Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The relationship between first grade children’s reading achievement and their performance on selected.. 1981

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1982_A2 B78.pdf [ 7.04MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0078341.json
JSON-LD: 1.0078341+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0078341.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0078341+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0078341+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0078341+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0078341.ris

Full Text

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FIRST GRADE CHILDREN'S READING ACHIEVEMENT AND THEIR PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED METALINGUISTIC TASKS by ROBERT WALTER BRUINSMA B. S c , U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a , 1967 M.A. ( E d u c ) , Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y , 1978 SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Language Education) We accept t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming to the required standard Thesis Supervisor THE © UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December, 1981 Robert Walter Bruinsma, 1981 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree 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 , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y 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 t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e head o f my department o r by h i s o r h e r 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 o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f 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 s h a l l n o t 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 Language E d u c a t i o n 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 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 DE-6 (2/79) ABSTRACT Object ives The purpose of t h i s study was f i r s t to con c e p t u a l i z e s p e c i f i c m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s r e l a t e d to reading a c q u i s i t i o n and to provide a con c e p t u a l l y d e f e n s i b l e r a t i o n a l e f or the measurement of those a b i l i t i e s by a ba t t e r y of t e s t s . A second major purpose was to gather e m p i r i c a l data concerning the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the defined m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s and reading achievement i n a group of f i r s t grade c h i l d r e n . A t h i r d purpose was to examine the i n f l u e n c e of gender on reading achievement and performance on m e t a l i n g u i s t i c t a s k s . Procedure A Test of M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Awareness (TOMA) was developed and administered to 113 f i r s t grade subjects i n March, 1981. In A p r i l , 1981, a l l subjects were administered the reading subtests of the Stan f o r d Achievement Test Primary I. Factor a n a l y s i s was used to determine the underlying f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e of the TOMA. M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n analyses were used to examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the subtests of the TOMA to reading achievement. Re s u l t s Factor a n a l y s i s revealed a two f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e for the TOMA i n t e r p r e t e d as a Function f a c t o r and a St r u c t u r e f a c t o r . The Function f a c t o r was discovered to account f o r the greatest amount of the variance i n reading achievement (R 2 = 0.24). M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d that the e n t i r e TOMA accounted for about 31 percent of the variance i n reading achievement and that TOMA Subtest 5 (Awareness of the language of i n s t r u c t i o n ) alone accounted for 20 percent. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n reading achievement or m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness, as a f u n c t i o n of gender. Conclusions I t was concluded by the experimenter that m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness as measured by the TOMA i s a s i g n i f i c a n t though l i m i t e d p r e d i c t o r of reading achievement i n grade one p u p i l s s i m i l a r i n character to those used i n the study. I t was f u r t h e r concluded that awareness of f u n c t i o n a l aspects of language may be more important to reading a c q u i s i t i o n and achievement than i s awareness of s t r u c t u r a l . a s p e c t s of language. •; The study: concludes :with~a:discussion:of i t s l i m i t a t i o n s and. suggestions! for..: f u r t h e r : research: are-presented 1; ~: ' ~ i v Table of Contents L i s t Of Tables v i L i s t Of Figures v i i CHAPTER I : THE PROBLEM 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Purpose Of The Study 2 Review Of Selected L i t e r a t u r e 3 M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Awareness And Metacognition 28 Summary 29 Conceptual Framework Of The Problem 31 Statement Of The Problem 38 CHAPTER I I : RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 40 Test Of M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Awareness (TOMA) 41 Reading Subtests Of The Stanford Achievement Test 46 Data C o l l e c t i o n Procedures 47 S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures 49 CHAPTER I I I : ANALYSIS OF THE DATA: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 54 Results For Phase I I I 54 Results For Phase I 55 Results For Phase II 64 CHAPTER IV: SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 72 V Summary 72 Objectives Of The Study 7.3 Procedures 74 A n a l y s i s Of Data And Questions 74 L i m i t a t i o n s Of The Study 77 Conclusions And I m p l i c a t i o n s Of The Study ... 79 Recommendations For Further Research 84 BIBLIOGRAPHY 87 APPENDIX A, Test Of M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Awareness (TOMA) .... 96 APPENDIX B, Record Form For The Test Of M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Awareness 137 APPENDIX C, ANOVA Data For Sex Di f f e r e n c e s 146 APPENDIX D, Raw Data 148 v i L i s t of Tables Table 1, Metacognitive S k i l l s And Awareness Of Language ...34 Table 2, M e t a l i n g u i s t i c A b i l i t i e s Proposed To Relate To Reading A c q u i s i t i o n ..37 Table 3, Means, Standard Deviations And I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s For The TOMA And RSAT V a r i a b l e s 57 Table 4, Disattenuated C o r r e l a t i o n s Used In Factor A n a l y s i s . . . 59 Table 5, Factor Loadings And Eigenvalues For The Six TOMA And The Two RSAT V a r i a b l e s 60 Table 6, Factor Loadings And Eigenvalues For The Six TOMA V a r i a b l e s 63 Table 7, Summary Results Of The M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s Using Factor Data 65 Table 8, Results Of The Stepwise M u l t i p l e Regression Analyses Using Raw Score Data 66 Table 9, Value Of K And E, As A Function Of The Number Of TOMA Va r i a b l e s Entered In A M u l t i p l e Regression Equation 69 Table 10, ANOVA Data For Sex D i f f e r e n c e s In Achievement On TOMA And RSAT V a r i a b l e s With Age As A Covariate (n=113) .147 L i s t of Figures Figure 1, A Schematic I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Of M a t t i n g l y ' s (1972) Model Of L i n g u i s t i c Awareness 19 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author expresses h i s g r a t i t u d e to Dr. Robert D. Chester, major professor and expeditor par e x c e l l e n c e . His encouragement and u n s t i n t i n g a v a i l a b i l i t y have been much appreciated. To the members of the author's Advisory Committee Dr. J . Gordon Nelson, Dr. Kenneth Reeder, Dr. Jon Shapiro, Dr. George Labercane, Dr. C l i f f o r d Pennock - go s p e c i a l thanks for d i r e c t i o n and encouragement throughout the study. Sincere a p p r e c i a t i o n i s expressed to the supe r v i s o r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , p r i n c i p a l s and teachers of the Abbotsford P u b l i c School D i s t r i c t whose cooperation made t h i s study p o s s i b l e . The author wishes to acknowledge the as s i s t a n c e of the S o c i a l Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada i n pr o v i d i n g a number of d o c t o r a l f e l l o w s h i p s which made i t p o s s i b l e for him to d i r e c t h i s f u l l a t t e n t i o n to graduate studi e s and t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n for a number of years. Ann Louisa and Kathryn Adrianna, although too young to f u l l y appreciate t h i s document, nevertheless provided countless examples of growth i n m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness and i n so doing stimulated f u r t h e r r e f l e c t i o n on t h i s l i n g u i s t i c phenomenon. F i n a l l y , my wife Louisa, deserves my greatest a p p r e c i a t i o n for her u n f a i l i n g encouragement and her ready w i l l i n g n e s s to s u f f e r the penury of graduate student e x i s t e n c e . 