Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The correlations of reading achievement and self concept at grades three, five, seven, eight, ten and… Gordon, Maria Geertruida 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 G67.pdf [ 2.56MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078244.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078244-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078244-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078244-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078244-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078244-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078244-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078244-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078244.ris

Full Text

THE CORRELATIONS OF READING ACHIEVEMENT AND SELF CONCEPT AT GRADES THREE, FIVE, SEVEN, EIGHT, TEN AND TWELVE by MARIA GEERTRUIDA GORDON B.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION Department o f Reading We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as co n f o r m i n g to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1976 (c ^ M a r i a G e e r t r u i d a Gordon, 1976 In presenting th i s thesi$ in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes is for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of EDUCATION The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 D a t e SEPTEMBER 20. 1976 i i ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s study was to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f concept and reading a b i l i t y at d i f f e r e n t stages i n a c h i l d ' s school career. Subjects were selected at random from grades three, f i v e , seven, eight, ten and twelve from schools i n one school d i s t r i c t . Approximately 125 to 150 students at each grade l e v e l were tested with the Nelson Reading Test or the Nelson Denny Reading Test and the students were then assigned to groups of poor, average or good readers on the basis of th e i r p e r c e n t i l e scores f o r t h e i r grade. Twenty students were randomly selected from each a b i l i t y group at each grade l e v e l to receive the Piers  Harris Children's Self Concept Scale. Raw scores on the reading test were correlated with s e l f concept scores for each grade l e v e l . Correlations were s i g n i f i c a n t at the grade three, f i v e , seven, and eight l e v e l s , lower but s i g n i f i c a n t at the grade ten l e v e l and not s i g n i f i c a n t at the grade twelve l e v e l . Mean scores for each a b i l i t y group at each grade l e v e l were computed and analyzed i n a s i x by three f a c t o r a l design. E f f e c t s f o r a b i l i t y group and i n t e r a c t i o n of grade and reading a b i l i t y were s i g n i f i c a n t . Differences between means for good and poor readers were s i g n i f i c a n t at the grade three, f i v e , seven and eight l e v e l s . Post hoc tests were done to f i n d s i g n i f i c a n t tetrad differences. It appears from the r e s u l t s of t h i s study that although s e l f concept and reading a b i l i t y are p o s i t i v e l y correlated i n the lower grades, the rela t i o n s h i p becomes weaker a f t e r grade eight and i s nonsignificant at the grade twelve l e v e l . i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 1 Self Concept 1 Self Concept and School Achievement 3 Self Concept and Reading Achievement 6 C r i t i c i s m of E x i s t i n g Research 8 I I . THE PROBLEM 9 The General Problem 9 Hypotheses 11 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms 12 I I I . GENERAL PROCEDURE 13 Subjects 13 Test Measures 13 General Design 16 Sample Size 17 IV. DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS 18 V. CONCLUSIONS 32 Summary 32 Conclusions and Discussion 33 Suggestions f o r Future Research 36 REFERENCES 38 APPENDIX A Fa c t o r a l Design for Grades vs. A b i l i t y vs. Sex on Dependent Variable Self Concept 43 Analysis of Variance Table f o r Grades vs. A b i l i t y vs. Sex on Dependent Variable Self Concept 43 APPENDIX B Means, Standard Deviations, N's, and Analysis of Variance Tables from Computer Program BMD:10V Analysis of A b i l i t y Groups Collapsed over Grades 44 i v LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Cor r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s for s e l f concept and reading scores 18 2 Significance of differences between c o r r e l a t i o n s of reading and s e l f concept for pai r s of grades 20 3 Means and standard deviations on s e l f concept scale for reading groups by grade l e v e l 21 4 Analysis of variance table f o r the three by s i x f a c t o r a l design 21 5 Differences between means within each grade f o r the e f f e c t s of reading a b i l i t y ., 24 6 Table of unknown parameters for the 3 x 6 f a c t o r a l design 24 7 Table of tetrad differences for spread of means between two a b i l i t y groups for pai r s of grades 28 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Graph of i n t e r a c t i o n s of grade and reading a b i l i t y on s e l f concept CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Self Concept In the welter of accumulated research done in education and i t s many, often conflicting, conclusions, there is one thing that results have repeatedly assured us of, and that is that each child is a unique and individual personality. How an individual acts and reacts within his environment is determined by his self concept. During the past few decades, the study of self concept as a determinator of behavior has become an important facet of educational research. Several well known theorists have presented their views on the influence of self concept on the individual's behavior, stating that personality is not anchored on biological variables but is determined by social psychological factors. Lecky (1945) contributed to the theory of self-consistency as a primary motivating force in human behavior, stating that an individual is constrained in his behavior by the picture he has formed of self. Cattell (1950) considered the self the principal organizing influence exerted on the individual which gives s t a b i l i t y to his behavior and he emphasizes selective perception in the maintenance of self esteem. Carl Rogers (1951) emphasized the importance of self in human adjustment and stated that self is the central aspect of personal-ity—people behave in terms of the way they see themselves. Snygg and Combs (1949) proposed that the basic drive of individuals is the 1 2 maintenance and enhancement of s e l f and they claim that " a l l behavior, without exception, i s completely determined by and pertinent to, the phenomenal f i e l d of the behaving organism". How a person behaves i s the r e s u l t of how he perceives the s i t u a t i o n and himself at the moment of h i s action . Individuals constantly behave i n a manner which i s consistent with the way they view themselves (Evans, 1968). Today, more and more psychologists are looking at s e l f concept i n r e l a t i o n to educational theory and p r a c t i c e . The perceptions a person has of himself are on a continuum of p o s i t i v e to negative t r a i t s to the extent that he f e e l s these t r a i t s are worthy or unworthy i n the eyes of h i s s i g n i f i c a n t others. I f a c h i l d f e e l s he i s not of worth i n the eyes of those important to him he becomes unacceptable to himself and develops a negative s e l f concept. It i s generally accepted that the s e l f concept of an i n d i v i d u a l i s not present at b i r t h but that i t develops as perspective powers develop (Bodwin, 1959). The s e l f concept i s determined by the i n t e r a c t i o n of that i n d i v i d u a l with h i s environment, the most important elements of which are the persons most important to him emotionally and c o g n i t i v e l y . These s i g n i f i c a n t others are i n f l u e n t i a l i n shaping the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s e l f concept through the responses they make to him, or more important, how he perceives t h e i r responses and how he i n f e r s t h e i r valuations of him from t h e i r behavior to him. Once the s e l f concept i s established, i t has a high degree of s t a b i l -i t y and tends to r e s i s t change (Hamachek, 1965). Individuals may even unwittingly choose those behaviors which 'prove' he i s r i g h t about him-s e l f and others' i n f e r r e d perceptions of him, (Soares and Soares, 1971) so that as a c h i l d grows and experiences, he may subconsciously behave i n 3 such ways as to evoke the treatment or response that he e xpects—the response which tends to r e i n f o r c e h i s s e l f view. J e r s i l d (1952) hypo-thesized that a person may r e s i s t learning that might be b e n e f i c i a l to him because he i s t r y i n g to protect h i s image of himself based on the i n f l u -ence of h i s s i g n i f i c a n t others. This i s e s p e c i a l l y important i f early family or school experiences convince a c h i l d that he i s unable to learn. Since the s e l f concept of an i n d i v i d u a l i s forming from b i r t h onward, those people who are closest to him i n the f i r s t years of h i s l i f e , h i s parents and other members of h i s family, are primary forces i n the shaping of h i s s e l f concept. However, when a c h i l d enters school, the teachers also assume the r o l e of s i g n i f i c a n t others, p a r t i a l l y as a r e f l e c t i o n of emphasis placed on education by parents. As the c h i l d grows older his peers become more and more important as s i g n i f i c a n t others, gradually replacing the shaping influence of parents and teachers as he attains adulthood. The c h i l d who has learned to see himself as inadequate i s influenced i n h i s behavior by t h i s s e l f concept u n t i l some s i g n i f i c a n t others behave toward him i n such a way as to enable that i n d i v i d u a l to see himself as capable and of worth. For example i f a c h i l d f e e l s h i s parents are not pleased with h i s behavior or accomplishments he may b u i l d a negative s e l f concept. When he meets other people who are important to him (such as peers who assume importance i n teen years) and they admire him for h i s behavior or accomplishments h i s s e l f concept may become more p o s i t i v e . Self Concept and School Achievement Many research studies have attempted to discover the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s e l f concept of an i n d i v i d u a l and h i s achievement i n school. 