R EPOR T R ESUMESED 013 255 TE 000 013

INDIVIDUALIZING INSTRUCTION IN LANGUAGE ARTS THROUGHDEVELOFFENT AND RESEARCH IN R AND I UNITS OF LOCAL SCHOOLS,1965-1966.BY- KLAUSMEIER, HERBERT J. AND OTHERSWISCONSIN UNIV., MADISONREPORT NUMBER WU-TR-19 PUB DATE FEU A7. IL-0 se N

REPORT NUMBER BR-5-0216-TR-19CONTRACT OEC-5-10-154EDRS PRICE MF-$0.25 HC-$1.36 34F.

DESCRIPTORS- *ELEMENTARY GRADES, *ENGLISH INSTRUCTION,*HANDWRITING INSTRUCTION, *RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERS,*SPELLING, COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT, EDUCATIONAL EXPERIMENTS;EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMS, GROUP INSTRUCTION, INDIVIDUALINSTRUCTION, INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS, READING, UNIVERSITY OFWISCONSIN, MADISON, R 0 CTR. FOR COGNITIVE LEARNING, R AND IUNITS,

OF THE EIGHT INITIAL EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED BY RESEARCHAND INSTRUCTION (R AND I) UNITS, ESTABLISHED IN WISCONSINSCHOOLS TO DEVELOP AND EXECUTE EXEMPLARY INSTRUCTIONALPROGRAMS AND CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVE THEM THROUGH A PROGRAM OFRESEARCH, THREE EXPERIMENTS ACHIEVED SIGNIFICANT RESULTS. INONE, 99 SIXTH-GRADERS RECEIVED THREE TYPES OF SPELLINGINSTRUCTION-WORKBOOKS, AN INTEGRATED APPROACH IN WHICHSTUDENTS WERE TAUGHT A SPELLING METHOD AND WERE LED TO APPLYTHIS IN WRITING NEW WORDS, AND INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION. ONRECALL AND RECOGNITION TESTS AND A PROOFREADING TASK,PREVIOUS ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS WERE MAINTAINED REGARDLESS OF THEMETHOD OF INSTRUCTION USED, AND FEMALES SCORED HIGHER THANMALES. SPELLING ERRORS ON THEME WRITING REVEALED THATWORKBOOK INSTRUCTION SHOWED THE LEAST TRANSFER TO A WRITINGSITUATION. HOWEVER, FREQUENCY OF DICTIONARY USAGE WASMARKEDLY HIGHEST UNDER THE SPELLING WORKBOOK APPROACH. TWOOTHER EXPERIMENTS, INVOLVING NINE-WEEK STUDIES IN UANCWRITINGINSTRUCTION, WERE CONDUCTED BY THIRD- AND FOURTH-GRADE R ANDI UNITS. LEGIBILITY RATINGS OF HANDWRITING SAMPLES UNDERNORMAL, FAST, AND BEST CONDITIONS INDICATED THAT ON THETHIRD-GRADE LEVEL THE TRADITIONAL GROUP-METHOD OF INSTRUCTIONWAS MUCH LESS EFFECTIVE THAN THE DIAGNOSTIC INDIVIDUALIZEDAPPROACH. IN THE FOURTH-GRADE LEVEL EXPERIMENT, NOSIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN IMPROVEMENT WERE FOUND BETWEENTHESE METHODS OF INSTRUCTION, BUT IMPROVEMENT IN LEGIBILITYWAS GREATER IN GRADE 4, WITH EITHER TREATMENT, THAN IN GRADE3. OTHER UNITS CONDUCTED FIVE ADDITIONAL SHORT EXPERMENTS INREADING, BUT NO SIGNIFICANT RESULTS WERE OBTAINED. (DL)

t

INDIVIDUALIZINGINSTRUCT1014 INLANGUAGE 'ARTS ,

THROUGH .DEVELOPMENT14 ird

,: , R & I UNITS, OF LOCALSCHOOLS, 1965-1966

V

WISCONSIN RESgARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

CENTER -FOR__COGNITIVE LEARNING

ft.

. ,

;1- t

v,

.

;..',..'.....

,

.,,;II ,, \,

(.1. ... i. i

-'-',,, . ' ' ' i

i '.

-- /

sEAitC

4* °S°

COGNITIVE\o,V

\ LEARNINGA.

L ' .LOP ti`

Technical Report No. 19

INDIVIDUALIZING INSTRUCTION IN LANGUAGE ARTS

THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH IN R & I UNITS OF LOCAL

SCHOOLS, 1965-1966

Herbert J. Klausmeier, Doris M. Cook, William L. Goodwin,Glenn E. Tagatz, and Louis Pingel

U.S. DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS Of VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE Of EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

Wisconsin Research and Development Centerfor Cognitive Learning

The University of WisconsinMadison, Wisconsin

February 1967

TE (Doc 0/3

The research and development activities reported herein were performed pursuant to a contract with theUnited States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, under the provisions

of the Cooperative Research Program.

Center No. C-03 / Contract OE 5-10-154

PREFACE

The R & D Center for Learning and Re-education has a four-step planof operations in achieving its primary goal of improving efficiency of cog-nitive learning for children and youth: (1) extending knowledgeabout vari-ables associated with school learning through research, (2) focusingknowledge on three main problem areas, (3) developing products based onresearch to achieve solutions to the problems, and (4) installing and fieldtesting the products prior to making them available for consideration fornational adoption. Relevant to executing these operations is the inventionand refinement Of mechanisms for improving learning through continuousdevelopment and experimentation in local schools. In other words, a fa-cilitative environment must be created and maintained in a small numberof schools so that controlled experimentation and the development andtesting of materials and procedures may be executed efficiently. As onemeans of attaining the latter, R & I (research and instruction) Units havebeen established. The makeup and functions of R & I Units are describedin the first section of this report, preceding descriptions of the eight ex-periments conducted during the second semester, 1965-1966.

In addition to the authors, the following Center and University staffhave participated in some consultations regarding the research reportedherein or in other activities associated with R & I Units: Dr. ThomasBarrett, Dr. Henry Van Engen, Dr. Max Goodson, Dr. George O'Hearn,and Dr. Wayne Otto.

Herbert J. KlausmeierCo-Director for Research

iii

CONTENTS

List of Tables and Figure

page

viiAbstract ix

I. The R & I Concept 1

The Instructional Emphasis in R & I Units 1

General Procedures for Development and ResearchActivities in R & I Units 2

II. The Comparative Effects of Three Instructional Approacheson Spelling Attainment by Sixth-Grade Children 3

Problem 3

Method 3

Subjects 3

Experimental Treatments 3

Procedures and Design 4Data Gathered 4Scoring and Analysis of Data 5

Results 5Discussion 8

III. The Comparative Effects of Three Methods of HandwritingInstruction on Pupil Skill in Handwriting 10

Problem 10Method 10

Subjects 10Experimental Treatments 10Data Gathered 11Procedures and Design 11Scoring and Analysis of the Data 11

Results 11Discussion 16

IV. Experimentation With Reading Materials 19Introductory Remarks 19The Effect of an Individualized Instructional Technique

(Programmed Reading) Upon Poor Readers'Cognitive Skills in Related Areas 21

The Effect of an Individualized Instructional Technique(SRA Reading Laboratory) Upon Poor Readers'Cognitive Skills in Related Areas 22

Tne Effect of Individualized Instructional and SelfExpressional Sessions on Pupil Attitudes andPupil Cognitive Skills in Reading and RelatedAreas 22

Table

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURE

Al F Ratios and Mean Squares for Recall Spelling Scores 5A2 Mean Number Correct and Standard Deviations forSignificant Main Effects, Recall Spelling Scores 5A3 F Ratios and Means Squares for Recognition Spelling Scores 6A4 Mean Number Correct and Standard Deviations for SignificantMain Effects, Recognition Spelling Scores 6AS F Ratios and Mean Squares for Frequency of Dictionary Usage 6A6 Mean Frequency and Standard Deviations for SignificantMain Effect, Dictionary Usage 6A7 F Ratios and Mean Squares for Errors in Written Themes 7A8 Mean Number of Spelling Errors Per 100 Words andStandard Deviations for Significant Main Effects, WrittenTheme

7A9 F Ratios and Mean Squares for Spelling Ability inProofreading Task

7Al 0 Mean Errors Corrected and Standard Deviations forSignificant Main Effects, Proofreading Task 7Al 1 F Ratios and Mean Squares for Attitudes Toward Spelling bySchool Relatedness

B1 Inter-Judge Reliability12B2 F Ratios and Mean Squares for Speed and Legibility of

Handwriting, Initial Scoring, Grade 3 12B3 Adjusted Means (Number of Words Written and LegibilityRatings) for Significant Main Effects, Speed and Legibilityof Handwriting, Initial Scoring, Grade 3 13B4 F Ratios and Mean Squares for Legibility of Handwriting,Rescore, Grade 3

14B5 Adjusted Means (Legibility Ratings) for Significant MainEffects, Legibility of Handwriting, Rescore, Grade 3 14B6 F Ratios and Mean Squares for Speed and Legibility ofHandwriting, Initial Scoring, Grade 4 15B7 Adjusted Means (Legibility Ratings) for Significant MainEffects, Legibility of Handwriting, Initial Scoring,Grade 4

15B8 I* Ratios and Mean Squares for Legibility of Handwriting,Rescore, Grade 4

16B9 Adjusted Means (Legibility Ratings) for Significant MainEffects, Legibility of Handwriting, Rescore, Grade 4 16

Figure1 Grid showing Unit location of various reading materialsused in spring experimentation

ABSTRACT

R& I (research and instruction) Units, e s ta blished in scho ol sin five Wisconsin Cities, are described as organizationsthat f a c il it ate resear c h and development on cognitive learningin schools. A learning specialist, or Unit leader, assumes leadershipand is accountable to the building principal for the learning efficiency ofstudents and for the coordination of the Unit's instructional and researchactivities. Other staff members are two or more certified teacher; andone or more noncertified instructional personnel; the number of studentsvaries according to the :lumber of staff members. Over a period of years,the R & I Unit will develop and execute an exemplary instructional programand continuously improve it through a program of research. During thefirst semesterthatR & I Units were in operation in three school systemsspring 1966the eight experiments described in this report were conducted.

For 15 weeks 99 sixth graders in three groups stratified by achievementlevel used three types of spelling instruction based on commercial ma-terialsa workbook, an integrated approach, and individualized instruc-tion. Scores on five measures of spelling performance and an attitudeinventory constituted data gathered. On recall and recognition tests anda proofreading task, previous achievement level and sex showed signifi-cant effects with initial high achievers maintaining their score lead andgirls scoring higher than boys. Frequency of dictionary usage was markedlyhighest under the spelling workbook approach which required use of thedictionary as part of the program. Spelling errors in theme writing indi-cated least transfer to a writing situation with the workbook instruction.Results of the attitude inventory showed equally favorable attitudes acrosstreatments.