1 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduct ion In most of our t r a f f i c with words we look through the substance to the meaning: the corporeal q u a l i t y of the spoken word i s paid very scant a t t e n t i o n i n bare, ordinary discourse, and properly so. ( B r i t t o n , 1970, p. 78) Although we properly pay scant a t t e n t i o n to the "corporeal q u a l i t y " of words in ordinary discourse and i n f l u e n t reading, there are notable exceptions to t h i s usual, transparent use of language. There are s i t u a t i o n s i n "our t r a f f i c with words" when we must be able to make language opaque and pay very c l o s e a t t e n t i o n to i t s "corporeal q u a l i t y " . Primary among these s i t u a t i o n s may be that of l e a r n i n g to read f o r , i n l e a r n i n g to read, the c h i l d i s often involved i n a conscious process of t h i n k i n g about language and i n de a l i n g with i t e x p l i c i t l y as an object of thought. The a b i l i t y to focus a t t e n t i o n upon the form of language in and of i t s e l f , rather than merely as the v e h i c l e by which meaning i s conveyed, i s v a r i o u s l y known as l i n g u i s t i c awareness, m e t a l i n g u i s t i c knowledge, or m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness (Ryan, 1980). M e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness i s not to be conceived as a 2 u n i t a r y concept; rather i t i s p o s s i b l e to consider various l e v e l s of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness from the minimal l e v e l of spontaneous r e p a i r of one's own speech to a r t i c u l a t e explanations of r u l e s or the d e v i a t i o n s from those r u l e s (Clark, 1978). In recent years, a number of i n v e s t i g a t o r s have suggested that i t may be h e l p f u l and p o s s i b l y even necessary for c h i l d r e n to possess c e r t a i n m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s p r i o r to l e a r n i n g to read (e.g., M a t t i n g l y , 1972, 1979; Downing, 1979; Donaldson, 1978; Johns, 1980). This view i s based on a c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n which views speaking and l i s t e n i n g as primary l i n g u i s t i c a c t i v i t i e s while reading i s regarded as a secondary and rather s p e c i a l sort of a c t i v i t y that r e l i e s c r i t i c a l l y upon the reader's awareness of those primary a c t i v i t i e s . Thus m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness i s seen as a s p e c i a l kind of language performance which makes s p e c i a l c o g n i t i v e demands and which may be h e l p f u l to the c h i l d i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of the d e r i v e d , secondary processes of reading and w r i t i n g . Purpose Of The Study The purpose of the present study i s to attempt to define those m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s which seem conceptually most necessary to the a c q u i s i t i o n of reading, and to explore the a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between young c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to read and these supposed m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s . The s p e c i f i c formulation of the research questions w i l l f o l l o w a review of l i t e r a t u r e p e r t i n e n t to the l a r g e r question of the general r e l a t i o n s h i p between m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness and e a r l y reading 3 achievement. The review of l i t e r a t u r e w i l l draw on seve r a l f i e l d s of study which have c o n t r i b u t e d to the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n : (1) aspects of l i n g u i s t i c pragmatics (the theory of language use); (2) views on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between speech and p r i n t ; and (3) research on m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness per se. Each t o p i c w i l l be explored followed by the presentation of an i n t e g r a t i n g conceptual framework based, i n p a r t , on Vygotsky's (1962) theory of language development, Downing's (1979) c o g n i t i v e c l a r i t y theory, and on a hierarchy of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s suggested by Clark (1978) and RyanO 980). Review Of Selected L i t e r a t u r e 1. Language s t r u c t u r e versus language f u n c t i o n s : Awareness of the uses of language. The development of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness i n c h i l d r e n can properly be viewed as an aspect of language development i n general (Dale, 1976; d e V i l l i e r s & d e V i l l i e r s , 1978; Lev e l t et a l . , 1978). Th e o r e t i c i a n s and researchers such as Bruner (1975, 1978), H a l l i d a y (1970, 1973), and Dore (1977) as w e l l as l i n g u i s t - e d u c a t o r s such as Cazden (1970) and Tough (1977) place a great emphasis on the d i s t i n c t i o n between the s t r u c t u r e of language and the use of language. They argue that the c r i t i c a l issue i n language development i s i n pragmatic development rather than in s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c development. Bruner (1975) has the f o l l o w i n g to say about the issue of s t r u c t u r e vs. function in language: I t has become i n c r e a s i n g l y customary i n the past 4 sev e r a l decades to consider language as a code, a set of ru l e s by which grammatical utterances are produced and i n terms of which they are comprehended i n order to e x t r a c t t h e i r meaning. So, w h i l s t we have i n the past decades learned much about the STRUCTURE of language, we have perhaps overlooked important c o n s i d e r a t i o n s about i t s FUNCTIONS. Our oversight has, I th i n k , turned our a t t e n t i o n away from how language i s used. And since the uses of language are, I b e l i e v e , c r u c i a l to the understanding of how language i s acquired, how i t i s INITIALLY used, the study of language a c q u i s i t i o n has been d i s t o r t e d . (p. 1) Dore (1977) and H a l l i d a y (1973) agree with Bruner that the concept of functi o n in language has not received s u f f i c i e n t a t t e n t i o n in language a c q u i s i t i o n s t u d i e s . According to H a l l i d a y , c h i l d r e n know i n t u i t i v e l y what language i s because they come to know what i t does. He described language development as a process whereby c h i l d r e n g r a dually " l e a r n how to.mean". Their attempts to construct meaning are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by making t h e i r language express meaning. Before c h i l d r e n enter school they have made many demands on t h e i r language and have met with considerable success i n using i t for t h e i r own purposes. Thus c h i l d r e n b r i n g to school t h e i r knowledge of the ways language can be used and considerable experience in using i t . Joan Tough, b u i l d i n g on the work of H a l l i d a y (1970, 1973), B e r n s t e i n , (1971, 1973) and others, has conducted research which c l e a r l y shows, however, that not a l l c h i l d r e n use language for the same purposes (Tough, 1977). Her l o n g i t u d i n a l study of the language development of c h i l d r e n from age three to seven, included 24 each from "advantaged" and "disadvantaged" backgrounds. These c a t e g o r i e s were based on the fat h e r ' s 5 occupation and an interview to assess the q u a l i t y of l i n g u i s t i c f o s t e r i n g provided i n the home. Each group of 24 was fu r t h e r d i v i d e d at the outset with h a l f attending nursery school and ha l f at home. A l l four subgroups were equated on mean Stanford- Binet I . Q. (means = 129, 128.3, 127.5 and 125.3). Children's speech was recorded i n a