Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A status survey of reading programs in British Columbia secondary schools : 1976 Kinzer, Charles K. 1976

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 K55.pdf [ 4.48MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078246.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078246-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078246-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078246-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078246-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078246-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078246-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078246-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078246.ris

Full Text

A STATUS SURVEY OF READING PROGRAMS IN BRITISH COLOMBIA SECONDARY SCHOOLS: 1976 by C h a r l e s K. K i n z e r B . A . , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia , 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n ' THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f Read ing , F a c u l t y of Educat ion) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d . THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1976 0 Charles K. Kinzer 1976 In p r e s e n t i n g th i s thes is in pa r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co l umb i a , I ag r ee t ha t the L ibrary s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree that p e r m i s s i o n for e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y pu rpo se s may be g r a n t e d by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n sha l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f Reading Education The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 September, 1976 i i i ABSTRACT T h i s s tudy i s a d e s c r i p t i v e survey o f secondary r e a d i n g programs i n B r i t i s h Columbia . A review of the l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e d t h a t secondary r e a d i n g programs were l a r g e l y r e m e d i a l or deve lopmenta l i n n a t u r e , with t e a c h e r s of such programs having l i t t l e t r a i n i n g i n r e a d i n g e d u c a t i o n . A l l 331 secondary s c h o o l s i n the p r o v i n c e Df B r i t i s h Columbia were surveyed u s ing a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n of H i l l ' s (1975) q u e s t i o n n a i r e . , Responses were sought from the s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . A stamped, addressed r e t u r n envalope was i n c l u d e d with the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . An i n i t i a l and f o l l o w - u p m a i l i n g y i e l d e d a r e t u r n of 88.8%. R e s u l t s wers a n a l y s e d through the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ' s computer f a c i l i t i e s u s i n g the s t a n d a r d L a b o r a t o r y Of E d u c a t i o n a l Research Tes t A n a l y s i s Package and the M u l t i v a r i a t e Cont ingency T a b u l a t i o n s computer programs. The r e s u l t s f o r the p o p u l a t i o n used i n t h i s s tudy are i n g e n e r a l agreement with the f i n d i n g noted i n the review of the l i t e r a t u r e . The m a j o r i t y of secondary r e a d i n g programs i n the p r o v i n c e are r e m e d i a l and/or deve lopmenta l i n n a t u r e . Many a d m i n i s t r a t o r s - are d i s s a t i s f i e d wi th the e x i s t i n g r e a d i n g programs i n t h e i r s c h o o l s . Most t e a c h e r s o f secondary r e a d i n g were found to have l i t t l e t r a i n i n g i n r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . A comparison o f a v a i l a b l e secondary read ing programs, t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' a t t i t u d e s towar i r e a d i n g programs, and a v a i l a b i l i t y of s p e c i a l , i n - s c h o o l r e a d i n g f a c i l i t i e s i s mads between j u n i o r and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s . X V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . ; v i Chapter 1. THE PROBLEM 1 RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY .. 1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 4 DEFINITION OF TERMS USED 5 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS . ... 7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 7 ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE STUDY . 8 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 9 THE QUESTIONNAIRE AS A RESEARCH TOOL 9 SURVEY STUDIES OF READING PROGRAMS 12 SUMMARY 25 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY 27 THE INSTRUMENT ................................. 27 THE POPULATION 29 PROCEDURE 30 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 32 SUMMARY 33 4. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION , 34 INTRODUCTION 34 Chapter Page THE QUESTIONS ANSWERED 35 OTHER FINDINGS . . ... 42 DISCUSSION 44 SUMMARY .. 45 5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 56 INTRODUCTION . 56 SUMMARY . . . . . . 56 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 57 PROCEDURES AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ......... 58 CONCLUSIONS 59 RECOMMENDATIONS 61 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ........... 62 REFERENCES 64 APPENDICES 69 A. THE DATA GATHERING INSTRUMENT 70 B. THE COVERING LETTER SENT WITH THE INITIAL MAILING 78 C. LETTER TO THE PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 80 D. REPLY FROM THE PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 82 E. THE COVERING LETTER SENT WITH THE SECOND MAILING 84 v i LIST OF TABLES T a b l e Page 1. Key to Code Numbers As s i gned to Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2. Number and Types o f Secondary Reading Programs A v a i l a b l e i n B r i t i s h Columbia . . . . . . . . 47 3. A v a i l a b i l i t y o f Secondary Reading Programs i n Grades 8-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 4. A v a i l a b i l i t y o f Secondary Reading Programs With Regard t o P o p u l a t i o n Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5. Reasons f o r t h e Lack o f a Secondary Reading Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 6. A v a i l a b i l i t y and Types o f Secondary Reading Programs i n J u n i o r and S e n i o r Secondary S c h o o l s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 7. S p e c i a l T r a i n i n g i n Reading I n s t r u c t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia Secondary Reading Teacher s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 8. Growth of Secondary Reading Programs i n B r i t i s h Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 9. A d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' O p i n i o n s Regard ing Secondary Reading Programs Weeding the G r e a t e s t Support over the Next S e v e r a l Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 10. A d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' A t t i t u d e s Toward Reading Programs i n t h e i r Schoo l s . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 11. A d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' A t t i t u d e s Toward Secondary Reading Programs Compared to Teacher T r a i n i n g o f Reading Teachers 51 12. Teacher T r a i n i n g R e l a t e d t o Number and Types o f A v a i l a b l e Secondary Reading Programs 52 13. A v a i l a b i l i t y o f Secondary Reading Programs R e l a t e d t o S c h o o l S i ze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 14. Number and Types o f Secondary Reading Programs which have Decreased S ince 1 9 7 0 . . . . . . 53 15. Secondary Reading A c t i v i t i e s T a k i n g P lace i n I n - s c h o o l R e a d i n g . F a c i l i t i e s 53 v i i Table Page 16. Amount of S p e c i a l i z e d T r a i n i n g i n Secondary Reading I n s t r u c t i o n R e l a t e d t o Teachers Teaching i n an I n - s c h o o l Reading F a c i l i t y 54 17. Number o f Secondary School s u s i n g S t a n d a r d i z e d Tes t s i n Reading on a Grade-wide B a s i s 54 18. Reading Assessment Procedure s i n B r i t i s h Columbia Secondary Schoo l s used to Supplement S t a n d a r d i z e d Reading Test Data 55 v l i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish t o expre s s h e a r t f e l t thanks to the f o l l o w i n g p e o p l e : Dr . R. C h e s t e r , a d v i s o r , wi thout whose s u g g e s t i o n s , h e l p and p a t i e n c e t h i s s tudy would not yet be comple ted . Dr. G. M a l l e t t , r e a d e r , f o r h i s comments and g u i d a n c e . D r . L. C o u r t n e y , f o r s u g g e s t i n g t h i s area o f r e s e a r c h . Dr . W. H i l l ; f o r a l l o w i n g the use and m o d i f i c a t i o n of h i s survey i n s t r u m e n t . My w i f e , * R i t a , and my c l o s e f r i e n d . Otto H e l l i g e , ' whose h e l p and encouragement were i n v a l u a b l e . My f a m i l y and f r i e n d s , f o r t h e i r con f idence i n my a b i l i t y t o "keep up the f i g h t " . L a s t l y , to * those who took t ime and responded to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , without whom t h i s r e s e a r c h c o u l d not have t aken p l a c e . 1 CHAPTER I The Problem Al though t h e r e i s much d i s c u s s i o n and concern over the r e a d i n g p r o f i c i e n c y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ' s secondary s c h o o l g r a d u a t e s , t h e r e seems to be l i t t l e or no i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e as to the q u a l i t y , ' q u a n t i t y , o r scope o f read ing i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs i n the secondary s c h o o l s o f the p r o v i n c e . As knowledge of the t y p e s o f r e a d i n g programs a v a i l a b l e would f a c i l i t a t e both comparison o f ' r e a d i n g programs between s c h o o l s and s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s , and f u t u r e p l a n n i n g i n the areas of t e a c h e r and monetary requ i rement s i n r e a d i n g programs, i t i s f e l t t h a t a d e f i n i t i v e survey w i t h regard t o secondary r e a d i n g programs i n B r i t i s h Columbia would be most v a l u a b l e . I. R a t i o n a l e f o r the Study. E a r l y has •* s t a t e d the need f o r o b j e c t i v e , d e t a i l e d , compara t ive d e s c r i p t i o n s o f secondary read ing a c t i v i t i e s ( H i l l , 1975). The above s ta tement seems l o g i c a l , s i n c e on ly through surveys which i n d i c a t e present s t a t u s can programs on a r e g i o n a l b a s i s be compared to t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s of " g o o d " r e a d i n g programs. I t i s on ly through such comparisons t h a t a rea s o f s h o r t c o m i n g s , areas 1 o f - n e c e s s a r y improvement, can be g l e a n e d . M a r t i n (1969) l i s t e d the f o l l o w i n g among j u s t i f i c a t i o n s f o r 2 c o n d u c t i n g a survey as to the s t a t u s of secondary r e a d i n g programs i n the upper midwestern U n i t e d S t a t e s : 1. A growing r e c o g n i t i o n o f the complex i ty of the r e a d i n g proce s s on the h i g h s c h o o l l e v e l , 2. R e c o g n i t i o n by - a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o f the need f o r improv ing the r e a d i n g o f j u n i o r and s e n i o r h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . 3. An a c c e l e r a t e d move toward deve lopmenta l c l a s s e s i n r e a d i n g f o r a l l s t u d e n t s o f a s c h o o l . 4. An i n c r e a s e d * w i l l i n g n e s s t o exper iment wi th many d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of r e a d i n g programs. 5. I n c r e a s e d s t r e s s on -every t eacher a t e a c h e r of r e a d i n g i n "his s u b j e c t . • . 6. An i n c r e a s e 1 i n the demand f o r r ead ing c o n s u l t a n t s and*a-change i n the r o l e o f the r e a d i n g s p e c i a l i s t from a r e m e d i a l t eacher t o a c o n s u l t a n t fo r o t h e r t e a c h e r s . (p.467) The above^reasons are no l e s s v a l i d today i f we wish to determine where the areas o f emphasis i n secondary r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a r e 1 a t - p r e s e n t . Graham (1969) s t a t e d : ' There has-been a s t r o n g upswing of i n t e r e s t i n the t e a c h i n g of r e a d i n g • • a t - the secondary l e v e l . . . . Secondary s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t e a c h e r s ' ' a r e now b e g i n n i n g to r e a l i z e tha t p r o p e r l y p lanned and executed programs are an e f f e c t i v e means of s s o l v i n g ; . . [ r e a d i n g ] problems. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , because-o f l ack o f exper ience i n deve lop ing r e a d i n g programs at the secondary l e v e l , many of these programs tend to be l i m i t e d i n scope and somewhat s u p e r f i c i a l . (p.563) , , T h u s , Graham used a survey t e c h n i q u e to " a s c e r t a i n the s t a t u s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f r ead ing programs i n the p u b l i c secondary s c h o o l s of C a l i f o r n i a . 1 1 Shami (1974) ' s u r v e y e d - o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g e d u c a t i o n a l g o a l s . •He sent 23;990 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s to a c r o s s - s e c t i o n of people i n the s t a t e o f M a r y l a n d . A 51.3% r e t u r n was r e c e i v e d . E l e v e n groups were p o l l e d , i n c l u d i n g s t u d e n t s , p a r e n t s , e d u c a t o r s , b u s i n e s s / i n d u s t r y , e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s , and the g e n e r a l p u b l i c . 3 Of the e l e v e n groups p o l l e d , n i n e c o n s i d e r e d mastery o f r e a d i n g s k i l l s t o be the h i g h e s t e d u c a t i o n a l p r i o r i t y . The rema in ing two groups c o n s i d e r e d i t t o be the second h i g h e s t . Shami s t a t e d : With the growing r e c o g n i t i o n toward a c c o u n t a b i l i t y i n e d u c a t i o n , the p u b l i c w i l l demand a thorough a c c o u n t i n g o f programs i n r e a d i n g . Educator s must r e a l i z e t h i s and prepare t h e i r programs to meet the needs and a s p i r a t i o n s of t h e i r s t u d e n t s . (p. 96) A s t a t u s s u r v e y : o f secondary r e a d i n g programs i n B r i t i s h Columbia would be a s t e p toward r e c o g n i z i n g areas of needed improvement: v The next s tep would be expans ion or m o d i f i c a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g s e c o n d a r y " r e a d i n g programs to meet those needs . The p r o v i n c e ' * o f ' B r i t i s h - C o l u m b i a has seen l i t t l e r e s e a r c h i n the a rea o f r e a d i n g at the secondary l e v e l , and t h e r e has been next t o n o t h i n g done i n the area o f the s t a t u s o f r e a d i n g programs i n the p r o v i n c e as a whole. . C h r o n i s t e r and Ahrendt (1968) a t tempted- such a s u r v e y . T h e i r s t u d y , however, has s e v e r a l s h o r t c o m i n g s . The survey i n s t r u m e n t and the raw data a re not a v a i l a b l e f o r p e r u s a l and a l though a r e t u r n of 100% was c i t e d , s c h o o l s ' w e r e n o t ' b r o k e n down as t o e i t h e r s i z e o r grade l e v e l s encompassed* As over seven year s have passed s i n c e the C h r o n i s t e r - A h r e n d t s t u d y , : a n d s i n c e the secondary s c h o o l s i n B r i t i s h Columbia have grown i n number by over 100, more complete and up- to-da te da t a c o u l d be ga thered and would be of v a l u e . 4 I I . O b j e c t i v e s o f the Study. The major o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s study were t o answer the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s : 1. What reading programs are c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e i n B r i t i s h Columbia's secondary schools? 2. What are' the major reasons given f o r a l a c k of reading"programs? 3 . I s t h e r e " a ' d i f f e r e n c e i n type and number of readin g programs between j u n i o r and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s ? 4 . What are'tne s p e c i a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , i f any, of the;teachers of secondary r e a d i n g programs? 5 . Has*' t h e r e been" a t r e n d toward expansion of secondary r e a d i n g programs? I f so, i n which area {e.^giV'"remedial, developmental, etc.) has the g r e a t e s t expansion occurred? 6. What - do "the people being surveyed f e e l w i l l be the area "(in secondary reading) needing the most a t t e n t i o n and support i n f u t u r e ? 7. What i s " t h e r e a c t i o n of the people being surveyed r e g a r d i n g t h e - c o n t r i b u t i o n of the reading program i n t h e i r " s c h o o l ? 8. I s ' 'there an - o b s e r v a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between teacher t r a i n i n g and types of reading programs o f f e r e d i n s c h o o l s ? 