Third- and fourth-grade Units in one school each conducted a nine-week study of handwriting instruction. Legibility ratings of handwritingsamples under normal, fastest, and best conditions constituted the dataof the study. The formal approach previously used was found least effec-tive at the third-grade level; a diagnostic individualized approach wasmost effective for the third grade although the other individualized instruc-tion was also superior to the formal approach. At the fourth grade, no onetreatment was superior to the others; the improvement in legibility wasgreater under all three treatments in Grade 4 than in Grade 3.

Five additional short experiments were conducted in reading. Due tothe brief period of treatment, definitive results were rarely obtained.However, four benefits of the experiments deserve mention: (1) staff in-volvement on a problem of immediate concern to them; (2) development ofstaff appreciation of research as a tool for improving educational programs;(3) development of staff expertise with several approaches to the teachingof reading; and (4) development of a foundation upon which to build moresophisticated research undertakings in later years. These four benefitswere also obtained in the three experiments of longer duration in whichstatistically significant results were obtained.

THE R & I CONCEPT

A project designed specifically to developand test an organization that facilitates re-search and development on cognitive learningin schools was begun during the second yearof the Center, 1965-1966Project MODELS:Maximizing Opportunities for Development andExperimentation in Learning in the Schools.The main operations involved in the project areas follows:

first defining and then installing in se-lected schools a new organizational pattern(R & I Unit) that succeeds team teachingand self-contained classrooms;establishing a new teacher-leadership po-sition, that of the learning specialist or Unitleader, to head up each R & I Unit, andtraining these persons in research and de-velopment;organizing entire elementary school build-ings into the R & I pattern with the buildingprincipal and Unit leaders comprising thec urr i c u l um decision-making body of theschool building;conducting controlled experiments and de-velopmental research in the R & I Units todetermine how well the Unit can simultane-ously execute its instructional, research,development, and innovation functions...field testing the Units to ascertain howwell the P. & I Unit and subsequently thebuilding committee execute their functions.

The learning specialist, or Unit leader, as-sumes leadership and is accountable to thebuilding principal for the learning efficiency ofstudents in the Unit and for the coordination ofinstructional and research activities of the Unit.The other staff members of the R & I Unit aretwo or more certified teachers and one or morenoncertified instructional personnel, full orpart time. The number of students in a Unitvaries according to the number of staff membersand must be carefully proportioned so that ef-ficient instruction can be carried on in the

classroom while the learning specialist and atleast one other staff member are in conference.For example, if a Unit includes the learningspecialist and three certified teachers, eachmay work simultaneously with a group of stu-dents, or two teachers may provide instructionfor all students while the learning specialistmeets with the third teacher. The instructionalsDhedule allows the learning specialist to workdirectly with the students for half of his timeand to be available for consultation or planningsessions for the remainder.

The primary function of an R & I Unit is toprovide excellent instruction for the students.In fact, the R & I Unit, over a period of years,will develop and execute a model or exemplaryin, tructional p gram and continuously improveit through a program of research. The researchin 12 & I Units is thus focused toward improve-ment of instruction, and two kinds of researchare needed. The first type is devoted to thevery practical problem of developing and main-taining the exemplary instructional program.The second kind of research is less immediatebut is designed to generate new knowledge thatcan be continuously fed into improvement ofclassroom learning. Thus, as a research anddeve,.opment resource in the local school build-ing, the R & I Unit is to develop and maintainan excellent instructional program for the localschool system and is also a laboratory for re-search on human learning of the systematic kindthat can be generated by R & D Center person-nel. A more specific treatment of the instruc-tional emphasis in R & IUnits and of the generalprocedures for conducting research in theseR & I Units will clarify these points.

THE INSTRUCTIONAL EMPHASIS IN R & I UNITS

Promoting efficient pupil learning throughdeveloping and executing an exemplary instruc-tional program is the primary function of the R

1

& I Unit. Each Unit attempts to provide excel-lent instruction for each student. The bestelements of team teachingcooperative plan-ning of the instructional program, utilizing thestrength of all the staff, flexible scheduling,efficient use of materials, and the likearecharacteristic of the instructional program inan R & I Unit.

An exemplary instructional program is notinstalled in a school overnight and maintainedindefinitely. Rather, it is continuously evolv-ing through a program of development and re-search.

In connection with developing the exemplaryinstructional program, it is assumed that themembers of the Unit, members of the centralstaff of the local school system, building prin-cipals, and R & D staff will propose ideas.Likewise, members of the Unit will developnew instructional procedures, refine effectivemotivational techniques, identify and state ap-propriate instructional objectives, constructbetter tests, and the like. These are all de-velopment activities, essential to the mainten-ance of an exemplary instructional program.

Before any research is started on a system-atic basis the R & I Unit must become properlyorganized within the school building, have ap-propriate facilities, adequate instructional ma-terials, and achieve other conditions essentialto effective instruction. When the central staffand the building principal have assured theseconditions and when the Unit functions properlyas a unit, it is appropriate to initiate researchregarding any element of the instructional pro-gram and the total program.

GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPMENT ANDRESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN R & I UNITS

The staff of the R & I Unit and other membersof thelocal system generate ideas for researchprojects of a practical nature, directly relatedto the instructional program of the Unit andlocal school system. The Center staff alsogenerates ideas for research. Regardless ofwhere a research idea originates, three pointsare paramount:

First, the research deals with instruc-tional matters or variables.

Second, the planning of any researchprojectin any Unit of any school system al-

2

ways involves four personsa member of thecentral staff of the local school, the build-ing principal, the learning specialist, anda member of the R & D Center.

Third, the Center provides assistance indelineating a project and defining the in-structional treatments, outlining a researchdesign, planning measurement devices, per-forming statistical analyses of the data,and writing reports.

As the learning specialist develops greatercapabilities he will assume greater initiativein these various activities. Further, localschool systems have personnel of varying levelsof capabilities with respect to these functionsalso. Thus, depending upon the size and cap-.abilities of the staff of a local school, theyexercise more initiative with respect to devel-oping better instructional programs and thenplanning and executing related research. Re-search is interpreted broadly, not merely con-trolled experimentation narrowly defined.

The reports of activities which follow dealwith only a small segment of the total programof any Unit. Most of the ideas for developingbetter instructional programs and conductingthe related research originated with membersof the local school system. The delimiting ofthe problem and the outlining of the independentvariables or instructional treatments werelargely the responsibility of the R & D Centerstaff and the learning specialists. In all theexperiments there was mutual agreement thatone "treatment" should be individualized in-struction. This, in turn, required much plan-ning by the Unit staff, and this treatment, ofcourse, was executed for the first time duringthe experiment. The designing of the experi-ment, the identification of measurement de-vices, the statistical analyses of data, and thereporting of results in written form were at theinitiative of the R & D Center staff. The de-velopment and execution of the instructionaltreatments was by the members of the respec-tive Units that will be described subsequently,under the leadership of the learning specialist,who will also be indicated. The developmentand research to be described was conductedduring the second semester of the 1965-66school year. This was the first semester thatR & I Units started operating in three schoolsystems inWisconsinRacine, Janesville, andMadison.

II

THE COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF THREE INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHESON SPELLING ATTAINMENT BY SIXTH-GRADE CHILDREN

Adams School, Janesville, Wisconsin

In Adams School of Janesville, Wisconsin,the Unit focused their early effort on develop-ing an exemplary program in spelling. Theyconducted a 15-week experiment on the effec-tiveness of three instructional approaches tospelling. The teaching personnel in the Unitwere Dwane Kamla (learning specialist), JoyceBengston, Irene Salzman, and Marsha Briggs.Robert Cook is principal of the school.

PROBLEM

Developing the ability to spell correctly andquickly continues to be a primary instructionalgoal. How to achieve this goal effectivelycontinues to be an instructional problem of highsignificance in elementary education. A largevariety of commercial materials are continuouslyproduced; some of these continue in the tradi-tion of the first half of this century with gradedlists and suggestions for mastery of them.Other materials are being prepared commerciallywhich do not involve graded lists. Rather,some skills of spelling are taught which aresubsequently to be applied in the whole lan-guage arts program. Materials are also beingprepared commercially which are intended toencourage an individualized approach in spell-ing.

Commercially-prepared programs of spellingdo not operate effectively without instructionby a teacher. This generaliLation was obviousto the teev,;klers of the R & I Units at Janesvilleand also was apparent through a review of lit-erature in spelling. (Space does not permit thepresentation of the review of the literature forthis or any of the other experiments in this re-port. ) The specific problem which eventuallyemerged for development and research was arelatively simple one on the surface: to devisebetter approaches to spelling and determinewhich of three approaches to spelling instruc-tion yielded most effective learning. While

t4f,+1'07.>7.,%rv,, tt,.3 ,

outwardly this appeared to be relatively simpleand straightforward, its execution and instru-mentation were complex.

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects were 99 pupils regularly en-rolled in the sixth grace of Adams ElementarySchool, Janesville, Wisconsin. The studentswere somewhat above grade level according tothe national norms on the Stanford AchievementTest.

Experimental Treatments

The instructional treatments were closelyrelated to instructional materials. In fact, thematerials and the related teacher activitiescomprised the three treatments. They are de-tailed below:

(1) Spelling Workbook: This techniqueutilized the method already in use and waspartially based on a workbook titled Spellingfor Word Mastery, Book VI (Charles Merrill,publishers). The basic sequence of stepsin this method is indicated below:

a. Study: Introduction to new words (bythe teacher) and using the newwords.

b. Test Trial test.c. Study: Study words missed.d. Test: Final test.The testing procedure, which occurs

weekly or after each study list, consists ofthe following steps:

a. Teacher pronounces word.b. Teacher uses word in a sentence.c. Teacher pronounces word.d. Students write word.

3

(2) Harper and Row Basic Speller (Inte-grated spelling): This relatively recent ap-proach uses both induction and deduction inthe teaching of spelling. Children are taughta spelling method and are led to apply thisin writing new words. Memorization ofwords is kept at a minimum, and the languagearts are integrated into this approach.Weekly spelling tests are riot used; rathertests occur after sections of the book arecompleted. Less systematic testing and alsoless work on specific words are done in thisapproach, compared with the previous one.

The testing procedure involves the samesteps as Treatment 1. A supplementaryspelling list used for enrichment is givenwith each new unit to apply the rules stressedin the unit lesson.

