachers in a self-contained classroom situation who taught reading on a lesser time plan. A fifth factor could have been the interest of individual teachers in participating in the study. Although the teacher subjects were willing to participate at the beginning of the study, certain teachers

PAGE 64

56 showed a lack of interest in using the assigned prompt towards the conclusion of the study. This could have affected the teachers' adoptability of the assigned prompt. A final consideration could have been the control of the students by individual teachers to maintain order in certain classrooms. Two particular teachers showed difficulty in managing student behavior which affected the amount of time spent on actual instruction. Thus, teacher adoptability of particular prompting conditions could have been affected. Hypothesis IIA stated that there would be no significant achievement gains by students between the different prompting conditions. Hypothesis I IB stated that there would be no significant achievement gains by students of a particular prompting condition. Table XII depicted the means and standard deviations for student scores from an informal reading inventory. As discussed in Chapter III, the IRI score values were arbitrarily assigned as 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0 based upon the grade levels the passages represented. The pretest and posttest means for each prompting condition were recorded. Table XIII recorded the number of student subjects in the final analysis, the mean scores, and standard deviations for student posttest scores by each teacher. Table XIV recorded the frequency and percentage of students on instructional reading levels 5, 6, and 7 at the conclusion of the study. The results indicated that of the 67 student subjects included in the final analysis, 22 were on the fifth-grade instructional reading level, 42 were on the sixth-grade instructional reading level, and 3 were on the seventh-grade instructional reading level.

PAGE 65

57 Table XII. Means and Standard Deviations for IRI Scores

PAGE 66

58 Table XIII. Mean and Standard Deviations of Student IRI Scores by Teacher Prompt

PAGE 67

59 Table XIV. Frequency and Percentage of Students: Prompting Condition by Instructional Reading Levels

PAGE 68

60 This indicated that 33% of the student subjects scored on the fifth-grade instructional reading level, 63% scored on the sixthgrade instructional reading level, and 4% scored on the seventh-grade instructional reading level. The results suggested that more students were on a sixth-grade instructional reading level at the conclusion of the study than on a fifth-grade or seventh-grade instructional reading level. Since average readers at the end of fifth grade would be expected to be on a 5.9 instructional reading level, the results indicated that achievement gains for the majority of the student subjects were average. An analysis of variance was used to test for significant differences in student achievement gains within prompting conditions. Table XV reported the results. The value of the F statistic (3.48) indicated that significant differences in student achievement gains were recorded among the different prompting conditions. Duncan's Multiple Range Test was used to determine which prompting condition realized significant student achievement gains in relation to the others at the .05 level. Table XVI recorded the results which indicated that student achievement gains were significantly higher for the uncorrected prompting condition. The graphophonic, semantic, and repeat prompting conditions recorded no significant differences in student achievement gains in relation to one another. Pairwise Comparisons using the Bonferroni T-test at the .01 level were conducted to determine differences in student achievement gains among the different prompting conditions. The results showed a significant difference between the uncorrected prompting condition and the

PAGE 69

61 Table XV. Analysis of Variance Abbreviated Table Within Prompting Conditions. Source df SS MS * Prompt 3 2.711 .904 3.48 Teachers Within 8 2.121 .265 1.02** a Prompt Error 55 14.283 .259 *.05
PAGE 70

62 Table XVI. Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Variable IRI Prompt N Mean Grouping* Uncorrected 16 6.06 A Graphophonic 17 5.71 B Semantic 18 5.66 B Repeat 16 5.44 B p_ < .05 *Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