5 9. I s t h e r e 1 a n observab le r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c h o o l s i z e and r e a d i n g programs o f f e r e d i n secondary s c h o o l s ? I I I . D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms Psed a l though ' the terms used in- t h i s study a re those o f t e n encountered i n s t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e , t h e i r meanings may vary s l i g h t l y from author to a u t h o r . as t h i s s tudy i s based on a survey conducted by q u e s t i o n n a i r e , i t i s most i m p o r t a n t f o r a l l concerned to know the o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s which were a s s i gned t o the f o l l o w i n g terms. The d e f i n i t i o n s were i n c l u d e d i n the survey i n s t r u m e n t . The f i r s t f i v e d e f i n i t i o n s were taken from a q u e s t i o n n a i r e d e v e l o p e d b y Dr . H. H i l l (1975). Qggan^zed-'Reading A c t i v i t y ^ Any r e g u l a r l y p r o v i d e d , t e a c h e r d i r e c t e d , " -reading i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs o f a minimum s i x weeks d u r a t i o n . I t does not i n c l u d e momentary or i n c i d e n t a l r e a d i n g a i d to a s tudent i n a c l a s s room l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n . Deve loEmenta l Heading G l a s s e s : Sys temat ic i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d i n g s k i l l s , r e g a r d l e s s of the r e l a t i v e r e a d i n g a b i l i t y of the s t u d e n t . £ 2 £ .E§S£ 4Y . § Reading G l a s s e s : Ad ju s ted group i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d i n g f o r s t u d e n t s r e v e a l i n g some d i f f i c u l t y i n r e a d i n g and i t s use . Remedial Reading Program: I n d i v i d u a l i z e d read ing t rea tment f o r s t u d e n t s w i t h s e r i o u s r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y . 6 Content or S u b j e c t - A r e a Reading I n s t r u c t i o n : . S y s t e m a t i c i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d i n g w i t h i n the s u b j e c t - a r e a s e t t i n g , and o r i e n t e d t o t h e needs of t h a t a r e a . Disadyantag^ed Reader Program^- S p e c i a l , r ead ing o r i e n t e d programs, l i m i t e d to s tudent s meeting c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a of s o c i o -economic or c u l t u r a l d i sadvantagement . For example, r e a d i n g programs d e a l i n g ' w i t h the problems : encountered by our n a t i v e I n d i a n p o p u l a t i o n or programs f o r new Canadians may f a l l i n t o t h i s c a t e g o r y . In the Uni t ed S t a t e s , these programs a re u s u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with those c r i t e r i a a t t a c h e d to s p e c i a l f u n d i n g . S £ § c i a l Reading; F a c i l i t y ^ JLn area of the s c h o o l which i s d e s i g n a t e d 'as the p l a c e where i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d i n g o c c u r s . D e s i g n a t i o n s such as " c e n t e r , " " l a b , " " c l i n i c , " or " L . A . C . " may come under t h i s d e f i n i t i o n . Su b je c t o r - C o n t e n t - A r e a : Any p a r t of the s c h o o l c u r r i c u l u m , o t h e r - t h a n i n s t r u c t i o n geared f o r " s low l e a r n e r " or " r e m e d i a l " s t u d e n t s . Reading Teacher^." The teacher (s) r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n s t r u c t i n g s tudent s - i n any 1 o f the v a r i o u s types of r e a d i n g programs d e s c r i b e d above. Secondary"Grades : Grades 8-12, as opposed to grades 7-12 i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . 7 IV . Ba s i c Assumptions 1. A q u e s t i o n n a i r e - s u r v e y would be an a p p r o p r i a t e method with which to answer the ques t ions posed i n S e c t i o n I I o f t h i s c h a p t e r . 2. I n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d • from t h e persons r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e would be a c c u r a t e . V. L i m i t a t i o n s o f the Study In i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y , the f o l l o w i n g shou ld be n o t e d : 1. V a l i d i t y of • r e s u l t s i s l i m i t e d t o the p o p u l a t i o n o f t h i s s t u d y : a l l of the s c h o o l s i n B r i t i s h Columbia encompassing one or more of the secondary grades ( 8-12) . 2. A l l r e s u l t s are on the ba s i s o f number of r e s p o n s e s , t h a t ' i s , number of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e t u r n e d , and not the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n . • 3. A l though i t was r e q u e s t e d tha t the s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r answer the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , i t may be tha t i n some cases the answers were s u p p l i e d by the s c h o o l r e a d i n q t e a c h e r ( s ) . 8 V I . O r g a n i z a t i o n of the Remainder o f the Studv. Chapter I I p r e s e n t s a rev iew o f the l i t e r a t u r e w i t h r e g a r d t o f i n d i n g s of r e g i o n a l s u r v e y s . A d i s c u s s i o n of the methods used and the d e f i n i t i o n o f the p o p u l a t i o n i s found i n Chapter I I I . Chapter IV p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s . The d i s c u s s i o n of r e s u l t s , as w e l l as c o n c l u s i o n s and recommendations, i s presented- i n C h a p t e r V . The b i b l i o g r a p h y and append ice s a r e c o n t a i n e d i n the f i n a l s e c t i o n o f t h i s paper . 9 • CHAPTER I I iSJ i iSM ° f the L i t e r a t u r e The review of the l i t e r a t u r e i s o r g a n i z e d around two main a r e a s : 1. The 1-use of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e as a v a l i d r e s e a r c h • t o o l * 2. Research r e l a t i n g t o survey s t u d i e s o f r e a d i n q e d u c a t i o n , f o c u s i n q p r i m a r i l y upon secondary grade l e v e l . " • -Three s t u d i e s ( H i l l , 1975; C h r o n i s t e r & A h r e n d t , 1968; Naranq, 1 9 7 3 ) ' w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n some d e p t h , as the- q u e s t i o n n a i r e used i n t h i s s tudy i s based upon H i l l ' s . The l a t t e r two s t u d i e s w i l l be focused upon because they are Canadian - s u r v e y s . Comparisons o f Narang ' s and C h r o n i s t e r and A h r e n d t ' s f i n d i n g s may thus have g r e a t e r v a l i d i t y t o the author *s p re sent r e s e a r c h than might some of the o t h e r s t u d i e s c i t e d . I . The Q u e s t i o n n a i r e as a Research T o o l In 1907, G a u l t i n v e s t i g a t e d the h i s t o r y o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e as a r e s e a r c h method. G a u l t i n c l u d e d i n t e r v i e w s under the g e n e r a l heading o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . He found t h a t such methodology 'had been i n use f o r over 70 y e a r s . The e a r l i e s t w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n n a i r e was found t o be p u b l i s h e d i n 1838 by the 10 S t a t i s t i c a l S o c i e t y o f London, which chose the q u e s t i o n n a i r e as the most- a p p r o p r i a t e method f o r e n q u i r i n g i n t o s o c i a l and i n d u s t r i a l c o n d i t i o n s i n England at t h a t t i m e . In h i s c o n c l u s i o n s ; G a u l t s t a t e d : • ! We have- found t h a t the g u e s t i o n n a i r e method p r o b a b l y had i t s r i s e i n s t a t i s t i c a l s c i e n c e [ and] t h a t i t was a p p l i e d f i r s t to the c o l l e c t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l s t a t i s t i c s . (p. 381) The N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n ( N . E . A . ) Research B u l l e t i n (1930) noted that ever s i n c e Horace Mann sent h i s t e n -page " C i r c u l a r " t o t e a c h e r s i n Massachuset t s i n 1847, d e s i r i n g t o " o b t a i n the o p i n i o n of t eacher s . . . on a s u b j e c t o f g rea t importance • to the cause ' o f popular e d u c a t i o n " (p. -381), e d u c a t o r s have compla ined over an apparent de luge o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . '-- Such c o m p l a i n t s s p u r r e d 1 the • N . E . A. • to under take a s tudy o f the problem, f i n d i n g tha t a l t h o u g h q u e s t i o n n a i r e s - w e r e not as abundant as they seemed t o the r e c i p i e n t s ^ 'many were p o o r l y c o n s t r u c t e d and were t h e r e f o r e not v a l i d . As a remedy t o the 1 above prob lem, the N . E . A . p u b l i s h e d g u i d e l i n e s f o r - what they termed a " g o o d " q u e s t i o n n a i r e , from which was developed the f o l l o w i n g c h e c k l i s t : 1. I s the q u e s t i o n n a i r e adequa te ly sponsored , i . e . , • i s 1 i t from a r e p u t a b l e i n s t i t u t i o n or i n d i v i d u a l ? 2. I s the purpose o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e f r a n k l y • -stated? " < 3. I s ' t h e " q u e s t i o n n a i r e on a worthy e d u c a t i o n a l t o p i c ? In o t h e r words, the r e s u l t s should be o f va lue * t o p e o p l e - o t h e r than t h e s e n d e r . 4. I s the q u e s t i o n n a i r e w e l l o rgan ized? 11 5. Are the q u e s t i o n s c l e a r l y and b r i e f l y worded? 6. Can most q u e s t i o n s be b r i e f l y answered? 7. I s the i n f o r m a t i o n reques ted u n a v a i l a b l e e l sewhere? ' 8., I s the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s e t up i n proper m e c h a n i c a l form; - i . e . , enough and proper space fo r the •answer? 9. Are the demands o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e a s o n a b l e ? 10. I s a proper r e t u r n promised the respondents? Oppenheim (1963), Wiersma (1969), and Isaac & M i c h a e l (1974) may be used as source s of r e f e r e n c e with r e g a r d to c r i t e r i a and 'methodology r e l a t i n g to survey t e c h n i q u e s us ing q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . • From r e v i e w i n g t h e i r work i t can be conc luded t h a t g u i d e l i n e s >for q u e s t i o n n a i r e s have not changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the 34-year span s i n c e the N . E . A . p u b l i s h e d i t s c h e c k l i s t ; ' The f o l l o w i n g s tatement by H i l l & B a r t i n (1971). s e rves t o s u m m a r i z e the v a l i d i t y and va lue o f the survey q u e s t i o n n a i r e : . . . . . . The u s e f u l n e s s o f survey r e s e a r c h i s h i g h l y dependent upon the 'assumptions t h a t the ga thered data are i n d i v i d u a l l y ' v a l i d and c o l l e c t i v e l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . ; ; . [However , ] c o n t r o l l e d survey r e s e a r c h 5 ; . ; s e r v e s a neces sary and u s e f u l f u n c t i o n i n [ r e a d i n g ] • program• r e s e a r c h . P r o b a b l y , i t i s l e s s s u s c e p t i b l e - t o e r r o r than h i s t o r i c a l - c o m p a r a t i v e rev iews ' o f i n d i v i d u a l program d e s c r i p t i o n s appear ing i n t h e - ' l i t e r a t u r e . I f the r e v i e w e r i s q u i t e aware, o f c o n d i t i o n s under which the survey was c o n d u c t e d , and i f g rea t r e l i a n c e i s not p l a c e d on the s p e c i f i c i t y of the f i n d i n g s , - t h e comparat ive r e s u l t s may be used t o determine t r e n d s i n the development o f secondary r e a d i n g programs. (p. 10) 12 I I . Survey. S t u d i e s of l e a d i n g Programs The major r e v i e w s o f secondary read ing surveys have been compi led by H i l l (1971) and H i l l S B a r t i n (1971). H i l l (1971) noted t h a t ' t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f secondary r e a d i n g programs began l a r g e l y a f t e r 1940, a n d , H i l l s t a t e d , " i t 1 i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the secondary t e a c h e r p r o v i d e d more' i n c i d e n t a l - h e l p wi th the l e a r n i n g and language process at t h e ; t u r n o f : the c e n t u r y than has been p rov ided i n modern s c h o o l s " (p. 22). As secondary t e a c h e r s began t o see t h e m s e l v e s a s ' s p e c i a l i s t s w i t h i n r e s t r i c t e d s u b j e c t a r e a s , they ' n e g l e c t e d t e a c h i n g the s k i l l s r e l a t e d to the " language process i n t h a t area.- S p e c i a l programs i n r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n thus became nece s s a ry . The most 'dramatic* i n c r e a s e i n r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs took p l a c e d u r i n g the 1960-1970 decade. From 1950 to 1960 approximate ly• >25% o f U n i t e d S t a t e s secondary s c h o o l s p r o v i d e d p lanned r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . D u r i n g the next t en y e a r s , the "number - o f r e a d i n g programs i n secondary s c h o o l s i n c r e a s e d • from "25%-to !75%. The major reason -for- -'the i n c r e a s e seemed*to be*an i n f l u x of f e d e r a l funds . A d m i n i s t r a t o r s who d i d not have r e a d i n g programs i n t h e i r s c h o o l s o f f e r e d four r e a s o n s : l a c k - o f funds ; l a c k - of-s t r a i n e d p e r s o n n e l , s c h e d u l i n g complex i t i e s - , and s t a f f apathy. . H i l l & B a r t i n (1971) found o n l y 2 5 ' s u r v e y s ' o f secondary r e a d i n g programs i n a space of 30 y e a r s . T h i s prompted them to-emphas ize an apparent l a c k o f r e s e a r c h as t o the status"• of r e a d i n g programs. B le i smer (1967) a l s o noted the apparent ' l ack- * of such" r e s e a r c h . In 1942, the N . E . A . p u b l i s h e d r e s u l t s o f a na t ionwide 13 survey o f U n i t e d s t a t e s r e a d i n g programs at the secondary l e v e l . The s tudy found t h a t 46% of r e spond ing p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s i n r e a d i n g as a s e r i o u s - p r o b l e m i n - t h e i r s choo l s^ w h i l e - o v e r 50% f e l t - r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s to be " someth ing of a p r o b l e m . " * " O n l y 2%-felt t h a t t h e i r s t u d e n t s had no problems with r e a d i n g s k i l l s . F o r t y - o n e percent of the s c h o o l s had a r e g u l a r t e s t i n g -program, wi th -more - t e s t i n g be ing done i n j u n i o r h i g h s c h o o l s than i n s e n i o r - h i g h s c h o o l s . J u n i o r h i g h s c h o o l s a l s o r e p o r t e d more deve lopmenta l r e a d i n g c l a s s e s than d i d s e n i o r h i g h s c h o o l s . Host • p r i n c i p a l s < r a t e d th e r e a d i n g program i n t h e i r s c h o o l as on ly f a i r . • -<•• - - -W i t t y 5 Br ink- (1949) n o t e d . t h a t fo rmal read ing i n s t r u c t i o n stopped : a t the 'grade ' f i v e - or s i x l e v e l , and r e l a t e d t h a t s ta tement t o K o t t m e y e r ' s e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s t h a t 2,169 o f -7,380 e i g h t h - g r a d e graduates read at or below s i x t h - g r a d e norms, as measured ^ b y ' a • s t a n d a r d i z e d r e a d i n g achievement - t e s t . K o t t m e y e r ' s - f i n d i n g s prompted W i t t y & B r i n k to gather da ta as to r e a d i n g programs on a n a t i o n a l b a s i s . A g u e s t i o n n a i r e - i n t e r v i e w method was 'u sed t o - survey 500 U n i t e d S t a te s s c h o o l systems hav ing o n e ' o r more secondary s c h o o l s wi th a p u p i l p o p u l a t i o n o f over 700.' * N i n e t y - s e v e n of the r e s p o n d i n g s c h o o l systems had r e m e d i a l r e a d i n g programs as p a r t o f r e g u l a r E n g l i s h c l a s s e s . The r e a d i n g programs were taught by t h e - E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s . Only 28 o f the 126 t e a c h e r s of r e m e d i a l r e a d i n g taught r e a d i n g on a f u l l - t i m e b a s i s ; • Thornton (1957) used a q u e s t i o n n a i r e to survey th e people r e s p o n s i b l e - f o r 1 deve lopmenta l r e a d i n g • programs . i n Texas secondary s c h o o l s . Of 120 r e t u r n s , Thornton found t h a t 23% had 14 a deve lopmenta l program (de f ined as be ing designed f o r the non-r e m e d i a l r e a d e r ) , and t h a t 47% of s c h o o l s without such a program were c o m p l e t e l y i n f avor o f i n s t i t u t i n g one. Budgetary r e s t r i c t i o n s and a l a c k o f : competent, t e a c h e r s and c u r r i c u l u m t i m e w e r e ' g iven as reasons ' f o r - t h e l a c k o f a program. Only one i n - t h r e e ' s e c o n d a r y r e a d i n g • t e a c h e r s was found to have any t r a i n i n g i n r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . • The l a c k o f secondary r e a d i n g programs was a l s o p o i n t e d out by Jordan ' -(1958) - a n d by Baughman (1960) . In a survey o f 452 F l o r i d a secondary s c h o o l s , Jordan found t h a t only 17% of the respondents had v a r e m e d i a l r e a d i n g program. Baughman, who surveyed 113 I l l i n o i s ' secondary s c h o o l s , noted t h a t o n l y 85 had some form of r e a d i n g 1 p r o g r a m . Only 23 r e m e d i a l programs and 23 deve lopmenta l ' programs^ were a v a i l a b l e . Only three s c h o o l s were found to have a r e a s o n a b l y comprehensive s c h o o l read ing program, encompassing r e m e d i a l , * d e v e l o p m e n t a l , and c o r r e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d i n g ; «-:•••••-••••• • Baughman (1961), i n a q u e s t i o n n a i r e survey o f 269 I l l i n o i s j u n i o r - s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l s , based h i s r e s u l t s on a 49$ r e t u r n . He found some form o f • r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n i n 64% of r e s p o n d i n g schools. ; ' ' R e m e d i a l and deve lopmenta l r e a d i n g programs were the most common. A g a i n , o n l y three s c h o o l s had a comprehensive program. ' A l though - 60% of s c h o o l s wi th r e a d i n q programs d e l e g a t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the program to t h e i r E n g l i s h depar tments , on ly 37% o f s c h o o l s s t a t i n g the e x i s t e n c e o f a r e a d i n g progranrhad t e a c h e r s wi th at l e a s t some t r a i n i n g i n the i n s t r u c t i o n o f r e a d i n g ; No p a t t e r n - w a s found as t o the invo lvement o f the c o n t e n t - a r e a t e a c h e r s . 