4 A c h i l d ' s academic achievement i s determined by several v a r i a b l e s and such factors as i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y , economic background, parents' emphasis on education and teaching standards have been linked with school achievement. These do not, however, f u l l y explain why some ch i l d r e n appear to have great d i f f i c u l t y learning to read. In attempting to f i n d other factors i n f l u e n t i a l i n whether a c h i l d achieves i n school, researchers have studied the r e l a t i o n s h i p of s e l f concept and academic achievement. D i f f e r e n t studies have used d i f f e r e n t methods of r a t i n g academic achievement and have used such measures as grade point average, teachers' r a t i n g s , r e s u l t s of standardized tests or a combination of one or more of these with i n t e l -l e c t u a l a b i l i t y . Many studies have shown p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s e l f concept and academic achievement. Lumpkin (1959) matched twenty-four over-achievers with twenty-four underachievers on the basis of chronological age, mental age, sex and home background. The overachievers revealed s i g n i f -i c a n t l y more p o s i t i v e s e l f concepts. Shaw, Edson, and B e l l (1960) used achievers i n j u n i o r and senior high schools and compared them to under-achievers and found a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e for males i n s e l f concept, the underachievers having more negative f e e l i n g about s e l f than the achievers. Fink (1962) studied two groups of ninth grade students paired f o r achievement and underachievement. Self concept of each was judged adequate or inadequate by three psychologists on the basis of several r a t i n g scales and t e s t s . Data showed s i g n i f i c a n t differences between achievers and non-achievers, the achievers being rated as f a r more adequate i n t h e i r concepts of s e l f . Campbell (1967) reported a low p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between Coppersmith's Self Esteem Inventory and academic achievement of fourth, f i f t h and s i x t h grade students. Caplin 5 (1966), in a study of Negro children, found that children who professed more p o s i t i v e self concepts tended to have higher academic achievement. Cole (1975) investigated the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f concept, a t t i t u d e and achievement motivation of one hundred, average, t h i r d grade c h i l d r e n with t h e i r academic achievement. Their data yielded low, p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t (p < .05) c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s e l f concept and achievement. Quimby (1967) using achievers versus underachievers, found that the s e l f - i d e a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the achievers was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the s e l f - i d e a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of underachievers. Others who have found p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s e l f concept and academic achieve-ment are Coopersmith (1967), Hughes (1967), Oakland (1969), Jones and Grieneeks (1970) and Bailey (1971). Some researchers have postulated that d e f i c i e n c i e s i n s e l f esteem may cause academic underachievement. Gann (1945) stated that her research showed that .personality tension unfavourable to learning had formed before the c h i l d started school and she rejected the idea that reading d i s a b i l -i t i e s caused personality d i f f i c u l t i e s . Kunst (1949, p. 133) suggests Reading f a i l u r e i n a c h i l d of normal i n t e l l i g e n c e , who has had good teaching, i s a neurotic symptom i n d i c a t i n g emotional c o n f l i c t . . . . They simultaneously (while wanting to read) though often unconsciously, wish to f a i l to read. I think of reading f a i l u r e not as a passive i n a b i l i t y to learn, but as an ac t i v e , though usually unconscious, protection against learning to read. This view i s supported by Combs' (1957) claims that a person with an adequate s e l f concept w i l l meet l i f e expecting to be successful and w i l l therefore behave i n ways that tend to bring about success, while a person who f e e l s he i s unable, w i l l f e e l he cannot succeed and w i l l behave i n a manner that w i l l not lead to success. Other researchers oppose the view that poor s e l f concept or 6 personality differences cause reading d i s a b i l i t i e s . Bond and Tinker (1957) suggest that evidence generally indicates that emotional maladjust-ment i s more frequently the e f f e c t than the cause. Whether poor s e l f concept causes underachievement or underachievement causes poor s e l f concept i s s t i l l a c o n t r o v e r s i a l issue i n research l i t e r a t u r e and i t may well be true that both are true i n d i f f e r e n t cases. Holmes (1955) suggests that where reading d i s a b i l i t i e s and personality d i f f i c u l t i e s appear together, the l a t t e r may be causes, concomitants or r e s u l t s of reading d i f f i c u l t i e s . Self Concept and Reading Achievement A number of studies have investigated the r e l a t i o n s h i p between personality and reading achievement. Spache (1954) studied f i f t y retarded readers aged s i x to fourteen and concluded that retarded readers were more aggressive and cocky, le s s apt to accept blame or admit f a u l t , l e s s t o l e r -ant and more n e g a t i v i s t i c . These tendencies were less pronounced i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s with adults than with peers. They tended to avoid open c o n f l i c t with adults, often assuming a passive a t t i t u d e . Strang (1940), Kunst (1949) and Bond and Tinker (1957) also stated that emotional disturbances i n c h i l d r e n were associated with reading d i s a b i l i t i e s i n early grades. Several studies have dealt with reading and s e l f concept s p e c i f i c -a l l y . Wattenburg and C l i f f o r d (1964) obtained measures of s e l f concept of kindergarten chi l d r e n , based on s e l f r e f e r r e n t statements obtained as c h i l d r e n drew pictures of t h e i r family and as they responded to incomplete sentences, and obtained scores representing two dimensions—competence and goodness (personal worth). The r e s u l t s indicated that measures of s e l f concept appear antecedent to and p r e d i c t i v e of reading achievement 7 i n the second grade. Lumpkin (1959) compared twenty-four good readers with twenty-four poor readers i n grade f i v e to show that good readers revealed s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p o s i t i v e s e l f concepts. Lang (1965) found children's perceptions of s e l f gave as good a predictor of l a t e r reading achievement as did i n t e l l i g e n c e scores. Pollock (1972), working with primary c h i l d r e n found that reading achievement was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to school s e l f concepts i n most groups she tested, but found that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between global s e l f concept and reading achievement only approached .10 s i g n i f i c a n c e for the t o t a l f i r s t grade group and one t h i r d grade subgroup. McClenden (1968) found a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f esteem and reading at the f i r s t grade l e v e l . Williams and Cole (1967) worked with eighty s i x t h grade ch i l d r e n and found p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a -tions between s e l f concept and reading achievement. Zimmerman and Allebrand (1965) studied urban fourth and f i f t h graders of middle to lower socio-economic status and found that poor readers tested on the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality, lacked s u f f i c i e n t sense of personal worth, freedom, s t a b i l i t y and adequacy to the extent that they avoided achieve-ment. Bodwin (1959) found c o r r e l a t i o n s of .72 for grade three and .62 for grade s i x subjects between reading d i s a b i l i t y and immature s e l f concepts. There are a few studies, however, that have found no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between reading and s e l f concept. Williams (1973) i n v e s t i -gated c o r r e l a t i o n s of s e l f concept and reading for 133 f i r s t grade students and found no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n f o r the students' s e l f concept and t h e i r f i r s t or second grade reading achievement. Butcher (1967) and Rushley (1970) also found no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between reading a b i l i t y and s e l f concept for elementary c h i l d r e n . 