PAGE 71

63 three remaining prompting conditions. No significant differences were recorded among the other prompting conditions. Hypothesis 1 1 A was rejected. Significant achievement gains were recorded between the different prompting conditions. Hypothesis I IB was rejected. Significant achievement gains were recorded by students of a particular prompting condition. The uncorrected prompt produced significant student achievement gains whereas the graphophonic, semantic, and repeat prompting conditions did not. Summary and Discussions A primary consideration of the study was to examine the extent to which teachers adopted a method of teacher prompts when working with average fifth-grade readers in oral reading activities. A second purpose of the study was to examine the use of teacher prompts as an effective teaching strategy with average readers in fifth grade in oral reading activities. Student achievement gains were studied after students had been exposed to one of four designated teacher prompts for a three-and-one-hal f month period. The four designated prompts were 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, and 4) repeat. The reported results indicated a variance in adoptability among the four prompting conditions. The uncorrected and semantic prompting conditions showed the highest percentages between possibility for teacher adoptability and actual adoptability by the teacher for each of the 14 observations for each teacher. The repeat prompt showed the third highest percentages between the possibility for teacher

PAGE 72

64 adoptability and actual adoptability by the teacher. The graphophonic prompt showed the fourth highest percentages. The uncorrected and semantic prompts recorded significant adoptability in relation to the other three prompts whereas the repeat prompt showed no difference. The graphophonic prompt recorded no significance in adoptability in the study. The findings differed with the investigations by Brady and Lynch (1976) who found that teachers would not prompt students in oral reading errors in actual practice even though the concept of oral prompts was accepted in concept. The difference in findings could be a result of the extended observation period of this research study compared with a shorter observation period designed by Brady and Lynch. Pehrsson (1974) found similar results with this researcher. He maintained that particular prompts could be adopted by teachers if a meaning orientation was established between teacher and student. Gumperz and Hernandez-Chavez (1972) also found that teachers could adopt particular prompting conditions although the amount and type would vary from teacher to teacher. The graphophonic prompting condition was divided into two subcategories for purposes of further analysis. The grapho subcategory was concerned with the visual characteristics of the word part when cuing a student that an oral reading error had occurred. The phonic subcategory was concerned with the sound characteristics of the word part when an oral reading error occurred. The results indicated a strong preference for the grapho subcategory rather than for the phonic subcategory. The three teachers

PAGE 73

65 who were assigned to the graphophonic prompting condition used the grapho prompt 40 times of the total 42 observations. This would indicate that the teachers who adopted the graphophonic prompt approached the correction of student oral reading errors from a visual standpoint rather than from a phonic standpoint. These results coincided with the findings of Niles (1979) who reported that teachers relied mainly on graphic level information rather than phonic information. Indications supported the idea that the grapho prompt may be more effective than the phonic prompt with intermediateaged readers. The results could not necessarily be applied to primary-aged readers, however. The results of the student achievement gains suggested that students who were prompted by the uncorrected condition showed the highest gain. The graphophonic, semantic, and repeat prompts yielded very similar achievement gains by the students assigned to those prompting conditions although none produced significant student achievement gains. The results indicated that the three prompting conditions were not facilitative in producing significant student achievement gains during the study. The results indicated that teachers could adopt a designated prompting condition over a three-and-one-half month period with minimal training. The uncorrected and semantic prompts were the most easily adopted prompts with the repeat prompt the third most easily adopted prompt. The graphophonic prompt was fourth in adoptability. The results differed with the findings of Niles (1979) who indicated that the semantic, repeat and uncorrected conditions produced similar results with the repeat prompt producing much lower results.

PAGE 74

66 Bawden, Burke and Duffy (1979) stated that students could achieve in correction of oral reading errors if more than one identified prompting condition was used. Therefore, identification of the effectiveness of one prompting condition over the others may produce insignificant results when compared with overall student achievement gains. The study was effective in identifying the possibility that teachers could adopt a particular prompting condition with minimal training over a three-and-one-half month period when working with average readers in the fifth grade. Certain prompting conditions were found to be more readily adopted by the teachers in the study. Significant achievement gains by average fifth-grade readers in oral reading activities were found for the uncorrected prompting condition. The study did provide evidence that teacher prompts in oral reading activities on the fifthgrade level could promote instruction of oral reading strategies which could aid students to become more self-sufficient readers.