15 Madeira ' (1961) used a q u e s t i o n n a i r e to determine the t r a i n i n g 1 = of ' r e a d i n g t e a c h e r s i n 404 P e n n s y l v a n i a secondary s c h o o l s . ; A-91 % r e t u r n • was o b t a i n e d . Al though a c o m p u l s o r y , mandated 1 r e a d i n g program f o r grades sevens and e i g h t was f avored by>81%"of the r e s p o n d i n g s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s , a l a c k of t r a i n e d t e a c h e r s - w a s - c i t e d as the major s t u m b l i n g b l o c k to the implementa t ion o f such a program. As 69% of the r e a d i n g t e a c h e r s were' found t o have fewer t h a n - t h r e e semester hours o f r e a d i n g c o u r s e s , and 50% had none at a l l , Madeira suggested t h a t r e a d i n g cour se s be r e q u i r e d f o r a l l secondary E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s . Gr i s som (1961) used a q u e s t i o n n a i r e - o b s e r v a t i o n t e c h n i q u e to- s u r v e y "107"'secondary s c h o o l s which had s t a t e d the e x i s t e n c e o f a 1 r e a d i n g -program; : - He found t h a t • s m a l l e r s c h o o l s ; p rov ided r e a d i n g ' improvement • programs through s p e c i a l - r e a d i n g and r e m e d i a l E n g l i s h ' c l a s s e s , L a r g e r s c h o o l s employed a c o m b i n a t i o n of programs, o f t e n c e n t e r i n g e f f o r t around a s c h o o l r e a d i n g c l i n i c . G r i s s o m 1 no ted t h a t 1 the l a t t e r approach was more e f f e c t i v e : a n d " f l e x i b l e ' t h a n the former . ' Geake' (1961) r e p l i c a t e d S m i t h ' s (1956) study of Mich igan secondary - s c h o o l r e a d i n g programs, u s i n g the same q u e s t i o n n a i r e and sampl ing " t echnique . ~>< A q u e s t i o n n a i r e was ma i l ed ; t o a 20% s y s t e m a t i c " a l p h a b e t i c a l - sample o f secondary s c h o o l s of f o u r s i z e s : m o r e A ' t h a n 1 1,000 s t u d e n t s , 500^999 s t u d e n t s , 200-499 s t u d e n t s , : < 0-199- s t u d e n t s . S m i t h ' s r e s u l t s were based upon-an 84% r e t u r n > ' w h i l e those o f Geake were based on a r e t u r n o f 90%. Geake " r e p o r t e d - a ' 10? i n c r e a s e i n number o f r e a d i n q proqrams (from 40% t o 50% of the* respondents ) . He noted tha t s m a l l e r s c h o o l s showed an i n c r e a s e i n number o f r e a d i n g programs, whi le 16 l a r g e r ' s c h o o l s showed a decrease . Geake po in ted out t h a t 15 r e a d i n g programs had*been d i s c o n t i n u e d i n Mich igan s i n c e 1945. Four of those programs were d i s c o n t i n u e d due to the u n a v a i l a b i l i t y o f - t r a i n e d r e a d i n g p e r s o n n e l . -In a m u l t i - s t a t e - s t u d y to de termine the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of those r e s p o n s i b l e f o r ' t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g , Simmons (1963) mai led q u e s t i o n n a i r e s to 1152- secondary s c h o o l s i n M i n n e s o t a , North Dakota , South Dakota* Iowa; and W i s c o n s i n . A r e t u r n of 83.6% w a s ! r e c e i v e d . - - A l t h o u g h 75% of r e s p o n d e n t s - f e l t there was a need f o r c o n t e n t - a r e a i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d i n g s k i l l s , l i t t l e was a c t u a l l y be ing done* Over 50% of the re sponding s c h o o l s a s s i gned t h e - - r e s p o n s i b i l i t y - f o r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n to the E n g l i s h depar tmenti^-F ive p e r c e n t - o f . r ead ing program s u p e r v i s o r s had a r e a d i n g s p e c i a l i s t * s c e r t i f i c a t e * , and- only one s c h o o l r e p o r t e d having a s t a f f member t r a i n e d as a secondary r e a d i n g t e a c h e r ; Simmons p o i n t e d out tha t a l t h o u g h the bu lk of - the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y - < f o r ; r t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g > rested* with E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s , these t e a c h e r s - t e a c h mainly the r e a d i n g o f l i t e r a t u r e and • " p r o b a b l y * have ' - l i t t l e awareness-of those read ing problems present i n - o t h e r c o n t e n t areas o f the -cur r i cu lum? 1 (p. 88) . A t h e o r e t i c a l l y - sound r e a d i n g " program was o u t l i n e d by Simmons ( (1963b); • A 40- i tem q u e s t i o n n a i r e was sent to a random; s t r a t i f i e d s ample 'o f ; 152 secondary s c h o o l s i n M i n n e s o t a , North Dakota ; S o u t h ' - D a k o t a , Iowa, and W i s c o n s i n . Schoo l s were c a t e g o r i z e d a c c o r d i n g to s t a f f p o p u l a t i o n , and an 84% r e t u r n was o b t a i n e d . • O f ' t h e r e s p o n d e n t s , 33%!, had no program, and most a v a i l a b l e 1 programs 'were o f the r e m e d i a l t y p e . There seemed to be l i t t l e deve lopmenta l r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n and an i n s i g n i f i c a n t 17 amount o f i n s t r u c t i o n i n the s k i l l s of c o n t e n t - a r e a r e a d i n g . On the whole, Simmons found t h a t r e a d i n g t eacher s had no fo rmal t r a i n i n g i n ' t h e - t e a c h i n g o f r e a d i n g . In a r e p l i c a t i o n - o f Simmons' s t u d y , M a r t i n ( 1 9 6 9 ) r e c e i v e d a 9 0 % t o t a l r e t u r n . He found a* 1 2 % i n c r e a s e i n r e a d i n g programs over the s i x - y e a r span; Reading i n s t r u c t i o n was s t i l l s a i d to be ^ i n t e g r a t e d with ; the E n g l i s h program. There was s t i l l very l i t t l e b e i n g d o n e • w i t h regard to r e a d i n g i n the c o n t e n t a r e a s , and t h e r e v was - ' s t i l l a l a c k o f q u a l i f i e d t e a c h e r s of r e a d i n g . Programs 1 had expanded and improved , however ,i and expans ion was thought to be a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f f e d e r a l funding programs . -I n t e r v i e w s wi th • p r i n c i p a l s o r , i f • a v a i l a b l e , w i t h t h e t e a c h e r s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the r e a d i n q programs i n 42 midwestern U n i t e d S t a t e s " " s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l s - f o r m e d the ba s i s for C a w e l t i ' s ( 1 9 6 3 ) r e s e a r c h i n t h e area o f secondary r e a d i n g programs. He found' t h a t 2 7 •o f • t h e 4 2 s c h o o l s had read ing i n s t r u c t i o n o ther than i n c i d e n t a l ' c l a s s r o o m h e l p . F i f t e e n o f those programs were r e m e d i a l i n ! n a t u r e ; * • Twenty^-one of the s c h o o l s m a i n t a i n e d the r e a d i n g program as a •••• par t <of r e q u l a r c l a s s e s • ( q e n e r a l l y E n q l i s h ) , and 1 t h e - e i g h t s c h o o l s w i t h a deve lopmenta l r e a d i n g program admitted^ s t u d e n t s t o the c l a s s e s on a v o l u n t a r y - b a s i s . Only 1 5 % o f —the' ' - ' schools had both deve lopmenta l and r e m e d i a l c l a s s e s . ' Even though the • s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s s t a t e d t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s ; ' t o 1 e i t h e r - i n i t i a t e or expand r e a d i n g programs, they f e l t handicapped i n do ing so as a r e s u l t o f a l a ck of a d e q u a t e l y t r a i n e d p e r s o n n e l . 1 . . > . . . . > > >. ...... „ - Peyton. S-Beylow " ( 1 9 6 5 ) , i n an e f f o r t : t o - d e t e r mine. the areas of r e a d i n q i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs i n secondary s c h o o l s , sent a 1 8 q u e s t i o n n a i r e 1 t o ' 95 secondary s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s i n Kentucky . Of the •; r e s p o n d e n t s ; ' '47% admit ted t o hav ing no read ing program i n t h e i r " s c h o o l . ' N i n e t y - f i v e percent f e l t ' t h e r e was a need f o r d e v e l o p m e n t a l ' r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n , 93% f e l t t h e r e was a need f o r remedial= i n s t r u c t i o n • i n r e a d i n g , and 70% t h o u g h t ; t h a t s tudent s would b e n e f i t from ' r e m e d i a l i n s t r u c t i o n ; i n - ' r ead ing s k i l l s , a l though * 51% f e l t 1 t h a t a l l t h r e e t y p e s ^ o f r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n should be a v a i l a b l e i n ' t h e i r s c h o o l , - l a c k o f funds and l a c k of q u a l i f i e d t e a c h e r s - were•once a g a i n mentioned as o b s t a c l e s t o the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of> a r e a d i n g program. ; " -; Most < o f the r e s e a r c h r e f e r r e d * to- thus f a r p o i n t s out a g e n e r a l f e e l i n g t h a t a s c h o o l 1 s E n g l i s h department s h o u l d -be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r ' t h e - t e a c h i n g • of - r e a d i n g s k i l l s . A p p l e b e e ' s (1966) n a t i o n a l s tudy o f - E n g l i s h programs (based upon 2 1/2 year s o f < i n - c l a s s ob se rva t ion ) found t h a t c l a s s t ime was p r o p o r t i o n e d as f o l l o w s : On the b a s i s -of A p p l e b e e ' s r e s u l t s , r ead ing i n s t r u c t i o n seems not to be : a * h i g h p r i o r i t y ( i n t e r m s - o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l time) i n m o s t ; • E n g l i s h c l a s s r o o m s . The above s i tua t ion< s h o u l d not be s u r p r i s i n g i f one c o n s i d e r s the f a c t t h a t ' the a v e r a g e . t e a c h e r of secondary E n g l i s h has had no f o r m a l t r a i n i n g i n the t e a c h i n g of r e a d i n g . • .. . , „ . . - . . . , ,. . • Only one s tudy was found which sought a response from a s c h o o l ' s - c o n t e n t - a r e a - t eacher s , as- w e l l as i t s p r i n c i p a l and , i f a p p l i c a b l e , i t s r e a d i n g t e a c h e r ( s ) . Brahm and Roehm (1967) L i t e r a t u r e -Language Compos i t ion Speech Reading 52*2% 13.5% 15*7*' 4.9% 4.5% 19 ma i l ed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s to 16 secondary s c h o o l s w i t h i n a 25-^mile r a d i u s o f S y r a c u s e , New York . A u s a b l e r e t u r n o f 47.7% was o b t a i n e d . I t was found that 63% of the teachers had no fo rmal t r a i n i n g i n read ing ; ' F i v e of the s i x t e e n s c h o o l s had a f u l l -t ime r e a d i n q t e a c h e r , f i v e had a p a r t - t i m e r e a d i n g t e a c h e r , and s i x had none o r d i d not respond to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Whi le 64% o f t e a c h e r s surveyed s t a t e d t h a t - t h e r e was a r ead inq-program i n t h e i r s c h o o l , - in o n l y four cases were a l l o f the t e a c h e r s i n agreement t h a t there^ was indeed - a " r e a d i n g program e x t a n t i n t h e i r s c h o o l ; ! T h i s l a c k o f agreement, say Brahm & Roahm, p o i n t s t o ' e i t h e r a " p o o r l y p u b l i c i s e d program or one which i s c o n s i d e r e d to be 7 i n e f f e c t i v e by • the? s c h o o l ' s s t a f f . ^ F u r t h e r m o r e , the i n s u f f i c i e n t t r a i n i n g of the r e a d i n g t e a c h e r s prompted the a u t h o r s to s t a t e : Reading t e a c h e r s or s p e c i a l i s t s appear t o b e no more s o p h i s t i c a t e d about the matter of a read ing program and the d u t i e s o f a r e a d i n g t eacher than are s u b j e c t a rea t e a c h e r s or a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . (p. 59) C r i s c u o l o ' (1969) a l s o i n d i c a t e d c o n c e r n - o v e r the number o f people t e a c h i n g ' r e a d i n g ' w i t h o u t c e r t i f i c a t i o n . ; He f e l t t h a t the r e a d i n g teacher^ s h o u l d work more c l o s e l y wi th a s c h o o l ' s c o n t e n t - a r e a s t a f f ; j - In 1968, C h r o n i s t e r & Ahrendt forwarded a q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e q a r d i n q r e a d i n q 1 • proqrams to a l l 216 secondary s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ' i n t h e ' p r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Co lumbia . A 100% r e t u r n was c i t e d ; -one- hundred s i x t e e n p r i n c i p a l s s t a t e d the e x i s t e n c e o f a r e m e d i a l - c o r r e c t i v e program i n t h e i r - s c h o o l , whi le 33 had a deve lopmenta l program i n t h e i r s c h o o l . The deve lopmenta l program was s a i d to be the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f the s c h o o l E n g l i s h 20 depar tment ; ' • ' A l t h o u g h ' C h r o n i s t e r & • A h r e n d t do not g i v e a c t u a l s t a t i s t i c s ••as- - t o the 1 t r a i n i n g o f r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t o r s , they do n o t e - t h a t 116 o f the 216' p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d that- t h e i r s c h o o l * s --reading'" 'program was- not s a t i s f a c t o r y . ; The p r i n c i p a l s a l s o - d e c l a r e d a d e s i r e f o r a l l secondary s c h o o l t e a c h e r s to have at l e a s t some t r a i n i n g i n - t h e a r e a ' o f ' r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . C h r o n i s t e r ' S Ahrendt c o n c l u d e d t h e i r s tudy w i t h the statement:-- .•>••-.-••, . • .• , Secondary ' s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s made recommendations to the F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h ; C o l u m b i a tha t a l l ' t e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h be r e g u i r e d t o complete c o u r s e w o r k - i n ; r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a t the secondary s c h o o l l e v e l . The recommendation was ••- a c c e p t e d ' a n d ' i s ; b e i n g i m p l e m e n t e d . ( p . 427)? The above' s tatement i s ' now ' m i s l e a d i n g , however, as the regu i rement was— i n e f feet- for . o n l y one' year ' and. was dropped i n 1969-1970.' At the pre sent t i m e , ! compul sory cour se s < i n r e a d i n g e d u c a t i o n at the^secondary l e v e l do not e x i s t a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia-. . 1 1 A comprehensive s tudy o f secondary* s c h o o l r ead ing programs was done i n - New -Eng land by the New England E d u c a t i o n a l Assessment P r o j e c t (1970), which compared a v a i l a b l e r e a d i n g programs i n grades seven and t e n . With regard to grade seven programs; '60% were-based on o u t - o f - d a t e c u r r i c u l u m g u i d e s , had no - c o n s u l t a n t - a v a i l a b l e , and were r a r e l y found i n c o a t e n t - a r e a c l a s s e s ; - Hore- than o n e - t h i r d o f t h e s c h o o l s surveyed had no r e m e d i a l - ' p r o g r a m . • S t a f f i n g f o r e x i s t i n g programs was. deemed i n a d e g u a t e . - L e s s ' t h a n - 3 2 % of the r e a d i n g teacher s had t h r e e o r more c r e d i t s of c o l l e g e r e a d i n g c o u r s e s . -- - L i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e -was- noted i n - t h e - grade t e n sample , a l though programs were a v a i l a b l e f o r col leger-bound and s u p e r i o r 21 s tudents . ' Teacher t r a i n i n g i n read ing i n s t r u c t i o n was a p p r o x i m a t e l y e q u a l t o - t h a t o f r e a d i n g t e a c h e r s i n grade seven . Reading ' - programs f o r d i sadvantaged o r p h y s i c a l l y , e m o t i o n a l l y , or p e r c e p t u a l l y handicapped s t u d e n t s were r a r e . Developmenta l programs 1 - w e r e - i n f r e q u e n t l y o f f e r e d - and w h e n - a v a i l a b l e , were a pa r t o f r e g u l a r E n g l i s h c l a s s e s . c o n t e n t - a r e a i n s t r u c t i o n was l e s s a v a i l a b l e ' f o r the t e n t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s . Seventh-grade teachers t ' "however , had 1 p a r t i c i p a t e d i n more - i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n i n r e a d i n g , and a l s o s t a t e d a g r e a t e r w i l l i n g n e s s to p a r t i c i p a t e i f r e a d i n g i n s e r v i c e - w a s made a v a i l a b l e . Graham' (1969) - o b t a i n e d a - re turn^ o f 85% of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s -he had mai led tO ' 3 5 5 , : s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l s : i n C a l i f o r n i a . , A s u r p r i s i n g 78% o f the re spondent s s t a t e d ' the e x i s t e n c e of a r e a d i n g program^ with more programs b e i n g found i n l a r g e r , r a t h e r . than s m a l l e r , s chool s ; 1 S i x t y - f o u r - p e r c e n t • o f s c h o o l s hav ing a r e a d i n g program'had a s p e c i a l f a c i l i t y o r * r ead ing c e n t e r , i n the s c h o o l ; - Twenty p e r c e n t d i d not use t e s t s c o r e s as c r i t e r i a f o r admi s s ion to a v a i l a b l e ' p r o g r a m s . ' < L i t t l e was - noted i n the area of t o t a l ' s t a f f i n v o l v e m e n t with r e a d i n g programs. Remedial r a t h e r than deve lopmenta l programs were emphas ized , and fund ing and t e a c h e r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s were-thought t o be major prob lems . Smith & A u s t i n (1969) conducted a n a t i o n a l s u r v e y of r e a d i n g programs; u s i n g a p o p u l a t i o n o f 632 s c h o o l sys tems. Ques t ionna i re s - as* w e l l •• as > p e r s o n a l and te lephone i n t e r v i e w s were used t o ga ther d a t a . S i x c a t e g o r i e s o f r e a d i n g programs and c r i t e r i a f o r e v a l u a t i n g those programs were u s e d . ; The response r a t e ' w a s 75%. ' R e m e d i a l and deve lopmenta l programs encompassed 65% o f a v a i l a b l e r e a d i n g c l a s s e s , and inadequate t r a i n i n g of 22 p e r s o n n e l was" g i v e n ; a s " t h e major - problem in implement ing reading••• p rograms . " The - r e p o r t l i s t s recommendations and g u i d e l i n e s f o r the o r g a n i z a t i o n of- g e n e r a l r e a d i n g programs, r e m e d i a l programs, deve lopmenta l programs, enrichment programs, and i n s e r v i c e programs ; i n r e a d i n g . In an ex t remely thorough s t a t e survey of both e lementary and secondary " r e a d i n g programs i n I n d i a n a , F a r r e t a l . (1969) sent q u e s t i o n n a i r e s - ' t o every j u n i o r ' and s e n i o r h i g h s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l i n t h a t ' s t a t e . * The; p r i n c i p a l was t o s e c u r e the a s s i s t a n c e >of s c h o o l r e a d i n g p e r s o n n e l ; i f needed, - when c o m p l e t i n g the form; E i g h t y - t h r e e percent of the secondary p r i n c i p a l s r e sponded . The r e s u l t s noted t h a t - a lmost 75% of the r e s p o n d i n g s c h o o l s had: r e q u i r e d r e a d i n g c o u r s e s , and t h a t programs-were - s t a f f e d mainly-' by E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s . Reading programs were n o t c o n t e n t - a r e a o r i e n t e d . Most t e a c h e r s were u n t r a i n e d or i n e x p e r i e n c e d i n r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n , .and re spondent s r e p o r t e d : a l a c k of s a t i s f a c t i o n with a v a i l a b l e r e a d i n g programs;' Recommendations * for- program o r g a n i z a t i o n , t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g , and program e v a l u a t i o n a re i n c l u d e d i n the r e p o r t . - - - •. .