v a r i e t y of contexts i n c l u d i n g play s i t u a t i o n s , i n t e r v i e w s , story t e l l i n g , problem s o l v i n g , e t c . Analyses of the c h i l d r e n ' s language included measures such as length of utterances, noun phrase complexity, verb phrase complexity and language use (the l a t t e r based on a taxonomy of language use developed by Tough). C h i l d r e n i n the disadvantaged groups made lower mean scores on the measures of s t r u c t u r a l complexity of language but when c o n s i d e r a t i o n was given to the range of each c h i l d ' s performance i t was found that each disadvantaged c h i l d , on occasion, used language as complex as each advantaged c h i l d . According to Tough, the most s i g n i f i c a n t c onclusions of her study r e l a t e not so much to d i f f e r e n c e s i n the complexity of the forms of language used i n the two groups, but i n the d i f f e r e n c e i n the kinds of views that the disadvantaged c h i l d seemed to take of h i s experiences. B a s i c a l l y , she argues that disadvantaged c h i l d r e n tend not to impose the same complex meanings on events and s i t u a t i o n s as c h i l d r e n who are at advantage. They are i n c l i n e d to be l e s s r e f l e c t i v e , l e s s apt to give explanations and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s and l e s s w i l l i n g to p r o j e c t r e a d i l y i n t o the experiences of others. Tough po i n t s out that i t i s not the case that these c h i l d r e n lack the resources of language to do these t h i n g s , only that they are l e s s i n c l i n e d to do so because of a lack of mot i v a t i o n , 6 experience, and awareness. Thus i t seems c l e a r from Tough's work that c h i l d r e n of equivalent i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y are not equ a l l y disposed to use language i n p a r t i c u l a r ways. These d i f f e r e n c e s i n language use a r i s e not out of any d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the speaker's t a c i t understanding of the l i n g u i s t i c system, but seem to a r i s e out of the c u l t u r a l c o n s t r a i n t s which a f f e c t the speaker's communicative i n t e n t . In Hymes' (1972) conception, the d i f f e r e n c e i s one of communicative competence and i t seems that the l i n g u i s t i c l e a r n i n g environment plays a c r i t i c a l r o l e in the understanding that the c h i l d develops of the uses to which language can be put. E n t w i s t l e (1971, 1979) has presented evidence suggesting that there are perhaps large d i f f e r e n c e s among s o c i a l and ethnic groups i n c o g n i t i v e s t y l e - such things as what i s attended t o , how problems are seen and solved, and how language i s s o c i a l i z e d . She suggests that "those c h i l d r e n who lea r n to read best are those who need to i n order to make sense of t h e i r l i v e s " ( E n t w i s t l e , 1971, p. 116). I t i s thus important for research attempting to r e l a t e the development of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a c q u i s i t i o n to beginning reading achievement to focus on how such awareness helps c h i l d r e n "make sense of t h e i r l i v e s " , that i s , how meaning develops through the c h i l d ' s awareness of the. uses of language. U l t i m a t e l y , the understanding that the c h i l d has of the uses of language w i l l a l s o a f f e c t h i s understanding of the nature and purposes of reading. I n . f a c t , understanding the nature and purposes of reading may impose upon a c h i l d requirements d i f f e r e n t from or in a d d i t i o n to those required of him to understand the uses of spoken language. This may be so because, j u s t as speech and 7 p r i n t represent q u i t e d i st i n c t forms of language, they a l s o may be used for q u i t e d i f f e r e n t purposes. I t i s to the question of the f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between speech and p r i n t that t h i s review now turns i t s a t t e n t i o n . 2. Speech versus p r i n t . The notion that w r i t i n g i s merely speech w r i t t e n down has been at the heart of many reading programs which emphasize that the primary task of l e a r n i n g to read i s "the process of t r a n s f e r from auditory signs for language s i g n a l s , which the c h i l d has already learned, to the new v i s u a l signs for the same s i g n a l s " ( F r i e s , 1963, p. 120). F r i e s takes for granted that the codes of w r i t t e n and spoken language are v i r t u a l l y the same and emphasizes the dependence of w r i t t e n language upon the spoken. B l o o m f i e l d , another l i n g u i s t , does not only consider w r i t t e n language as secondary to and dependent upon spoken language, but i s apt to d i s r e g a r d w r i t t e n language a l t o g e t h e r from a s c i e n t i f i c , l i n g u i s t i c point of view. "Writi n g i s not language but merely a way of recording language by means of v i s i b l e marks" (Bloomfield, 1933, p. 21). Recently, however, the w r i t t e n language has been considered an object worthy of i n v e s t i g a t i o n independent of the corresponding spoken language. There has been a strong tendency among l i n g u i s t s towards s t r e s s i n g the d i f f e r e n c e s between the two codes, d i f f e r e n c e s not only on the phonemicgraphemic l e v e l but a l s o as regards morphemics and syntax. L i n g u i s t s have even claimed that w r i t t e n language should be considered as a more or l e s s independent system. 8 Soderbergh (1977) quotes the Scandinavian l i n g u i s t A l l e n as s t a t i n g that "the connection e x i s t i n g between a spoken language and i t s w r i t t e n counterpart i s not d i r e c t and simple but so complicated that the two media should be looked upon as d i f f e r e n t e n t i t i e s " (p. 6). F r a n c i s (1962) considers "that a w r i t t e n text may be something other than an inaccurate secondary v i s u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of an a c t u a l l y or p o t e n t i a l l y spoken primary, i n f a c t i t may be a sort of primary i t s e l f , with i t s own s t r u c t u r e d e r i v i n g from a separate system having a h i s t o r y of i t s own, c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to but not d i r e c t l y dependent upon the spoken language" (p. 15-16). Gleason (1965) s t a t e s that " w r i t t e n E n g l i s h has i t s own grammar. I t i s not e x a c t l y l i k e that of spoken E n g l i s h , though i n broad o u t l i n e s and many d e t a i l s that resemblance i s c l o s e " (p. 109). Goodman and Goodman (1977) suggest that o r a l and w r i t t e n language d i f f e r because of d i f f e r e n c e s i n f u n c t i o n between the two. Oral language tends to be used f o r face-to-face communication while w r i t t e n language i s used p r i m a r i l y to communicate over time and space. Thus Oral language i s l i k e l y to be s t r o n g l y supported by the context i n which i t i s used; w r i t t e n language i s more l i k e l y to be abstracted from the s i t u a t i o n s with which i t deals. Written language must include more r e f e r e n t s and create i t s own context minimally supplemented by i l l u s t r a t i o n s . Written language can be p o l i s h e d and perfected before i t i s read; t h e r e f o r e , i t tends to be more formal, d e l i b e r a t e , and constrained than o r a l language. (p. 322) 9 Marquardt (1964) suggests other ways in which the language of p r i n t i s d i f f e r e n t from the language of speech. He does so by suggesting that readers for c h i l d r e n , although attempting to r e f l e c t c h i l d r e n ' s speech, often convey more of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of spoken prose than of conversation. He elaborates nine major d i f f e r e n c e s between spoken prose and ordinary conversation: 1 The i n t o n a t i o n patterns of spoken prose are h i g h l y standardized, those of conversation are not. 2 Spoken prose i s even i n tempo; conversation i s not. 3 The pauses i n spoken prose are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the grammatical s t r u c t u r e of those sentences. In conversation they are f r e q u e n t l y unpredictable. 4 Spoken prose does not r e l y on gestures and grimaces as much as does conversation. 