PAGE 75

CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A primary purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which teachers adopted a method of teacher prompts when working with average fifth-grade readers in oral reading acitvities. A second purpose of this study was to examine the use of teacher prompts as an effective teaching strategy with average fifth-grade readers in oral reading activities. Student achievement gains were studied after students had been exposed to one of four designated teacher prompts for a three-and-one-half month period. The four identified prompts were 1) uncorrected, 2) graphophonic, 3) semantic, and 4) repeat. Three main objectives were included in the investigation. 1. Teacher ability to adopt a prompting condition when correcting student oral reading errors. 2. Student achievement gains when teacher prompts were used in oral reading activities. 3. Effectiveness of four designated conditions among one another. The six schools selected for the study represented the three different socioeconomic levels as determined by available data on free and reduced lunch counts for each school. All schools contained kindergarten through grade six. Twelve teachers were selected from six schools and were assigned to one of four oral prompt conditions (uncorrected, graphophonic, 67

PAGE 76

68 semantic, or repeat). A one-hour training session was given to each teacher on an individual basis concerning the proper use of the assigned prompt when correcting student oral reading errors. The teachers were instructed to use the prompt as often as possible when correcting the average students' oral reading errors during the daily 30-minute instructional period. The student subjects were 72 fifth-grade students who were selected from a larger population from six schools in Volusia County, Florida, during the 1980-1981 school year. The students were selected from a pool of average fifth-grade readers with six students selected from each of 12 classrooms. Sixty-seven students were included in the final analysis. All student subjects were determined to be average readers from scores obtained from the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (reading subtests) and from scores on an informal reading inventory (using Powell criteria). The student scores from the informal reading inventory were recorded as 5.0, 6.0, or 7.0 to designate grade levels and were used to determine instructional reading levels. The researcher again administered an informal reading inventory at the conslusion of the study to determine possible changes in instructional reading levels. During the three-and-one-half month study all teacher and student subjects were observed 14 times to determine the extent to which each teacher adopted the assigned prompt and the effect of the prompting conditions on the students' oral reading correction process. The researcher used a coding process to examine the percentage of times the individual teachers adopted the assigned prompt compared with the possibility for adopting the prompt.

PAGE 77

69 Four hypotheses were tested in the study. 1. Hypothesis IA stated that there would be no differences in adoptability by teachers among the different prompting conditions. 2. Hypothesis IB stated that there would be no significant adoptability of a particular prompting condition over the others. Percentage scores were determined between the possibility for teacher adoptability of the prompt and actual adoptability by teachers for each of the 14 observations for each teacher. An analysis of variance was used to test for differences in adoptability among the four prompting conditions at the .05 level. Since the test indicated that differences did occur, Hypothesis IA was rejected. A Modified Bonferroni test was used to make Pairwise Comparisons among the prompting conditions at the .01 level. The results indicated that the uncorrected and semantic prompting conditions were not significantly different from one another in adoptability by the teachers in the study. The repeat prompt was not significantly different from the other three prompts in adoptability. The graphophonic prompt was significantly different from the other three prompts. The results indicated that the uncorrected and semantic prompting conditions were more readily adopted by the teachers in the study than were the repeat or graphophonic prompts, Therefore, Hypothesis IB was rejected. Significant adoptability of a particular prompting condition over the others did occur. Two factors could have influenced the inability of the teachers to adopt the graphophonic prompting condition to a significant degree. The particular prompt required specific grapho and phonic statements whereas the other three prompts required a brief correction statement by the teachers.