(3) SRA Spelling Word Power Laboratory(Individualized spelling): This individual-ized approach allegedly allows each pupilto proceed at his own rate. By means of aplacement guide, each student begins in thelab at a point where he should meet a rea-sonable degree of success. The materialsare self-operating and self-correcting; theessential device used is termed the learningwheel, where spelling ideas and rules areintroduced to the student followed by pupilpractice in applying them. Each child re-cords his own progress in his student recordbook.

The testing procedure in this programconsists of check tests after several learn-ing wheels have been used. A second checktestis available for re-testing those pupilswhose initial performance indicates that fur-ther study is needed. In addition, spellingachievement survey tests are available forperiodic testing of all the audents.

Procedures and Design

The pupils were first listed according to sexand then each sex stratified into three 1G...elsaccording to scores on a pretest in s -...Within this design, students were randomlyassigned to treatments. From the total of 99students, three groups were formed randomly.The experiment lasted 15 weeks. In executingthe experiment the teachers rotated weeklyamong the three groups of pupils in order thatthe instructional treatments, rather than thethree teachers' characteristics or methods,would be tested.

4

Data Gathered

In experiments of this type, it is desirableto secure (a) measures of student performancedirectly related to the instructional treatments,(b) pupil opinions regarding the treatments, and(c) judgment of the teachers about the treat-ments. Further, the measures of performanceshould be developed to assess outcomes thatare common to all three treatments and alsooutcomes that are unique to each treatment.Time did not permit the development of thesemore precise and content-valid measures ofstudent performance. Instead, five measuresrelated to spelling performance were obtained;a pupil attitude inventory was constructed andadministered; and four subtests of the StanfordAchievement TestsUsage, Punctuation, Capi-talization, and Dictionary Skillwere adminis-tered to secure base line data regarding thetotal instructional program. (The latter four arenotreported further.) The judgments of the Unitpersonnel were gathered informally and aregiven in the last part of this chapter in the"Discussion" section.

The first six measures are now described inmore detail.

(1) Spelling Ability Tested Via Recall Mode:This instrument consisted of 60 works, drawnprimarily from the Morrison-McCall SpellingScale. The instrument was tape-recorded andplayed via an intercom system. This instrumentwas pilot-tested and subsequently modified toincrease its power to discriminate among pupils:no attempt was made to relate the test contentto the three programs. Each paper was scoredfor the number of words correct.

(2) Spelling Ability Tested Via RecognitionMode: The Spelling subtest of the StanfordAchievement Test Intermediate II, Form W, wasused. Score was number right. No attemptwas made to relate the content of the test tothe treatments.

(3) Frequency of Dictionary Usage: Eachstudent recorded a tally every time he referredto the dictionary. Although students varied intheir meticulousness on this task, it was as-sumed that such variance existed in about thesame degree in all three treatment groups. Thefrequency of dictionary usage was further sub-divided into use during the treatment phase andduring the posttest phase. Frequencies ob-tained demonstratedvirtually no use during theposttest phase, so only the frequencies of us-age during the treatment phase were analyzed.

This measure was uniquely related to one ofthe treatments, namely, the spelling workbook,in that referring to the dictionary is directlywritten into the program.

(4) Transfer of Spelling Skill to a StandardWriting Task: Before the scheduled posttestsession, students wrote a one-page paper sum-marizing a unique school event, an Around-the-World Dinner, unaware that particular attentionwould be paid to the spelling in the paper. Thescore obtained for each pupil was the numberof words misspelled for each 100 words written.This measure was not uniquely related to anytreatment.

(5) Spelling Ability Tested Via Proofreading:A passage from a sixth-grade reading textbookwas systematically altered to contain 30 spell-ing errors. This locally-produced test was triedout and subsequently modified. Papers werescored for two quantities: errors corrected andadditional errors created. Since the latter pro-duced primarily zero scores, only the formerwas analyzed. This measure was not uniquelyrelated to any treatment.

(6) Attitudes Toward Spelling: This locally-produced instrument consisted of 12 items, 6school-related and 6 not related to school.Students responded on a three-point scale: un-favorable, neutral, and favorable, scored 0, 1,and 2, respectively. Each treatment group, ofcourse, responded only to the unique treatmentit received.

Scoring and Analysis of Data

All instruments were scored by a team ofscorers at the R & D Center; none of the scorersknew which students were in which treatments.Analysis of variance was used on all cognitiveand non-cognitive measures. Except on theattitude test, sex and previous spellingachievement were utilized in the analysis asstratifying (assigned independent) variableswhile treatment servedas an active independentvariable.

RESULTS

In this section and throughout the report,mean squares and F ratios will be presentedfor each statistical analysis. For each maineffect or interaction statistically significantat or beyond the .05 level, the relevant meanswill be reported in the various tables that fol-low.

Table AlF Ratios and Mean Squares for Recall

Spelling ScoresSource df MSTreatment (T) 2 24. 54PreviousAchievement (P) 2 4841.23 95.87***Sex (S) 1 919. 48 18.21***Tx P 4 41.75Tx S 2 14.90P x S 2 25. 46Tx Px S 4 25. 09 Mal

Error 81 50. 50*** p < . 001

NoteIn this and all subsequent F ratio tables,a dash indicates a value of F < 1.

The resultant F ratios of the analysis ofvariance on the recall scores are presented inTable Al. Treatment was not significant. Bothprevious achievement level and sex were highlysignificant. Those who scored high at the startof the experiment also were high at the end.Also, girls scored higher than boys. The per-tinent means, designated X, and standarddeviations, designated s, by previous achieve-ment levels and sex are recorded in Table A2.Regardless of treatment, the top one-third ofthe students had over twice as many words cor-rect (45.15) as did the low one-third (20. 72).Since these words were selected on the basisof their discrimination power, the scores do notnecessarily reflect how well the pupils learned.

Table A2

Mean Number Correct and Standard Deviationsfor Significant Main Effects, Recall Spelling

Scores

MainEffect

AchievementLevel

PreviousSpellingAchievement

Sex

HighAverageLow

MaleFemale

45.1532.4820.72

30.2035.29

7. 176. 398. 84

11. 8212. 65

Table A3 contains the summary of the analy-sis of recognition spelling scores on the Stan-ford Achievement Test. Again, previous

5

Table A3 Table A5F Ratios and Mean Squares for Recognition F Ratios and Mean Squares for Frequency ofSpelling Scores

Source df MS F

Treatment (T) 2 3.36Previous

2 4345.76 117.83***Achievement (P)

Sex (S) 1 6 58. 41 1 7. 8 5***

Tx P 4 15. 01

Tx S 2 39. 66 1.08P X S 2 18. 87

TX Px S 4 16.90Error 81 36. 884.4. ..1..1 n v

p < . 001

Table A4

Mean Number Correct and Standard Deviationsfor Significant Main Effects, Recognition

Spelling Scores

Main.Effect

EquivalentGrade

Level Placement Ic s

Previous HighSpelling AverageAchievement Low

Sex MaleFemale

8.8 47.56 6. 526.8 35. 91 6. 525. 1 24. 09 6. 09

6.6 33.73 10.927.0 37. 98 11. 92

achievement level and sex were significant.The interactions were not significant. Themeans for the three achievement strata and twosexes and the equivalent grade placements arereported in TableA4. Again the means relevantto previous spelling achievement are in the ex-pected direction and again girls' performancesexceeded boys'. The equivalent grade place-ments are quite high for sixth-graders. On theStanford test also, the difference between thetop one-third and bottom one-third of all thepupils were quite large, the mean score being47.56 and 24. 09 for the top and bottom one-thirds, respectively.

Frequency of dictionary usage was analyzed;the results are presented in Table A5. Treat-ment was significantatthe . 001 level; no othermain effect or interaction reached significance.

6

Dictionary Usage

Source df MS F

Treatment (T) 2 642. 57 20. 05***PreviousAchievement (P) 2 15. 57 -Sex (S) 1 16.82 -TX P 4 34.43 1. 07TX S 2 27.02 -P x S 2 24. 38 -Tx Px S 4 34. 12 1. 06Error 81 32. 05***

p < . 001

Table A6

Mean Frequency and Standard Deviations forSignificant Main Effect,

Dictionary Usage

MainEffect Level 5t s

Treatment SpellingWorkbook

Integrated

Individualized

11.29 7. 67

5.13 4.71

2.94 3.47

The means for the three treatments are presentedin Table A6. The frequency of usage wasmarkedly highest under the traditional spellingworkbook approach. As noted before, the pu-pils are required to use the dictionary as partof the program.

Spelling errors made when writing a themewere counted and subsequently treated by an-alysis of variance. The resulting F ratios areshown in Table A7. All three main effects weresignificant but no interactions were. The rele-vant mean errors and standard deviations arenoted in Table A8. The error rate was higherfor males (4.74) than for females (2.35). Also,the pupils of lowest initial spelling abilitymade about four times as many errors (6.18) asdid those of highest ability (1. 58). The meanerror rate was highest for the currently used

Table A7

F Ratios and Mean Squares for Errors inWritten Themes

Source df MS

Treatment (T) 2 40. 64 3.41PreviousAchievement (P) 2 202. 92 17. 02***

Sex (S) 1 162.53 13. 63***T x P 4 4.38T x S 2 25.34 2.12P x S 2 29.68 2.49TxPxS 4 11.69Error 81 11.92

J.*p < . 05

p < . 001

Table A8

Mean Number of Spelling Errors Per 100 Wordsand Standard Deviations for Significant Main

Effects, Written Theme

MainEffect Level X

SpellingTreatment Workbook

IntegratedIndividualized

Previous HighSpelling AverageAchievement Low

MaleSexFemale

4.59

2.443. 05

1.582.616.18

4.742.35

5.75

3. 042.93

1.682.295.99

5. 432.54

workbook approach (4.59), lowest for the inte-grated approach (2. 44), and intermediate forthe individualized approach (3. 05). It may berecalled from the preceding discussions of thethree methods that the integrated approach doesnot emphasize the learning of specific wordlists but does emphasize rules and methodswith application to the writing of words. Theresults of this test, then, indicate that theworkbook method resulted in lowest transfer toa writing situation; the other two methods werebetter and not significantly different from oneanother.