- -.. - ••. ...>.. Bowren • (1970) In a s t a t u s s t u d y - o f secondary r e a d i n g i n New ; M e x i c o based on a sample of 217 s c h o o l s , f e l t t h a t the most i n f l u e n t i a l f a c t o r with regard ' to the e x i s t e n c e or q u a l i t y of a r e a d i n q program-"was t r a i n e d p e r s o n n e l ; not f u n d i n q . He noted> however* t h a t • ' . . l i t t le c o u l d ' be accompl i shed i n the- way of a s c h o o l « i d e > -program- i n r e a d i n g without a f i r m commitment by the s c h o o l ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ; ; As o n l y • 7 9 - o f 217 s c h o o l s r e p o r t e d hav ing a r e a d i n g program, and as 76% o f the people t e a c h i n g 23 r e a d i n g were u n q u a l i f i e d , Bowren noted an " a s tound ing l a c k of c o n c e r n " with r e g a r d to read ing i n s t r u c t i o n for a l l s t u d e n t s , and f e l t tha t " u n i v e r s i t i e s shou ld g i v e p r i o r i t y c o n s i d e r a t i o n to the t r a i n i n g o f s e c o n d a r y - o r i e n t e d read ing s p e c i a l i s t s " (p. 5 1 7 ) . A survey of r e a d i n g programs i n F l o r i d a secondary s c h o o l s was conducted by Boyle ( 1 9 7 1 ) , who r e c e i v e d a 6 6 % r e t u r n . Schoo l s were d i v i d e d i n t o two groups : those witn s tudent p o p u l a t i o n s of l e s s than 1,000 and those with s tudent p o p u l a t i o n s of more than 1 , 0 0 0 . She found t h a t th e l a r g e r s c h o o l s had more programs and a f a r g r e a t e r number of c e r t i f i e d i n s t r u c t o r s i n r e a d i n g than d i d tha s m a l l e r s c h o o l s . L i t t l e or no c o n t e n t - a r e a i n s t r u c t i o n was found i n e i t h e r o f the two groups . Funding and t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g were areas o f c o n c e r n f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . In a Canadian s t u d y , Narang ( 1 9 7 3 ) surveyed secondary r e a d i n g programs i n Saskatchewan. He c l a s s i f i e d , and d e f i n e d programs as d e v e l o p m e n t a l , c o r r e c t i v e , r e m a d i a l , and those f o r c o l l e g e - b o u n d s t u d e n t s . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were sent t o 4 0 0 s c h o o l s encompassing grades 9 - 1 2 , and a r e t u r n of 6 8 % was r e c e i v e d . S i x t y percent o f r e s p o n d i n g s c h o o l s had no r e a d i a g program. Of the rema inder , 19% had a c o r r e c t i v e program, 18*- had a deve lopmenta l program, 1 7 % had a r e m e d i a l program, and 5% had a r e a d i n g program f o r the c o l l e g e - b o u n d s t u d e n t . In most s c h o o l s , s tudent s were admi t ted to programs on the b a s i s of s t a n d a r d i z e d r e a d i n g t e s t s and/or teacher r e f e r r a l . L i t t l e d i a g n o s t i c t e s t i n g was done. E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s had the major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y fo r t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g i n the m a j o r i t y o f the s c h o o l s . A l though 24 26 s c h o o l s had a s p e c i a l f a c i l i t y i n which to teach r e a d i n g , o n l y 23 t e a c h e r s f e l t t h a t adeguata . m a t e r i a l s and s u p p l i e s were a v a i l a b l e . A " l a r g e number o f c o n t e n t - a r e a t eacher s were found to g i v e l i t t l e o r no r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n , and o n l y 58 of 268 s c h o o l s • had t e a c h e r s --'with o v e r f o u r • s e m e s t e r - h o u r s o f r e a d i n g c o u r s e s . I t seemed, however; t h a t the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s would have l i k e d to* i n s t i t u t e ' r e a d i n g programs i n t h e i r s c h o o l s , as 95% of those • who - d i d - not h a v e ' a program i n t h e i r * s c h o o l i n d i c a t e d a d e s i r e f o r one, but c i t e d l a c k o f p e r s o n n e l or funds as o b s t a c l e s . ' • ' : -.>.•••.>•...>..•.......-,.,.. •• F r e e d * '(1973) 1 surveyed ! s t a t e e d u c a t i o n departments and s c h o o l - d i s t r i c t s ~ o n - a ; n a t i o n a l b a s i s . - He d i s c o v e r e d t h a t 34% of j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s " a n d 45% o f s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s i n the U n i t e d ' S t a t e s o f f e r e d no-program i n r e a d i n g . Over 90% of s t a t e e d u c a t i o n depar tments - se t no minimum requ i rement s , as to r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n , 1 and 34 -states r e q u i r e d - no c o u r s e s i n r e a d i n g f o r t e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h . E i g h t y - e i g h t percent of s t a t e educa t ion- departments and 94% of- s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s f e l t t h a t r e a d i n g programs-must- be improved . • > .... • H i l l ' ( 1 9 7 5 ) ' s e n t : a'40-^item q u e s t i o n n a i r e to a l l . secondary s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s i n western New- York and r e c e i v e d an 85% t o t a l r e t u r n ; O r g a n i z e d ' r e a d i n g a c t i v i t y was s a i d to e x i s t i n 77% of the- re sponding- s c h o o l s , wi th 65% of the programs coming i n t o b e i n g 1 ' a f t e r 1965. ' A d m i n i s t r a t i v e commitment, a v a i l a b i l i t y of f u n d s , ' and a t t i t u d e o f s c h o o l s ta f f - ( in t h a t order) were c i t e d a s " rea sons s - f or an "-increase i n programs. L i t t l e c o n t e n t - t e a c h e r invo lvement and a l a c k o f t r a i n e d p e r s o n n e l were n o t e d . The m a j o r i t y of programs were found t o be c o r r e c t i v e (78$) , 25 r e m e d i a l (74%), or deve lopmenta l (68%) i n n a t u r e , w i t h l a r g e r s c h o o l s hav ing • more programs and b e t t e r t r a i n e d r e a d i n g t e a c h e r s . S e v e n t y - t h r e e percent of the reading programs were taught i n a s p e c i a l " f a c i l i t y . R e s p o n d e n t s - f e l t t h a t f u t u r e support »• s h o u l d " s g c t o i n d i v i d u a l i z e d remed ia l , programs (32%) , c o n t e n t - a r e a 'programs (27%) , deve lopmenta l programs (2U%) , c o r r e c t i v e programs (15%), and d i sadvantaged reader programs (2%) . X I I . Summary T h e ' g u e s t i o n n a i r e has been i n use as a r e s e a r c h method f o r over <130 - y e a r s • - a n d i s a v a l i d and- ' . u se fu l d a t a - g a t h e r i n g t e c h n i g u e - i f c e r t a i n g u i d e l i n e s ? are f o l l o w e d ( G a u l t , 1907; N ; E i A i ; ' 1930; ' H i l l 8 • B a r t i n , 1971). A l though s e v e r a l a u t h o r s have c i t e d a l a c k o f survey r e s e a r c h i n r e a d i n g at the secondary l e v e l ; '(Bleismer-,-*'1967; ; H i l l & B a r t i n , 1971) , enough s t u d i e s are a v a i l a b l e - i n the l i t e r a t u r e to r e p o r t a g e n e r a l t r e n d i n r e s u l t s ; *••< - '••'•"--»;•-•-. *.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The l a c k of t e a c h e r s - t r a i n e d i n the i n s t r u c t i o n of r e a d i n g and , to a " l e s s e r d e g r e e , budgetary c o n s t r a i n t s were common themes i n the s t u d i e s c i t e d . Most a d m i n i s t r a t o r s surveyed - f e l t r e a d i n g to be-a-major problem area i n t h e i r s c h o o l and f e l t - t h a t programs should be p r o v i d e d and /or improved . The advantages o f h a v i n g - a s p e c i a l ' r e a d i n g f a c i l i t y i n s c h o o l s was noted (Grissom> 1961) , r a l though* a - r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l number o f s c h o o l s had such a f a c i l i t y " R e a d i n g programs were narrow i n scope. Remedia l and deve lopmenta l r e a d i n g c l a s s e s were most commonly f o u n d , but 26 c o r r e c t i v e , - d i s a d v a n t a g e d , or c o n t e n t - a r e a read ing programs were few • i n number. ••<•-."-•••.•-•'••••• • ' A m a j o r i t y -of t h e r s t u d i e s commented tha t r e a d i n g programs were' g e n e r a l l y the " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f ^ s c h o o l ' s E n g l i s h department , w h o s e ' t e a c h e r s - h a d no s p e c i a l t r a i n i n g i n the area of r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . Most s c h o o l - a d m i n i s t r a t o r s f e l t t h a t such t r a i n i n g s h o u l d be c o m p u l s o r y ' f o r secondary t e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h . • Some'educators f e l t t h a t compulsory t r a i n i n g , ; i n the t e a c h i n g o f r e a d i n g ' s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d f o r a l l t e a c h e r s . ; • " • • I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t r e a d i n g programs have- i n c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n number over the more than three decades r s i n c e the N . E . A . (1942) " n a t i o n a l s u r v e y . The g r e a t e s t i n c r e a s e has o c c u r r e d i n r t h e ; p a s t " t e n -years , [but-only 50% to 60% of secondary s c h o o l s seem to-have any form o f - o r g a n i z e d read ing a c t i v i t y at the ' p r e s e n t ' t i m e ; " - ••• •.. • '• The s t a t u s ' s u r v e y a l lows both f o r h i s t o r i c a l compar i sons of secondary read ing-programs -and- f o r p r e d i c t i o n o f £ uture needs on the b a s i s r of -observed t r e n d s . ' A l though e x t e n s i v e s u r v e y s are becoming d i f f i c u l t - t o execute due - t o the i n c r e a s i n g amount of e f f o r t ' and ' e x p e n s e ; i n v o l v e d i n such r e s e a r c h , i t i s hoped t h a t s t a t u s surveys* i n secondary r e a d i n g w i l l appear more f r e q u e n t l y i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e than has been the case i n the pas t . 27 .^'<••• CHAPTER I I I D e s c r i p t i o n of the Study. I . The Instrument •'<•••• The d a t a - g a t h e r i n g • in s t rument used i n t h i s s tudy was modi f i ed f r o m 1 H i l l ' s (1975) g u e s t i o n n a i r e (see* Appendix A ) . Semantic changes were made i n H i l l ' s g u e s t i o n n a i r e i n order to conform to Canadian t e r m i n o l o g y ( i . e . , e i g h t h grade became grade e ight ) , and s e v e r a l of 1 H i l l ' s ques t ions -were omi t ted s i n c e i t was f e l t t h a t ~ t h e y were not r e l e v a n t to the p r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia a t t h e 1 p re sent t i i ae . A c o v e r i n g l e t t e r (see Appendix B) -and a s t a m p e d , addressed r e t u r n enve lope were i n c l u d e d wi th the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . • .•••...•..••.•.•••.„•.,.• Randomly s e l e c t e d i n d i v i d u a l s found t h a t the time r e g u i r e d f o r c o m p l e t i o n ' of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was approx imate ly o n e - h a l f hour . The sender a s s i q n e d both a r e f e r e n c e and a code number to each q u e s t i o n n a i r e ; a l l o w i n q i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . . o f r e s p o n d i n q s c h o o l s and the grades i n c l u d e d i n those s c h o o l s . The g u e s t i o n n a i r e i s o r g a n i z e d i n t o e i g h t genera l s e c t i o n s : 1; Quest ions ^ r e g a r d i n g s c h o o l s t a t i s t i c s , e . g . , q u e s t i o n s about the s tudent p o p u l a t i o n . 2; Quest ions r e g a r d i n g background i n f o r m a t i o n as to s c h o o l ' r e a d i n g programs, e . g . , q u e s t i o n s r e q a r d i n q the- e x i s t i n g r e a d i n g program,-and- the l e n g t h o f time such a program has been a v a i l a b l e . 28 3. Questions regarding school-wide reading a c t i v i t y , e.g., the s p e c i f i c type of organized reading a c t i v i t y available in the school (accordxaq to d e f i n i t i o n s given) and the increase or decrease in scope of s p e c i f i c , currently available programs. 4. Questions regarding a v a i l a b i l i t y and use of a school reading f a c i l i t y . 5. Questions regarding s p e c i f i c reading programs available i n the school, e.g., questions regarding required as opposed to e l e c t i v e reading classes, and a v a i l a b i l i t y of reading classes in s p e c i f i c grades. 6. Questions regarding testing of students* reading a b i l i t y . 7. Miscellaneous questions, including questions regarding content-teacher involvement i n reading programs, administrative r e s p o n s i b i l i t y l o r school reading programs, and teacher training of reading teachers. 8. Space for respondents in which to write ( i t they so desired) s p e c i f i c comments and/or suggestions regarding the improvement of secondary reading programs i n B r i t i s h Columbia. This section included space for comments regarding the v a l i d i t y of the questionnaire to the respondents 1 school and reading program. The questionnaire was typed, reduced by a factor of three, and printed back to back on l e t t e r - s i z e paper. Questions were 29 f o l l o w e d by a numbered range o f c h o i c e s (answers) . Respondents were asked t o p l a c e the number c o r r e s p o n d i n q to the answer chosen i n a box l o c a t e d at the r i g h t - h a n d s ide of the q u e s t i o n . Such a manner of response a l lowed f o r g r e a t e r c o a t r o l o v e r semant ic d i f f e r e n c e s between respondents and a l s o i n c r e a s e d speed o f c o m p l e t i o n . Respondents c o u l d note an i n a b i l i t y to answer u s i n g the c h o i c e s p r o v i d e d i n the f i n a l s e c t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e (see number e i g h t above ) . I I . The P o p u l a t i o n The f i n i t e p o p u l a t i o n i n t h i s s tudy was the e n t i r e number of secondary s c h o o l s i n the p r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . A l l secondary s c h o o l s r a t h e r than a random sampling ware surveyed i n o r d e r to i n c r e a s e v a l i d i t y o f r e s u l t s . A l i s t of s c h o o l s i n B r i t i s h Co lumbia , d i s t r i b u t e d a n n u a l l y by the a. C. Department of E d u c a t i o n and i n c l u d i n g s c h o o l addre s se s , p r i n c i p a l s ' names, and grades encompassed, was o b t a i n e d from the Student T e a c h i n g O f f i c e , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Co lumbia . F o r t y - s e v e n p e r c e n t of the p o p u l a t i o n c o n s i s t e d o f s c h o o l s with a s tudent p o p u l a t i o n of 500 to 999, The m a j o r i t y o f s c h o o l s surveyed were from r u r a l p o p u l a t i o n a r e a s . T h i r t y - o n e o f the s c h o o l s i n c l u d e d e lementary grade l e v e l s and o n l y one or two secondary grades , e . g . , K to n i n e . Unre turned q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were mainly from suca s c h o o l s , probably because e lementary r a t h e r than secondary proqrams are emphasized. A q u e s t i o n n a i r e , c o v e r i n g l e t t e r , and r e t u r n envelope were ma i l ed to the p r i n c i p a l s of the 334 s c n o o l s hav ing one or more o f the grades 3-12. Three s c h o o l s were d i s c a r d e d 30 from the p o p u l a t i o n 1 s i n c e one no l o n g e r i n c l u d e d secondary g r a d e s , one " h a d been ; • c o n v e r t e d ; * i n t o .