PAGE 78

70 The ages of the student subjects could have also influenced the low adoptability of the graphophonic prompt. Whereas younger readers often approach unfamiliar words using phonetic skills, more mature readers often use a contextual approach. Therefore, the average readers in the study relied most often on the uncorrected, semantic, or repeat prompting conditions than the graphophonic prompting condition. 3. Hypothesis IIA stated that there would be no significant achievement gains by students between the different prompting conditions. 4. Hypothesis I IB stated that there would be no significant achievement gains by students of a particular prompting condition. An analysis of variance was used to test for significant differences in student achievement gains among the prompting conditions at the .05 level. Since the test indicated that differences did occur, Hypothesis IIA was rejected. The Duncan Multiple Range Test was used to determine which prompting condition realized significant student achievement gains at the .05 level. The results indicated that student achievement gains were significantly higher for the uncorrected prompting condition. The graphophonic, semantic, and repeat prompting conditions recorded no significant differences in student achievement gains. Therefore, Hypothesis I IB was rejected. The results reflected the achievement gains of students in the study and should not be readily compared with students in other situations. Since the only significant achievement gains were recorded for students in the uncorrected prompting group, caution should be given in making widespread conclusions or applications as to the effectiveness of one prompting condition over another to gauge student achievement gains.

PAGE 79

71 The results of the study indicated that the teacher subjects could adopt assigned prompts after a one-hour training session although particular prompts would be more readily adopted than others. The results also indicated that significant achievement gains could be realized by the average fifth-grade readers in the study during a threeand-one-half month period although for only one prompting condition.

PAGE 80

APPENDIX A SAN DIEGO QUICK ASSESSMENT WORD LISTS

PAGE 81

pp Primer Graded Word Lists* see

PAGE 82

APPENDIX B INFORMAL READING INVENTORY

PAGE 83

FIFTH READER (5 1 ) New Days and Deeds (186 words) Initial procedure A boy is studying for something he thinks is important. Read aloud from here to here to find out what it is, and how his family feels about it. Robert Beacham sat with his eyes closed so that he could not see the dictionary page before him. He spelled aloud, "Re-spon-" Just then Mrs. Beacham called from the farm kitchen. "Bobby! Come to supper." The boy was absorbed in his study and did not hear the call. He continued spelling, "-si-bil-i-ty." His brother bellowed, "Supper, Bobby!" This time Robert heard. He marched out of the room spelling, "Re-spon-si-bil-i-ty." Striding into the warm country kitchen, he exclaimed, "Look here, Dick! Please quit calling me Bobby. Anybody who can spell a big word like responsibility is no baby." Dick Beacham walked over to the table, carrying a pitcher of milk. "Anybody who can spell that word really should know what it means," he teased. "I noticed, Bobby, that you haven't fed the hens or the calves. You haven't done any of your chores." 75-

PAGE 85

77 SIXTH READER (6 1 ) New People and Progress . Pages 60-61 (190 words) Initial procedure Brad is ready to take part in a contest, but something unexpected happens. Read orally from here to here to find out what happened. Meanwhile, in one of the cottages at Derby town, Brad was talking earnestly with Mr. Rod Black of the Bay City Times-Post. This newspaper had sponsored the soapbox races in Brad's home town. The two were discussing a letter, signed "One Who Knows," that had been received yesterday by the Derby officials. It stated that Brad's father had helped Brad build his racer, and now the officials were challenging Brad's right to race. The statement in the letter was not true, and it really hurt. Though Brad had said nothing about it, he was pretty sure that Pidge had written the letter because of something that had happened two months ago. "Well, don't worry," said the newspaperman as he rose to leave the cottage. "The inspectors are fair, and they don't want to doubt your word. But there have been a few cases where the contestants have said they made their racers when they didn't. So the inspectors can't afford to overlook any hint of cheating. I'm sure, though,

PAGE 86

78 that you passed the test they gave you this morning at the trade school on using tools needed to build a racer." Comprehension check 1. Why were they challenging Brad's right to race? (letter said he had help building his racer) 2. What is a "Derby"? (race) 3. Why do you think they called the place where Brad stayed "Derbytown"? (where those in the race lived, where race was held) 4. Who sponsored the race in Brad's home town? (newspaper) 5. What does the word "contestant" mean? (one who competes) 6. Who did Brad think wrote the letter? (Pidge) 7. What does the word "earnestly" mean? (seriously) 8. What kind of test did Brad take to help prove he built the racer? (use of tools) 6th Recap-