Table M

F Ratios and Mean Squares for Spelling Abilityin Proofreading Task

Source df MS F

Treatment (T) 2 9. 62

Previous2 11 21. 54 62.47***Achievement (P)

Sex (S) 1 1 91. 77 1 0. 68**

T x P 4 8. 81

T X S 2 12. 16

P X S 2 32.63 1.82TxPxS 4 7.47Error 81 17.95

p < . 01***

p < . 001

Table A10

Mean Errors Corrected and Standard Deviationsfor Significant Main Effects, Proofreading Task

MainEffect Level 37c

PreviousSpellingAchievement

Sex

HighAverageLow

MaleFemale

20.50 4.7114.45 4. 728.56 3.45

13.36 5. 9915.64 6.80

The results of the analysis of variance fora proofreading task are given in Table A9.Here incorrect spellings in a passage were tobe identified and corrected. The only signifi-cant sources were the main effects of previousspelling achievement level and sex; the meansand standard deviations for these effects canbe found in Table Al 0. Females outperformedmales identifying and correcting 15.64 and13.36 errors respectively. The high previousachievers did better than the average, who inturn did better than the low; the mean numberof spelling errors identified being 20.50, 14.45,and 8. 56, respectively.

Table AllF Ratios an I Mean Squares for Attitudes Toward Spelling by School Relatedness

School-Related Not School-Related TotalSource df

MS FMS MS

Treatment 2 9. 35 1.98 4.32 1.25 15.30 1.47Error 96 4.72 3.45 10.74

The analysis of the attitude scores is pre-sented in Table Al 1. As the instrument wasgiven anonymously, information on sex andprevious achievement level was not available.It is readily apparent in the table that thetreatment effect was non-significant. Thus,each group had equally favorable attitudesabout the program it received.

DISCUSSION

The R & I Unit developed two new approachesto spelling instruction in a relatively shortperiod of time. These new approaches and theone already in use during the prior semesterwere executed during a 15-week period. Anexcellent experiment was conducted whicheliminated the confounding of both teachercharacteristics and pupil characteristics withthe instructional approaches. This confoundinghas been a principal deterrent to interpretableexperimentation on classroom learning thus farin the history of American education.

The three experimental treatments did notproduce marked differences in spelling abilityover the 15-week period as measured by threespelling tests not directly related to any one ofthe treatments. In two cases, however, treat-ment did reach significance. Dictionary usageunder the spelling workbook treatment was con-siderably more frequent (11 times) than underthe integrated (5 times) or individualized (3times) approaches. This in part is due to thepublishers' suggested uses of their material;dictionary usage is directed more often underthe spelling workbook approach. Thus, oneunique feature of this approach resulted in sig-nificantly better performance than the other twoapproaches.

The second significant treatment effect wasthe number of spelling errors committed in atheme-writing task. The non-reactivity andunobtrusiveness of this measure adds to itsimportance. Pupils in the workbook treatmentcommitted approximately twice as many errors

8

as pupils under the other two treatments. Thus,despite the greater frequency of dictionary us-age by the workbook group and equally highperformance on the general spelling tests, lesstransfer to an actual writing situation apparentlyoccurred.

Despite no significant difference on theStanford Achievement Test in spelling amongthe three treatment groups, the average gainfor the entire group of 99 pupils was sevenmonths during the four months that the experi-ment was in progress. It is possible that sincespelling received special attention, the totalachievement level for all groups increased,thus reducing the possibility for attaining sig-nificant differences among the groups.

No treatment effect was in evidence for at-titudes toward spelling. Although no interac-tion was significant, sex and the level ofprevious spelling achievement were repeatedlysignificantmain effects. In every case of sig-nificance, girls outperformed boys; and thehigh group at the outset, independent of in-structional treatment, remained high at tie endof the experiment.

The members of the R &I Unit and the build-ing principal felt that the experience of eachteacher working with three approaches to teach-ing spelling was valuable. The study washeuristic in that it led to much discussion andhypothesis-formation among the group. Thestaff acquired considerable knowledge aboutspelling instruction and educational research;also their capabilities for defining instructionaltreatments and executing research were ex-tended markedly.

The R & I Unit extended the development ofan exemplary instructional program to the entireinstructional program in the first semester,1966-67. Also, a second controlled experi-ment is underway to measure the effectivenessof three approaches to spelling instruction withcertain refinements and modifications beingmade to each of the three original treatments.

The workbook approach will provide moreenrichment activities for the better spellers.

They will be encouraged to complete as manyspelling units as they can in the Spelling forWord Mastery, VI, Charles Merrill, and alsoto engage in additional activities. The slowerspellers in this treatment will use the Lyonsand Carnahan workbook, My Word Book, 5.Their progress will be commensurate with theirdemonstrated spelling ability.

The second treatment will utilize the spell-ing workbook Spelling for Word Mastery, VI,Charles Merrill, but in addition will use indi-vidualized materials from in the SRA SpellingWord Power Laboratory.

The final treatment is a completely individ-ualized program, utilizing teacher-producedmaterials. A master list of 750 spelling wordshas been chosen from four sources: (1) commonwords, consisting of words which are found inthe spelling workbook and the SRA materials;(2) unique words, defined as words which arenot common to the spelling workbook and theSRA materials; (3) common spelling "deri.ms"taken from four well-known lists; and (4) wordsfrom the basal reading texts used by the chil-dren in the Unit. Twenty-five spelling words

will be randomly chosen from this master listfor each unit of study. The words will be usedin a variety of activities to facilitate the learn-ing of skills according to the individual needsof the students. The activities will be limitedto the categories of:

(1) Working with words (identifying basewords, finding new words, building words, us-ing synonyms, antonyms, and homonyms, etc.);

(2) Using the dictionary (syllabication, ac-cent marks, alphabetizing, etc. );

(3) Learning some of the commonly-acceptedspelling rules;

(4) Constructing sentences and paragraphs;(5) Writing themes and proofreading; and(6) Undertaking original projects.

The primary objective of the individualizedtreatment is to make children more aware oftheir spelling and to integrate spelling into theentire curriculum. It is hypothesized that itwill produce best initial learning and transfer.However, it is also the most difficult treatmentto execute.

9

III

THE COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF THREE METHODS OF HANDWRITING INSTRUCTION ONPUPIL SKILL IN HANDWRITING

Giese Elementary School, Racine, Wisconsin

The teaching personnel in the R & I Units atGiese School in Racine included a learningspecialist, Marilyn Kletecka, and three certi-fied teachers, Anne Buchanan, Charles Leonard,and Mary Rounds, at the fourth level; and, atthe third level, learning specialist MaxineVohs and teachers Janet Hansen, BeverlySchinderly, and Sammye Woods. The buildingprincipal, Earl Nelson, assisted substantiallyin the development of two new approaches tohandwriting and also of new approaches to read-ing reported in the next section. Special men-tion is also due Richard Larson, Wayne Otto,Carl Reck, and Elizabeth Williams for theirperceptive comments on the handwriting projectduring the planning phase.

PROBLEM

The purpose of these Units was to developan exemplary program in handwriting for third-and fourth-grade children and to conduct anexperiment related thereto in order to determinewhich of three approaches yielded best results.This purpose arose from a need to evaluate theprogram presently used and to develop otherprograms for possible adoption if they demon-strated superiority to the one presently em-ployed. Teaching personnel were uniformlydissatisfied with the handwriting skills of manyof their pupils.

The specific question examined in this ex-periment was the relative effectiveness of threehandwriting treatments upon selected measuresof pupils' handwriting performance. The treat-ments of concern were: (1) a formal groupmethod, (2) an individualized-instructionalmethod, and (3) a formal individualized method.

10

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects were 88 third-grade and 75fourth-grade pupils from Giese School, Racine,Wisconsin. Pupils were randomly assigned toone of three treatments following stratificationby sex and by three levels of achievement.The latter levels were determined by weightingequally previously-obtained scores of generalmental ability and standardized educationalachievement.

Experimental Treatments

The three treatments utilized materials ofquite dissimilar characteristics, as can benoted in the descriptions below:

(1) Formal Group Method: This treatmentmight best be described as the "traditional"approach to teaching handwriting. The thirdgrade used Adventure in HandwritingPeter-son Directed Handwriting, published by theMacmillan Company, The Correlated Hand-writing Series, by F. N. Freeman, Zaner-Bloser publisher, was used by the fourthlevel pupils.

(2) Individualized Instructional Method:This treatment was basically a diagnostic-corrective program; and, as such, no com-mercially prepared program was used. Thetechniques in large part were determined onthe basis of teacher judgment about theneeds of the individual subjects. For exam-ple, the teacher would circle writing errorsand these determined diagnostic treatmentin subsequent lessons.

(3) Formal Individualized Method: Thistreatment was implemented by using ThePenskill Individualized Handwriting SkillsProgram, by R. G. Larson, published by

Science Research Associates, Inc. Muchresponsibility rested with the individualpupil under this approach.

Data Gathered

Data consisted of handwriting samples fromeach child, given both as pre- and post-measures. The pupils were given three differ-ent instructional sets, and the legibility qualityof the handwriting produced under these threeconditions was analyzed separately. The threeconditions are detailed below:

(1) NormalCondition: Teachers had theirpupils continuously write a standard sen-tence (Big oxen, quick zebras, fightingmonkeys, and wild pigs have jungle homes.)after instructing them to write as they usuallywrote. A five-minute work sample was se-cured. A total word count was obtained foreach subject, and the third sentence (or thelast completed sentence for slower pupils)was rated for legibility quality by three in-dependent judges.

(2) Best Condition: Pupils were instructedto write the same sentence four times aswell as they could. The third sentence wasjudger?. for legibility as above.

(3) Fastest condition : Teachers in-structed their pupils to continuously writethe same sentence as fast as they could.Word counts of a five-minute work samplewere obtained for each pupil, and the thirdsentence produced was judged for legibility.

Procedures and Design

Treatments were administered to the respec-tive groups for 15 minutes each day during thenine weeks of the study. Teachers were sys-tematically rotated across treatments to controlthis source of variance. Each teacher taughteachmethod one-third of the nine weeks. Thiswas equally true for the three teachers of Grade3 and the three of Grade 4. Procedures speci-fied by the publishers were used as applicable,except in the individual instructional methodwhere teacher's diagnosis was the criterion.

In addition to the treatment variable, twoassigned independent variables were utilized,sex and previous achievement-ability level.Three-way analyses of covariance were per-formed on each of the five measures available:number of words produced under normal andfastest instructions, and judges' ratings ofhandwriting legibility under normal, best, and

fastest conditions. The covariate used in eachanalysis was the corresponding score in thepretest situation. Separate analyses were per-formed for Grades 3 and 4.

Scoring and Analysis of the Data

The 978 sentences to be judged (163 sub-jectsX 3 conditions x 2 testing sessions, pre-and post-) were coded and mixed thoroughly be-fore being scored. No judge knew the condi-tions under which a particular sentence waswritten, whether it was a third or fourth grad-er's effort, or whether it was a pre- or post-measure.