-'an u n s t r u c t u r e d " f r e e " s c h o o l (making i t i m p o s s i b l e t o gather data by grade l e v e l ) , and one ; had o n l y - o n e ' s t u d e n t i n - g r a d e e i g h t , which * was i t s t o t a l secondary s t u d e n t * - p o p u l a t i o n . The - t o t a l number of secondary s c h o o l s i n the p o p u l a t i o n was thus 331. ., ,.. i" Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were ' a d d r e s s e d t o s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s , as s c h o o l s t a f f would n o t ; ' i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , have had the neces sary background i n f o r m a t i o n t o c o m p l e t e - s e c t i o n s II and III-. Al though not i n s t r u c t e d t o do so , respondents may have sought t h e - a d v i c e - o f s c h o o l r e a d i n g p e r s o n n e l i n c o m p l e t i n g c e r t a i n p a r t s of the survey ins t ruments - »• «. Through - t h e -use- - of the r e f e r e n c e and code numbers, the p o p u l a t i o n may be s u b c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o s c h o o l s w i t h i n a g i v e n s tudent -popu la t ion - - r a n g e ( e . g . , 200 to 249 s tudents ) , s c h o o l s s e r v i c i n g ! v a r i o u s ' p o p u l a t i o n a rea s (e-.g. , " u r b a n , r u r a l , etc.), and s choo l s -encompas s ing c e r t a i n grade l e v e l s ( e . g . , 8 t 1 0 o r 1 0 -1 2 ) T h i s ' c a p a b i l i t y 1 s e rves • t o f a c i l i t a t e compar i sons and a n a l y s i s o f r e s u l t s . I I I . Procedure As a " L a n g u a g e • A r t s Survey" was i n p rogre s s i n the p r o v i n c e and s i n c e d u p l i c a t i o n was thought u n d e s i r a b l e , the Department of E d u c a t i o n w a s ; i n f o r m e d " o f " the w r i t e r ' s proposed s t u d y (see Appendix C ) . The r e p l y from the Department o f E d u c a t i o n may be seen i n Appendix D. ' Each o f the 334 secondary s c h o o l s i n the p r o v i n c e o f 31 B r i t i s h Columbia was a s s i g n e d a r e f e r e n c e number, from 1 to 334. Each s c h o o l =was a l s o a s s i gned a code number r e f e r r i n g t o the grades i n c l u d e d i n the s c h o o l (see T a b l e I ) . TABLE I. GRADE OPERATIONAL FROM TO CODE # DEFINITION K-2 *12 - 1 Regular S c h o o l K-8 • • 1 1 - 1 2 2 Secondary S c h o o l K^8 10 3 J r . Secondary S c h l . 11 12 4 Sr . Secondary S c h l . , 9 • 12 5 - M i s c e l l a n e o u s 10 12 6 M i s c e l l a n e o u s 7 -8 9 7 M i s c e l l a n e o u s K-7 • 8-9 - 8- • M i s c e l l a n e o u s A master l i s t was c o m p i l e d , i n c l u d i n g each s c h o o l ' s name, r e f e r e n c e number; code number, p r i n c i p a l ' s name, and ,a space to note the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ' s date of - r e t u r n . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were then ma i l ed ' to the 3 34 secondary s c h o o l s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . The i n v e s t i g a t o r a r b i t r a r i l y d e c i d e d t o c u t o f f da ta g a t h e r i n g a f t e r two f o l l o w - u p ! ' m a i l i n g s . S i x weeks were -.to-be . a l l o w e d between the i n i t i a l and the second f o l l o w - u p m a i l i n g . The response a f t e r ' t h e i n i t i a l m a i l i n g was 58.6%. A f o l l o w - u p m a i l i n g (again i n c l u d i n g a q u e s t i o n n a i r e , c o v e r i n g l e t t e r and r e t u r n e n v e l o p e ; •see Appendix E) brought the- usable r e t u r n to 88.8%. A second f o l l o w - u p m a i l i n q was not f e l t n e c e s s a r y . 32 I V . A n a ^ l s i s of the Data The raw data was keypunched onto computer d a t a c a r d s and was ana lyzed through the u n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ' s computer f a c i l i t i e s . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e had been c o n s t r u c t e d to f a c i l i t a t e computer a n a l y s i s of r e sponse s . The boxes i n which respondents were t o p l ace answers were numbered c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the 80 columns on computer d a t a c a r d s . Two c a r d s per q u e s t i o n n a i r e were needed t o compi le the da ta . Two " s t o c k " computer programs were used t o i n t e r p r e t t h e d a t a c a r d s : the l a b o r a t o r y o f E d u c a t i o n a l Research £ e . s t 4na.ly.sis EasKsaS JLERTAP}. and the M u l t i v a r i a t e , Contin.gen.cy_ T a b u l a t i o n s JMVTAB1 programs. The former was used to generate a s imple t a b u l a t i o n of r e s u l t s . The MVTAB generated t a b l e s a l l o w i n g compari son between answers t o v a r i o u s q u e s t i o n s on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The t a b l e s a l l owed the author to answer the q u e s t i o n s posed i n Chapter I , S e c t i o n I I o f t u i s s t u d y . For example, re sponses r e g a r d i n g a s c h o o l ' s s tudent p o p u l a t i o n c o u l d be compared to r e s p o n s e s r e g a r d i n g a v a i l a b l e r e a d i n g programs, answering the q u e s t i o n " I s there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c h o o l s i z e and r e a d i n g programs o f f e r e d i n s c h o o l s ? " Responses to q u e s t i o n s 4 , 11 , 12 , 127, 128, and 129 were compared to re sponses r e c e i v e d to a l l o f the o ther q u e s t i o n s on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Comparison ac ro s s the generated t a b l e s was done manua l ly . Thus , answers both w i t h i n and a c r o s s q u e s t i o n s were compared i n a n a l y z i n g the d a t a . ' R e s u l t s were a n a l y z e d i n p u r e l y d e s c r i p t i v e te rms . More i n t r i c a t e ana ly se s can be per formed, but are beyond the scope of t h i s s t u d y . V. Summary. • - - Chapter I I I beg ins with a d e s c r i p t i o n of the d a t a - g a t h e r i n g i n s t r u m e n t and d e s c r i b e s i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n . S e c t i o n I I focuses upon the p o p u l a t i o n •••-•of' the : s tudy and the- d a t a - g a t h e r i n g i n s t r u m e n t . k d i s c u s s i o n o f the method used i n the a n a l y s i s of the raw data c o n c l u d e s the c h a p t e r . 34 CHAPTER IV ; Analgsis of the Data Results and Discussion 1• Introduction This chapter presents a descriptive analysis of the data relevant to the answering of the guestions posed i n Chapter I, Section I I , -of t h i s - study. Three of the 334 schools were rejected and the population was thus reduced to 331. The usable return was 294 questionnaires or 88.8%. Isaac and Michael (1974:93) point out that "percentages under 20% v[ nonresponding subjects] can be reasonably .ignored." As nonresponding-subjects in t h i s - study totaled only 11.2%, no need was f e l t - to s t a t i s t i c a l l y balance the returned questionnaires >to increase validity. 1 The high response rate seems to indicate the concern that educators i n B r i t i s h Columbia f e e l regarding 'secondary' students* • reading s k i l l s . Tables referred to i n t h i s chapter are located at the end of the chapter. 35 I I . The p .uest ions Answered QUESTION 1: What - r e a d i n g programs a re c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e In B r i t i s h Columbia? ; Of the 2 9 4 • r e s p o n d e n t s , 214 i n d i c a t e d the • a v a i l a b i l i t y o f some form o f o r g a n i z e d r e a d i n g a c t i v i t y i n t h e i r s c h o o l (see T a b l e II) Over 50% o f a v a i l a b l e r e a d i n g programs are ^remedia l or c o r r e c t i v e i n - n a t u r e . Secondary- r e a d i n g programs i n - B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , t h e r e f o r e , a re not b a l a n c e d , and s tudent s wi th r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s o t h e r t h a n o f " t h e r e m e d i a l o r c o r r e c t i v e type are probably n o t * b e i n g - h e l p e d . • T h e a v a i l a b i l i t y ' of r e a d i n g programs i n each o f the secondary * g r a d e - l e v e l s ^ i s seen i n T a b l e I I I . - A l l t y p e s of r e a d i n g programs ' are l e s s a v a i l a b l e a t h igher than - .at-lower g rades . ' S c h o o l s i n ' r u r a l areas seem t o have more ba lanced s c h o o l - w i d e - programs- than do s c h o o l s i n o ther a reas (see Tab le IV) -Schools ' s e r v i n g 1 urban p o p u l a t i o n areas show -. the h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e ' o f r e m e d i a l programs, and r e m e d i a l i n s t r u c t i o n i s the most - a v a i l a b l e " : ' r e a d i n g program i n a l l - p o p u l a t i o n a rea s . Deve lopmenta l ' and ' c o r r e c t i v e r e a d i n g programs are* the next most common; r e g a r d l e s s of p o p u l a t i o n area s e r v e d . With the e x c e p t i o n ' o f " r u r a l a r e a s , con ten t • i n s t r u c t i o n i s the program l e a s t commonly found i n a l l p o p u l a t i o n a reas . QUESTION 2: What are the major rea sons g iven for the l a c k o f a r e a d i n g program? 36 The major reason given for the lack of a secondary reading program1 was f a n ' ' i n a b i l i t y to f i n d trained personnel (see Table V). Insufficient'funding was the next most common reason given. These-findings 'are consistent with results of status surveys noted in the review of the l i t e r a t u r e . Only 2.1% of respondents whose schools' did not have a reading program f e l t that there- was no -need ' for such inst r u c t i o n . ' This suggests that were trained personnel and" 'funds- made available, most schools presently without a school-wide reading-program would i n s t i t u t e one. The th i r d most common reason 1 for the lack of a ^reading program, however, was • a 'lack' of s t a f f concern or inter e s t . . This i s a cause 1for alarm because respondents- stated that the factor most s i g n i f i c a n t - i n - the i n i t i a t i o n or expansion of-reading programs i n t h e i r schools was the attitude of the school s t a f f . QUESTION 3: Is there a difference In type and number of reading programs' between junior and senior secondary schools? - There-are-more-corrective reading programs available at the junior secondary school l e v e l than are-available at the senior secondary level''(see Table VI). The senior secondary schools, however; emphasize disadvantaged reader programs to a greater degree' than •••-"do the junior secondary schools. Remedial and corrective-reading -programs-are the most available at . either l e v e l ; Content- -instruction - i n reading is the.program least available in both junior and senior secondary schools. 3 7 QUESTION 4: What are the s p e c i a l g u a l i f i c a t i o n s , i f a n y , o f the t e a c h e r s of secondary r e a d i n g programs? The m a j o r i t y o f r e a d i n g t e a c h e r s • i n B r i t i s h Columbia are u n t r a i n e d i n t h e - t e a c h i n g o f r e a d i n g s k i l l s (see T a b l e V I I ) . S e v e n t y - t h r e e percent of r e a d i n g t e a c h e r s do not have an undergraduate c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n the methods o f t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g , and • the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading A s s o c i a t i o n (1965) minimum t r a i n i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s - f o r secondary r e a d i n g t eacher s a r e met by a p p r o x i m a t e l y '10% of secondary r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t o r s i n B r i t i s h Co lumbia . As one -or ' two p r o f e s s i o n a l • courses , : - f o l l o w e d by i n s e r v i c e * t r a i n i n g / m a k e - u p the m a j o r i t y o f t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g i n r e a d i n g at the p re sen t t i m e , i n s e r v i c e r e a d i n g e d u c a t i o n may be the e a s i e s t - a n d most e f f i c i e n t way t o upgrade read ing t e a c h e r s 1 q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . - I n s e r v i c e cour se s -may - a l s o be b e n e f i c i a l i n i m p r o v i n g " the g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e o f s c h o o l f a c u l t i e s toward r e a d i n g and may • r e s u l t i n c o n t e n t - a r e a t eacher s d o i n g more r e a d i n g ' i n s t r u c t i o n - ' w i t h i n t h e i r s u b j e c t a r e a . S i n c e t r a i n e d r e a d i n g p e r s o n n e l are not a v a i l a b l e , and as t e a c h e r s w i l l have to upgrade t h e i r g u a l i f i c a t i o n s w h i l e on the j o b , i n s e r v i c e and e x t e n s i o n cour se s may be of g rea t v a l u e , QUESTION 5: Has there been a t r e n d toward expans ion-o f secondary reading-programs?< -•> I f so , i n - which a rea . ( e . g . , " r e m e d i a l , d e v e l o p m e n t a l , e t c . ) has the g r e a t e s t expans ion o c c u r r e d ? 38 ' As shown i n T a b l e V I I I , o n l y 15 secondary•• read ing programs were a v a i l a b l e / i n B r i t i s h ' C o l u m b i a before 1964. The va s t m a j o r i t y o f programs ; began a f t e r 1970. T h i s f i n d i n g i s i n c o n t r a s t - t o B i l l ' s : (1971) s tatement t h a t r e a d i n g programs i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s e x p e r i e n c e d the g r e a t e s t boom d u r i n g the 1960 to 1970 decade ; due 1 t o 1 f e d e r a l ' ' f u n d i n g . The Department' of E d u c a t i o n - i n B r i t i s h Columbia began to s t r e s s r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n i n secondary grades around 1970; and . r e a l r e c o g n i t i o n ' ' o f ' 'Students' r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s was f i r s t i n d i c a t e d i n secondary ' c u r r i c u l u m gu ide s i n 1965. In a l l l i k e l i h o o d . I t " I s - the i n i t i a t i v e / shown by the Department o f E d u c a t i o n which has r e s u l t e d - i n the number of secondary r e a d i n g programs b e g i n n i n g a f t e r - 1970.- The i n c r e a s e i n secondary read ing-programs was r e p o r t e d ' i n the f o l l o w i n g ways: . i n c r e a s e i n number of -*> • s t u d e n t s ' ' i n s t r u c t e d (91. 6%), • <- e x t e n s i o n - o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l ^timer• (75.6%) f g r e a t e r - v a r i e t y i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l o f f e r i n g s and - s e r v i c e s (82.6%) , * more a c t i v e i n v o l v e m e n t by s u b j e c t - a r e a t e a c h e r s (59.4%). QUESTION 6: What -do-- the people be ing -surveyed f e e l w i l l be the a r e a — ( i n secondary reading) » needing the most a t t e n t i o n and support i n f u t u r e ? On the- b a s i s o f r e s u l t s presented- - i n T a b l e I X , developmental • • and - remedia l r e a d i n g programs w i l l c o n t i n u e t o expand d u r i n g the next s e v e r a l y e a r s . Over 60%: o f the re spondents f e l t ' t h a t r e m e d i a l and developmenta l r e a d i n g programs w i l l need the most a d m i n i s t r a t i v e support i n f u t u r e 39 years. T h i s 1 i s 1 u n f o r t u n a t e , s i n c e r e m e d i a l and developmental programs a l r e a d y make up the bulk of a v a i l a b l e reading programs i n the province; I f - a " b a l a n c e d r e a d i n g program i n B r i t i s h Columbia" i s to- appear, educators must be prepared t o support other types of r e a d i n g programs, while not n e g l e c t i n g programs p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e . Some secondary a d m i n i s t r a t o r s do seem to be r e a l i z i n g t h a t > i n s t r u c t i o n - i n the s k i l l s o f - c o n t e n t r e a d i n g i s a l s o important, f o r content-area programs are f o u r t h on the l i s t - o f programs needing f u t u r e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e support. Hopefully,'- the next- f i v e years w i l l see greater-emphasis placed upon r e a d i n g i n the c o n t e n t areas than i s p r e s e n t l y the case. QUESTION 7: What i s the r e a c t i o n of the - people being surveyed with r e g a r d ' to the c o n t r i b u t i o n of the reading program i n t h e i r school? Approximately 49% of the respondents who. have a. r e a d i n g program i n t h e i r -"school are l e s s than s a t i s f i e d with i t (see T a b l e X) 1. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , s p e c i f i c reasons f o r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n are not known;- A comparison of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' a t t i t u d e s and teacher t r a i n i n g (Table XI) however; y i e l d s the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t 41.3% of the d i s s a t i s f i e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have reading t e a c h e r s i n - - t h e i r schools•* with l e s s than undergraduate . t r a i n i n g - i n r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n ; - •• Of the- a d m i n i s t r a t o r s having t e a c h e r s with an undergraduate c o n c e n t r a t i o n o r a graduate-degree i n r e a d i n g * only one- i n d i c a t e d g r e a t d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n -with h i s s c h o o l ' s r e a d i n g program;"' C l e a r l y , 1 administrators•< *are more s a t i s f i e d with r e a d i n g programs taught by q u a l i f i e d reading t e a c h e r s . 40 U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the r e s u l t s i n Table,XI f o r c e one t o q u e s t i o n the value of i n s e r v i c e r e a d i n q e d u c a t i o n . Approximately « 50% of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' are d i s s a t i s f i e d with r e a d i n g programs taught by teache r s w i t h ' i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g . Roughly the same percentage of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s • a r e ' d i s s a t i s f i e d with reading courses taught by t e a c h e r s ' w i t h no t r a i n i n g i n r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . ••>• Only 1.5% of the respondents doubt the-value of a secondary r e a d i n g 'program;- Thus, 98.5% f e e l t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n a l •> programs i n r e a d i n g s k i l l s have a place a t the secondary s c h o o l l e v e l . The responding a d m i n i s t r a t o r s do not- doubt the va l u e of a secondary r e a d i n g - program, - but'- are*"1 d i s s a t i s f i e d with programs p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e . •- T h i s ' d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n may be a d i r e c t r e s u l t of the l a c k of teachers t r a i n e d i n the t e a c h i n g of secondary r e a d i n g . QUESTION' 8: I s th e r e an observable r e l a t i o n s h i p between teacher t r a i n i n g -and types of r e a d i n g programs o f f e r e d i n secondary schools? - Table XII - shows- -that q u a l i f i e d teachers-, i n read i n g i n s t r u c t i o n teach more -types of .reading c l a s s e s t h a n - do un t r a i n e d r e a d i n g t e a c h e r s . A s c h o o l having a reading teacher with' a graduate - degree i n re a d i n g thus- has-•-•more- - chance of - having a well-rounded, school-wide r e a d i n g program' than does a s c h o o l with a r e a d i n g teacher who has l i t t l e or no t r a i n i n g i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n ; •• " The- - d i v e r s i t y a n d - a v a i l a b i l i t y - of reading i n s t r u c t i o n - f r o m t r a i n e d personnel may a l s o be' reasons f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1 s a t i s f a c t i o n with r e a d i n g programs taught by 41 q u a l i f i e d personnel. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , content-area i n s t r u c t i o n i s s t i l l - t h e l e a s t a v a i l a b l e program, even i n s c h o o l s having a h i g h l y t r a i n e d r e a d i n g teacher. QUESTION 9: Is t h e r e an observable r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c h o o l s i z e and reading programs o f f e r e d i n secondary schools? Larger s c h o o l s seem to o f f e r a g r e a t e r v a r i e t y o f r e a d i n g programs than do s m a l l e r s c h o o l s (see Table X I I I ) . For example, l e s s than ' 10% of s c h o o l s with a student -population of under -250 c o n t a i n a ' disadvantaged reader program, while over 55% of s c h o o l s - with-a student p o p u l a t i o n g r e a t e r than-1,000. have such a r e a d i n g program. Of the s i x secondary• schools •• with a student p o p u l a t i o n ' of over'2,000, a l l but one o f f e r a l l of the reading program types d e f i n e d i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h i s may t i e i n with the' f a c t t h a t a l l s i x s c h o o l s have teachers<with no l e s s than an''undergraduate c o n c e n t r a t i o n - of courses i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n . This' f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t with the answer to the previous" q u e s t i o n , which- noted t h a t r e a d i n g - t e a c h e r s with g r e a t e r t r a i n i n g p r o v i d e more balanced school-wide r e a d i n g programs. 42 I I I . Other F i n d i n g s The m a j o r i t y of secondary reading programs i n B r i t i s h Columbia have i n c r e a s e d i n scope (Table V I I I ) . Soma secondary reading programs, however, have decreased (see Taale XIV). The decreases were o u t l i n e d i n the f o l l o w i n g ways: r e d u c t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n a l time (18.4%), decrease i n number of students i n s t r u c t e d (18.4%), and l e s s a c t i v e involvement of s u b j e c t - a r e a teachers (13.3%), With regard t o developmental reading i n s t r u c t i o n i n grades e i g h t , t e n , and twelve, 36.2%, 10.7% and 5.6% of respondents ( r e s p e c t i v e l y ) I n d i c a t e d that over 50% of the students i n t h e i r s c h o o l s were e n r o l l e d i n developmental rea d i n g c l a s s e s . Thus, the higher grades seem to s t r e s s developmental reading programs to a l e s s e r extent than do the lower secondary grades. S i x t y -one percent of developmental reading courses are embedded i n E n g l i s h c l a s s e s , although most E n g l i s h teachers are u n t r a i n e d i n r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . One hundred f i f t y - f o u r respondents i n d i c a t e d the e x i s t e n c e of a s p e c i a l r e a d i n g f a c i l i t y i n t h e i r s c h o o l . The reading i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s t a k i n g p l a c e i n those f a c i l i t i e s are c a t e g o r i z e d i n Table XV. In most i n - s c h o o l r e a d i n g f a c i l i t i e s , i n d i v i d u a l i z e d r e m e d i a l treatment makes up the major p a r t o f the reading program. Developmental c l a s s e s are the l e a s t s t r e s s e d . Al s o , the more t r a i n i n g a teacher has i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n , the more l i k e l y the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the teacher works out of a s p e c i a l i n - s c h o o l f a c i l i t y f o r reading i n s t r u c t i o n (see Table XVI). A l l 21 r e a d i n g teachers with a graduate degree i n r e a d i n g 43 c u r r e n t l y teach i n a s p e c i a l r e a d i n g f a c i l i t y , while o n l y 50% of reading teachers- : w i t h no t r a i n i n g i n the f i e l d are t e a c h i n g i n such-a f a c i l i t y . -This i s probably •<•/• because untrained reading t e a c h e r s are' mainly part-time t e a c h e r s of reading who do not l e a v e t h e i r normal subject-area^ classroom. - . • Grade-wide t e s t i n g i n reading• is••••• not done to any great extent past • the'grade e i g h t l e v e l - (see Table XVII). The. l a r g e decrease i n grade-wide t e s t i n g from grade 8 to grade 9 c o u l d be due : t o secondary s c h o o l s ' wishing to note s t u d e n t s ' r e a d i n g l e v e l s - a s " they e n t e r ' t h e secondary? grades, since' the Canadian, Test - o f • B a s i c - S k i l l s i s almost u n i v e r s a l l y administered i n grade 7, those r e a d i n g scores should be used r a t h e r than r e t e s t i n g students in'grade-8. Students' r e a d i n g - a b i l i t y could be t e s t e d i n grade 9, a f t e r they have been •exposed to the secondary s c h o o l ' s environment and more s p e c i a l i z e d c o n t e n t - a r e a i n s t r u c t i o n ' f o r ' a " l o n g e r p e r i o d - of time." Although 53.3% of respondents s t a t e d t h a t group d i a g n o s t i c t e s t s are used (see Table •'XVIII); one wonders i f the r e s u l t of such t e s t i n g i s of value; c o n s i d e r i n g the t r a i n i n g of most reading t e a c h e r s . A r e l a t i v e l y ^ l a r g e number -of-respondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t r e a d i n g data gathered through i n d i v i d u a l d i a g n o s t i c assessment by <a r e a d i n g - " s p e c i a l i s t i s used i n t h e i r - s c h o o l s . T h i s f i n d i n g - m u s t be questioned when one c o n s i d e r s the low- number of t r a i n e d reading s p e c i a l i s t s a v a i l a b l e i n B r i t i s h Columbia. IV. D i s c u s s i o n 1 Secondary ^readi n g programs ••• i n B r i t i s h Columbia came i n t o being after-1970 (Table VIII) The r a p i d expansion of reading programs s i n c e that date caused a demand f o r t r a i n e d r e a d i n g t e a c h e r s which has not been met; U n i v e r s i t y -teachec t r a i n i n g programs i n t h e " p r o v i n c e have-not been a b l e t o keep up with the demand ' f o r t r a i n e d personnel i n -secondary- r e a d i n g , and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s c i t e the l a c k of such teachers as the major reason f o r the lack- of -a- r e a d i n g program (Table V ) . Many a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were of the o p i n i o n t h a t the b e s t way t o improve the ••quality of s e c o n d a r y reading i n s t r u c t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s t o make u n i v e r s i t y courses ^n- the • teaching of r e a d i n g a requirement -•- f o r a l l • teachers.• Very; few a d m i n i s t r a t o r s doubted the value of 1secondary readinq programs or f e l t t h a t such programs were not-needed i n - t h e i r s c h o o l s (Tables V, X, ..XI) . •,.••"••> Reading programs i n B r i t i s h Columbia are- l e s s a v a i l a b l e i n higher grades-than-in lower 1 grades- (Tables I I I , - V I ) . Remedial and developmental'"programs are-the most common, with content-area- i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d i n g being the-least< a v a i l a b l e program i n the p r o v i n c e (Tables I I , IV, VI, X I I I ) . -The l a c k of c o n t e n t -area- programs !'should be'remedied.- -It may be a-good s i g n t h a t 10% of respondents f e l t t h a t content-area i n s t r u c t i o n needs the g r e a t e s t s u p p o r t ' d u r i n g the -next s e v e r a l years (Table IX) . •.; - « -Larger•- s c h o o l s ; - g e n e r a l l y > have- be t t e r ; g u a l i f i e d r e a d i n g t e a c h e r s , and "thus - a l s o have a b e t t e r • balanced -school-rwide r e a d i n g program than-do s m a l l e r s c h o o l s (Tables XII, X I I I ) . - The majority, of t r a i n e d r e a d i n g t e a c h e r s work i n a s p e c i a l i n - s c h o o l 45 r e a d i n g f a c i l i t y and c o n c e n t r a t e on reading i n s t r u c t i o n of an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d nature (Tables XV, XVI) . The p r e v a i l i n g o p i n i o n i s t h a t developmental-reading i n s t r u c t i o n belongs i n the r e g u l a r E n g l i s h c l a s s , 1 - but t h i s study d i d not q u a n t i f y the amount of such - i n s t r u c t i o n a c t u a l l y being done i n secondary E n g l i s h c l a s s e s ; •••• - ••••*;:>•••• -1 R e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e t e s t i n g of s t u d e n t s ' reading a b i l i t y i s done on a grade-wide- b a s i s , although group and i n d i v i d u a l d i a g n o s t i c '-assessment• of reading s k i l l s i s noted i n over 53% of schools- having 5 - some *r form of r e a d i n g - program (Tables XVII, XVIII) ; • •As-* a- l a r g e number of' r e a d i n g teachers have on l y i n s e r v i c e f - ' t r a i n i n g i n the - teaching' of reading, and many i n s e r v i c e * courses f o c u s upon - i n f o r m a l t e s t i n g t echniques, i t i s not ^ s u r p r i s i n g " t h a t 5 - i n f o r m a l t e s t i n g procedures are used i n over 60% of s c h o o l s having a r e a d i n g program (Tables VII, X V I I I ) . V. Summary • C h a p t e r IV- begins with an i n t r o d u c t i o n d i s c u s s i n g the v a l i d i t y of the 88.8%* r e t u r n r a t e upon which the r e s u l t s of t h i s study -are 'based; : 4 The questions posed'-'is Chapter I, S e c t i o n I I are answered-in the --following s e c t i o n . The g e n e r a l f i n d i n g s f o r the p o p u l a t i o n i n t h i s study were t h a t : 1. The g r e a t ' m a j o r i t y of secondary reading programs i n ^ • B r i t i s h • Columbia are remedial and/or developmental' i n nature. There i s • l e s s emphasis upon- '» c o r r e c t i v e , c o n t e n t - o r i e n t e d , and disadvantaged reading programs. 46 2. The; major i t y of secondary r e a d i n g teachers i n B r i t i s h "Columbia are u n t r a i n e d i n the t e a c h i n g of reading.- Only 10% meet the IRA minimum t r a i n i n g standards f o r reading^ i n s t r u c t o r s . 3. Secondary; s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s do not doubt e i t h e r the value of or the need f o r secondary read i n g programs. -4. Secondary s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s f e e l that more t r a i n e d r e a d i n g personnel should be made • • - a v a i l a b l e . A d i s c u s s i o n - o f r e s u l t s i s seen i n S e c t i o n IV of t h i s c h a pter. A l l t a b l e s r e f e r r e d t o i n Chapter IV are l o c a t e d a t the end of the chapter. TABLE I I NUMBER AND TYPES OF SECONDARY READING PROGRAMS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA PROGRAM TYPE • • • ; NO. % OF TOTAL Developmental 140 21.5 C o r r e c t i v e 14 3 22.0 Remedial 182 28.0 Disadvantage d 97 14.9 Content 88 13. 5 ' TABLE I I I AVAILABILITY OF SECONDARY READING PROGRAMS IN GRADES 8-12 PROGRAM TYPE- •• 8 9 GRADE 10 11 12 Developmental 125 94 68 32 27 C o r r e c t i v e 113 9 8 69 26 17 Remedial 138 1 17 85 30 24 Disadvantaged 87 75 65 30 26 T o t a l No. Of Schools' with t h i s Grade 185 179 178 111 108 •" "'; TABLE IV AVAILABILITY OF SECONDARY BEADING PROGRAMS WITH REGARD TO POPULATION AREA POPULATION AREA PROGRAM • TYPE ••••• •-= : URBAN INNER-CITY • URBAN GENERAL • SUB-URBAN SMALLER CITY RURAL Developmental 3 23 38 32 43 C o r r e c t i v e 3 23 36 36 45 Remedial ' 5 32 50 39 55 Disadvantaged 4 20 23 27 22 Content * 3 18 17 19 31 T o t a l no. of Schools 5 34 56 49 71 TABLE V REASONS FOR THE LACK OF A SECONDARY READING PROGRAM REASONS - GIVEN NO. RESPONSES % OF TOTAL Lack of Personnel 27 36.5 Lack of Funds 21 28.4 Lack of S t a f f Concern or I n t e r e s t -~• 11 14.8 I n s u f f i c i e n t F a c i l i t i e s 7 9.4 Scheduling C o m p l e x i t i e s 7 9.4 L i t t l e Need f o r a Program at the School 2 2.7 49 TABLE VI AVAILABILITY AND TYPES OF SECONDARY READING PROGRAMS IN JUNIOR AND SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS PROGRAM TYPE -JR. SECONDARY SR. SECONDARY NO. % OF TOTAL NO. % OF TOTAL Remedial •'• 74 89.2 10 71. 4 Developmental 52 62.2 9 64. 3 C o r r e c t i v e 59 71.1 8 57. 1 Disadvantaged 42 50.6 9 64. 3 Content 33 39.8 5 35. 7 TABLE VII SPECIAL TRAINING IN READING BRITISH COLUMBIA SECONDARY INSTRUCTION OF READING TEACHERS SPECIAL TRAINING-IN READING INSTRUCTION NUMBER OF TEACHERS % OF TOTAL No S p e c i a l T r a i n i n g 34 15.9 I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g 41 19.2 1 or 2 P r o f e s s i o n a l Courses .• 82 38.3 Undergraduate C o n c e n t r a t i o n 36 16.8 Graduate Degree 21 9. 8 I TABLE VIII GROWTH OF SECONDARY READING PROGRAMS IN ERITISH COLUMBIA YEAR NUMBER OF PROGRAMS Before 1960 7 1960-1964 8 1965-1969 35 A f t e r 1970 165 TABLE IX ADMINISTRATORS' OPINIONS REGARDING SECONDARY READING PROGRAMS NEEDING THE GREATEST SUPPORT OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS RESPONSES PROGRAM TYPE NO. % OF TOTAL Developmental 86 37.5 C o r r e c t i v e 47 20. 5 Remedial 60 28.0 Disadvantaged 13 5.7 Content 23 10.0 51 TABLE X ADMINISTRATORS' ATTITUDES TOWARD READING PROGRAMS IN THEIR SCHOOLS ATTITUDE NUMBER OF % OF RESPONSES RESPONSES Very S a t i s f i e d 22 10.6 S a t i s f i e d 82 39.6 S l i g h t l y D i s s a t i s f i e d 84 40.6 Very D i s s a t i s f i e d 16 7.7 Doubt the Value of Programs at Secondary L e v e l 3 1.5 TABLE XI ADMINISTRATORS' ATTITUDES TOWARD SECONDARY READING PROGRAMS COMPARED TO TEACHER TRAINING OF READING TEACHERS •• TEACHER TRAINING ATTITUDE NO RDG. COURSES INSERVICE TRAINING 1-2 COURSES UNDERGRAD. TRAINING GRAD. DEGREE Very S a t i s -f i e d 3 • 5 1 6 7 S a t i s f i e d 12 14 31 14 10 S l i g h t l y D i s -s a t i s f i e d 11 16 40 13 4 Very D i s s a t -i s f i e d : 6 4 5 1 0 Doubt Value of Program at Secondary L e v e l 0 2 1 0 0 52 TABLE XII TEACHER TRAINING RELATED TO NUMBER AND TYPES OF AVAILABLE SECONDARY READING PROGRAMS TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAM NO RDG. INSERVICE 1-2 UNDERGRAD. GRAD. TYPE COURSES TRAINING COURSES TRAINING DEGREE Developmental 23 23 52 24 18 C o r r e c t i v e 20 30 48 30 14 Remedial 25 32 72 31 20 Content 18 16 22 17 13 Disadvantaged 15 11 40 17 14 T o t a l No. Of Teachers 34 41 82 36 21 TABLE X I I I AVAILABILITY OF SECONDARY READING PROGRAMS RELATED TO SCHOOL SIZE STUDENT POPULATION PROGRAM TYPE UNDER 250 250-499 500-999 1000-1999 2000 OR MORE Developmental 16 27 67 25 5 C o r r e c t i v e 11 26 80 21 5 Remedial 16 31 97 31 6 Content 15 18 34 16 . 5 Disadvantaged 3 10 59 20 5 T o t a l No. of Schools 32 44 108 36 6 TABLE XIV NDMBER AND TYPE OF SECONDARY READING PROGRAMS WHICH HAVE DECREASED SINCE 1970 PROGRAM NO- OF PROGRAMS TYPE DECREASED Developmental 15 C o r r e c t i v e 9 Remedial 10 Content 0 Disadvantaged 4 TABLE XV SECONDARY READING ACTIVITIES TAKING PLACE IN IN-SCHOOL READING FACILITIES INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES NO. RESPONSES % OF TOTAL Developmental C l a s s e s 66 42.9 I n d i v i d u a l i z e d Developmental I n s t r u c t i o n 103 66.9 C o r r e c t i v e C l a s s e s or Groups 103 66.9 I n d i v i d u a l i z e d Remedial-Treatment 135 87.8 Disadvantaged Reader Programs 72 46.8 54 2A3LE XVI AMMOUNT OF SPECIAL TRAINING IN SECONDARY READING INSTRUCTION RELATED TO TEACHERS TEACHING IN AN IN-SCHCOL READING FACILITY SPECIAL TRAINING IN READING INSTRUCTION NO. TEACHING IN SPECIAL FACILITY TOTAL NO. OF TEACHERS No S p e c i a l T r a i n i n g 17 34 I n s e r v i c e T r a i n i n g 25 41 1 or 2 P r o f e s s i o n a l Courses 59 82 Undergraduate T r a i n i n g 32 36 Graduate Degree 21 42 TABLE H I I NUMBER OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS USING STANDARDIZED TESTS IN READING ON A GRADE-HIDE BASIS GRADEMIDE TESTING GRADE NO. % OF TOTAL 8 144 77.8 9 64 35.6 10 52 29. 2 11 29 26.1 12 19 17.6 TABLE X V I I I HEADING ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA SECONDARY SCHOOLS USED TO SUPPLEMENT STANEARDIZED READING TEST DATA ASSESSMENT NO. OF PROCEDURE SCHOOLS GROUP STANDARDIZED DIAGNOSTIC TESTS 1 14 TESTS FROM COMMERCIAL MATERIAL 63 INFORMAL TESTS 130 INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT BY A READING SPECIALIST 119 TOTAL NO. OF SCHOOLS 214 56 CHAPTER V Summary, and Recommendations 1 • t i o n T h i s c hapter summarizes the study and draws c o n c l u s i o n s based upon the f i n d i n g s . I m p l i c a t i o n s and recommendations p e r t i n e n t to the p o p u l a t i o n of t h i s study are suggested. G e n e r a l i z a t i o n s drawn from t h i s r e s e a r c h should be l i m i t e d to the p o p u l a t i o n used f o r the study or t o s i m i l a r p o p u l a t i o n s . 