PAGE 87

79 SEVENTH READER (7 1 ) Parades . Pages 17-18 (182 words) Initial procedure Muffy would like to play in the City Orchestra, but she has one fault. Read orally from here to here to discover what her musical and social troubles are. For her age, she was an excellent musician. She could read music easily at first sight, and no one had to drive her to do her practicing. She took good care of her instrument, always soaking the reed so that it would function properly in the oboe's mouthpiece. But every time she had to play a solo, she either produced a series of wild squeaks or remained mute while the accompaniment plunked on alone. When she met Lucinda later, she found her friend full of cahtter about the recital to be held that night at the high school. There was to be a party afterwards for all the participants. "What are you going to wear?" Lucinda demanded. "My mother got me a new pink taffeta dress. And Don Everta asked me to go with him to the party. Did anyone ask you?" Muffy shook her head. "I guess I'll wear my white pique," she said tiredly. "But you've worn that all summer everywhere you've gone!" Lucinda wailed. "Why, you've--

PAGE 88

"Who cares about c1othes--or dates?" cried Muffy. "Stop picking on me." Comprehension check 1. What was Muffy's musical trouble? (couldn't play a solo) 2. How can you tell she liked music? (practiced willingly, took care of instrument) 3. Why did Muffy soak the reed? (so it would work properly) 4. What does the word "mute" mean? (silent) 5. What part of the story tells you that the oboe is not a string instrument? (mouthpiece, reed) 6. What is a recital? (musical program) 7. About how old was Muffy? (13/18, high school age) Why do you think so? (dating, recital at high school) 8. What is a participant? (one who takes part) 7th Recapi

PAGE 89

APPENDIX C POWELL CRITERIA

PAGE 90

Comprehension Score as a Percentage

PAGE 91

83 Finding Independent, Instructional, and Frustration Levels When each passage has been tallied, and when the word recogni tion error ratios and the comprehension percentages have been computed, the scores should be entered in a summary table as in the following example. Passage

PAGE 92

84 b. For passages at graded levels 3, 4 and 5. 1 error or less per 50 running words = Independent 1 error per 13 to 1 error per 49 running words = Instructional 1 error or more per 12 running words = Frustration c. For passages at graded level 6 and above. 1 error or less per 50 running words = Independent 1 error per 18 to 1 error per 49 running words = Instructional 1 error or more per 17 running words = Frustration

PAGE 93

85 Informal Reading Inventory Scoring Criteria by Performance Level and Condition

PAGE 94

APPENDIX D CODING SHEET FOR RECORDING TEACHERS' ADOPTABILITY OF ASSIGNED PROMPTS

PAGE 95

Date School Teacher prompt Possibil ity for use of prompt

PAGE 96

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allington, R. Teacher interrupting behaviors during primary-grade oral reading. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1980, 72(2), 311-377. ----Anderson, L., & Brophy, J. An experimental investigation of first grade reading group instruction (Report No. 77-1). Austin, Texas : Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, 1976. Anderson, L., Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. An experimental investigation of teacher feedback behaviors in first grade reading groups (Report No. 77-3). Austin, Texas: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, 1977. Bawden, R., Burke, S., & Duffy, G. Teacher conceptions of reading and their influence on instruction (Report No. 47). East Lansing, Mich.: Institute for Research on Teaching, 1979. Betts, E. Foundations of reading instruction with emphasis on differentiated guidance . New York: American Book Co., 1950. Biemiller, A. The development of the use of graphic and contextual information as children learn to read. Reading Research Quarterly , 1970, 6, 75-76. Bourne, L. Human conceptual behavior . Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1966. Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. The Texas teacher effectiveness project : Presentation of non-linear relationships and summary discussion (Report No. 74-6) Austin, Texas: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, 1974. Brophy, J., & Good, T. Looking in classrooms . New York: Harper & Row, 1978. Brady, M. , & Lynch, W. Observing reading teachers: A critique of systems and the development of an instrument specific to teaching word recognition. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 1976. Buschke, H. Components of verbal learning in children: Analysis by selected reminding. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , December 1974, 18(3), 488-496. 88