5 In spoken prose stammers and e r r o r s . i n a r t i c u l a t i o n are rare and c o n s p i c i o u s ; i n conversation they a t t r a c t l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n . 6 Spoken prose has fewer p h o n e t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t speech sounds than conversation has. 7 Conversation i s g e n e r a l l y more s t r u c t u r a l l y incomplete than spoken prose because more of the meaning of the former i s derived from context. 8 Conversation has a great deal of r e p e t i t i o n , whereas spoken prose has l i t t l e . 9 Conversation has many apparently meaningless words and phrases which serve to e s t a b l i s h rapport between speakers and to act as s i l e n c e f i l l e r s while the speaker t h i n k s of what to say next. (Summarized from Marquardt, 1964, p. 217) 10 Wilkinson (1970) mentions some s i m i l a r d i f f e r e n c e s between spoken and w r i t t e n language: spoken language i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by i t s greater redunancy, by the presence of 'echo-sounding' devices ("You know him, don't you? " ) , and by the presence of ' s t a b i l i z e r s . ' ( h e s i t a t i o n s , pauses, and words l i k e "er" and "mm"). Wardhaugh (1971) adds the f o l l o w i n g as d i f f e r e n c e s between language a c q u i s i t i o n and beginning reading: language i s acquired g r a d u a l l y whereas l e a r n i n g to read often has a sudden onset for c h i l d r e n ; language i s acquired in a r e l a t i v e l y relaxed, anxiety- free context whereas the anxiety i n the context i n which l e a r n i n g to read takes place may be q u i t e high for parents, teacher, and c h i l d . Reading i n s t r u c t i o n i s very formal and d e l i b e r a t e ; language, however, i s learned i n f o r m a l l y and unconsciously from a wide range of s t i m u l i . The usual reinforcements experienced by l i t e r a t e a d u l t s for reading may be i r r e l e v a n t for many c h i l d r e n i n the beginning stages; the b e n e f i t s of l e a r n i n g to speak are too numerous and obvious to ment ion. Vygotsky (1962) w r i t e s as f o l l o w s on the d i f f e r e n c e s in f u n c t i o n between o r a l language and w r i t t e n speech: Written speech i s a separate l i n g u i s t i c f u n c t i o n , d i f f e r i n g from o r a l speech i n both s t r u c t u r e and mode of f u n c t i o n i n g . Even i t s minimal development requires a high l e v e l of a b s t r a c t i o n . . . . W r i t i n g i s ... speech without an i n t e r l o c u t o r , addressed to an absent or imaginary person or to no one in p a r t i c u l a r - a s i t u a t i o n new and strange to the c h i l d . [The c h i l d thus has only a vague idea of the usefulness of w r i t i n g . ] W r i t i n g ... requires d e l i b e r a t e a n a l y t i c a l a c t i o n on the part of the c h i l d . In speaking, he i s hardly conscious of 11 the mental operations he performs and of the sounds he pronounces. In w r i t i n g , he must take cognizance of the sound s t r u c t u r e of each word, d i s s e c t i t , and reproduce i t in a l p h a b e t i c a l symbols which he must have studied and memorized before. (pp. 98-99) These comments r e l a t e s p e c i f i c a l l y to the d i f f e r e n c e s between w r i t i n g and speaking but some of the same f u n c t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s c e r t a i n l y apply to speech and reading as w e l l . Downing (1979) suggests, in f a c t , that understanding the d i f f e r e n c e s between speech and p r i n t may be c r i t i c a l f or the c h i l d l e a r n i n g to read and t h i s conception plays a major r o l e i n h i s c o g n i t i v e c l a r i t y theory of l e a r n i n g to read. If a c h i l d i s to le a r n to read with a minimum of f r u s t r a t i o n i t would seem that he must be or become aware of the s t r u c t u r a l as w e l l as the f u n c t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s between h i s o r a l language and the language of p r i n t to which he i s to be introduced. L i n g u i s t i c awareness or, more pr o p e r l y , m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness would seem to be a requirement i f the c h i l d i s to come to understand the purposes of language in both i t s o r a l and w r i t t e n forms. Cazden (1972) defines m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness as "the a b i l i t y to r e f l e c t upon language as w e l l as to comprehend and produce i t " (p. 303) The question of consciousness and m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness has been the subject of vigorous debate as has the p r e c i s e terminology employed to denote the concept. In a recent paper M a t t i n g l y (1979) has proposed that l i n g u i s t i c awareness i s not so much a matter of consciousness of grammatical knowledge i t s e l f , but of access to grammatical knowledge. His view thus 1 2 a s s e r t s that speakers can r e f l e c t on language and make judgements about, say, the g r a m m a t i c a l l y of a sentence, without being able to sta t e the grammatical r u l e s that operate to produce i t . Speakers recognize when the r u l e s are broken, although they have no consciousness of the r u l e s themselves. C. Chomsky (1979) and Gleitman (1979) have responded to M a t t i n g l y ' s view by p o i n t i n g out that h i s notion of access l i e s somewhere at the beginning of a consciousness continuum that culminates i n a f u l l y conscious and v e r b a l i z a b l e form of language awareness. Thus C. Chomsky (1979) argues that access to a grammatical r u l e i s simply the " p o t e n t i a l for forming conscious judgements based on that r u l e " (p. 2) and that a "speaker must put h i s access to use and become conscious of l i n g u i s t i c p r o p e r t i e s of h i s language i n order to q u a l i f y as l i n g u i s t i c a l l y aware" (p. 3). The various terms employed for the a b i l i t y to r e f l e c t on language as w e l l as to comprehend and produce i t i n d i c a t e the r e l a t i v e emphasis that various l i n g u i s t s place on the r o l e of consciousness and v e r b a l i z a b i l i t y i n language awareness. Thus some (e.g., M a t t i n g l y , 1972, 1979) simply use the term " l i n g u i s t i c awareness"; others (e.g., Cazden, 1972; Chomsky, 1979; Gleitman, 1979) use the p r e f i x "meta" to i n d i c a t e the " e x t r a " (meta = Greek - beyond) dimension of awareness involved in the a b i l i t y to r e f l e c t on language as w e l l as use i t . Others have proposed terms to s p e c i f y f i n e r gradations of consciousness involved i n l i n g u i s t i c awareness. Thus Ferguson (1981) suggests the term " e p i l i n g u i s t i c awareness" to denote the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to operate upon h i s language without being f u l l y conscious of what he i s doing. This notion may be s i m i l a r to M a t t i n g l y ' s 1 3 concept of "access" and i s ex e m p l i f i e d by the a b i l i t y of some c h i l d r e n as young as four years to attempt phonological representation i n t h e i r w r i t i n g ( s o - c a l l e d invented s p e l l i n g s - Read, 1975) without being able to f u l l y e x p l a i n t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . DeStefano (1979) proposes the term " e x t r a l i n g u i s t i c awareness" to cover "knowledge about events, r e l a t i o n s h i p s , o b j e c t s , i n d i v i d u a l s , e t c . , and expectation and pres u p p o s i t i o n s , as they are c a l l e d i n pragmatics, about how a l l those f a c t o r s i n t e r a c t a p p r o p i a t e l y ... with grammatical and phonological awareness i n l i s t e n i n g and reading comprehension" (p. 4). The term adopted for t h i s study i s " m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness" and the scope of language behaviours which i t encompasses as they r e l a t e to reading a c q u i s i t i o n w i l l be d e t a i l e d at the conclusion of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e review. The remainder of t h i s review w i l l examine, i n d e t a i l , the concept of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness and the e m p i r i c a l evidence of i t s p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n to reading a c q u i s i t i o n . 