8 C r i t i c i s m of E x i s t i n g Research There are several weaknesses i n the research done to date on the re l a t i o n s h i p between reading and s e l f concept. The f i r s t i s that most of t h i s research has concentrated on students i n the elementary grades, and l i t t l e research has been done with high school students. A second weakness i s that many of the c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s may be a t t r i b u t e d to the use of s e l f concept measures for which no adequate v a l i d i t y or r e l i a b i l i t y had been established and which, i n many cases had been created expressly for the purpose of a p a r t i c u l a r study. A t h i r d weakness i s that when d i f f e r e n t research studies use d i f f e r e n t measures of s e l f concept and of reading a b i l i t y , the r e s u l t s of these studies cannot be d i r e c t l y compared. In cases where the instrument to measure s e l f concept had been created s p e c i f i c a l l y for a p a r t i c u l a r study, the research study can also not be duplicated. A fourth weakness i s that many of the studies, e s p e c i a l l y those done with high school students, were p r i m a r i l y interested i n the underachiever and therefore worked only with high i n t e l l i g e n c e subjects rather than the normal range of students. To date, no attempt has been made at a systematic study of the re l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f concept and reading at d i f f e r e n t stages i n a ch i l d ' s educational career, using one measure or correlated measures of reading, and one measure of s e l f concept so that c o r r e l a t i o n s of reading and s e l f concept at d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s could be compared. This study sought to do t h i s . CHAPTER II THE PROBLEM The General Problem Educators today are becoming more aware that each c h i l d i s an i n d i v i d u a l , acting and reacting i n h i s environment i n d i f f e r e n t ways, and that teaching can therefore not be done to a class but must be done to each i n d i v i d u a l w i t h i n a c l a s s . As a r e s u l t , research regarding the nature of the influence that school has on each i n d i v i d u a l i s important to educators. When a c h i l d f i r s t enters school there i s generally a degree of pressure on him from his s i g n i f i c a n t others (his parents and, to some extent, h i s teachers) to succeed i n school. Since school success i n early grades i s measured to a large extent by achievement i n reading, i t can r e a d i l y be seen that s e l f concept (as a mirror of the perceived f e e l -ings of s i g n i f i c a n t others) can be strongly influenced by success, or lack of i t , i n reading. But as a c h i l d advances i n school, peers become more important as an influence on s e l f concept, and peer group a c t i v i t i e s and att i t u d e s , i n school or outside school, become increasingly more i n f l u e n -t i a l . Often, t h i s means that success i n areas such as sports, clubs and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s or whatever else the peer group holds important i s more i n f l u e n t i a l on the s e l f concept than reading d i s a b i l i t y . Also, as a c h i l d enters higher grades, he usually has the opportunity to take a much greater v a r i e t y of courses, many of which do not place a great demand on reading a b i l i t y for success (P.E., Home Economics, I n d u s t r i a l A r t s , S e c r e t a r i a l 9 10 Courses, Band, A g r i c u l t u r e , Work Experience Programs). This i s e s p e c i a l l y true i n today's high schools which are stressing more and more that one of the main aims of education at that l e v e l i s to provide each student with a chance to explore several areas of endeavor and to provide each student with some success i n one of these areas. Such phrases as 'educate the whole c h i l d ' , ' i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n ' and 'provide success experiences' currently used by educators, i l l u s t r a t e t h i s f e e l i n g . When ch i l d r e n are provided with success i n areas other than reading, the fact that the c h i l d i s a poor reader w i l l probably not have as great an e f f e c t on h i s valua-tions of s e l f . This study sought answers to the following questions: 1) Are s e l f concept and reading a b i l i t y s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated at various grade le v e l s ? 2) Are there s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the co r r e l a t i o n s of s e l f concept and reading a b i l i t y f o r various grade le v e l s ? 3) Is there a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the group means on the s e l f concept scale for good, average or poor readers within each grade le v e l ? 4) I f there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t difference on s e l f concept between good, average and poor reading a b i l i t y groups, are these differences the same for each grade l e v e l or do they change as a c h i l d progresses through school? In t h i s study the variables of i n t e l l i g e n c e and socio-economic status were not b u i l t into the design. Several studies have found that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n of i n t e l l i g e n c e and s e l f concept (Mayer, 1965; Wattenburg and C l i f f o r d , 1967; Hesse and Bradshaw, 1970). How-ever, some studies have found some c o n f l i c t i n g evidence and Coopersmith 11 (1967) obtained an o v e r a l l c o r r e l a t i o n of .28 between s e l f esteem and i n t e l l i g e n c e . Differences i n co r r e l a t i o n s of i n t e l l i g e n c e and s e l f concept i n d i f f e r e n t groups may well depend on how well the c h i l d knows and accepts h i s own a b i l i t y l e v e l . In th i s study, the basic i n t e r e s t i s i n reading performance and i t s r e l a t i o n to s e l f concept, regardless of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e l l i g e n c e . The majority of recent studies have found l i t t l e or no r e l a t i o n s h i p between the v a r i a b l e of s e l f concept and socioeconomic status (Carter, 1968; Soares and Soares, 1969, 1971, 1973; Hess and Bradshaw, 1970; Trowbridge, 1970). Dennerell (1971) i n a study with 208 f i f t h grade c h i l d r e n found no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n s e l f concept by sex r o l e or socioeconomic status. Although the v a r i a b l e , sex of subjects, was not b u i l t into the design, i t was co n t r o l l e d i n the study by randomly s e l e c t i n g , where possible, equal numbers of boys and g i r l s to each a b i l i t y group. Hypotheses Hypothesis I - There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between c o r r e l a -tions of reading achievement and s e l f concept for grades three, f i v e , seven, eight, ten and twelve. H0 : r 3 = r 5 = r 7 = r 8 = r 1 0 = r 1 2 Hypothesis II - There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between means on the s e l f concept scale for groups of poor, average and good readers at various grade l e v e l s . H : M.. = M.,. = M.., = M.,., o xj l j iji I j 12 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms 1) Self Concept - The s e l f concept i s an organization of images which an i n d i v i d u a l has about himself i n h i s environment. These images develop over time from the r e f l e c t e d a p p r aisal of others around • him (Beatty, 1969). The s e l f concept can be measured i n terms of the p o s i t i v e or negative t r a i t s a person f e e l s i s part of h i s character. Self concept of the i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h i s study w i l l r e f e r to that person's obtained score on the Piers Harris Children's  Self Concept Scale. 2) Reading A b i l i t y - The subject's reading a b i l i t y w i l l be h i s obtained score ( t o t a l score) on the Nelson Reading Test, Revised E d i t i o n , Form A for grades three, f i v e , seven and eight, or on the Nelson  Denny Reading Test, Revised E d i t i o n , Form C, for grades ten and twelve. a) Good Reader - a student whose t o t a l score on the above reading tests f a l l s on or above the 68th p e r c e n t i l e f or h i s grade. b) Average Reader - A student whose t o t a l score on the above reading tests f a l l s on or above the 34th p e r c e n t i l e f or h i s grade but below the 68th p e r c e n t i l e . c) Poor Reader - A student whose t o t a l reading score on the above tests f a l l s below the 34th p e r c e n t i l e for h i s grade. CHAPTER III GENERAL PROCEDURE Subj ects A l l subjects came from schools in the Kamloops school d i s t r i c t , a city with a population of approximately sixty thousand. The subjects came from three elementary schools, one junior secondary school and one senior secondary school. The elementary schools serve as feeder schools to the junior secondary school which serves as a feeder school for the senior secondary school. In this way, a l l subjects come from one popula-tion area. This area from which the subject were drawn is populated by people from a wide range of socioeconomic levels—from professional people such as doctors and lawyers, to welfare recipients. The majority of the population consists of predominantly middle class, working, white subculture. Test Measures 1. Piers Harris Children's Self Concept Scale The Piers Harris Children's Self Concept Scale was chosen for this study for several reasons. Although there are a large