Initially a rating of one to five (low to highlegibility) was given to each sentence by eachjudge. Judges worked independently and com-pared the handwriting sample to a key contain-ing 20 "versions" of the sentences; the 20 sen-tences were each in one of five quality levels.

The difficulty experienced by the judges inassigning the "higher" ratings of 3, 4, and 5stimulated a rebuilding of the scoring scale.This was done empirically, utilizing 33 partici-pants in the 1966 Learning Specialist SummerInstitute. The 20 sentences were presentedindividually to the 33 educators who orderedthem on the basis of legibility. A stanine scaleof handwriting legibility was developed and the978 sentences scored a second time. Separateanalyses were performed on the basis of theinitial and subsequent scorings.

In all cases, the three ratings of a singlesentence were averaged to determine the finalscore recorded. Inter-judge reliability of somemagnitude was established by means of trainingsessions before any experimental data werejudged.

RESULTS

In Table B1 are presented the average inter-judge reliability coefficients for the three ratersof the pre- and post-experiment handwritingsamples. The average of the coefficients wasslightly higher on the rescore 9-point scale.

Table B2 presents the F ratios generated bythe analysis of covariance for Grade 3 underthe initial scoring procedure. Treatment wassignificant for the normal and fastest ratings.Previous achievement-ability level was signifi-cant only for the number of words written infive minutes under normal instructions, whilesex was significant on every measure exceptnumber of words written under fast instructions.Inno case did any effect related to the numberof words written under fast instructions reach

11

Table B1

Inter-Judge Reliability

OccasionCorrelation between Judges Average

1& 2 1& 3 2& 3 Reliability

Initial Scoring(5-point scale)

Rescore(9-point scale)

. 72 .81 .78 .77

. 83 . 77 .81 .80

Table B2

F Ratios and Mean Squares for Speed and Legibility of Handwriting,Initial Scoring, Grade 3

Source df

Dependent VariableNo. ofWordsNormal

No. ofWordsFast

NormalRating

BestRating

FastestRating

Treatment (T) 2 MS 96.13 96.41 1. 54 .39 .96F 2.54 1.40 5.31 ** 1.25 4.38*

Previous Achievement- 2 MS 147.88 107.40 . 01 .22 .36Ability Level (P) F 3.91 1.56 - - 1.64

Sex (S) 1 MS 160.37 1.13 1.67 2.41 1.99F 4.24* IM 5.76* 7.74 ** 9.11 **

T x P 4 MS 77.50 7.69 . 13 .26 .24F 2.05 - - - 1.11

T X S 2 MS 4.06 94.68 . 62 .45 1.12F - 1.38 2.14 1.43 5.09 **

P x S 2 MS 113.30 22.70 . 30 .33 . 08F 3.00 1. 02 1.05 -

TXPXS 4 MS 56.10 23.66 .44 .14 .06F 1.48 IM 1. 51 - -

Covariate 1 MS 2638.90 4529.02 6. 92 8.73 4.43F 69.85 * ** 65. 90*** 23.84* 27.98 ** 20. 24***

Error 69 MS 37.78 68.73 .29 .31 .22

*p < . 05

**p< . 01

***p< . 001

Note-In this and all subsequent F ratio tables, a dash indicates an F < 1.

significance. The covariate was highly sig-nificant !a each instance.

Relevant adjusted means for the significantmain effects are presented in Table B3. Fromthe table, the superiority of the individualized-instructional method over the formal group

12

method is clear. The difference between theindividualized-instructional and the formal in-dividualized did not reach statistical signifi-cance. The high ability-achievement groupmade significantly greater gains than the aver-age and low groups on the speed of writing

Table B3

Adjusted Means (Number of Words Written and Legibility Ratings) for Significant Main Effects,

Speed and Legibility of Handwriting, Initial Scoring, Grade 3

MainEffect Level

Dependent Variable ...No. ofWordsNormal

NormalRating

BestRating

FastestRating

Formal Group 1.47 1. 35

Treatment Ind.-Instr. NS 1.94 NS 1.71

Formal Ind. 1.69 1. 47

Previous High 28.98Ach. -Abil. Average 25.11 NS NS NS

Level Low 24.47

SexMaleFemale

24.8027. 58

1.541.86

1.652.05

1.341.68

Note. NS = Not Significant.

under normal instructions. Third-grade girlsnot only wrote faster than boys under normalinstructions, they also wrote more legibly underall three instructional conditions, normal, best,and fastest. The significant treatment by sexintcraction for the fastest rating (Table B2) oc-curred because of the exceptional performanceof the girls under the individualize d-instructional treatment.

When the stanine scale was used to rejudgethe third-grade handwriting s a m pl e s, somechanges did occur. The F ratios that resultedare given in Table B4. It can be noted thattreatment was significant in each case. Previ-ous achievement-ability level reached signifi-cance for the handwriting rating under fast in-structions. Sex was no longer significant onall three ratings, but it was for the normal rat-ing; the F ratios were sizeable but short ofstatistical significance on the best and fastestratings. The covariates were again highly sig-nificant.

Table B5 contains the pertinent adjustedmeans for the significant main effects. In thecases of the normal and best ratings, the in-dividualized-instructional and formal individ-ualized were P.Ignificantly higher than the formalgroup but r..)c significantly different from eachother. However, on the fastest rating, onlythe individualized-instructional treatment wassignificantly higher than the formal group meth-od. The source of the significant F for previ-ous a c hi e v e m e n t was the low and mediumgroups' superiority over the high group on thefastest rating. Girls' handwriting received a

significantly higher rating than boys' undernormal instructions.

Somewhat different results were apparentwhen the Grade 4 analyses were completed.Table B6 outlines the F ratios that occurred us-ing the initial scoring scale. Generally speak-ing, fewer treatments of significance were foundat level four as only the best rating reachedsignificance. Previous achievement-abilitylevel was significant for the normal and bestratings, while sex reached significance on allthree ratings. It can be noted that no signifi-cant effects occurred relating to the number ofwords written. Covariates were highly signifi-cant as they had been for Grade 3.

The appropriate adjusted means are presentedin Table B7. The formal individualized treat-ment was significantly higher than the individ-ualized-instructional on the best rating, butnot significantly different than the formal groupperformance. Under normal writing instructions,pupils in the average previous achievement-ability level made significantly greater gainsin legibility than pupils in the low stratum.Under best writing instructions, fourth gradersin both the high and average strata outgainedpupils in the low level. Female fourth gradersperformed better than their male counterpartson all three ratings. The significant treatmentby previous achievement-ability level interac-tion for the handwriting rating under fast in-structions was primarily due to relatively highadjusted means for the low stratum under allthree treatments and the marked low rating forthe average stratum pupils under the formalgroup treatment.

13

Table B4

F Ratios and Mean Squares for Legibility of Handwriting, Rescore, Grade 3

Source df

Dependent VariableNormalRating

BestRating

FastestRating

Treatment (T) 2 MS 4.38 2.66 2.42F 5. 36** 3.24* 3. 51*

Previous Achievement- 2 MS .64 .05 2.65Ability (P) F - . 3.86*

Sex (S) 1 MS 8.40 2.15 2.59F 1 O. 29** 2.61 3.76

T X P 4 MS 1.22 1.18 .70F 1.49 1.44 1.02

T x S 2 MS .45 . 17 1.16F - - 1.68

P x S 2 MS 1.31 .06 .10F 1.59 - -

T x P x S 4 MS .78 .06 .09F - - -

Covariate 1 MS 25.28 33.57 34.88F 3 0. 96*** 40.87 * ** 50.77 * **

Error 69 MS .82 .82 -.69

*p < . 05**p < . 01

***p < . 001

Table B5

Adjusted Means (Legibility Ratings) for Significant Main Effects,Legibility of Handwriting, Rescore, Grade 3

Dependent Variable

Main Normal Best FastestEffect Level Rating Rating Rating

Formal Group 2. 48 2.88 2.39Treatment Ind.-Instr. 3. 14 3.44 2.98

Formal Ind. 3. 17 3.36 2.69

Previous High 2.32Ach. -Abil. Average NS NS 2.95Level Low 2.79

SexMaleFemale

2. 563. 30

NS NS

Note. -NS = Not Significant.

14

0,...,111,0".1t,COr 1.1111701.,..

Table B6

F Ratios and Mean Squares for Speed and Legibility of Handwriting,Initial Scoring, Grade 4

Dependent VariableNo. of No. ofWords Words Normal Best Fastest

Source df Normal Fast Rating Rating Rating

Treatment (T) 2 MS 217.08 8.58F 3.04 -

Previous Achievement- 2 MS 186.01 174.48Ability Level (P) F 2.61 1.99

Sex (S) 1 MS .15 19.40F - -

T x P 4 MS 18.04 33.32F - -

T x S 2 MS 12.25 16.20F - -

P X S 2 MS . 90 17.20F - -

T x P x 5 4 MS 78.15 49.06F 1.09 -

Covariate 1 MS 1422.81 2686.82F 19.93*** 30.68***

Error 56 MS 71.39 87.59

.60 1.12 .161.61 3.29 -1.24 2.30 .393.34* 6.73** -4.48 4.77 3.86

12.15*** 13.99*** 8.99**

.19 . 10 1.45- - 3.38*

.02 . 04 .16- - -.22 ,. 26 .42- - -.56 .25 .24

1.51

16.16 7.44 15.2843.87*** 21.79*** 35.57***

.37 .34 .43

*p < . 05**p < . 01

***p < . 001

Table B7

Adjusted Means (Legibility Ratings) for Significant Main Effects,Legibility of Handwriting, Initial Scoring, Grade 4

MainEffect Level

Dependent VariableNormalRating

BestRating

FastestRating

Formal GroupTreatment Ind.-Instr. NS

Formal Ind.

Previous High 2.68Ach. -Abil. Average 2.91Level Low 2.44

Male 2.41Sex Female 2.95

Note. -NS = Not Significant.

2.832.753.15

3.223.082.44

NS

NS

Table B8

F Ratios and Mean Squares for Legibility of Handwriting, Rescore, Grade 4

Source df

Dependent VariableNormalRating

BestRating

FastestRating

Treatment (T) 2 MS . 14 ;.,65 .22F 2.35

Previous Achievement- 2 MS 1.96 1.58 .91Ability Level (P) 2.34 2.24Sex (S) 1 MS 9.85 6.25 6.44

F 11.76** 8.92** 5.78*Tx P 4 MS .65 .64 1.97

F 11M 1.77Tx S 2 MS 1.01 .19 .37

F 1.21 MID

P X S 2 MS .71 .28 1.85F 1.66

TxPxS 4 MS 1.54 .78 .45F 1.84 1.12 MID

Covariate 1 MS 21.95 20.52 25.64F 26.21*** 29.28*** 23.00***

Error 56 MS . 84 .70 1.11*p < . 05

**p < . 01***p < . 001

Analyses run on rescored fourth-grade dataproduced few significant effects as is indicatedir, Table B8. Sex was significant for all threeratings, but the significant treatment F underbest instructions and the formerly significantF's for previous achievement-ability level undernormal and best instructions failed to reachstatistical significance. The F ratios weresizeable, however, and the adjusted means inthe same relative order as on the initial scor-ing. Covariates were highly significant.