3. M e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness: I t s i m p l i c a t i o n f or l e a r n i n g to read. The f i r s t signs of an a b i l i t y to r e f l e c t upon language begin to appear i n some c h i l d r e n at a very e a r l y age. Clark (1978), i n a major review of evidence of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness in c h i l d r e n , l i s t s the f o l l o w i n g signs as appearing from about age two onwards: 1 4 ( i ) Spontaneous c o r r e c t i o n s of one's own pronounciations, word forms, word order, and even choice of language i n case of b i l i n g u a l s ; ( i i ) Questions about the r i g h t words, the r i g h t pronounciation, and the appropiate speech s t y l e ; ( i i i ) Comments on the speech of others: t h e i r pronounciation, t h e i r accent and the languages they speak. ( i v ) Comments on . and play with d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c u n i t s , segmenting words i n t o s y l l a b l e s and sounds, making up etymologies, rhyming, and punning; ( v) Judgements of l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e and f u n c t i o n , deciding what utterances mean, whether they are appropiate or p o l i t e , whether they are grammatical; ( v i ) Questions about other languages and about languages i n general. Cazden (1974) comments on the r o l e of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness i n many c h i l d r e n ' s games, and notes that c h i l d r e n as young as three years of age d e l i g h t i n name c a l l i n g and rhyming games. As Chukovsky (1963) p o i n t s out, t h i s p l a y i n g with language i n d i c a t e s that the c h i l d i s beginning to understand h i s language i n a conscious manner since "only those ideas can become toys for him whose proper r e l a t i o n to r e a l i t y i s f i r m l y known to him" (p. 103). Name-calling demonstrates the c h i l d ' s understanding of the a r b i t r a r y nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a word and i t s r e f e r e n t , an understanding often absent in young c h i l d r e n (Vygotsky 1962, p. 128-130). The manipulation of simple sounds at a very e a r l y age (Weir, 1962) and a c h i l d ' s i n c r e a s i n g s o p h i s t i c a t i o n i n t h i s a b i l i t y as in a game such as Pig L a t i n suggests the c h i l d ' s growing a b i l i t y i n a uditory d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and a n a l y s i s of words i n t o component sounds. Savin (1972) reports that a common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of h i s intermediate grade poor readers was t h e i r i n a b i l i t y to master 1 5 Pig L a t i n even though they were often h i g h l y motivated to learn such a 'secret' language. He suggests that i t may be that such students have not developed the m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t y to r e f l e c t upon the sounds in the words they speak and hear. Cazden (1972) l i s t s a number of other examples of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness i n c h i l d r e n . One such example i s the c h i l d ' s growing awareness of the s t r u c t u r e of h i s own spoken sentences. Work by MacKay and Thompson (1968) suggests that c h i l d r e n go through sev e r a l stages i n t h e i r awareness of words i n a sentence. Given a 'word f o l d e r ' with a p r e s e l e c t e d store of words, plus a stand to d i s p l a y them on, f i v e - y e a r - o l d c h i l d r e n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y begin by simply l i s t i n g words with no apparent l i n k , and read them as i s o l a t e d words. Soon however the c h i l d begins to compose on h i s stand t e l e g r a p h i c sentences, e.g., "Children school", but read them as complete sentences, e.g., "The c h i l d r e n go to school". Next the c h i l d begins to r e a l i z e that words are missing from these sentences and begins to i n s e r t them i n the proper place. Thus i t seems that f i v e and s i x - y e a r - o l d c h i l d r e n " r e c a p i t u l a t e at the m e t a l i n g u i s t i c l e v e l of conscious awareness the development of t e l e g r a p h i c to complete sentence that they went through when they were two to three years o l d at the l i n g u i s t i c l e v e l of non-conscious o r a l speech" (Cazden, 1972, p. 87). Another evidence of c h i l d r e n ' s growing m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness i s t h e i r i n c r e a s i n g a b i l i t y to d i s c u s s the meaning of words or give synonyms and paraphrases i n a d d i t i o n to being simply able to use words c o r r e c t l y . A n g l i n (1970) found that young c h i l d r e n (age f i v e to ten) tend to sort words i n t o 16 'syntagmatic' ca t e g o r i e s (e.g., dark - night) and not u n t i l much l a t e r (age 12 -15) d i d many c h i l d r e n group p a r a d i g m a t i c a l l y by part of speech (e.g., dark - l i g h t ) . Thus another aspect of word knowledge which seems to s h i f t from non-conscious to conscious awareness i s part-of-speech (or form-class) membership. Gleitman, Gleitman, and Shipley (1972) and de V i l l i e r s and de V i l l i e r s (1974) have i n v e s t i g a t e d young c h i l d r e n ' s awareness of s y n t a c t i c and semantic p r o p e r t i e s of language. Rudiments of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c f u n c t i o n i n g were shown to e x i s t in two-year o l d s , who gave judgements of grammaticalness i n a ro l e - m o d e l l i n g s i t u a t i o n . G e n e r a l l y , c o r r e c t usage of various grammatical forms g r e a t l y preceded the a b i l i t y to e i t h e r recognize or c o r r e c t deviant forms. The a b i l i t y to judge the correctness of deviant sentences g r e a t l y improved between the ages of f i v e and e i g h t . Read (1975) studied the manner i n which c h i l d r e n c a t e g o r i z e speech sounds as evidenced by t h e i r c r e a t i o n of c e r t a i n nonstandard s p e l l i n g s . He discovered that c h i l d r e n c a t e g o r i z e speech sounds i n unexpected but p h o n e t i c a l l y j u s t i f i e d ways and found that c h i l d r e n as young as age f i v e can provide judgements of these c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s . M e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness, then, i s a s p e c i a l kind of language performance, one which makes s p e c i a l c o g n i t i v e demands. The concern of educators with t h i s p a r t i c u l a r kind of language performance comes from i n c r e a s i n g arguments that i t i s at l e a s t h e l p f u l - and may be c r i t i c a l l y important - not so much i n the primary processes of speaking and hearing, as i n what may be considered the derived or secondary processes of reading and w r i t i n g . The idea that such awareness i s r e l a t e d to l i t e r a c y i s not new. More than f o r t y - f i v e years ago Vygotsky's (1962) observations were that l i t e r a c y depends on, and i n turn c o n t r i b u t e s t o , making p r e v i o u s l y unconscious or t a c i t knowledge more conscious. In Vygotsky's words (1962): The c h i l d does have command of grammar i n h i s native tongue long before he enters school, but i t i s unconscious, l i k e the phonetic composition of words. The same i s true of grammar. The c h i l d uses the c o r r e c t case or tense w i t h i n a sentence but cannot d e c l i n e or conjugate a word on request. Just as the c h i l d r e a l i z e s f or the f i r s t time i n l e a r n i n g to w r i t e that the word "Moscow" c o n s i s t s of the sound m-o-s-c-o-w and learns to pronounce each one separ a t e l y , he al s o learns to construct sentences, to do consciously what he has been doing unconsciously i n speaking. (pp. 100 - 101) Ma t t i n g l y (1972) has focussed d i r e c t l y on the d i f f e r e n c e s that must e x i s t between l e a r n i n g to speak and l e a r n i n g to read. Everyone learns to speak, but not a l l languages have w r i t t e n forms; even when they do, not a l l speakers become l i t e r a t e and i f they do, d e l i b e r a t e i n s t r u c t i o n i s more apt to be required. Why? M a t t i n g l y , i n h i s chapter on "Reading and L i n g u i s t i c Process and L i n g u i s t i c Awareness" says: Speaking and l i s t e n i n g are primary l i n g u i s t i c a c t i v i t i e s ; reading i s a secondary and rather s p e c i a l sort of a c t i v i t y that r e l i e s c r i t i c a l l y upon the reader's awareness of those primary a c t i v i t i e s . (p. 