number of self concept and personality measures available today, most of these have several weaknesses. Some of these were created solely for specific research studies and were not tested for validity or r e l i a b i l i t y , or only minimumly tested. Many tests deal with multiple personality factors 13 and/or interests rather than solely with self concept. A major concern of this study was to measure children's self con-cept at different grade levels, and in order to do this and be able to compare results, only one measure could be used for a l l grade levels. Unfortunately, many of the tests that have been more widely used are suitable only for the fifteen and over age group and are not suitable for younger students, and those designed for the young children are not suitable for secondary school students. The Piers Harris Children's Self  Concept Scale is designed for use with grades three to twelve. The Piers Harris Children's Self Concept Scale was originally standardized on 1183 students in grades four through twelve in one suburban school d i s t r i c t . Several follow-up studies were later done. The internal consistency of the scale ranges from .78 to .93 and test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y ranges from .72 to .77. Correlates with similar instruments are in the mid-sixties and the scale possesses teacher and peer validity coefficients of about .40. The current reviews of this test in the Seventh Annual (Buros, 1972) Mental Measurements Yearbook terms the test as a 'psychometrically adequate scale' and gave i t a favourable review for research purposes. In grades three, five and seven the instructions and items for the test were read aloud by the examiner as the manual recommends. At the higher grades, only the instructions were read aloud. There was no time limit for responding to the questions. The score on the Piers Harris Children's Self Concept Scale indi-cates the extent of positive self concept. 2. Nelson Reading Test, Revised Edition, Form A, (1972) Nelson. Denny Reading Test, Revised Edition, Form C (1972) 15 One of the main concerns in choosing a reading measure was that the test would measure the same reading s k i l l s in the same way at different grade levels. There are no adequate reading tests on the market which allow one form to be used by students ranging from grade three to grade twelve. Most tests require that different forms be used for approximately every second or third grade level. The Nelson Reading Test and the Nelson Denny Reading Test were thus chosen partly because they spanned a larger number of grade levels with one form, thereby eliminating as much as possible a confounding due to different tests at different grade levels. Another reason these tests were chosen was that they measured two major factors of reading ability—vocabulary and comprehension—important to this study, and did not attempt to measure other s k i l l s such as grammar, spelling, alphabetizing or study s k i l l s , which were extraneous to this study. In this study, the Nelson Reading Test was used with students in grades three, five, seven and eight. The Nelson Denny Reading Test was used with students in grades ten and twelve. Both tests yield three scores—vocabulary, comprehension and total score. The Nelson Denny  Reading Test also yields a rate score which was not used in this study. The r e l i a b i l i t y for the Nelson Denny Reading Test total score i s .92. The r e l i a b i l i t y for the Nelson Reading Test total score ranges from .88 to .93. The percentile norms for both of the reading tests, which were used in this study to assign students to a b i l i t y reading a b i l i t y groups, were carefully constructed, using a wide range and-large number of students across a l l grade levels. Both tests received favourable reviews in the Seventh Annual Mental Measurements Yearbook (Buros, 1972). In order to determine the correlation between the Nelson Reading  Test and the Nelson Denny Reading Test forty-seven students in grade nine 16 received both t e s t s . Their scores on the two reading tests yielded a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of .91. The measures of reading and s e l f concept were administered by one examiner. Both measures can be obtained commercially for use i n any r e p l i c a t i o n of t h i s study. General Design A l l students i n grades three, f i v e , and seven of the elementary schools involved i n t h i s study were given the Nelson Reading Test. Because of the much greater number of students within each grade l e v e l for the junior and senior secondary schools, approximately one hundred and f i f t y students were randomly selected from each grade l e v e l to be tested with the Nelson Reading Test i n grade eight or the Nelson Denny Reading Test i n grades ten and twelve. In administering the reading t e s t s , i n s t r u c t i o n s from t h e i r respective manuals were followed. For each student, a t o t a l reading score was calculated, and each of these scores were translated to a p e r c e n t i l e ranking according to the norms i n the appropriate test manual. Each of these students was then assigned to one of the following three groups—poor readers (1st to 33rd p e r c e n t i l e ) , average readers (34th to 67th percentiles) or good readers (68th to 99th p e r c e n t i l e s ) . From each of these groups, at each grade l e v e l , twenty subjects were randomly selected, using random number tables (Marascuilo, 1971), to receive the Piers Harris Children's Self Concept Scale. The scale was administered to students before they were given t h e i r scores on the read-ing t e s t s . A s e l f concept score was then calculated f or each student with each group and group means were calculated. 17 To test the f i r s t hypothesis, the raw scores f o r a l l students within a l l three groups at each grade l e v e l on the Pier s Harris Children's Self  Concept Scale and on the t o t a l reading score were correlated, and these c o r r e l a t i o n s were tested for s i g n i f i c a n t differences using the Z trans-formation and Chi square d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r a = .05. A computer program -(Bjerring, 1975) was used to determine c e l l means for a three by s i x f a c t o r a l design and to compute the analysis of variance table, with reading a b i l i t y and grade l e v e l as independent measures and scores on the Piers Harris Children's Self Concept Scale as the dependent v a r i a b l e . This was followed by Scheffe t e s t s to determine sources of s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s of the independent v a r i a b l e s and to determine s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r -actions . Sample Size O r i g i n a l numbers of students to whom the reading tests were administered: Grade 3 138 Grade 5 136 Grade 7 183 Grade 8 164 Grade 10 143 Grade 12 128 Tota l 892 Number of students r e c e i v i n g the s e l f concept scale and used i n research a n a l y s i s : Number of subjects i n each group 20 Number of subjects i n each grade 60 Total subjects i n research study 360 CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS In order to test the f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s — t h a t there are no s i g n i f -icant differences between c o r r e l a t i o n s of reading achievement and s e l f concept for grades three, f i v e , seven, eight, ten and twelve—the raw scores for each subject on the reading test and on the s e l f concept scales were correlated for each grade l e v e l by computer program BMD:02D (Halm, 1970). The r e s u l t i n g c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s are given i n Table 1. TABLE 1 CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR SELF CONCEPT AND READING SCORES Grade N Co r r e l a t i o n 3 60 .31** 5 60 .57** 7 60 .57** 8 60 .58** 10 60 .23* 12 60 .19 C o r r e l a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l * * c o r r e l a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l The c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r grades three, f i v e , seven, eight and ten were s i g n i f i c a n t . The highest c o r r e l a t i o n s were obtained f or grades f i v e , seven and eight, a f t e r which the c o r r e l a t i o n s dropped u n t i l , for grade 18 19 twelve, the correlation was nonsignificant. The correlations were then tested for significant differences using the z transformation and the chi square distribution for k independent values of r (Edwards, 1973): X 2 = E(nk-3) z k 2 _ |(nk-3) zk] 2 1 k I(nk-3) = 14.43* * significant at the .02 level The correlations for different grades were significantly different and the f i r s t hypothesis was rejected. As the chi square test showed a significant difference, a Z trans-formation for r for individual grade correlations was computed to deter-mine which grades were significantly different from other grades using the equation (Edwards, 1973): z i - z 2 Z = a z l " z 2 where : = vcr - a1 = v o H o Z1-Z2 z\ Z2 n i - 3 VL2 - 3 = .19 The results of these calculations are shown in Table 2. From the results depicted in Table 2, i t appears that the correla-tions for grades three, five, seven and eight are not significantly different from each other. However, each of these grades' correlations are significantly different from the correlations for grade ten and twelve which are also not significantly different from each other. 