The pertinent adjusted means for sex arepresented in Table B9. In each case, girls didbetter than boys.

DISCUSSION

Both Units successfully developed two newinstructional approaches and executed them ina well-designed experiment. Although the ex-periment was of necessity of short duration, anexemplary instructional program appears to be

16

Table B9

Adjusted Means (Legibility Ratings ) forSignificant Sex Effects, Legibility of

Handwriting, Rescore, Grade 4

Dependent VariableNormal Best Fastest

Level Rating Rating Rating

Male 4.30 4.69 3.53Female 5.09 5.34 4.16

in the making. Evidence was gathered whichindicates that the formal handwriting approachused up to the present at Giese School is notas effective as other approaches, particularlyat the third-grade level. Both individualizedapproaches to teaching handwriting were con-sistently more effective in promoting legibilitythan was the formal method. At third grade,the better individualized approach was the di-agnostic instructional, using no special com-

mercial program. The evidence seems substan-tial enough for an individualized procedure inbeginning handwriting that a replication studywith similar results logically should lead to adefinite movement away from the traditionalapproach.

Results at the fourth-grade level were notas definitive. In only one case was treatmentsignificant, under best instructions for the in-itial scoring. In this particular case, thetreatment that was most effective in the thirdgrade was least effective in Grade 4. It shouldbe kept in mind that the third and fourth graderswere quite dissimilar populations: a markeddevelopment probably occurs in handwritingskill in the intervening year between late thirdand late fourth grade; and, in addition, allfourth graders had received an additional yearof "traditional" handwriting instruction beforethe experiment commenced. It may well be thatthe critical item in the early development ofhandwriting legibility is individualized atten-tion, yet this same individualization may notbe so effective after a pupil's level of hand-writing legibility is moderately well-estab-lished. It is possible that some combinationof the individualized-instructional and formal-individualized methods would produce most ef-ficient performance in Grade 3. Even thoughno treatment appeared differentially more ef-fective in Grade 4, the absolute gains in legi-bility from pre- to posttest were substantialunder all three treatments, much more so thanin the third grade.

Females were significantly and consistentlyhigher than males on most of the measures.This fact might be dismissed casually by somebecause of the usual superiority of females onmany school-related tasks. However, it mustbe remembered that in the analyses of covar-iance, initial handwriting skill was "covaried"out of the resulting post-performances. Thus,these consistent advantages for the girls weregenerated in just nine weeks. It might be notedin passing that the small bias favoring somefemale handwriting characteristic may exist inthe initial 5-point scale; significance levelsfor sex were lower on all rescore analyses ex-cept one.

Differential gains in handwriting skill bypupils in the three previous achievement-abilitylevels were not entirely consistent. More oftenthan not, however, children from the lowestachievement-ability level progressed the least.

Several ta.4ential aspects of this experi-ment were particularly rewarding and stimulat-ing. The process of empirically constructinga second legibility scale was instructive. The

authors reported the results under both scoringscales because they were available and tendedto add depth to the analysis; the 9-point con-structed scale seems the better of the two forrating handwriting samples for legibility. Ofsome assistance in future work in this areawould be the requirement that pupils use simi-lar, even standardized, writing instrumentsduring the test sessions. Line width variancemight thus be reduced and make the judges'task easier.

A second tangential point of interest wasthat the validity of the measuring instrument,the reliability of the judges' scoring, the powerof the instructions used, and the attention paidby the pupils to the "test" situations are allattested to by the tone of the data collected.For example, a. greater number of words werewritten under faster than under normal instruc-tions. More important, best samples of hand-writing were rated more legible than normalhandwriting samples; legibility under fastestinstructions was consistently rated below sam-ples obtained under normal and best instruc-tions (see Tables B3, B5, B7, and B9). It isalso noted that both handwriting speed andlegibility rating increased substantially fromthe third- to fourth-grade students in the study.

Finally, teachers from the R & I Units pro-vided several appropriate and relevant com-ments regarding the experiment, particularlyfor future work in the same area. They uni-formly felt that the experiment was a stimulat-ing and worthwhile activity but that the dailyamount of time provided for handwriting (15minutes) was too short; longer daily sessionswere suggested.

Teachers seemed to have developed moreconfidence in the individualized method (SRAPenskills ) than in the others, especially if onlycertain types of more able pupils were giventhe treatment. (Note, however, that the treat-ment by previous achievement-ability level in-teraction was significant in only one instance.)A few teachers felt that they should not havebeen rotated between treatments as frequently(weekly) as they were. Finally, it was notedthat little transfer occurred from skills learnedin handwriting period to other class sessionsrequiring writing. However, one teacher feltthat teaching for transfer was not too difficultin this area and had experienced success inthis regard with many of his pupils.

The Units at Giese School are conductingadditional experimentation in handwriting thisyear. In the third grade, the students will berandomly assigned to three treatments, and thelearning specialist will rotate between the three

17

groups and do the actual presentation of newlessons. One treatment, the traditional ap-proach, will be handled in the regular class-room; much interest is centered on whether thistreatment will again demonstrate only limitedeffectiveness. The other two will be handledin the Learning Center and will be individualizedapproaches (one of which will utilize two para-professionals working individually with thestudents). The primary objective of the hand-writing experiment will be to create a desirein the children to do their best handwritingthroughout the day, not just in handwritingclass. Consequently, to encourage this trans-fer, much emphasis will be placed on self-evaluation and individual progress.

18

The fourth grade at Giese School will carryon its experiment in handwriting with the majorchanges being in the treatment designated asan individualized or a diagnostic approach tohandwriting. No commercially developed ma-terials will be used, but rather teacher diagnosisof individual needs will be followed by somecommon instruction and individual practice.Much of the material used in the handwritingclass for this treatment will be the students'daily written work. Less emphasis will beplaced on the "fastest" and more emphasis willbe placed on the quality of handwriting under"normal" and "best" instructions.

IV

EXPERIMENTATION WITH READING MATERIALS

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

The remaining five experiments reported havecommon attributes that are now presented in theinterest of eliminating repetition.

In all five cases, the local personnel madeexcellent progress in identifying new materialsand developing new approaches to reading in-struction. The impetus to start an experimentcame from the R & I Unit staff, not the R & DCenter staff. Progress with the new instruc-tional approaches was sufficiently rapid thatunits were able to begin a related experimenteven though the Unit was not formed until thesecond semester. The time for detailed plan-ning of the experiment was limited, and theduration of the experiments was too short toproduce marked differences in reading behavior.The average length of the five reading experi-ments was only about six weeks.

Several substantial benefits seemed inherentin these so-called "quickie" experiments,namely:

(1) Unit personnel worked toward the de-velopment of an improved program in reading.

(2) Unit personnel became familiar withtwo or three experimental treatments relatedto reading bec a u s e, under the rotationscheme, each teacher was involved in exe-cuting each treatment.

(3) Unit personnel gained familiarity withresearch procedures.

(4) Center personnel gained experienceenabling them to work more effectively withthe building principals and Unit membersthe following year.An unexpected result of involvement in the

research function was apparent early, namelythe Unit personnel began operating more like aUnit. Indeed the systematic development ofthe instructional treatments and their executionfor a few weeks produced high morale amongthe staff and heightened interest in the pupils.

A second area of communality across the fiveexperiments concerned the overlap and similar-ity of the treatments implemented at the various

grade levels and schools. Figure 1 lists thevarious programs related to reading materialsthat were subject to investigation in Racine,also the Units in which they were used are in-dicated. Reading across the rows suggeststhe extent to which a treatment was engaged inacross Units; reading down the columns detailsthe comparisons made in any given experiment.

The information presented below expands onthe common treatment areas listed in Figure 1.Preientation of this information at this pointwill eliminate the necessity of duplication inthe five following experimental summaries.

(1) Basal or Traditional Texts: The Mac-millan and Scott-Foresman basal readingtext methods might best be described as the"traditional" approach to teaching reading.The basic reader is supplemented by teacherworksheets, vocabulary introduction, andoral and silent reading.

(2) Programmed Reading: This partiallyindividualized approach was embodied in theMcGraw-Hill Programmed Reading Series.This program combines elements of structurallinguistics and linear programming. Report-edly the child reads at his own pace andworks independently to a large extent. Theprogram consists of three series.

In Series I, children deal with more thanone :-,yllable, beginning punctuation, andplural and possessive forms. When the pupilfinishes this series of seven books, he isprovided with a hard-cover book which isclosely correlated with the correspondingprogrammed text and is designed to providea suitable transition to traditional readingmaterials. In Series II, the child learns toread, write, and spell over 1,300 phonetic-allyregular words as well as the necessarysound-symbol relationships to reportedlylearn thousands of other words. The sevenbooks in this series introduce 28 vowelclasses and 8 consonant clas6es while peri-odically reviewing those covered in Series I.

19

Reading Materials(Treatments)

School Location of Unit and GradeGeiseThird

GieseFourth

BullSecond

BullThird

HowellFifth

Basal or TraditionalTexts

Macmillan Scott-Foresman

Macmillan

Programmed Reading McGraw-Hill

McGraw-Hill

Individualized Reading SRA Lab SRA Lab SRA LabMacmillan

SPectrumSelf-Expressionin Language Arts

Smallgroups*

Multi-Ethnic BasalText Scott-

ForesmanScott-Foresman

*No commercial program used.

Figure 1. Grid showing Unit location of various reading materials used in spring experimentation,Racine, 1966.

Series III continues the sound progressionof II and covers the less usual sound-symbolrelationships. The hard-cover books at thislevel move from a content of familiar thingsto fantasy and adventure.

Children who do not begin reading withthis approach are placed in the proper bookby means of diagnostic placement test.

(3) Individualized Reading: Products ofboth SRA and Macmillan were used for thistreatment. The SRA Reading Laboratory, usedin two experiments, reportedly allows eachpupil to proceed at his own rate. By meansof a placement guide each student purport-edly begins in the lab at a point where hecan meet a reasonable degree of success.The materials, which include multi-levelreading selections as well as a reading-skills Power-Builder, are designed to beself-operating and self- correcting; still ateacher must be present to assure attentionto the task at hand. Listening activitiesused throughout the program reportedly de-velop the student' s ability to sift, retain,and understand what he hears as the teacherreads listening selections. Each child re-cords his progress in his student recordbook. Various difficulty levels are embodiedin different labs; the next subsequent lab

20

can be utilized if needed. R & I Unit teachersfollowed the publisher' s directions for useof the lab.