11. Summary, T h i s study gathered d a s c r i p t i v e data concerning the s t a t u s of secondary r e a d i n g programs i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Ihe review of the l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e d that few s t a t u s surveys o f r e a d i n g have been performed, even though they are thought t o be of c o n s i d e r a b l e value. Status surveys of secondary r e a d i n g have g e n e r a l l y noted an u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of t r a i n e d personnel and funds as major reasons f o r the lack of a read i n g program. Teachers of reading were o f t e n found to be untrained. A de a r t h of con t e n t -area r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n was a l s o common i n the s t u d i e s reviewed i n Chapter I I . B' Qkis.£liis.§. 2l %.hs. Study, The major o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s study wer« to answer f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s : 1. What reading programs are c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a o i e i n B r i t i s h Columbia's secondary schools? 2. What are the major reasons given f o r a l a c k of reading programs? 3. I s there a d i f f e r e n c e i n type and nuraoer of readin g programs between j u n i o r and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s ? 4 . What are the s p e c i a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , i f any, of the t e a c h e r s of secondary r e a d i n g programs? 5 . Has t h e r e been a trend toward expansion of secondary r e a d i n g programs? I f so, i n whicn area (e.g., r e m e d i a l , developmental, etc.) has the g r e a t e s t expansion occurred? 6 . What do the people being surveyed f e e l w i l l be the area ( i n secondary reading) needing the most a t t e n t i o n and support i n f u t u r e ? 7 . What i s the r e a c t i o n of the people being surveyed r e g a r d i n g the c o n t r i b u t i o n o f the reading program i n t h e i r s c h o o l ? 8 . I s th e r e an observable r e l a t i o n s h i p between teacher t r a i n i n g and types of reading programs o f f e r e d i n s c h o o l s ? 58 9. I s there an observable r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c h o o l s i z e and reading programs o f f e r e d i n secondary s c h o o l s ? B. Procedures and A n a l y s i s of the Data A q u e s t i o n n a i r e addressed to the p r i n c i p a l was s e n t to a l l s c h o o l s i n B r i t i s h Columbia c o n t a i n i n g one or more or the qrades 8-12. R e s u l t s were based upon a r e t u r n of 294 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s or 88.8%. The survey instrument was a modified v e r s i o n of a q u e s t i o n n a i r e developed by Dr. w. H i l l (1975) and was d i v i d e d i n t o e i q h t q e n a r a l s e c t i o n s (see chapter I I I , S e c t i o n I ) . The raw data was punched onto computer data cards and was analyzed throuqh the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia's computer f a c i l i t i e s . The standard I.ERTAP and 1VTAB computer proqrams were used. The URTAP program t a b u l a t e d r e s u l t s while the MYTAB program generated t a b l e s through comparison of responses to q u e s t i o n s 4, 11, 12, 127, 128, 129 with a l l other responses on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Comparison a c r o s s the generated t a b l e s was done manually. The comparisons allowed the i n v e s t i g a t o r to answer the q u e s t i o n s noted under the o b j e c t i v e s of the study. R e s u l t s were r e p o r t e d i n d e s c r i p t i v e terms. 59 C. Conclusions The c o n c l u s i o n s , based upon the data gathered from the po p u l a t i o n us-ad i n t h i s study, are: 1. Two hundred fourteen of 294 respondents i n d i c a t e d the e x i s t e n c e of some form of organized r e a d i n g a c t i v i t y In t h e i r s c h o o l . The ma j o r i t y of a v a i l a b l e r e a d i n g programs are re m e d i a l and developmental. There i s l e s s emphasis on c o r r e c t i v e , c o n t e n t - o r i e n t e d , and disadvantaged reader I n s t r u c t i o n . 2. Schools l a c k i n g secondary reading programs c i t e the u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of t r a i n e d reading p e r s o n n e l , i n s u f f i c i e n t funding, and s t a f f apathy (in t h a t order) as major reasons f o r the l a c k . 3. Remedial and c o r r e c t i v e r e a d i n g programs are most a v a i l a b l e a t both the j u n i o r and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l l e v e l s . Senior secondary s c h o o l s , however, s t r e s s disadvantaged reader programs t o a g r e a t e r degree than do j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s , which emphasize c o r r e c t i v e reading programs. 4. The m a j o r i t y of secondary r e a d i n g t e a c h e r s are untr a i n e d i n the teaching of r e a d i n g . Only 10% meet the IRA (1965) minimum t r a i n i n g standards f o r reading i n s t r u c t o r s . 5. Most secondary reading programs i n B r i t i s h Columbia came i n t o being a f t e r 1970. The survey r e v e a l e d the e x i s t e n c e of only 15 secondary 60 reading programs p r i o r to 1964. 6. Developmental and remedial reading programs are expected to r e c e i v e the g r e a t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e support over the next s e v e r a l years. 7. Approximately one-half of responding a d m i n i s t r a t o r s having a r e a d i n g program i n t h e i r s c h o o l are l e s s than s a t i s f i e d with i t . A d m i n i s t r a t o r s c i t e secondary reading programs taught by u n t r a i n e d teachers as a major source of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , 8. In most cases adequately t r a i n e d teachers provide a d i v e r s e program i n reading while t e a c h e r s u n t r a i n e d i n reading education tend t o emphasize only remedial or davalopmantal rea d i n g , 9. Large s c h o o l s o f f e r a g r e a t e r v a r i e t y of r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n than do small s c h o o l s . 10. The m a j o r i t y of schools (71.9%) with some form of organized r e a d i n g a c t i v i t y have a s p e c i a l f a c i l i t y where such i n s t r u c t i o n takes p l a c e . 11. Grade-wide t a s t i n g of reading i s not common beyond the grade e i g h t l e v e l . Informal t e s t s are commonly used to supplement s t a n d a r d i z e d r e a d i n g t e s t data. The f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s are i n g e n e r a l agreement with r e s u l t s noted i n the review of the l i t e r a t u r e . 61 I I I . Recomjnj|ndat ions On the b a s i s of the r e s u l t s and c o n c l u s i o n s , the f o l l o w i n g recommendations are o f f e r e d : 1. Greater -emphasis should be placed upon disadvantaged, c o r r e c t i v e , and content i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d i n g . 2. Teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s should r e q u i r e a c o u r s e " ' i n r e a d i n g s i n s t r u c t i o n f o r a l l p r o s p e c t i v e secondary tea c h e r s . A l s o , ^ p r o s p e c t i v e E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s 1 should have a d d i t i o n a l ; courses i n the teac h i n g of re a d i n g , s i n c e the p r e v a i l i n g o p i n i o n i s t h a t E n g l i s h teachers a r e - r e s p o n s i b l e - f o r the t e a c h i n g 1 o f reading s k i l l s i n secondary grades. 3. Since a l l but two a d m i n i s t r a t o r s without r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n - i n t h e i r s c h o o l s f e l t - t h a t , such i n s t r u c t i o n i s needed, - e v e r y - e f f o r t should be made to i n i t i a t e o r ganized r e a d i n g a c t i v i t y i n a l l British"'Columbia secondary s c h o o l s . 4. More i n s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o a / i n r e a d i n g should be made a v a i l a b l e ; ' Since secondary a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are m o r e ^ s a t i s f i e d with r e a d i n g programs taught by t r a i n e d r a t h e r than u n t r a i n e d reading t e a c h e r s , e f f o r t s ' s h o u l d be c h a n n e l e d ^ i n t o upgrading the t r a i n i n g -^ of 'teachers • through i n s e r v i c e and exten s i o n courses i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n . 5. Since r e s e a r c h has shown t h a t - r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n t a k i n g place i n a s p e c i a l f a c i l i t y i s more 62 e f f a c t i v e than reading i n s t r u c t i o n t aking place i n a r e g u l a r classroom, s c h o o l s should designate a place ^ s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d i n g s k i l l s . IV. Recommendations f o r Future Research T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n has s u p p l i e d p a r t i a l answers t o q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g - t h e s t a t u s of secondary reading programs i n B r i t i s h Columbia; The - study was intended as only a " f i r s t s t e p " , however, and f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n the area should be undertaken.- The f o l l o w i n g ' are suggestions f o r f u r t h e r study: 1. I t would be1 worthwhile' t o r e f i n e some of the q u e s t i o n s - used i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Since many of the q u e s t i o n s i n the instrument were of a g e n e r a l nature, more s p e c i f i c responses should now be determined. An e n t i r e ' study, f o r example, could'be based on a p o p u l a t i o n c o n s i s t i n g of those g i v i n g an a f f i r m a t i v e response to guestion 14, r e g a r d i n g • •the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f s p e c i a l , i n - s c h o o l r e a d i n g - f a c i l i t i e s . 2. More 1 i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g - a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1 d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with r e a d i n g programs would be v a l u a b l e . F u r t h e r study should be done i n t h i s area.' . . . 3. The -raw data f o r t h i s study could be f u r t h e r analyzed to d i s c o v e r whether observed d i f f e r e n c e s (e.g.; between j u n i o r and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l reading programs) are s i g n i f i c a n t . Smith* 1(1963;37) s t a t e d 1 t h a t " i n d i s c u s s i n g [ reading •] programs, one needs to- be c o g n i z a n t of type a n d ' q u a l i t y , f o r a r e a d i n g program might be l i t t l e 1 more than'one i n name on l y . " I t may thus be -v alu a b l e t c f u r t he r s t u d y s c hooIs which-include a -reading -program., i n order t o r e l a t e a c t u a l i n s t r u c t i o n ^ t o stated•program'types and g o a l s , :> An o b s e r v a t i o n / i n t e r v i e w method may be the most a p p r o p r i a t e method f o r such r e s e a r c h . REFERENCES 65 REFERENCES Applebee, R. K. 1966. N a t i o n a l Study of High School E n g l i s h Programs: A Record of E n g l i s h Teaching Ioday. E n g l i s h J o u r n a l . 5:273-281. A r t l e y , A. S. 1968. Trends and P r a c t i c e s i n Secondary Reading: A Review of t h ^ L i t e r a t u r e . Newark, Delaware: IRA, Baughman, M. D. 1960. S p e c i a l Reading I n s t r u c t i o n i n I l l i n o i s J u n i o r High Schools, N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s B u l l e t i n . 44:90-95. Baughman, M. D. 1961. S p e c i a l Reading I n s t r u c t i o n i n J u n i o r High Schools. Clearinghouse. 35:394-397. Bleismer, E. 1967. In M.Dawson (Ed.). Cqmpinjag Research R e s u l t s and Good 2rj.ctic.e_,. 1966, IRA Proceedings, 2 (2):47-____ Bowren, F. F. 1970. The Status of Reading S e r v i c e s i n New Mexico Secondary Schools. J o u r n a l of Reading. 13:513-518. Boyle, S. 1971. Trends i n F l o r d i a High School Reading Programs. J o u r n a l of Reading. 14:299-302. Brahm, L. S. & Roehm, A, A. 1967. Concepts of a High School Reading Program and the Role of a Reading Teacher, J o u r n a l of the Reading S p e c i a l i s t . 7:55-61. C a w e l t i , G. L. 1963. Reading Improvements i n S e l e c t e d Midwestern High Schools, Reading Teacher. 17:36-37. C h r o n i s t e r , G. M. & Ahrendt, K. M. 1968. Reading I n s t r u c t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia's Secondary Schools. J o u r n a l of Reading 11:425-427. C r i s c u o l o , N. P. 1969. Seven C r u c i a l Issues i n Reading. Reading Teacher. 23:156-173. F a r r , H a r r i s , L a f f e y , Smith. 1969. An Examination o f Reading Programs i n Indiana Schools. B u l l e t i n of School E d u c a t i o n . 45 (2). Freed, B. F. 1973. Secondary Reading — State of the A r t . J o u r n a l of Reading. 17:195-201. Gault, R. H. 1907. A H i s t o r y of the Questio n n a i r e Method of Research i n Psychology. Pedogogical Seminary. 15:366-383. 66 Geake, R. R. 1961. Michigan High Schools S t r e s s S p e c i a l Reading Programs. Michigan Education J o u r n a l . 39:262-263. Graham, H. V. 1969. Present P r a c t i c e s i n Reading Programs i n Secondary Schools i n C a l i f o r n i a . J o u r n a l or Reading. 12:536-568. Grissom, L. V. 1961. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of S u c c e s s f u l Heading Improvement Programs. E n g l i s h J o u r n a l . 50;461-4b4;474. Henry, N. B., ed. 1961. Development i n and Tnrouqh Reading. S i x t i e t h Yearbook of the N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r the Study of Education. H i l l , W. 5 B a r t i n , N. G. 1971. Secondary Reading Programs — D e s c r i p t i o n and Research. ERIC/CRIER s e a l i n g Review S e r i e s . ED055759. H i l l , W. 1971. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Secondary Reading: 1940-1970. Twentieth N.R.C. Yearbook 20-29. H i l l , ». 1975. Secondary Reading i n Western New York: A Survey. J o u r n a l of Reading. 19 (1):13-19. Isaac, S. S Michael, 8. 1974. Handbook i n Research and E v a l u a t i o n . San Diego:Robart R. Knapp. IRA P r o f e s s i o n standards and E t h i c s Committee. 1965. A Guide f o r Teachers and A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , State and P r o v i n c i a l Departments of Education, Teacher Education I n s t i t u t e s and C e r t i f y i n g Agencies. NewarkrIRA. Jordan, J . W. 1958. A Survey of C e r t a i n P o l i c i e s and P r a c t i c e s i n F l o r d i a J u n i o r High Schools. N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s B u l l e t i n . 42:71-77. Larson, K. L. 1969. A Sfate-Wida Survey: Secondary Reading i n Minnesota. Minnesota Reading Q u a r t e r l y . 13: 137-147;165. Maderia, S. 1961. Reading i n Pennsylvania Schools. Reading Teacher. 14:314-318. Mart i n , W. R, 1969. A New Lcok a t Secondary School Reading Programs i n the Upper Midwest. J o u r n a l of Reading. 12: 467-469;512. Narang, H. L. 1973. Reading I n s t r u c t i o n iu Saskatchewan Secondary Schools. Saskatchewan J o u r n a l of Education Research and Development. 4 (1):58-61. 1930. The Questionnaire. N a t i o n a l Education Research B u l l e t i n . 8 (1) . New England Assessment P r o j e c t . 1970. Reading Assessment i n New England P u b l i c Schools. ERIC/CRIER ED032996. 67 ,,. 1935. B e t t e r Reading I n s t r u c t i o n : A summary of Research and S u c c e s s f u l P r a c t i c e . N a t i o n a l Education A s s o c i a t i o n Research B u l l e t i n . 13 (5). ....... 1942. Reading I n s t r u c t i o n i n Secondary Schools. N a t i o n a l Education A s s o c i a t i o n Research B u l l e t i n . 20 (1) . Oppenheim, A. 1966. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Design and A t t i t u d e Measurement. New York:Basic Books. Peyton, J . 8 Beylow, R. 1965. The Need f o r Reading I n s t r u c t i o n i n Kentucky High Schools. School S e r v i c e Report. 6:2-7. Ramsey, N. 1967. Reading i n Appalachia. Reading Teacher. 21 (1) : 57-63. Shami, M. A. A. 8 Hershkowitz, M. 1974. R e l a t i v e Importance of 'mastery of reading s k i l l s ' as a Goal of P u b l i c E ducation. J o u r n a l of Reading Behaviour. 6:89-97. Simmons, J . S. 1963. The Scope of the Heading Program f o r Secondary Schools. The Reading Teacher. 17:31-35. Simmons, J . S. 1963b. Hho i s Responsible? The Need f o r Q u a l i f i e d S u p e r v i s i o n of Reading Programs. E n g l i s h J o u r n a l . 52:86-88;93. Smith, C. B. 8 A u s t i n , M. C. 1969. Conducting a N a t i o n a l S t y l e of T i t l e I Reading Programs. Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y 4 (3) :323-341. Smith, E. 1956. The Status of Reading I n s t r u c t i o n i n Michigan P u b l i c High Schools. U n i v e r s i t y of Micnigan School of Education B u l l e t i n . 27:91-94. Smith, K. J . 1963. A Survey of Seventh and E i g h t h Grade Reading Programs i n S e l e c t e d AAA M i s s o u r i P u b l i c Schools. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of M i s s o u r i . Smith, N. B. 1961. What Have He Accomplished i n Reading? — A Review of the L a s t 50 Years. Elementary E n q l i s h . 38:141-150. Thornton, R. D. 1957. Developmental Reading i n Texas Secondary Schools. Texas Study of Secondary Education Research Study. 23. T r a x l e r , A. E. & Townsend. A. 1955. Eig h t More Years of Research i n Reading. E d u c a t i o n a l Records Bureau. B u l l e t i n 64. T r a x l e r , A. E. & Jungeblut, A. 1960. Research i n Reading During Another Four Years. E d u c a t i o n a l Records Bureau. B u l l e t i n 75. 68 Wiersma, W. 1969. Besearch Methods i n Ed u c a t i o n — An I n t r o d u c t i o n * J . B. L i p p i n c o t t Co. N.Y. Witty, P.' • 5 Brink, W. G. 1949. Remedial Reading P r a c t i c e s i n Secondary School. J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 40:193-205. 