20 TABLE 2 SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CORRELATIONS OF READING AND SELF CONCEPT FOR PAIRS OF GRADES GRADE N r z r 3 60 .31 .321 5 60 .57 .648 7 60 .57 .648 8 60 .58 .662 10 60 .23 .234 12 60 •19 .192 Zl = z 5 - z 3 = 1.72 Zg -= z 1 2 - z 5 = -2.40* z 2 = z 7 - z 3 = 1.72 z 1 0 = Zg - z 7 = .07 Z 3 = z 8 - z 3 = 1.79 Z l l = z 1 0 - z 7 = -2.18* zk = z 1 0 - z 3 = -.46 z 1 2 = z 1 2 - z 7 = -2.40* z 5 = z 1 2 - z 3 = -.68 Z l 3 = z 1 0 " z 8 = -2.25* z 6 = z 7 - z 5 = 0 Z 1 4 = z 1 2 - z 8 = -2.47* Zy = z 8 - z 5 = .07 Z l 5 = z 1 2 - z 1 0 = -.22 z 8 = z 1 0 " z 5 = -2.18* * s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the .05 l e v e l In order to test the second hypothesis that there were no s i g n i f -icant differences between means on the s e l f concept scale f o r groups of poor, average and good readers at various grade l e v e l s , the subjects' scores on the Pier s Harris Children's Self Concept Scales were analyzed by computer program BMD;10V (Bjerring, et a l , 1975). The r e s u l t i n g means and standard deviations for each group on the dependent measure, s e l f concept, are given i n Table 3. The t o t a l means for each grade and for each t o t a l a b i l i t y group are also given i n the table. 21 TABLE 3 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON SELF CONCEPT SCALE FOR READING GROUPS BY GRADE LEVEL POOR n=20 AVERAGE n=20 GOOD n=20 TOTAL n=60 M S. D. M S.D. M S • D. M S. D. GRADE 3 52.50 10. 27 51.95 11.72 60.60 8 .48 55.02 10. 83 GRADE 5 45.75 13. 40 51.30 11.95 65.05 9 .95 54.03 14. 23 GRADE 7 50.35 12. 99 60.25 8.55 66.90 7 .18 59.17 11. 90 GRADE 8 47.45 9. 75 51.60 10.89 64.00 6 .84 54.35 11. 58 GRADE 10 52.50 7. 94 53.00 7.20 55.25 11 .51 53.58 9. 00 GRADE 12 53.00 9. 90 57.70 12.07 55.70 12 .15 55.47 11. 39 n= ^120 n= L20 n= L20 n= 360 TOTAL 50.26 11. 00 54.30 10.90 61.25 10 .40 55.27 11. 66 An analysis of variance for the s i x by three f a c t o r a l design with the two independent variables of reading a b i l i t y and grade l e v e l and the dependent v a r i a b l e as p o s i t i v e s e l f concept score was also calculated by the same computer program. The r e s u l t s are given i n Table 4. TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR THE THREE BY SIX FACTORAL DESIGN SOURCE- SUM OF SQUARES D.F. MEAN SQUARE PROB. ABILITY GRADES INTERACTION WITHIN TREATMENT 7418.2 2 3709.1 34.61078 .0000 1230.4 5 246.09 2.29635 .0450 3517.6 10 351.76 3.28239 .00049 36651.0 342 107.17 22 The above r e s u l t s show that a l l three sources of v a r i a n c e — a b i l i t y , grades and i n t e r a c t i o n were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l . Therefore the second n u l l hypothesis H : M.. = M.,. = M.., = M.,., o 13 i J 13 1 3 was rejected. A graph of the i n t e r a c t i o n of grades and a b i l i t y i s given i n Figure 1. This graph shows the i n t e r a c t i o n that was proved s i g n i f i c a n t i n the ANOVA table. The graph also shows that the spread between good and poor and good and average readers i n terms of p o s i t i v e s e l f concept i s greater at the lower grade l e v e l s than at the grade ten and twelve grade l e v e l s , where the spread i s only three to f i v e points. In grade twelve, the good reading a b i l i t y mean score i s lower than the average reading a b i l i t y mean score. Since the ANOVA table showed a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r a b i l i t y , a Scheffe test was used to determine at which grade l e v e l s the d i f f e r e n c e between reading a b i l i t y groups was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The follow-ing equation was used i n the c a l c u l a t i o n s and the r e s u l t s are presented i n Table 5 (Glass and Stanley, 1970). / C l 2 c 22 7^ / ' * + - A \ — + — + • • • + / ( I - 1 ) F I - I , N - U The d i f f e r e n c e between means for the good and poor reading a b i l i t y groups was s i g n i f i c a n t for grades three, f i v e , seven and eight. The difference between means for good and average reading a b i l i t y groups was also s i g n i f i c a n t for grades three, f i v e and eight. To locate the main e f f e c t s of a b i l i t y , the main e f f e c t s of grade and the main e f f e c t s of the i n t e r a c t i o n with the e f f e c t s of grade and a b i l i t y removed, the unknown parameters for the three by s i x f a c t o r a l 70-68-66-64-62-60-58-56-54-52-50-48-46-44-42-40-10 12 GRADES good readers average readers poor readers FIGURE 1: Graph of in t e r a c t i o n s of grade and reading a b i l i t y on s e l f concept TABLE 5 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS WITHIN EACH GRADE FOR THE EFFECTS OF READING ABILITY GRADE GOOD-AVERAGE GOOD-POOR AVERAGE-POOR 3 8.65* 8.10* -.55 5 13.75* 19.30* 5.55 7 6.65 16.55* 9.90* 8 12.40* 16.55* 4.15 10 2.25 2.75 .50 12 -2.00 2.70 4.70 TOTAL 6.95 10.99* 4.04 * s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l design were calculated using the data from Table 3. These unknown parameters are recorded i n Table 6. TABLE 6 TABLE OF UNKNOWN PARAMETERS FOR THE 3 x 6 FACT0RAL DESIGN ABILITY MAIN GRADE POOR AVERAGE GOOD EFFECT GRADE 3 2.49 -2.10 -.40 -.25 GRADE 5 -3.27 -1.76 5.04 -1.24 GRADE 7 -3.81 2.05 1.75 3.90 GRADE 8 -1.89 -1.78 3.67 -.92 GRADE 10 3.93 .39 -4.31 -1.69 GRADE 12 2.94 3.20 -5.75 .20 MAIN EFFECT -5.01 -.197 5.98 25 The unknown parameters were calculated i n respect to the grand mean. For example, on the basis of the data i n Table 3 and Table 6 i t i s found that within rounding errors 1. (e f f e c t of a b i l i t y poor) = y = y = 50.26 - 55.27 = -5.01 2. (e f f e c t of grade 3) = y . -y 55.02 = 55.27 = -.25 •J • • 3. ( e f f e c t of i n t e r a c t i o n , poor a b i l i t y x grade 3) = Yii - a, - j3, -= 52.5 ± 5.01 + .25 - 55.27 = 2.49 From the above table confidence i n t e r v a l s were established, using the Scheffe test to determine which treatment e f f e c t s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from zero, r e l a t i v e to the grand mean. The three c a l c u l a t i o n s for s i g n i f i c a n t differences follow (Marascuilo and Levin, 1970) : A. Calculations for confidence i n t e r v a l s around i n d i v i d u a l a. used to l determine which treatment e f f e c t of a b i l i t y was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r -ent from zero, using the equation: a. = a. ± S SE. i i a. I where S* = ( I - D F ^ ^ ^ 1-.95 S E S 2 = ^ 1 MS^ J J.N a. = a. ± 1.90 ( c r i t i c a l value) I l Main e f f e c t s for a b i l i t y ai = 5.61* a 2 = -.97 a 3 = 5.98* * s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l 26 According to the c a l c u l a t i o n s , two l e v e l s of a b i l i t y (poor and good) provide s i g n i f i c a n t sources of v a r i a t i o n r e l a t i v e to the grand mean since the estimated treatment e f f e c t s were larger i n absolute value than 1.90. B. Calculations for confidence i n t e r v a l s around i n d i v i d u a l g. used to 3 determine which treatment e f f e c t of grade were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from zero, using the equation: 3. = 3. ± S SE. 3 3 3 where S* = ( J - D F ^ ^ ^ j 1-95 and SE* - * ± ^ E 3 j J I.N 3. = 3. ± 4.09 J J From Table 7 the main e f f e c t s for grade are: 3 3 = .25 35 = 1.24 37 = -3.90 3s = -92 g 1 0 = 1-69 g 1 2 = -.20 Therefore no simple l e v e l of grade r e l a t i v e to grand mean represents s i g n i f i c a n t sources of v a r i a t i o n since each estimated treatment e f f e c t was smaller i n absolute value than 4.08. C. Calculations f o r confidence i n t e r v a l s around each c e l l i n t e r a c t i o n with the e f f e c t s of grades and a b i l i t y removed, used to determine which i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from zero r e l a t i v e to grand mean. Y. . = Y. . ± S E„. . = Y.. ± 7.41 where 5 2 - ( I - 1 ) ( J - 1 > F ( I - 1 ) ( J - 1 ) , IJ(N-l) x ~ a  S E 2 „ ( I - 1 ) ( J - D MS E 27 Therefore no simple combinations of grades and a b i l i t y were s o l e l y responsible for the s i g n i f i c a n t F - r a t i o f o r i n t e r a c t i o n i n the analysis of variance table as not even the largest Y = -5.75 was outside the confidence i n t e r v a l . Since the Scheffe i s considered a very conservative t e s t and since simple i n t e r a c t i o n s have not proved s i g n i f i c a n t , Marascuilo and Levin (1970) suggest that an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of contrasts in v o l v i n g two or more inter a c t i o n s would be necessary to i d e n t i f y reasons for r e j e c t i o n . In order to f i n d these s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s the data were re-analyzed using the c a l c u l a t i o n s suggested by Marascuilo and Levin. One of the main questions of t h i s study was concerned with whether the s e l f concept i n early grades varied more with the reading a b i l i t y than i n the higher grades ( i . e . , the spread between means for good/poor or good/average or average/poor was greater at some grade l e v e l s than the corresponding spread i n other grade l e v e l s ) . Therefore, these r e l a t i o n -ships were f i r s t investigated for pa i r s of grades. The following table presents the tetrad differences between a b i l i t y groups f o r d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s . i . e . , ¥ = (Y.. - Y... , ) - (Y. , . + Y. , . ,) i j 13 1 3 i J The Scheffe equation (Marascuilo and Levin, 1970) was used to e s t a b l i s h confidence i n t e r v a l s around the tetrad d i f f e r e n c e s . = A. - A., ± S SE-AB I x' Ax-Ax' The table shows no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences between pai r s of means between any two grades, as none reached the c r i t i c a l value of 20.02. The simple tetrad differences were proved to be not s i g n i f i c a n t , yet, according