The Macmillan Reading Spectrum, usedin one experiment, consists of two funda-mental components: The Spectrum of Skillsis a set of materials designed to guide thedevelopment of skills essential to readingproficiency in the intermediate and uppergrades. It consists of six booklets in eachof three reading-skill areas: word analysis,vocabulary development, and reading com-prehension. The booklets are self-directingand self-correcting; each child can report-edly work at his own pace and keep his in-dividual record of achievement, progress,and work habits. The three skills are de-veloped in parallel categories; those of wordanalysis are presented in one set of book-lets; those of vocabulary in other sets, etc.Hence, a pupil may work at one level inwordanalysis but at a different level in vo-cabulary development or reading corn prehen-sion. The various skills are color coded toenable students to work independently, andthe materials provide for immediate rein-for c em ent.

The Spectrum of Books, the second fun-damental component, consists of sets ofchildren's books selected in an attempt to

meet a wide range of reading interests andabilities. A spectrum consists of 30 differ-ent books, all of which are graded accord-ing to the Dale-Chall or Spache reading-ability formula.

(4) Self-Expression in L a ng ua geThis treatment was utilized in only one ex-periment and was directed as much at im-proving attitudes toward school as it was atenhancing reading achievement. This ap-proa.z!, was used with a group small enoughthat it had some elements of an individual-istic approach. The subjects receiving thistreatment were given practice in brainstorm-ing, listening (Dolch Word Game), and poemreading and recitation from the learningspecialist.

(5) Multi-Ethnic Basal Text: This is abasic reader approach published by Scott-Foresman that utilizes a companion work-book. The only appreciable difference be-tween this series and the usual basal seriesis the inclusion of additional ethnic groupsalong with Caucasian in the visuals.

In some cases, relatively minor additionsto the five basic patterns above were incorpor-ated in a treatment; these alterations will bedetailed in connection with the description ofeach separate experiment.

THE EFFECT OF AN INDIVIDUALIZEDINSTRUCTIONAL TECHNIQUE (PROGRAMMEDREADING) UPON POOR READERS' COGNITIVESKILLS IN RELATED AREAS,

Giese School, Racine, Wisconsin

The third grade R & I Unit at Giese School(Earl Nelson, principal) engaged in two devel-opment and research undertakings concurrently.In addition to the handwriting experiment pre -viously reported, the professional personnel inthe Unit (Maxine Vohs, learning specialist,and teachers Janet Hansen, Beverly Schinderle,and Sammye Woods) developed an experimentinvolving the teaching of pupils with readingdifficulties.

Thirty third-grade pupils were identified ashaving pronounced difficulty in reading on thebasis of their scores on standardized achieve-ment tests and as verified by teacher judgment.As such, these pupils were generally belowaverage on n a tiona 11 y-normed standardizedtests. Part of these pupils received a pro-grammed reading approach (McGraw-Hill) while

the second received the Macmillan basal textapproach. These two treatments are fully de-scribed in the previous section of this report.

A stratified random sampling procedure wasused in assigning pupils to the treatments. The30 poorest readers in the Unit were stratifiedon the basis of sex and previous achievementlevel in reading (average grade placements onthe Word Meaning and Paragraph Meaning sub-tests of the Stanford Achievement Test, Pri-mary II, Form X, given in March, 1966) andthen randomly assigned to treatments. Twogroups of 15 subjects each were formed by thisprocedure. A pre-condition was establishedthat the random assignment of pupils to experimental treatments would not be acceptable untilapproximately equal numbers of pupils from eachof the three treatments in the ongoing hand-writing experiment were assigned to the twotreatment groups for this experiment. Thus,the random assignment was re-done until itre-sulted in a preponderance of no more than twopupils from any one handwriting treatment end-ing up in the two groups formed for this experi-ment.

From 60 to 90 minutes per day were devotedto the experiment. The experiment lasted justunder seven school weeks. The teacher vari-able was controlled by rotating the teachersbetween treatments each week.

Certain tests of the Stanford AchievementTest, Primary II, were administered, primarilyin connection with securing baseline data. Inaddition, two additional posttests were con-structed with high content validity. Thirtywords were randomly selected from each of thetwo treatments to form a 60-word test. Thisbasic test was given as a spelling recall testand also as a test of word recognition, i. e.,an oral reading test individually administered.Three scores were obtained from each test:number of programmed reading words correct,number of basal reader words correct, and totalnumber of words correct (the sum of the othertwo scores).

Analysis of covariance was used in analyz-ing the data on each of the three dependentvariables. The Spelling pretest of the StanfordAchievement Test was used as a covariate forthe constructed spelling recall test, while theWord Study Skills pretest served as the covar-iate for the word recognition test.

As expected, the difference between the twotreatments was not statistically significant onany of the three tests. The benefits of the ex-periment lay directly in the experience gainedby the Unit personnel in developing and exe-cuting the new program and in participating in

21

the research. The Unit staff also concludedthat the programmed material was not freelyauto-instructional. Considerable teaching isapparently required with it also.

THE EFFECT OF AN INDIVIDUALIZEDINSTRUCTIONAL TECHNIQUE (SRA READINGLABORATORY) UPON POOR READERS' COGNITIVESKILLS IN RELATED AREAS,Giese School, Racine Wisconsin

The fourth-grade R & I Unit at Giese Schoolalso undertook a second activity after the hand-writing experiment was underway. The learn-ing specialist, Marilyn Kletecka, and the Unitteachers, Anne Buchanan, Charles Leonard,and Mary Rounds, selected the area of readingbecause of needs of many pupils in that sub-ject area.

They were interested in identifying addi-tional instructional materials and techniquesthat offered promise of being effective with thepoorer readers in the Unit. To this end mater-ials were gathered and developed to enhanceachievement of poor readers; the related re-search was a comparison of progress in readingunder the SRA Reading Laboratory with progressunder the Scott-Foresman basal reading ap-proach.

Fourth graders in the Unit were screened onthe basis of standardized reading achievementtest scores and teacher judgment; the 34 pupilsappearing farthest behind in their reading skillswere selected for participation. These pupilswere, on the average, below national means onstandardized achievement tests. They werefirst stratified by sex and previous achievementin reading (average grade placements on theWord Meaning and Paragraph Meaning subtestsof the Stanford), then randomly assigned to twotreatments. Twogroups of 17 pupils each werethus formed. One received an individualizedapproach (SRA Reading Laboratory) while thesecond received a more traditional approachusing the Scott-Foresman basal text. The es-sential features of these approaches are de-tailed in an earlier section of this report. Asin the third-grade reading experiment, a pre-condition was established that the random as-signment of pupils to experimental treatmentswould not be acceptable until approximatelyequal numbers of pupils from each of the threetreatments in the ongoing handwriting experi-ment were assigned to the two treatment groupsfor this experiment. Thus, the random assign-ment was re-done until it resulted in a prepon-

22

derance of no more than two pupils from anyone handwriting treatment ending up in the twogroups formed for this experiment.

Approximately 70 minutes each day forslightly less than seven school weeks weregiven to reading instruction. The two teachersinvolved were rotated between groups eachweek to aid in controlling the teacher variable.

Five subtests of the Stanford AchievementTest. Intermediate I, were the data gathered:namely, Word Meaning, Paragraph Meaning,Spelling, Word Study Skills, and Language.Form X had been given in mid-April, 1966, asa pretest; Form Y served as a posttest. Eachcriterion test was given to all subjects at thesame time by a single test administrator. R &D Center personnel scored the posttest.

Analysis of covariance of raw scores (num-ber correct) were used to analyze the data foreach of the five dependent variables with thepretest scores used as covariables, respec-tively. Treatment served as an active inde-pendent variable while sex and previous read-ing achievement were assigned independent(stratifying) variables.

As expected, differences between the meth-ods employed were again not significant and nodefinitivere sults of major import were obtainedin this experiment. It is interesting to note,however, that pupils with past records of highreading achievement (relative to the other pu-pils in the study) outgained those in the aver-age and low previous achievement levels on theWord and Paragraph Meaning subtests and thosein the average stratum likewise outperformedthe lows. On the Word Study Skills and Lan-guage subtests, both the high and averagestrata pupils outperformed the low stratum sub-jects, but not each other. It is somewhat un-usual, but males made more substantial gainson the Word Meaning subtest than females. Inconclusion, the involvement of Unit membersin the activities fostered the development of aUnit cohesiveness and familiarized the teacherswith some new reading materials and researchprocedures.

THE EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUALIZEDINSTRUCTIONAL AND SELF-EXPRESSIONSESSIONS ON PUPIL ATTITUDES AND PUPILCOGNITIVE SKILLS IN READING ANDRELATED AREAS,Stephen Bull School, Racine, Wisconsin

Two R &I Units were housed in Stephen BullSchool, Racine, Wisconsin (Frank Sweet, prin-

cipal). The second-grade Unit contained thelearning specialist, Henrietta Marx, two certi-fied teachers, Lois Borg and Lula Robinson, andsomewhat over 60 pupils.

The behavior patterns of 12 boys in this Unitwere such that it was felt that they would profitmost byreceiving special treatment for portionsof the school day. The purpose of this instruc-tion was to give these 12 pupils supplementalindividualized instruction for an hour each daywith a view to modifying their classroom be-haviors as well as improving their cognitiveskills in the reading-language arts area. Tofacilitate this purpose, the group was dividedinto two smaller groups of six each. In addi-tion to the 12 boys displaying poor school be-haviors, 19 others were identified but receivedno formal instruction. This control group wasmade up of all boys in the Unit that had achieve-ment patterns most similar to the 12 boysalready identified; but obviously, their behaviorpatterns were not as extreme.

The two treatments are described in anearlier section of this report. The individual-ized reading program utilized was the SRAReading Laboratory, while the learning special-ist designed the activities and procedures usedin small group 'self-ex pr essi on sessions.They were given in addition to the usual read-ing-language arts instruction that the boysreceived and were given only by the learningspecialist. Time of day of instruction and sub-ject matter missed while absent from the regu-lar class was controlled for the two treatments.

In order to determine the effectiveness ofthe special treatments, four cognitive measureswere used: the Word Reading, Paragraph Mean-ing, Vocabulary, and Word Study Skills sub-tests in the Stanford Achievement Testa PrimaryI. Form X was given before the study began,while Form Y was given at the conclusion.