103) 18 I t may be i n s t r u c t i v e to quote at some length from f u r t h e r s e l e c t i o n s of t h i s paper by M a t t i n g l y since i t forms the t h e o r e t i c a l basis for much of the d i s c u s s i o n of l i n g u i s t i c ( m e t a l i n g u i s t i c ) awareness i n the l i t e r a t u r e a f t e r 1972. M a t t i n g l y suggests that the conscious a p p r e c i a t i o n of aspects of l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e , e s p e c i a l l y of s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s and r u l e s at the morphonemic and phonological l e v e l s i s q u i t e remarkable when we consider how l i t t l e i n t r o s p e c t i v e awareness we have of the intermediate stages of other forms of ma t u r a t i o n a l l y acquired motor and perceptual behaviour, for example, walking and seeing, (p. 139) Why should reading be, by comparison with l i s t e n i n g , so p e r i l o u s a process? F i r s t we have suggested that reading depends u l t i m a t e l y on l i n g u i s t i c awareness and that the degree of t h i s awareness v a r i e s considerably from person to person. A f u r t h e r source of reading d i f f i c u l t y i s that w r i t t e n text i s a grosser and f a r l e s s redundant representation than speech. Reading i s seen not as a p a r a l l e l a c t i v i t y i n the v i s u a l mode to speech perception i n the auditory mode; there are d i f f e r e n c e s between the two a c t i v i t e s that cannot be explained i n terms of the d i f f e r e n c e i n modality. They can be explained only i f we view reading as a d e l i b e r a t e l y acquired language-based s k i l l , dependent upon the speaker-hearer's awareness of c e r t a i n aspects of primary l i n g u i s t i c a c t i v i t y . By v i r t u e of t h i s l i n g u i s t i c awareness, w r i t t e n t e x t i m i t a t e s the sy n t h e t i c l i n g u i s t i c process common to both reading and speech, enabling the reader to get the w r i t e r ' s message and so to recognize what has been w r i t t e n (pp. 144-145). [See Figure 1 for a v i s u a l model of t h i s conception] CQ CO O ZT CD 3 CD «-+• CQ E " ° Co" CD > o" z => CO 0 CD I I GO ;-+• CQ CD O Q. CD 3 m 3 > CD _ CO 5 3 z PHONOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS co o •o o' 3 o - 1 - 3 m ^ > J3 CD CD co o' 3 _ o D CD 0) CO CD CO O TJ =T CD Tn a> x o'Q. 5' CD 3 3 o CD 01 to CD 61 20 What then : i s the e m p i r i c a l evidence that reading i s a d e l i b e r a t e l y acquired l a n g u a g e - b a s e d - s k i l l , dependent upon the speaker-hearer's awareness of c e r t a i n aspects of primary l i n g u i s t i c a c t i v i t y ? Studies by a number of i n v e s t i g a t o r s working out of the Haskins Laboratories in the United States have demonstrated that a c h i l d ' s perception of speech segments does not c o i n c i d e with the u n i t phoneme as i t i s u s u a l l y understood. Liberman et a l . (1967) found that phoneme boundaries are often c o a r t i c u l a t e d . For example, a consonant may be merged with a r e l a t e d vowel. In the case of 'bat', for instance, the i n i t i a l and f i n a l consonants are folded i n t o the medial vowels, with the r e s u l t that information about successive segments i s tran s m i t t e d more or l e s s simultaneously on the same pa r t s of the sound. In that sense, the s y l l a b l e 'bat', which has three phonemic segments, has but one acous t i c segment. Thus the a c o u s t i c p r o p e r t i e s of 'bat' do not allow for a pr e c i s e demarcation of the phoneme boundaries. In other words, an understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between w r i t i n g and speech in alph a b e t i c languages such as E n g l i s h depends on 1) an awareness of the sound s t r u c t u r e of the language and 2) the development of ab s t r a c t concepts that are the basis of the l o g i c of the orthography. The f i r s t of these f a c t o r s i s described by Shankweiler and Liberman (1976) as ' t a c i t knowledge'. They suggest that t a c i t knowledge i s s u f f i c i e n t f or comprehension of the spoken message but that reading and w r i t i n g , on the other hand, demand an a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y t i c c a p a b i l i t y of a n a l y s i n g words as s t r i n g s of phonemes. This c a p a c i t y i s , of course, part of what M a t t i n g l y 21 (1972, 1979) r e f e r s to as " l i n g u i s t i c awareness". Liberman (1973) i n v e s t i g a t e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between young beginning reader's a b i l i t y to segment speech i n t o phonemes and t h e i r achievement i n reading. C h i l d r e n i n f i r s t grade ( a f t e r appropiate p r e - t r a i n i n g ) were asked to tap out the number of phonemes in a word. A reading achievement (word recognition) t e s t i n second grade showed that one-half of the lowest t h i r d of the c l a s s in reading had f a i l e d the phoneme segmentation t e s t , whereas there were no f a i l u r e s among p u p i l s i n the top t h i r d of the c l a s s i n reading. C a l f e e , Lindamood, and Lindamood (1973) tested c h i l d r e n from kindergarten upwards to grade twelve on t h e i r a b i l i t y to match phonetic segments i n speech with a sequence of coloured blocks to represent the a u d i t o r y s t i m u l i . The same c h i l d r e n ' s reading and s p e l l i n g achievements were a l s o t e s t e d . More than f i f t y per cent of the t o t a l variance i n reading a b i l i t y was found to be p r e d i c t a b l e from p u p i l s ' scores on the phonetic segmentation task. M. Clark (1976) made an i n t e n s i v e study of t h i r t y - t w o S c o t t i s h c h i l d r e n who were found to be able to read f l u e n t l y when they s t a r t e d school at age f i v e . A number of her observations pointed to these c h i l d r e n ' s keen awareness of those aspects of language that are relevant to the task of l e a r n i n g to read. Clark notes in p a r t i c u l a r that these c h i l d r e n possessed what seemed to be an e x c e p t i o n a l memory for sounds in sequence. In a l a t e r paper (M. C l a r k , 1979) commenting on t h i s same group of c h i l d r e n , Clark s t a t e s that " t h e i r speech and auditory d i s c r i m i n a t i o n was outstanding. P a r t i c u l a r l y impressive was 22 t h e i r a b i l i t y to grasp such tasks and to process m a t e r i a l a u r a l l y , such as d i g i t s , sentences, e t c . " (p. 4) As in the case of phonemic d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c i t e d above, Holden and M a c G i n i t i e (1972) have provided evidence that c h i l d r e n of kindergarten age are not aware of the segmentation of t h e i r own speech i n t o a l l the word u n i t s they are a c t u a l l y using. In one task, they asked kindergarten c h i l d r e n to repeat a sentence and then repeat i t again, tapping one i n a l i n e of poker chips for each word. They discovered that young c h i l d r e n are more aware of content words, e s p e c i a l l y nouns and verbs, than of fu n c t i o n words - a r t i c l e s , p r e p o s i t i o n s , a u x i l i a r i e s , e t c . On the tapping task, the c h i l d r e n tended to at t a c h a fu n c t i o n word to the content word before or a f t e r i t . So, for example, out of 24 responses to t h e . t e s t sentence You have to go home,12 c h i l d r e n segmented i t : You/have t o / go/ home, and f i v e c h i l d r e n segmented i t : You/ have/ to go/ home. Holden and M a c G i n i t i e then made the task more d i f f i c u l t by asking each c h i l d , a f t e r each item, to count the chips he has tapped and f i n d the w r i t t e n sentence, one out of a set of four, that had the c o r r e c t number of v i s u a l l y separated u n i t s . Of 24 c h i l d r e n , none was c o r r e c t four out of f i v e times in both segmenting the sentence c o n v e n t i o n a l l y and i d e n t i f y i n g the w r i t t e n v e r s i o n which was congruent with that segmentation. Nine of the c h i l d r e n c ould, however, i d e n t i f y 80 percent of the sentences which were congruent with t h e i r own unconventional forms of segmentation - e.g., Red and green/ b a l l o o n s / popped. 