to Scheffe's Theorem, i f the i n i t i a l test of hypothesis i s 28 TABLE 7 TABLE OF TETRAD DIFFERENCES FOR SPREAD OF MEANS BETWEEN TWO ABILITY GROUPS FOR PAIRS OF GRADES DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRADES GOOD-AVERAGE GOOD-POOR AVERAGE-POOR 3- 5 -5.10 -11.20 -.61 3- 7 2.00 -8.45 -10.45 3- 8 -3.75 -8.45 -4.70 3-10 6.40 5.35 -1.05 3-12 10.65 5.40 -5.25 5- 7 7.10 2.75 -4.35 5- 8 1.35 2.75 1.40 5-10 11.50 16.55 5.05 5-12 15.75 16.60 .85 7- 8 -5.75 0 5.75 7-10 4.40 13.80 9.40 7-12 8.65 13.85 5.20 8-10 10.15 13.80 3.65 8-12 14.40 13.85 -.55 10-12 4.25 .05 4.20 s i g n i f i c a n t there must also e x i s t some rela t e d contrasts which are also s i g n i f i c a n t . Marascuilo and Levin (1970) suggest that the researcher then collapse over c e l l s i n meaningful ways to produce more complex contrasts i n differences. Since part of the o r i g i n a l problem was to contrast the r e l a t i o n between reading and s e l f concept at the lower grades with the corresponding r e l a t i o n s h i p s at the higher grades, the c o l l a p s i n g of c e l l means was done i n three d i f f e r e n t ways to set up three d i f f e r e n t ways of comparing lower versus higher grades. The f i r s t comparison was between the three lower grades and the three higher grades (3,5,7:8,10,12). Because many of the opportunities f o r students to s p e c i a l i z e i n programs s t a r t a f t e r grade eight, and since involvement i n school a c t i v i t e s , other than classes, often become greater a f t e r the f i r s t year i n high school a second comparison was made between the four lower grades (3,5,7, and 8) and the two senior grades (10 and 12). A t h i r d comparison was then made between the two lower grades and the two middle grades and the two upper grades (3,5:7,8:10,12). The computer program, BMD:10V, (Bjerring et a l , 1975) was used to cal c u l a t e means, standard deviations and ANOVA tables f o r each of the above contrasts, (these are presented i n Appendix B), and the r e s u l t s were analyzed by the Scheffe equation to test for s i g n i f i c a n t differences of i n t e r a c t i o n (Marascuilo and Levin, 1970). = A. = A. , ± S SE„. x., n !, AB I i Ai - A i ' a =.05 The c a l c u l a t i o n s for each grouping follows. A. Calculations for grades 3,5,7 vs. 8,10,12. Differences between means of a b i l i t y groups for each l e v e l of grades. GOOD-POOR GOOD-AVER. AVER.-POOR grades 3,5,7 14.65 9.68 4.97 grades 8,10,12 7.34 4.22 3.12 TETRAD DIFFERENCES (3,5,7) - (8,10,12) 7.31* 5.46 1.85 The c r i t i c a l value by the Scheffe equation was 6.30. Therefore d i f f e r -ences for means of good readers from means of poor readers for lower grades 3,5,7, was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from those differences for upper grades, 8,10,12. 30 B. Calculations for grades 3,5,7,8 vs. 10,12. Differences between means of a b i l i t y groups for each level of grades. GOOD-POOR GOOD-AVER. AVER.-POOR grades 3,5,7,8 15.13 grades 10,12 2.72 TETRAD DIFFERENCES (3,5,7,8) - (10,12) 12.41** 10.37 .12 10.25** 4.77 2.60 2.16 The c r i t i c a l value by the Scheffe equation was 2.71. Therefore the averaged means for grades 3,5,7,8 were significantly different from the averaged means for grade 10 and 12 in differences between good and poor readers good and average readers at a = .01. C. Calculations for grades 3,5 vs. 7,8 vs. 10,12. Differences between means of a b i l i t y groups for each level of grades. GOOD-POOR GOOD-AVER. AVER.-POOR grades 3,5 13.70 grades 7,8 16.55 grades 10,12 2.72 TETRAD DIFFERENCES (3,5) - (7,8) -3.85 (3,5) - (10,12) 10.98 (7,8) - (10,12) 13.83* 11.20 2.50 9.53 7.02 .12 2.60 1.67 4.52 11.08* -.10 9.41 4.42 Therefore the The c r i t i c a l value of the Scheffe equation is 10.23. spread between means of good and poor readers was not significantly different for grades (3,5) from (7,8) but was significant between each of these grade level groups and grades (10,12). The spread between good and average readers for grades (3,5) was significantly different from the corresponding spread for grades (10,12). CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS Summary The purpose of this study was to determine i f reading a b i l i t y was related to self concept and to what extent they were related at various grade levels. Previous studies had shown a positive relationship in primary grades where most research had been concentrated, but l i t t l e research had been done using the normal range of high school students. Furthermore, most studies used different measures of self concept and of reading a b i l i t y so that i t was d i f f i c u l t to compare the results of d i f f e r -ent studies. This study is unique in that i t takes groups of good, average and poor readers in intermediate and secondary grades to study the relationship between reading and self concept, using one measure of self concept and correlated measures of reading a b i l i t y . The subjects who participated in this study were 360 students in grades three, five, seven, eight, ten and twelve in one school d i s t r i c t . There were sixty students in each grade level—twenty good, twenty average and twenty poor readers, as determined by subjects' scores on the Nelson  Reading Test or the Nelson Denny Reading Test. Each of these subjects responded to the Piers Harris Children's Self Concept Scale which yielded a score indicating positive self concept. The data were analyzed in order to accept or reject two hypotheses: 1) There w i l l be no significant differences between correlations of 32 33 reading and s e l f concept for grades three, f i v e , seven, eight, ten and twelve. 2) There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between means on the s e l f concept scale f o r groups of poor, average and good readers at various grade l e v e l s . The f i r s t hypothesis was tested by c o r r e l a t i n g raw scores on the reading tests with s e l f concept scores at each grade l e v e l . Correlations were subjected to post hoc tes t s to f i n d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . The second hypothesis was tested within a three by s i x f a c t o r a l design. An analysis of variance was done followed by Scheffe tests to f i n d the s i g n i f i c a n t differences f o r l e v e l s of main e f f e c t s and for s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s between means and between pai r s of means. Conclusions and Discussion Both of the n u l l hypotheses posed i n t h i s research study were rejected so that: H : vi ± r 2 # • . • t r, o k H : M.. ^ M.,., Several questions were posed as part of the research problem. The f i r s t question asked i f reading and s e l f concept were p o s i t i v e l y corre-lated at any of the s i x grade l e v e l s studied. Correlations were p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t for grades three, f i v e , seven, eight and ten but as not s i g n i f i c a n t for grade twelve. The second question asked whether there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the c o r r e l a t i o n s of reading a b i l i t y and s e l f concept for the various grade l e v e l s . The s t a t i s t i c a l analysis showed that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e . Furthermore, i t appeared from the data that reading a b i l i t y and s e l f concept were most highly 34 correlated at the middle grades ( f i v e , seven and eight) and that t h i s c o r r e l a t i o n dropped as c h i l d r e n progressed through high school so that the c o r r e l a t i o n for grade twelve was not s i g n i f i c a n t . The t h i r d question asked whether there were s i g n i f i c a n t d ifferences between group means for d i f f e r e n t a b i l i t y groups within each grade, and whether these differences varied s i g n i f i c a n t l y from grade to grade. From the analyses of data, i t appeared that there were s i g n i f i c a n t d ifferences between the s e l f concept of good and poor readers at the grades three, f i v e , seven and eight l e v e l s , but that these differences decreased by grade ten and were not s i g n i f i c a n t for grade twelve. The differences between the s e l f concept of good readers and the s e l f concept of poor readers were greatest for grades f i v e , seven and eight. Some data from t h i s study appear to c o n f l i c t with the majority of data from previous research studies, which generally showed higher corre-l a t i o n s between reading scores and s e l f concept scores f o r primary grades than for higher grades. The data from t h i s study show a lower, although s i g n i f i c a n t and p o s i t i v e , c o r r e l a t i o n for grade three than for grades f i v e , seven and eight. One can only conjecture on causes for t h i s discrepancy, but two factors may help to explain t h i s . The f i r s t i s that according to the grade three teachers, the majority of poor readers i n the primary grades are not as yet aware of t h e i r poorer l e v e l of reading a b i l i t y compared to the average readers, for two reasons. One i s that the actual reading lessons are usually done i n readers written for d i f f e r e n t reading a b i l i t y l e v e l s . Secondly, i n grade three there i s not yet an emphasis on reading s k i l l s to succeed i n other subject areas such as s o c i a l studies, science and even math. However, good readers, because they tend to read more often and may be given the opportunity to do more reading oriented 35 projects i n other subject areas, do r e a l i z e t h e i r a b i l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s . The other possible cause for the