In the affective area, a short 25-item ratingscale was used. Teachers and the learningspecialist independently rated a pupil's behav-ior before and after the experiment was con-ducted. Experimental pupils were rated on theirbehaviors during the special experimental ses-sions, while all pupils had their behavior ratedfor "the regular school day. " Favorable be-haviors were indicated by high numerical scoreson the inventory. The treatments were admin-istered for 60 minutes each day for sevenschool weeks.

All subjects were given the cognitive iter-ion tests at the same time by one administratorto reduce any variable due to administration.Both the cognitive tests and behavior ratings

were scored by a team of scorers at the R & DCenter. All data were analyzed via analysis ofcovariance techniques with original achieve-ment as the covariable.

The fact that no treatment differences wereevident in any of the analyses was encouragingbecause of original differences among thegroups. Viewed also as being encouraging wasthe fact that in only one case, Word StudySkills, was previous achievement differencesignificant. These results should be interpretedcautiously however, because of the lack ofstatistical power in the design that was used.

It should be noted though that all threegroups, both treatment groups and the controlgroup, made substantial absolute gains on thebehavior ratings. For the regular school day,this was particularly true of the pupils in theself-expression treatment, although not to theextent that their behaviors appeared signifi-cantly more improved than the individualizedreading or control pupils.

Although there were improved behaviors ex-hibited, it may be unwarranted to conclude thatthey definitely resulted from the treatmentsconducted; it should be remembered that thecontrol pupils had not exhibited behavior prob-lem s at the start of the study while the experi-mental pupils had and, in a sense, there wasless room for the control subjects to improve.In any event, the 12 boys needing specialtreatmentreceived it with encouraging results.

THE EFFECT OF TWO TECHNIQUES OF READINGINSTRUCTION ON PUPIL COGNITIVE SKILLSIN READINGStephen Bull School, Racine, Wisconsin

The third-grade R & I Unit at Stephen BullSchool in Racine also conducted experimenta-tion in reading. The Unit is made up of alearning specialist, Mae Elsdon, four certifiedteachers, Eunice Bethke, Mattie Boykins,Linda Carlson, and Josephine `,Y4'sbury, andapproximately 100 pupils.

Many of the pupils in the U -.vere perform-ing poorly in reading. The Unit staff was inter-ested in exploring and -;ing new materialsthat might prove more effective with these pu-pils. Those selected were: (1) a programedreading approach, (2) a multi-ethnic readersupplemented by a Word Games Reading Labora-tory, and (3) the control (basal reader).

The 42 poorest readers in the Uri* were se-lected on the basis of past s tan d ar di z e d

et,-.0.110111116

23

achievement test scores and teacher judgment.The pupils as a group were noticeably belowthe national average on standardized achieve-ment tests. Almost 90 per cent of the subjectsin the experiment were not Caucasian.

The programed reading treatment was imple-mented through use of the McGraw-Hill Pro-gramed Reading Series. The multi-ethnic readerused in the second treatment was publishedby Scott-Foresman. Instruction under thistreatment was supplemented by the Word GamesReading Laboratory (SRA), the phonics portionof the reading laboratory, designed to helpstudents develop their reading vocabularies tomatch their listening vocabularies. Intrinsicmotivation is allegedly provided by the pupilworking at a point where he can experiencesuccess and progress independently through asequentially developed continuum that beginswith the sounds of single c o n s o n a n t s andvowels and moves through consonant blends,diagraphs, phonograms, and diphthongs. Thecontrol group students continued with the read-ing instruction program already being used;they were instructed with other pupils in theUnit not involved in the experiment. Thesestudents use a "traditional" Macmillan basicreader. These treatments are more completelydescribed in an earlier section of this report.

To determine the effectiveness of these ap-proaches, five subtests of the StanfordAchieve-ment Test, Primary II, were utilized: WordMeaning, Paragraph Meaning, Spelling, WordStudy Skills, and Language. Form X was usedas a pretest; FormYas a posttest. In addition,a 60-word test was locally developed similarto the one constructed for the third-grade read-ing experiment at Giese School. The wordswere given in a spelling recall format and alsoas an oral word recognition test. Half thewords were randomly selected from the McGraw-Hill programed materials and half from theScott-Foresman multi-ethnic reader (this latterhalf overlapped at many points with words usedin the Macmillan basal reader). From each ofthe two tests, three scores were derived: num-ber or programed words correct, number of basalreader words correct, and total number of wordscorrect.

The treatments lasted for seven weeks. Theteacher as a source of variance was controlledby rotating the teachers across the three in-structional treatments. Subjects were given thecriterion tests at the same time by a single testadministrator. Scoring of the data was com-pleted by a scoring team at the R & D Center.Analysis of covariance was used for each of thedependent variables. Alternate form subtests

24

were covariates for the Stanford scores. TheStanford spelling pretest also was used as acovariate for the spelling recall scores, whilethe Word Study Skills pretest was the covariatefor the word recognition scores.

A finding of some interest was a significantmain effect for treatment on the Word StudySkills subtest. This stood out for two reasons:first, the absence of any other treatment ef-fects; and, second, the fact that the perform-ance under the multi-ethnic treatment was su-perior. (Recall that the pupils were nearly allnon-white.) Since a treatment effect appearedonly on this dependent variable and none of theothers, and since it reached only the .05 levelof significance, it might be best described anddiscussed as provocative rather than definitive.

Previous reading achievement levels andsex were seldom significant, but significanttreatment by previous achievement interactionswere. They too seemed provocative rather thandefinitive. In the multi-ethnic treatment group,a gap in performance between the high andaverage previous achievers, on the one hand,and the low, on the other, is of great interest,but possible explanations are not easily forth-coming. It would be well to recall that eachcell mean was dependent upon the performanceof three (and, in a few cases, two) subjects;thus, spurious effects could have been in evi-dence. There do seem to be enough provoca-tive questions generated in this short experi-ment to suggest that additional work might beprofitable in the area of providing materials andmodels in which ethnic composition is variedsystematically.

THE EFFECT OF THREE TECHNIQUES OFREADING INSTRUCTION, INCLUDING TWO ININDIVIDUALIZED APPROACHES, UPON PUPILCOGNITIVE SKILLS IN READINGHowell School, Racine, Wisconsin

Howell School in Racine, Wisconsin (GlynnHumphrey, principal), has its R &I Unit estab-lished at the fifth-grade level. The learningspecialist, Jerry Sullivan, and the Unit teach-ers, Joseph Ban and Al Hovgaard, expressedconcern about the reading difficulties of manychildren in the Unit. There are a total of 63pupils in the Unit.

A generally low level of reading skills inmost of the pupils of the Unit led to the devel-opment and research of three instructional ap-proaches to reading. Two were individualizedand one was a multi-ethnic reader.

All 63 fifth-grade pupils in the Unit exper-ienced one of the approaches. Pupils were, onthe average, about one year below grade place-ment inreading and related areas as determinedby the national norms of a standardize dachievement test. Over 60 per cent of the pu-pils in the R & I Unit were non-white.

The following materials were selected forthe three approaches: (I) the SRA Reading Lab-oratory, (2) the Macmillan Reading Spectrum,and (3) the Scott-Foresman multi-ethnic basalreader. The first two sets of materials areordinarily described as "individualized"; allthree approaches are described in detail in anearlier section of this report.

Treatments were administered 60 minuteseach day for a period of six weeks. The teachervariable was again c o n t r o 11 e d for rotatingteachers between treatments weekly. Separateanalysis of variance procedures were used foreach of the scores.

As explained in an earlier section, it wasconsidered unlikely that treatment effects ofany considerable magnitude could be generatedin just six weeks, but involvement in new ap-proaches was viewed as being valuable as aninservice activity for teachers. Two main ef-fects did reach significance, sex and previousachievement level, as was expected.

The study had other benefits in addition tothe knowledge of each method that teacherswere able to attain in the short period that thestudy was conducted through their periodic ro-tation among treatments. The pupils, too,seemedto enjoy the changed pace and the var-iety of teachers afforded them. It is none toosoon for school itself to become rewarding.

CONCLUDING REMARKS: EXPERIMENTATIONWITH READING MATERIALS

One of the move obvious impressions that aperson gets after reading the five reading ex-periments is the rarity with which definitiveresults were obtained, i. e. the infrequencywith which a treatment effect reached signifi-cance. This was not entirely unexpected. Ref-erence to the "Introductory Remarks" sectionof this chapter allows review of four benefitsthat did occur from these short experiments,namely: (1) staff involvement on a problem ofimmediate concern to them; (2) development ofstaff appreciation of research as a tool for im-proving educational programs; (3) developmentof staff expertise with several approaches tothe teaching of reading; and (4) development ofa foundation upon which to build more sophisti-

cated research undertakings in later years. Inaddition to promoting Unit cohesiveness, theresearch involvement allowed teachers to real-ize that children gained great benefit from in-dividual attention and immediate and positivereinforcement.

This year the third-grade Unit at StephenBull School, Racine, is using the programedmaterials with some students who are far belowgrade level in reading. These are used in ad-dition to their regular reading program andscheduledreadingtime. Mrs. Mae Elsdon, thelearning specialist, directs the children in thisactivity and follows their progress closely.Also, volunteer aides are providing individualattention for each student as he reads or dis-cusses a book that he has read. Reporting hasassumed a new air when an interested persondiscusses the story, looks at illustrations, orlistens to the reading of a favorite selection.Rewards are being used as motivation for read-ing; the first reward is given after two bookshave beenread, another after five, and in mul-tiples of five thereafter.

The second-grade Unit at Bull School hasnow been combined with first graders into anongraded primary unit. Motivation to progressat the students' own level has been greatly im-proved by the removal of grade level materials.Individual attention and guidance is one of thebig responsibilities and interests of the newlearning specialist, Pat Hansen. Children aregroupedaccordingto needs for the skills. Freeand independent reading are encouraged byvolunteer aides who operate in much the samemanner as with the third-grade Unit.

The new materials that were used in theGiese and Howell Schools' reading experimentsare being used by several teachers in the Unitsand with students according to their needs andabilities. There appeared to be a definite im-provement at Howell in the fifth-grade students'desire to do more independent reading. Thismay have been brought about by the use of theScholastic paperback books and the learningspecialist providing individual attention in thestudents' reporting. Macmillan's Spectrum isbeing used throughout the reading program atHowell this year. The use, of the SRA ReadingLaboratories has made the teachers aware ofthe need to provide for the individual differ-ences in basic skills. A constant regroupingof the students is evident this year. Severalof the Units are planning to do some controlledexperimentation second semester to furtherstimulate the continuous improvement of theirreading programs.

25