PAGE 97

Carroll, J., & Chall , J. Toward a literate society: The report of the committee on reading of the National Academy of Education . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Claus, K. Effects of modeling and feedback treatments on the development of teachers' questioning skills . Technical Report, Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, June 1969, 6_. Conrad, R. Acoustic confusion in immediate memory. British Journal of Psychology , 1964, 55, 75-83. Corder, S. The significance of learner's errors. IRAL , 1967, 4_(5), 161-169. Cox, R., & Shrigley, R. Comparing three methods of practicing reading to reduce errors in oral reading. Reading Improvement , 1980, U, 306-310. J Danner, F. , & Day, M. Eliciting formal operations. Child Development , December 1977, 48(4), 1600-1606. Durkin, D. Teaching them to read . Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1970. Gaddy, C. An analysis of the relative effect of prompt and feedback on the comprehension of compressed speech . (Doctoral dissertati on , The American University, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1975, 36, 2590A. (University Microfilms No. 75-25, 8%) Gattegno, C. On mistakes. Educational Solutions Newsletter , December 1976. Gibson, E., & Levin, H. The psychology of reading . Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1975. Goodman, Y. Using children's miscues for teaching reading strategies. Reading Teacher , 1970, 23, 455-459. Goodman, Y., & Burke, C. Reading miscue inventory . New York: The Macmillan Co. , 1972. Gumperz, J., & Hernandez-Chavez, E. Bilingualism, bidialectism, and classroom interaction. In C. Cazden, V. John & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom . New York: Teachers College Press, 1972. Hansen, C. The generalization of skills and drills versus corrective feedback instruction to the independent reading performance of intermediate aged learning disabled boys . (Doctoral dissertation , University of Washington, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1976, 37, 4280A. (University Microfilms No. 77-00, 582)

PAGE 98

90 Harris, A. How to increase reading ability . New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1961. Harste, J., & Burke, C. A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: Both the teaching and learning of reading are theoretically based. In P. David Pearson (Ed.), Reading: Theory, research and practice . Twenty-sixth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, Clemson, S.C.: The National Reading Conference, Inc., 1977, 32-40. Hauff, A. An evaluation of programmed instruction analogues of prompt and feedback in training for the comprehension of compressed speech , (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1973, 34, 4987A. (University Microfilms No. 74-02,589) Helwig, J. SAS introductory guide . Raleigh, N.C.: SAS Institute, Inc., 1978. Hershberger, W. , & Terry, D. Complexity of typographical cueing in programmed and conventional texts . Technical Report, American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, December 1963, 7. Hoffman, H., & Baker, J. Effects of teacher feedback on beginning reader's oral reading behavior: A review. In J. Niles & V. Tech (Eds.), Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Diego, 1981. Jenkins, J., & Larson, K. Evaluating error correction procedures for oral reading (Report No. 55). Champaign, 111.: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois, 1978. Keller, D. , & Cunningham, D. A comparison of prompting and adjunct questions in learning from text. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 1973, 102. LaPray, M. , & Ross, R. The graded word list: Quick gauge of reading ability. Journal of Reading , January 1969, 12(4), 305-307. Madden, M. , & Pratt, J. An oral reading survey as a teaching aid. Elementary English Review , 1941, J8, 122-126. McCormick, C, & Lesgold, A. Effects of imagery training on reading comprehension ability in third and fourth graders. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1974. McCullough, D. Problems in the improvement of reading . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1946.