23 As Holden and M a c G i n i t i e s t r e s s i n t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n , i t i s c l e a r that c h i l d r e n beginning school are s t i l l developing an awareness of aspects of t h e i r own speech which many teachers probably assume they have, and which they probably do i n f a c t need i n order to make sense out of i n s t r u c t i o n s in phonics. There are, however, suggestions that the Holden and M a c G i n i t i e techniques used to e l i c i t information on young c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to i s o l a t e p a r t i c u l a r l i n g u i s t i c u n i t s often seem to have been too d i f f i c u l t for c h i l d r e n to fo l l o w (see C l a r k , 1978, p. 27). Lundberg (1978) concurs by i n d i c a t i n g that undue complexity i n the Holden and M a c G i n i t i e tasks i s due to the c h i l d having to perform the simultaneous tasks of repeating utterances and i d e n t i f y i n g t h e i r word boundaries. Furthermore, he suggests that the rhythmic pattern of sentences governs the marking behaviour of many c h i l d r e n . Since content words are given more s t r e s s i t i s p o s s i b l e that t h i s fact causes c h i l d r e n to mark contentives and ignore f u n c t o r s . Fox and Routh (1975) developed techniques which they c l a i m avoid the above mentioned problems by asking c h i l d r e n to repeat p r o g r e s s i v e l y smaller and smaller " b i t s " of sentences given them by the experimentor. Given Peter f e l l , f or example, the c h i l d r e n would be asked to "say j u s t a l i t t l e b i t of i t " , namely j u s t Peter or f e l l . With t h i s technique, Fox and Routh found that four-year olds were almost p e r f e c t i n breaking sentences down i n t o words and s y l l a b l e s . Segmenting s y l l a b l e s i n t o sounds was much harder although there was improvement with age. Fox and Routh found that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between reading achievement and the a b i l i t y to segment sentences i n t o 24 various smaller u n i t s , though they admitted to the rather l i m i t e d nature of the reading achievement measures employed. There i s f u r t h e r evidence that poor readers have p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t y with auditory segmentation tasks and even with tasks r e q u i r i n g only p a r t i a l segmentation such as rhyming which does not seem to require a very a n a l y t i c a l a t t i t u d e . Johnson and Myklebust (1967) reported c l i n i c a l observations of d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e n who even at the age of 12 were i n s e n s i t i v e to rhyme, although they seemed to have normal hearing and speech. The awareness of other morpho-phonemic features of E n g l i s h a l s o seems to be d i f f e r e n t i a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d among c h i l d r e n on the b a s i s of age, reading a b i l i t y , and length of school attendance. E h r i (1975) found that preschoolers and kindergarten c h i l d r e n showed l i t t l e awareness of the independent l e x i c a l i d e n t i t y of f u n c t i o n words and that preschool and kindergarten c h i l d r e n performed l e s s adequately than f i r s t grade readers on a number of other measures of l e x i c a l knowledge. The older c h i l d r e n were be t t e r able to segment sentences i n t o words and s y l l a b l e s , embed words i n v e r b a l contexts and i d e n t i f y the word d i s t i n g u i s h i n g two otherwise i d e n t i c a l sentences. In a d d i t i o n , the f i r s t graders were be t t e r able to s h i f t from one u n i t of a n a l y s i s to another as i n switching from s y l l a b l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to word i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . E h r i suggested that the s u p e r i o r i t y of the f i r s t graders on these tasks may i n f a c t be a consequence of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . 25 Another approach to the study of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness to l e a r n i n g to read i s in the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s understanding and use of such t e c h n i c a l . terms as 'word', 'sound', ' l e t t e r ' , 'number', 'reading', ' w r i t i n g ' , and so on. Downing (1970, 1976, 1979) i n reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e , considered that much of the d i f f i c u l t y c h i l d r e n have in l e a r n i n g to read i s r e l a t e d to " c o g n i t i v e confusion", a term he borrows from Vernon (1957) who concluded that "the fundamental and basic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of reading d i s a b i l i t y appears to be c o g n i t i v e confusion and lack of system" (p. 307). Reid's (1966) study of twelve S c o t t i s h f i v e - y e a r - o l d s was the f i r s t to show how c h i l d r e n ' s conceptions of reading and language develop during t h e i r f i r s t year of sc h o o l i n g . I n i t i a l l y , Reid found that the c h i l d r e n lacked any idea of the purpose and use of w r i t t e n language and they e x h i b i t e d considerable confusion about the meaning of such common l i n g u i s t i c terms as 'word', ' l e t t e r ' , 'sound', e t c . Downing (1970) r e p l i c a t e d Reid's study i n England and confirmed her r e s u l t s . A f t e r appropiate p r e - t r a i n i n g i n the experimental procedure, Downing's f i v e - y e a r - o l d s were asked to say whether each of a s e r i e s of a u d i t o r y s t i m u l i were words: a non-verbal sound, a (meaningless) vowel phoneme, a s i n g l e word, a phrase and a sentence. No c h i l d ' s category for 'a word' co i n c i d e d with the concept of a spoken word u s u a l l y held by teachers. Some c h i l d r e n made only random guesses, some excluded non-verbal sounds, and some thought that only the word, the phrase, and the sentence were 'a word'. The experiment was repeated three times during the f i r s t school year, but although 26 some improvements were noted, no c h i l d achieved what teachers would u s u a l l y consider to be a concept of 'a spoken word' by the end of the year. S i m i l a r r e s u l t s were obtained for the term 'sound', although some students understood i t as meaning a phoneme by the f i n a l t e s t i n g s e ssion. A Canadian r e p l i c a t i o n of t h i s study confirmed these c h i l d r e n ' s s i m i l a r confusion about the term 'word' (Downing & O l i v e r , 1974). Beginners are no l e s s confused about the terms used for u n i t s of w r i t t e n language such as 'word', ' l e t t e r ' , 'number', and so on. For example, Meltzer and Hearse (1969) asked American kindergartners and f i r s t - g r a d e r s to "cut o f f a word" with s c i s s o r s from a sentence p r i n t e d on a card. Sometimes the word was cut o f f , but often 'a word' for these c h i l d r e n were two words, and sometimes part of a word. Papandropoulou and S i n c l a i r ' s (1974) research provides some i n s i g h t i n t o the way i n which c h i l d r e n attempt to understand these a b s t r a c t l i n g u i s t i c concepts. When asked "to say a long and a short word" the youngest c h i l d r e n (4.5 to 5.5 years) responded with names for long and large objects or words f o r a c t i o n s that take a long time. F r a n c i s ' (1973) study shows how a c l e a r understanding of l i n g u i s t i c concepts i s r e l a t e d to l e a r n i n g to read. She found that f o r her f i f t y E n g l i s h primary-school boys and g i r l s , the highest c o r r e l a t i o n was between reading achievement and knowledge of t e c h n i c a l l i n g u i s t i c vocabulary, even with general vocabulary knowledge c o n t r o l l e d . Her f i n d i n g s suggested that : the c h i l d r e n had never thought to analyse speech, but in l e a r n i n g to read had been forced to recognize u n i t s and s u b - d i v i s i o n s . The use of words l i k e ' l e t t e r ' , 'word' and 'sentence' i n 27 teaching was not so much a d i r e c t a i d to i n s t r u c t i o n but a challenge to f i n d t h e i r meaning (p. 22). Evanechko et a_l. (1973) developed a t e s t , The Technical Language of L i t e r a c y Test , which was designed to measure the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the c h i l d r e n ' s understanding of t e c h n i c a l l i n g u i s t i c concepts and reading achievement. This t e s t and i t s subsequent r e v i s i o n by Ayers e_t a_l. (1977) proved to be h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d with more t r a d i t i o n a