6§ APPENDICES 70 APPENDIX A 111® Data, Gathering Instrument Charles Kinzer 2554 Prince F.dward Street Vancouver, B.C. V5T 3M9 Ref. 0: 01-03 Code tf: 04 Card 9: 1 08 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE SELECT YOUR ANSWER FROM THE CHOICES LISTED AFTER EACH QUESTION. ENTER THE NUMBER OF YOUR ANSWER (THE NUMBER IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YOUR CHOICE) IN THE BOX TO THE- RIGHT OF THE QUESTION. PLEASE ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS ON BOTH SIDES OF EACH PAGE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE BOOKLET. ALL REPLIES ARE CONFIDENTIAL. THANK YOU. What i s the student population, i n a l l grades, of your school? 1 under 250 students 2 250 to 499 students 3 500 to 999 students 4 1000 to 1999 students 5 2000 or mere students 2. Which of the following best describes the population area served by your school? 1 urban i n n e r - c i t y 2 urban general 3 suburban 4 smaller c i t y 5 r u r a l FOR ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT "ORGANIZED SECONDARY READING ACTIVITY": "organized reading a c t i v i t y " refers to any regularly provided, teacher directed, reading i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs of a mini-mum s i x weeks duration. I t does not include momentary or i n c i d e n t a l reading aid to a student i n c. classroom learning s i t u a t i o n . 3. In your school, i s some form of organized reading a c t i v i t y provided for one or more of the secondary grades (grades 8-12)? 1 yes (SKIP TO QUESTION 5) 2 no (PLEASE ANSWER QUESTION 4, AND RETURN QUESTIONNAIRE) 4. Which of the following best accounts f o r the absence of organized secondary reading ac-t i v i t y i n your school? 1 l i t t l e need for such a c t i v i t y i n t h i s school 2 funds i n s u f f i c i e n t to support such a c t i v i t y 3 lack of a v a i l a b l e , trained reading personnel 4 f a c i l i t i e s i n s u f f i c i e n t to operate or support program 5 scheduling and/or administrative complexities 6 lack of s t a f f concern or i n t e r e s t IF YOUR ANSOTR TO QUESTION 3 WAS "NO". THEN PLEASE RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION. 5. When was organized reading a c t i v i t y i n i t i a t e d in your school, for one or more of the secondary grades i n your school (grades 8-12)? 1 before 1960 2 1960 to 1964 3 1965 to 1969 4 1970 or l a t e r 6. Since 1970, organized reading a c t i v i t y , i n your school, has 1 increased s u b s t a n t i a l l y 2 increased a l i t t l e 3 shown no noticable change 4 decreased a l i t t l e 5 decreased s u b s t a n t i a l l y 7. Which of the following factors, i n your opinion, contributed most to the trend indicated i n question 6? 1 p r o v i n c i a l or l o c a l mandated program changes 2 a v a i l a b i l i t y of funds 3 l o c a l administrative factors 4 a v a i l a b i l i t y of trained reading personnel < 5 attitude of school s t a f f 72 -2-ORGANIZED READING ACTIVITY CAN TAKE A VARIETY OF FORMS. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MOST COMMON PATTERNS: Developmental reading classes — systematic i n s t r u c t i o n i n reading s k i l l s , regardless of the r e l a t i v e reading a b i l i t y of the student. Corrective reading classes -- adjusted group i n s t r u c t i o n i n reading f o r students re-vealing some d i f f i c u l t y with reading and i t s use. Remedial reading program — in d i v i d u a l i z e d reading treatment for students with serious reading d i s a b i l i t y . Content or subject-orlentod reading; i n s t r u c t i o n — systematic i n s t r u c t i o n i n reading within the subject-area s e t t i n g and oriented to the needs of that area. "Disadvantaged" r e a d e r programs — s p e c i a l , reading-oriented programs, limited to students meeting certain c r i t e r i a of socio-economic or c u l t u r a l disadvantagement. For example, reading programs dealing with the problems encountered bv our native Indian population, or programs for new Canadians, may f a l l into t h i s category. 8 . Which of the following forms of organized reading a c t i v i t y are presently provided i n one or more of the secondary grades (8-12) of your school? (ANSWER EACH PART USING iHE FOLLOWING:) 1 » yes 2 - no a . developmental reading classes b. corrective reading classes c. remedial reading classes or program . d. content or subject-oriented reading i n s t r u c t i o n e. reading f o r "disadvantaged" students ( s p e c i a l program) 9. Which one of the following forms of reading a c t i v i t y would you consider to be the major emphasis of the reading program currently i n your school? 1 developmental reading classes 2 corrective reading classes 3 remedial reading classes or program 4 content or subject-oriented reading i n s t r u c t i o n 5 reading for "disadvantaged" students (s p e c i a l program) 10. Of the reading i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y presently provided i n your school, which have i n -creased, decreased, or remained unchanged since 1970? (ANSWER EACH PART USING THE FOLLOWING:) 1 " Increased 2 « no change 3 ° decreased 9 " no program of th i s type i n th i s school a . developmental reading classes b. corrective reading classes c. remedial reading classes or program d. content or subject-oriented reading i n s t r u c t i o n e. reading for "disadvantaged" students (s p e c i a l program) 3°i 73 -3-11. With regard to the reading i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s which have increased i n your school, please Indicate i n which of the following ways the increase may be described. (ANSWER EACH PART USING THE FOLLOWING:) 1 » yes 2 • no a. increase i n number of students i n s t r u c t e d b. extension of i n s t r u c t i o n a l time c. greater v a r i e t y i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l o f f e r i n g s and services d. extension of program to include more grade level3 e. greater (more active) involvement by subject-area teachers 12. With regard to the reading i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s which have decreased i n your school, please indicate i n which of the following ways the decrease may be described? (ANSWER EACH PART USING THE FOLLOWING:) 1 " yes 2 - no a. decrease i n number of students i n s t r u c t e d b. reduction of i n s t r u c t i o n a l time c. les s v a r i e t y i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n and services d. reduction of program to cover fewer grade l e v e l s e. les s active involvement by subject area teachers 13. Relative to your own secondary school s i t u a t i o n (grades 8-12), which one of the following types of reading i n s t r u c t i o n needs the greatest administrative support for the next several years? 1 developmental reading classes 2 co r r e c t i v e reading classes 3 remedial reading classes or programs 4 reading for "disadvantaged" students 5 content or subject-oriented reading i n s t r u c t i o n |3o i« IV! I-»7 a . a. 14. Is there a s p e c i a l reading f a c i l i t y ("center", " l a b " , " c l i n i c " , L.A.C., etc.) present-l y i n use i n your school? 1 yes (CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 15) 2 no (SKIP TO QUESTION 18) 15. The s p e c i a l reading f a c i l i t y ("center", "lab", " c l i n i c " , L.A.C., etc.) i n your school can best be described by which one of the following statements? Our reading f a c i l i t y : 1 i s responsible for handling most of the reading program 2 provides supplementary reading i n s t r u c t i o n and services 3 provides supplementary reading i n s t r u c t i o n only 4 provides supplementary reading services only 5 plays l i t t l e or no part i n this school's reading program I |<*1 D 74 -4-Which of the following types of reading i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s would your school's reading f a c i l i t y provide on a regular basis? (ANSWER EACH PART USING THE FOLLOWING:) 1 - yes 2 » no a. developmental reading classes b. developmental reading i n s t r u c t i o n (individualized) c. corrective reading classes or groups d. i n d i v i d u a l i z e d remedial treatment e. programs for "disadvantaged" students Which of the following a d d i t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s or functions are re g u l a r l y assign-ed to your school's reading f a c i l i t y s t a f f ? (ANSWER EACH PART USING THE FOLLOWING:) 1 » yes 2 - no a: reading program administration b. testing and diagnosis c. student counselling d. inse r v i c e education i n reading e. public r e l a t i o n s a c t i v i t i e s ... a. grade 8 . b. grade 9 . c. grade 10 d . grade 11 e. grade 12 5o Si Which of the following best describes the nature of developmental reading i n s t r u c t i o n as provided i n your school? 1 required developmental reading courses (so t i t l e d ) 2 developmental reading classes as English curriculum courses 3 developmental reading units embedded in English courses I I 4 e l e c t i v e reading s k i l l s improvement courses and short courses | 1.7; 5 i n d i v i d u a l i z e d self-development work of a lab program nature Which grade l e v e l s , i n your school, provide developmental reading classes regularly? (ANSWER EACH PART USING THE FOLLOWING:) 1 » yes 2 • no 9 • grade i s not included i n this school S U Si s> 75 Please Indicate those grade le v e l s l n your school where more than SOZ of the students are enrolled i n developmental reading classes. (ANSWER EACH PART USING THE FOLLOWING:) 1 " yes 2 » no 9 • grade i s not included i n t h i s school a. grade 8 b. grade 9 c. grade 10 d. grade 11 e. grade 12 Which grade l e v e l s , i n your school, provide corrective reading classes regularly? (ANSWER EACH PART USING THE FOLLOWING:) 1 » yes 2 - no 9 • grade i s not included i n t h i s school a. grade 8 . b. grade 9 . c. grade 10 d. grade 11 e. grade 12 Which grade l e v e l s , i n your school, provide remedial reading classes regularly? (ANSWER EACH PART USING THE FOLLOWING:) 1 " yes 2 - no 9 » grade i s not included i n t h i s school a. grade 8 b. grade 9 c. grade 10 • d. grade 11 e. grade 12 <c5 lot 1-i Ref. 01-03, Code t 04, Card 9 _2 08 Which grade l e v e l s , i n your school, provide reading programs f o r "disadvantaged" students'! (ANSWER EACH PART USING THE FOLLOWING:) 1 - yes 2 - no 9 " grade i s not included i n t h i s school a. grade 8 . b. grade 9 . c. grade 10 d. grade 11 e. grade 12 OS Please i n d i c a t e those grade l e v e l s where standardized tests i n reading are administered to most students. (ANSWER EACH PART USING THE FOLLOWING:) 1 " yes 2 - no 9 - grade i s not included i n t h i s school a. grade 8 . b. grade 9 . c. grade 10 d. grade 11 e. grade 12 Which of the following reading assessment procedures are regularly or frequently employ-ed to supplement standardized reading test data on the students of your school? (ANSWER EACH PART USING THE FOLLOWING:) 1 « yes 2 » no a. group standardized diagnostic reading tests b. reading tests as part of commercial i n s t r u c t i o n a l material C. Informal reading tests developed by reading teachers d. Individual diagnostic assessment by reading s p e c i a l i s t s Which of the following best t y p i f i e s the involvement of the subject-area teachers of your school with reading instruction? 1 p a r t i c i p a t e i n a planned subject-area oriented reading program 2 make independent e f f o r t t o improve student s k i l l i n reading and use of materials r e l a t e d t o subject area 3 provide i n c i d e n t a l and/or occasional i n s t r u c t i o n i n reading s k i l l s related to subject area 4 express verbal concern about the reading problems of students 5 generally, are unaware about reading needs of students i n subject areas Which of the following c u r r i c u l a r areas i s making the most e f f e c t i v e e f f o r t i n developing reading i n s t r u c t i o n , within a subject area, i n your school? 1 E n g l i s h (language arts and l i t e r a t u r e ) 2 S o c i a l Studies 3 Sciences 4 Mathematics 5 Applied arts and s k i l l s (drama, a r t , music, P.E., etc.) 7 other c u r r i c u l a r area Who handles the coordination and administration of the secondary grade (8-12) reading program i n your school? 1 d i s t r i c t administrative personnel 2 p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e of t h i s school 3 in-school reading administrator 4 subject-area department head 5 counselor In terms of f u l l time equivalance, how many secondary reading teachers are hired to staff your school's reading program? 0 l e s s than one 1 at l e a s t one, but less than two 2 at l e a s t two, but less than three 3 at l e a s t three, but less than four 4 four or more Which of the following i s mos_t representative of the s p e c i a l p r o f e s s i o n al t r a i n i n g in reading among the teachers of reading In your school? 1 general teacher t r a i n i n g only 2 i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g in reading 3 a professional course or two In reading education 4 an undergraduate concentration In roading education * - ~ ^ o ^ . . n f o J O U T P I . in readlna education or as a reading s p e c i a l i s t 77 -7-3 1 . 3 2 . 3 3 . 3 4 . 3 5 . Which of the following are major r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the secondary grade ( 8 - 1 2 ) reading teachers i n your school? (ANSWER EACH FART USING THE FOLLOWING:) 1 - yes 2 » no b. teaching developmental reading classes providing corrective and remedial i n s t r u c t i o n t e s t i n g and diagnosing reading d i f f i c u l t y in students providing supportive help for subject area teachers .. Jo 3* I f the reading teacher (s) i n your school carry a p a r t i a l teaching load i n a subject area, i n which of the following i s the additional teaching r e s p o n s i b i l i t y concentrated? 1 E n g l i s h (language arts and l i t e r a t u r e ) 2 S o c i a l Studies 3 Sciences 4 Mathematics 5 Applied arts and s k i l l s (drama, a r t , music, P.E., etc.) 7 other c u r r i c u l a r area I I * s providing teacher inservice education i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n •Please rank the following forms of secondary reading a c t i v i t y according to how important you think the a c t i v i t i e s are (or would be) lo the t o t a l educational program i n your school, i r r e s p e c t i v e of whether or not they are presently included i n your school program. Assign a rank of 1 to the most important, 2 to the second most important, e t c . , to 5 , the l e a s t important. a. developmental reading i n s t r u c t i o n -b. c o r r e c t i v e reading classes c. i n d i v i d u a l i z e d remedial aid d. reading programs for "disadvantaged" students e. development of subject-matter oriented reading i n s t r u c t i o n J1 Which of the following best r e f l e c t s your c o n f i d e n t i a l reaction to the contribution of the secondary reading e f f o r t to your students and school program? 1 ,very s a t i s f i e d 2 s a t i s f i e d 3 somewhat d i s s a t i s f i e d 4 very d i s s a t i s f i e d 5 doubt the appropriateness of reading i n s t r u c t i o n as a secondary school objective Have you any s p e c i f i c suggestions for improving secondary reading education (grades 8-12) i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia? Please comment below. ,. O f f i c e . — o s t CL CNl-1 3 6 . Please comment below, i f you wish, on the v a l i d i t y of this questionnaire to your reading program or school. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION. PLEASE RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRE USING THE ENCLOSED STAMPED, ADDRESSED ENVELOPE. 78 APPENDIX B The Covering i e t t e r £e,n,t with, f^aa I n i t i a l M a i l i n g APPENDIX C L e t t e r to the P r o v i n c i a l Department o f Education 81 March 24, 1976 Dr. Patrick L. McGeer Minister of Education Parliament Buitlings Victoria, B.C. D e a r Sir: I am, at present, a graduate student enrolled at the University of British Columbia In the Department of Reading Education. You are undoubtedly aware that the subject of reading in cur school system in generating much discussion among the people in our prc/ince. I am writing, there-fore, , to inform you as to the subject of my graduate thesis, as both my advisor, Brother Leonard Courtney (Chairman, Reading Education Dcpartr-ient) and I foal that i t w i l l ccnpleriTent the Language Arts Survey currently being completed, which concerns itself with grades four, eight, and twelve. A3 a part of my thesis work, I propose to siirvey the secondary schools in the Province of Eritish Columbia toward the clarification of the following questions: 1. Vhat reading prcxj.—'ms are c u r r G n t l y available in secondary schools? 2. Are reacting progrrjns available in equal measure ti-irougiiout the province, or do they "cluster" in certain school districts? 3. T\hat are the qualifications of the -teachers of these programs, and what qualifications do school adrrmiistrators feel tliey sliould have (if a n y ) , beyond tlxise of the teachers of regular classes? 4. Has there been a trend toward expansion of secondary reading programs (developmental, remedial, corrective, clinical), in which of these areas has the greatest expansion occurred, and what do the people being surveyed feel will be the area needing the most attention in the future? Ihe survey wil l be based on a cpaestionnaire of approximately 30 items (similar to one developed by Professor VJalter H i l l , !Iew York State University), and will be sent to the administrators of the approjdmately 315 secondary schools in the Province. As has been stated, I realize, t h a t the Department of Education is in the process of completing a Language /arts Survey, and I trust t h a t my study will not interfere with this. Any crarrnents which you wish to make w i l l be gratefully received. It i s my intention, upon completion of the study, to send a copy of the results to the Department of Education. Sincerely, Charles Kinzer CK:ty 82 A P P E N D I X D fieiartment of Education 84 APPENDIX E IhS. Covering. L e t t e r Sent with the Second Mailing. 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078246/manifest

Comment

Related Items