PAGE 99

9-1 Mitchell, K. Patterns of teacher-student responses to oral reading errors as related to teachers' theoretical frameworks . (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1979, 39, 7258A. (University Microfilms No. 79-11, 252) Monroe, M. Methods for diagnosis and treatment of cases of reading disability. Genetic Psychology Monographs , 1928, 4, 335-456. Monroe, M. Children who cannot read. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932. Moody, H. Techniques and art in reading aloud. English Language Teaching Journal , 1974, 28, 315-324. Morasky, R., & Willcox, H. Time required to process information as a function of question placement. American Educational Research Journal , November 1970, 7_(4), 561-567. """ Niles, J. The effects of selected teacher prompting strategies on oral reading performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, 1979. Niles, J., Graham, R. ,& Winstead, J. The effects of teacher feedback responses on children's oral reading performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Reading Association, Miami, 1977. Niles, J., & Tech, V. Effects of teacher feedback on beginning reader's oral reading behavior: A review. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Diego, 1980. Pearson, P. A psycholinguistic model of reading. Language Arts , 1976, 53, 309-314. Pehrsson, D. Are you a helper, Mr. Gelpher? Journal of Reading , 1974, 19(8), 617-621. Powell, W. The informal reading inventory. Unpublished monograph, Center for Reading Research and Instruction, University of Illinois, 1969. Powell, W. Measuring reading performance informally. Paper presented at the International Reading Association Preconvention Institute on Perspectives on Testing, Houston, 1978. Si pay, E. A comparison of standardized reading achievement test scores and functional reading levels . (Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1961). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1961, 22, 2639. (University Microfilms No. 61-05, 431)

PAGE 100

92 Sipay, E. Evaluative look at the cooperative studies of reading in first and second grade. In Reading and Realism . International Reading Association Conference Proceedings, 1969, 588-596. Spiegel, D., & Rogers, C. Teacher responses to miscues during oral reading by second-grade students. Journal of Educational Research , September-October 1980, 74(1), 8-12. Terry, P., & Cohen, D. The effects of different teacher prompting techniques on pupil success in decoding for high and low level readers during oral reading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, Miami Beach, 1977. Weber, R. A linguistic analysis of first grade errors. Reading Research Quarterly , 1970, 5, 428-451. Weinstein, R. Reading group membership in first grade: Teacher behaviors and pupil experiences over time. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1976, 68, 103-116. Wickelgren, W. Similarity and intrusion in the short-term memory of consonant-vowel diagrams. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 1965, J_7, 241-246.

PAGE 101

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Patricia Seely attended public school in Meriden, Connecticut, through the second grade. She and her family moved to Daytona Beach, Florida, where she continued her schooling. She graduated from Seabreeze Senior High School in 1968. Patricia attended Clemson University and graduated from Stetson University in May, 1972, with a bachelor's degree in elementary education. For the next four years she taught firstgraders in Andover, New Jersey. She moved to Daytona Beach, Florida, in 1976 and taught sixthgraders for two-and-one-half years. In 1977, she entered Florida Technological University and began work on a master's degree in reading. She completed her master's work in 1978 and worked as a supervisor of basic skills for the North East Florida Educational Consortium. Patricia also served as a part-time instructor of education at Daytona Beach Community College and as a professional reviewer for the Professional Practices Council of the Florida Department of Education. In September of 1979, she entered the Ph.D. program in curriculum and instruction at the University of Florida. While working on her degree she worked as an educational consultant for the Volusia County School System. She also worked as a teaching assistant at the University of Florida and as an adjunct professor at the University of Central Florida. 93

PAGE 102

94 After completing requirements for the Ph.D. in August, 1981, Patricia became an assistant professor of curriculum and instruction at the University of West Florida.

PAGE 103

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. William R. Powell, Chairman Professor of Instructional Leadership and Support 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. James J. AlginaX V Associate Professor of Foundations of Education o ^v^O. 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. 1 ^1 . Lawrence L. Smith Associate Professor of Instructional Leadership and Support This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Division of Curriculum and Instruction in 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. August 1981 Dean for Graduate Studies and Research

PAGE 104

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08553 1191