discrepancy i s that both grade three poor readers and grade f i v e poor readers had unequal numbers of boys (11) and g i r l s (9) i n each c e l l . This was due to the fa c t that i n both grade three and i n grade f i v e , the boys outnumbered the g i r l s i n t o t a l grade, poor reading groups. As the mean s e l f concept for g i r l s i n the grade three poor reading c e l l i s lower than that for the boys, the t o t a l group mean may have been lower had the number of g i r l s and boys been even (see Appendix A). The data i n t h i s study do not, of course, show what factors i n f l u -ence the r e l a t i o n s h i p between reading a b i l i t y and s e l f concept at the d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s or why the c o r r e l a t i o n s between these v a r i a b l e s decrease as the c h i l d reaches the upper grades. However, several ideas are presented here which might account for the changes. When a c h i l d enters school he i s very much concerned with success i n school, mainly as a r e f l e c t i o n of the concerns of h i s parents and, to some extent, h i s teachers (the s i g n i f i c a n t others). In the early grades success i n reading i s a large part of the measure for success i n school. Also, most of the c h i l d ' s concern i n school i s with i n - c l a s s work. As the c h i l d grows older he may become more involved i n other a f t e r school or peer group a c t i v i t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y i f he i s not a t t a i n i n g much success with academic a c t i v i t i e s . This involvement with a c t i v i t i e s not rel a t e d to academic achievement becomes more important as the c h i l d grows older, so that i n adolescence, peer acceptance i s often as, or more, important than success i n school subjects. For example, a boy who i s star of the basketball team or who plays i n a l o c a l rock band on weekends w i l l probably regard these a c t i v i t i e s and the peer status they bring as more 36 important than good reading a b i l i t y and success i n academic subjects. As well as t h i s , the student can, when he reaches high school, el e c t more courses each year on the basis of personal i n t e r e s t — o n e s for which reading s k i l l i s not p r e r e q u i s i t e for success. Students i n grade eight i n B r i t i s h Columbia are s t i l l , for the most part, heterogeneously grouped and required to take Math, English, S o c i a l Studies, Science and French, generally without any appreciable streaming for a b i l i t y . However, a f t e r grade eight, students are often streamed by a b i l i t y , whether into academic, vocational, occupational or work experience programs or into l e v e l s one, two and three, based on achievement. As the student advances through the secondary grades he has to take fewer required courses each year u n t i l , i n grade twelve, English 12 i s the only required course and a l l other subjects may be elected from h i s own vocational i n t e r e s t areas ( I n d u s t r i a l Arts, Community Service, S e c r e t a r i a l A r t s , Food Services, Fine Arts or Academic courses). By grade nine or ten, students also become much more involved with peer oriented pursuits such as sports, students' counsel, part time jobs and s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s i n which they may a t t a i n success. Cert a i n l y the fa c t that schools today aim more than ever before at providing success experiences for each i n d i v i d u a l w i l l have i t s e f f e c t s on the s e l f concepts of those i n d i v i d u a l s . Suggestions for Future Research The r e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest several areas i n which further research may be directed. Since the v a l i d i t y of any measure of a con-s t r u c t such as s e l f concept i s always i n question to some extent, a r e p l i -cation of t h i s study might be done using a d i f f e r e n t measure of s e l f c o n c e p t — e i t h e r another s e l f report measure or a teachers' or peers' 37 rating scale or a combination of the two. As the correlations for reading and self concept for grades five, seven and eight were very similar and the drop in correlations appears, from this data, to occur after grade eight, a similar study might be done with grades eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve, to see where and how the correlations vary within these grades and to ascertain where the correla-tions decrease through the secondary grades. A third area towards which research may be directed i s a study over time, testing the same students in grade eight, grade ten and grade twelve, to see how the group means for these students change as they progress through school, especially the change in self concept for poor and good readers. 38 REFERENCES B a i l y , R. "Self Concept Differences i n Low and High Achieving Children," Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 27, 1971, 188-191. Bazemore, J. S., and W. K. Gwaltny. "Personality and Reading Achievement— The use of c e r t a i n personality factors as discriminatory," C a l i f o r n i a Journal of Educational Research, 24, 3, 1973, 114-119. Beatty, W. H. i n Improving Assessment and an Inventory Of Measures of  A f f e c t i v e Behavior, W. H. Beatty (Ed.), N.E.A. Association for Supervision of Curriculum Development, Washington, 1969. Beretta, S. " S e l f Concept Development i n the Reading Program," Reading  Teacher, 24, 1970, 232-238. Bje r r i n g , J . H., Greig, M., and Holm, J. (Adapted by). General Linear  Hypothesis Computer Program. (UBC BMD:10V), Health Sciences Computing F a c i l i t y , UCLA & Berkeley, 1975. Bodwin, R. F. "The Relationship Between Immature Self Concepts and Certain Educational D i s a b i l i t i e s , " D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts, 19, 1645-1646. Bond, Guy L., and Miles A. Tinker. Reading D i f f i c u l t i e s , Their Diagnosis  and Correction. Appleton Century Crofts, New York, 1957. Bonney, M. E. "Sex Differences i n S o c i a l Success and Personality T r a i t s , " Child Development, 15, 1944, 63-79. Buros, Oscar Krisen (Ed.), Mental Measurements Yearbook, Sixth E d i t i o n , The Gryphon Press, New Jersey, 1968. Buros, Oscar Krisen (Ed.), Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook, The Gryphon Press, New Jersey, 1972. Brownfain, John J . " S t a b i l i t y of Self Concept as a Dimension of Personality," Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 47, 1952, 597-606. Bruck, M. A Study of Age Differences and Sex Differences i n the R e l a t i o n - ship between Self Concept and Grade Point Average, unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , 1957. Bruck, M., and R. F. Bodwin. "The Relationship Between Self Concept and the Presence or Absence of Scholastic Underachievement," Journal  of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 18, 1962, 181-182. Butcher, D. G. A study of the Relationship of Student Self-Concept to  Academic Achievement i n Six High Achieving Elementary Schools, Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , U n i v e r s i t y Micro-f i l m s , Ann Arbor, Mi., No. 68-7872, 1967. 39 Campbell, P. B. "School and Self Concept," Educational Leadership, 24, 1967, 510-515. Caplln, M. D. "The Relationship Between Self Concept and Academic Achieve-ment, Between Levels of A s p i r a t i o n and Academic Achievement," D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts, 27, 1966, 979A. Carter, T. P. "The Negative Self Concepts of Mexican American Students," School and Society, 96, 1968, 217-219. C a t t e l , R. B. Personality: A Systematic, Theoretical and Factual Study. New York, McGraw H i l l , 1950. Cole, J . L. "The Relationship of Selected Personality Variables to Academic Achievement of Average Aptitude Third Grades," Journal of  Educational Research, 67, 7, 1974, 329-330. Combs, A. W. i n Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming, ASCD Yearbook, A. W. Combs, Chairman, National Education Association, Washington, 1962. Coopersmith, S. "A Method for Determining Types of Self Esteem," Journal  of Educational Psychology, 59, 1959, 87-94. Coopersmith, S. The Antecedents of Self Esteem. W. H. Freedman and Company, San Francisco, 1967. DeBlassie, R. R., and G. W. Headley. Self-Concept—a comparison of Spanish American, Negro and Anglo Adolescents across Ethnic, Sex  and Socioeconomic Variables. New Mexico State U n i v e r s i t y , ERIC CRIER Microfilms, No. Ed 037287, 1969. Edwards, A l l e n L. S t a t i s t i c a l Methods, Third E d i t i o n , Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. Erikson, E. H. Childhood and Society. New York, Norton, 1950. Evans, E. D. ( E d i t o r ) . Children, Readings i n Behavior and Development. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. Fink, M. B. " S e l f Concept as i t Relates to Academic Underachievement," C a l i f o r n i a Journal of Educational Research, 13, 1962, 57-62. Gann, E. Reading D i f f i c u l t i e s and Personality Organization. New York, King's Crown Press, 1945. Glass, G. V., and Stanley, J . C. S t a t i s t i c a l Methods i n Education and  Psychology. P r e n t i c e - H a l l , New Jersey, 1970. Halm, Jason. Co r r e l a t i o n with Transgeneration. (UBC BMD:02D), Health Sciences Computing F a c i l i t y , UCLA and Berkeley, 1970. 40 Hamachek, D. C. The Self i n Growth, Teaching and Learning. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey, P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1965. Hess, Anne and H. L. Bradshaw. "Positiveness of Self Concept and Ideal Self as a Function of Age," Journal of Genetic Psychology, 35, 1970, 57-67. Holmes, J. A. "Emotional Factors and Reading D i s a b i l i t i e s , " The Reading  Teacher, 9, 1955, 11-17. Hughes, T. M. "A Study of the Relationships of Coping Strength to Self  Concepts, School Achievement and General Anxiety Scale," Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Tennessee, University Microfilms, No. 68-3747, 1967. Hurlock, E. B. Adolescent Development, Second E d i t i o n . McGraw H i l l , 1967. J e r s i l d , A. T. In Search of S e l f . New York, Bureau of Pu b l i c a t i o n s , Columbia University, 1952. Jones, John G., and Laurabeth Gienecks. "Measure of Self Perceptions as Predictors of Scholastic Achievement," Journal of Educational  Research, 63, 5, 1970, 201-203. Kinch, J . W. "Theory of the Self Concept," Journal of Sociology, 68, 1963, 481-486. Kunst, Mary S. "Psychological Treatment i n Reading D i s a b i l i t i e s , " C l i n i c a l Studies i n Reading, Supplementary Education Monographs, 68, University of Chicago Press, 1940. Labene, W. D., and B. F. Greene. Educational Implications of the Self  Concept Theory. Goodyear Publishing Company, P a c i f i c Palisades, C a l i f o r n i a , 1969. Lang, M. W. "Relationship of Self Perceptions of early Primary Children to Achievement i n Reading," i n Human Development, Readings i n  Research, I. J . Gordon, ( E d i t o r ) , Chicago, .Scott, Foresman and Co., 1965. Lumpkin, D. D. The Relationship of Self Concept to Achievement i n Reading, unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1959. Lundholm, H. "Reflections upon the Nature of Psychological S e l f , " Psychological Review, 47, 1940, 110-127. Marascuilo, L. A. S t a t i s t i c a l Methods for Behavioral Science Research. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1971. 41 Marascuilo, L. A., and J . R. Levin. Appropriate Post Hoc Comparisons for Interaction and Nested Hypotheses i n Analysis of Variance Designs: The Elimination of Type IV Errors," American Educational Research  Journal, 7, 3, 1970, 397-421. Maslov, A. H. Motivation and Personality. New York, Harper, 1954. Mayer, C. L. A study of the Relationship of Early Special Class Placement  and the Self Concept of Mentally Handicapped Children, unpublished D. Ed. D i s s e r t a t i o n , Syracuse University, 1965. Mazurkiewicz, A. J . " S o c i a l C u l t u r a l Influences of Reading," Journal of  Developmental Reading, 3, 1940, 254-263. McClendon, P. R. The Relationship of Selected Aspects of the A f f e c t i v e  Domain to Reading Achievement at the F i r s t Grade Level, Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n , F l o r i d a State U n i v e r s i t y , U n i v e r s i t y Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mi., No. 67-724, 1968. Neal, Carolyn M. "The Relationship of Personality Variables to Reading A b i l i t y , " C a l i f o r n i a Journal of Educational Research, 18, 3, 1967, 133-144. Pollack, S. M. The Relationship of Self Concept of Achievement i n Reading  i n Primary Grades, Ed. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts, 33, 1972, 2243-A. Purkey, W. Self Concept and School Achievement. P r e n t i c e - H a l l , New Jersey, 1970. Oakland, J . A. "Measurement of personality correlates of the problems of s c h o l a s t i c achievement i n high school students," Journal of  Counseling Psychology, 16, 5, 1969, 452-457. Quimby, V i o l e t . "Differences i n the s e l f i d e a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of an achiever and an underachiever group," C a l i f o r n i a Journal of  Educational Research, 1, 1967, 23-31. Rogers, C. R. C l i e n t Centered Therapy, Its Current P r a c t i c e , Implications  and Theory. Boston, Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1951. Rushley, V. M. A study of the Relationship of Self Concept, Socio Economic  Background, and P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c A b i l i t i e s to Reading Achievement  of Second Grade Males Residing i n a Suburban Area, Doctoral Disser-t a t i o n , Wayne State University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mi., No. 71-448, 1970. Sarbin, T. R. "A preface to a psychological analysis of s e l f , " Psychological  Review, 59, 1952, 11-22. 42 Shaw, M e r v i l l e , C , Kenneth Edson, and Hugh M. B e l l . "The s e l f concept of bright underachieving high school students as revealed by the adjective c h e c k l i s t , " Personnel and Guidance Journal, 39, 1960. Siegel, M. "The personality structure of c h i l d r e n with reading d i s a b i l -i t i e s as compared with c h i l d r e n presenting other c l i n i c a l problems," The Nervous C h i l d , 10, 1954, 409-413. Snygg, D., and A. W. Combs. Individual Behavior, A Perceptual Approach  to Behavior, New York, Harper, 1949. Soares, A. T., and L. M. Soares. " S e l f perceptions of c u l t u r a l l y disad-vantaged c h i l d r e n , " American Educational Research Journal, 1969, 31-45. Soares, A. T., and L. M. Soares. "Comparative differences i n s e l f perceptions of disadvantaged and advantaged c h i l d r e n , " Journal of  School Psychology, 9, 4, 1971, 424-429. Soares, A. T., and L. M. Soares. "Tests of s e l f concept as Measures of Personality," ERIC CRIER microfiche, ED 076638, 1973. Spache, George D. "Personality C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of retarded readers as measured by the p i c t u r e f r u s t r a t i o n study," Educational and  Psychological Measurement, Supplement on Reading Research, 14, 1954, 186-192. Strang, Ruth. "Diagnosis and Remediation" i n Readings i n General Education, William S. Grey (Ed.), American Council on Education, Washington, 1940. Walsh, A. M. Self Concepts of Bright Boys with Learning D i f f i c u l t i e s , New York Bureau of Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1956. Wattenberg, W. W., and C. C l i f f o r d . "Relations of Self Concept to Beginning Achievement i n reading," Child Development, 46, 1967, 478-481. Wiley, R. C. The Self Concept, Revised E d i t i o n , University of Nebraska Press, 1974. Williams, Jean H. "The Relationship of Self Concept and Reading Achieve-ment i n F i r s t Grade Children," Journal of Educational Research, 66, 8, 1973. Williams, Robert L., and Spurgeon Cole. "Self Concept and School Achieve-ment," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 46, 1967. Zimmerman, I. L., and G. N. Allebrand. "Personality C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Attitudes Toward Achievement of Good and Poor Readers," Journal of  Educational Research, 59, 1965, 28-30. 43 APPENDIX A Fa c t o r a l Design for Grades vs. A b i l i t y vs. Sex on Dependent Variable Self Concept A b i l i t y Grade Sex Poor N Average N . Good N . . Tot a l 3 F M 45.33 58.36 9 11 50.20 53.70 10 10 59.40 61.80 10 10 51.86 57.97 55. 02 5 F M 40.87 49.73 9 11 49.50 53.10 10 10 61.40 68.70 10 10 50.93 56.94 54. 03 7 F M 50.20 50.50 10 10 58.80 61.70 10 10 68.50 65.30 10 10 59.17 59.17 59. 17 8 F M 47.60 47.30 10 10 51.40 51.80 10 10 62.50 65.50 10 10 53.83 54.87 54. 35 10 F M 52.70 52.30 10 10 51.20 54.80 10 10 49.10 61.40 10 10 51.00 56.17 53. 47 12 F M 53.90 52.10 10 10 53.60 61.80 10 10 53.80 57.60 10 10 53.77 57.17 55. 47 TOTAL F M 48.62 51.79 58 62 52.45 56.15 60 60 59.12 63.38 60 60 53.45 57.05 GRAND TOTAL 50.26 120 54.30 120 61.25 120 55 27 Analysis of Variance Table for Grades vs. A b i l i t y vs. Sex on Dependent Variable Self Concept Source Sum of Squares D.F. Mean Square F P r o b a b i l i t y A b i l i t y 7629.4 2 3814.7 36.76743 .000 Grades 1261.3 5 252.26 2.43138 .03493 Sex 1263.0 1 1263.0 12.17359 .00055 Interaction A b i l i t y x Sex 14.741 2 7.3705 0.07104 .93144 Interaction A b i l i t y x Grade 3512.7 10 351.27 3.38567 .00035 Interaction Grade x Sex 571.25 5 114.25 1.10118 .35961 Interaction T o t a l 1193.3 10 119.33 1.15011 .32394 Error 33616. 324 103.75 There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n for a b i l i t y and sex or for grade and sex i n t o t a l design. 44 APPENDIX B Means, Standard Deviations, N's, and Analysis of Variance Tables from Computer Program BMD:10V Analysis of A b i l i t y Groups Collapses over Grades I. Grades 3,5,7 versus 8,10,12 Grades Poor Average Good Tot a l 3,5,7 Mean 49.53 54.50 64.18 56.07 N. 60 60 60 180 S.D. 12.42 11.43 8.87 12.53 8,10,12 Mean 50.98 54.10 58.32 54.47 N. 60 60 60 180 S.D. 9.43 9.43 10.03 10.69 ANOVA Table Source Sum of Squares D.F. Mean Square P r o b a b i l i t y A b i l i t y Grades Interaction Error 7418.2 232.00 868.41 40298. 2 3709.1 32.58244 1 232.00 2.03803 2 434.20 3.81425 354 113.84 .0000 .15429 .02297 I I . Grades 3,5,7,8 versus 10,12 Grades 3,5,7,* Mean N. S.D. Poor 49.01 80 11.78 Average 53.77 80 11.30 Good 64.14 80 8.37 Total 55.64 240 12.30 10,12 Mean 52.75 55.35 55.47 54.52 N. 40 40 40 120 S.D. 8.87 10.10 11.68 10.27 45 Appendix B, continued ANOVA Table Sum of Mean Source Squares D.F. Square F P r o b a b i l i t y A b i l i t y 4291.7 2 2145.9 19.49821 .0000 Grades 99.756 1 99.756 0.90643 .34171 Interaction 2339.9 2 1170.0 10.63089 .00003 Error 38959. 354 110.05 I I I . Grades 3, ,5 versus : 7,8 versus 10,12 Grades Poor Average Good Tot a l 3,5 Mean N. S.D. 49.12 40 12.27 51.62 40 11.68 62.82 40 9.40 54.52 120 12.60 7,8 Mean N. S.D. 48.90 40 11.43 55.92 40 10.61 65.45 40 7.08 56.76 120 11.94 10,12 Mean N. S.D. 52.75 40 8.87 55.35 40 10.10 55.47 40 11.68 54.52 120 10.27 ANOVA Table Source Sum of Squares Mean D.F. Square F P r o b a b i l i t y A b i l i t y 7418.2 2 3709.1 33.85895 .00000 Grades 399.02 2 199.51 1.82127 .16335 Interaction 2549.3 4 637.32 5.81790 .00015 Error 38450. 351 109.55 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078244/manifest

Comment

Related Items