l t e s t s of reading readiness, notably those of letter-name knowledge and auditory d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the t e s t a l s o found a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e favouring the upper socio-economic l e v e l s i n comparison with lower l e v e l s (Downing et a l . , 1977). Downing (1979) suggests that the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the Technical Language of L i t e r a c y Test with other reading readiness measures are due to the tapping of s i m i l a r underlying basic f a c t o r s - the c h i l d ' s c o g n i t i v e c l a r i t y or confusion about concepts of l i t e r a c y i n s t r u c t i o n . A number of recent s t u d i e s lend support to t h i s contention by Downing. Meyer and P a r i s (1978), i n an inte r v i e w study, discovered that many young c h i l d r e n ( 8 - 1 2 years old) were unaware of many important parameters of reading and were unable to s p e c i f y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p r o f i c i e n t readers. Evans, Taylo r , and Blum (1979) as w e l l as Johns (1980) demonstrated that c e r t a i n l i n g u i s t i c awareness tasks do p r e d i c t reading achievement, p a r t i c u l a r l y those tasks which s t r e s s the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between o r a l and w r i t t e n codes rather than those which tap c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s p e c i f i c to the w r i t i n g system. 28 One aspect of both the o r a l and w r i t t e n code that appears to be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n reading achievement i s . a . c h i l d ' s awareness and understanding of connectives (Robertson, 1968). Rodgers (1974) reported on the a b i l i t y of seventy-four grade one c h i l d r e n to comprehend twenty s e l e c t e d connectives. He found that two-thirds of the c h i l d r e n d i d not know: i n s p i t e of, yet, for (as because), although, nevertheless, s t i l l , thus, however. Half of the c h i l d r e n were u n f a m i l i a r with: although (when i t occurred in a medial p o s i t i o n w i t h i n a sentence), consequently, u n f o r t u n a t e l y , even i f , because (also in medial sentence p o s i t i o n ) . Connectives known by two-thirds of the c h i l d r e n were: and, so, but, i f , because. In another study (Rodgers e_t a l . , 1974) i t was shown that an understanding of the use of these connectives i s r e l a t e d to reading performance as measured by the Cooperative Primary Tests. The l a s t s e c t i o n of t h i s review suggests that there are i n d i c a t i o n s , from a wide range of i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , that beginning readers are confused about the communication process and about concepts used i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n . F i n a l l y , there i s growing evidence that t h i s confusion i s an important f a c t o r i n success or f a i l u r e i n l e a r n i n g to read. M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Awareness And Metacognition I t may be argued that language awareness i s i n f a c t an aspect of a broader area of development l a b e l l e d metacognition. F l a v e l l (1976) has c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h i s as one's knowledge about one's own c o g n i t i v e processes and t h e i r products: I am engaging in metacognition (metamemory, 29 metalearning, meta-attention, metalanguage, or whatever) i f I not i c e that I'm having more tro u b l e l e a r n i n g A than B; i f i t s t r i k e s me that I should doublecheck C before accepting i t as f a c t ; i f i t occurs to me that I had bet t e r s c r u t i n z e each and every a l t e r n a t i v e i n any m u l t i p l e choice s i t u a t i o n before deciding which i s the best one; i f I sense that I had bet t e r make a note of D because I may forget i t . . . (p. 232) The major concern of studie s i n developmental metacogniton has been with the r e g u l a t i v e r o l e of metacognition i n remembering, l e a r n i n g , a t t e n d i n g , or c a r r y i n g out act i o n s i n order to achieve p a r t i c u l a r goals. Many of these same issues have been addressed by studie s i n m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness. C l e a r l y the two are c l o s e l y i n t e r t w i n e d . Yet there seems to be at l e a s t one s k i l l of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness, that of r e f l e c t i n g on the product of an utterance (See Table 1), i n which c h i l d r e n may be doing something that i s never c a l l e d for in other forms of metacognition. With language, i t i s p o s s i b l e to r e f l e c t on language s t r u c t u r e independent of i t s a c t u a l use. ( I t i s , obviously, not p o s s i b l e to r e f l e c t on thought without t h i n k i n g ) . Such "disembedded" r e f l e c t i o n on language (Donaldson, 1978) i s very common i n many methods of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . C h i l d r e n are asked to attend to and i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c l i n g u i s t i c u n i t s - anything from a sound up to a sentence, and to understand and provide d e f i n i t i o n s of many t e c h n i c a l terms which are part of what Downing (1976) c a l l s the "reading i n s t r u c t i o n r e g i s t e r " which c o n t r i b u t e s to the "c o g n i t i v e confusion" (Downing, 1979) that c h i l d r e n often experience during beginning reading i n s t r u c t i o n . 30 Summary This review has attempted to show how s p e c i f i c aspects of language development may be c r i t i c a l to the c h i l d ' s understanding of the nature and purposes of the reading task. Donaldson (1978) provides a c l e a r summary of the main argument when she says: In the e a r l y stages, before the c h i l d has developed a f u l l awareness of language, language i s embedded for him i n the flow of events which accompany i t . (The c h i l d ' s ) t h i n k i n g i s d i r e c t e d outwards on to the r e a l , meaningful, s h i f t i n g , d i s t r a c t i n g world. What i s going to be required for success in our educational system i s that he should le a r n to turn language and thought i n upon themselves. He must become able to d i r e c t h i s own thought processes i n a thoughtful manner. He must become able not j u s t to t a l k but to choose what he w i l l say, not j u s t to i n t e r p r e t but to weigh p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . His conceptual system must expand i n the d i r e c t i o n of i n c r e a s i n g a b i l i t y to represent i t s e l f . He must become capable of manipulating symbols. Now the p r i n c i p l e symbolic system to which the preschool c h i l d has access i s o r a l language. So the f i r s t step i s the step of c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g language - becoming aware of i t as a separate s t r u c t u r e , f r e e i n g i t from i t s embeddedness in events.(pp. 88-89) The f i r s t s e c t i o n of t h i s review has attempted to show how varying degrees of c h i l d r e n ' s awareness of the functions of language predispose some c h i l d r e n to come to school with t h i s step already taken - or at l e a s t begun - while others have not yet begun to r e f l e c t at a l l on t h e i r language and have l i t t l e awareness of i t s purposes. 31 As l i t e r a t e a d u l t s , we have become so accustomed to the w r i t t e n word that we seldom stop to think of how i t d i f f e r s from the spoken one. These d i f f e r e n c e s were h i g h l i g h t e d i n the second s e c t i o n of t h i s review with the i m p l i c a t i o n that an awareness of the s p e c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of w r i t t e n discourse may be r e l a t e d to reading a c q u i s i t i o n and performance. F i n a l l y , the review de a l t with m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness as a c r u c i a l aspect of f u n c t i o n a l language development which makes s p e c i a l c o g n i t i v e demands on the c h i l d and which may be c r i t i c a l l y r e l a t e d to e a r l y reading achievement. Conceptual Framework Of The Problem The general problem of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s whether m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to reading achievement i n f i r s t grade c h i l d r e n . The review of l i t e r a t u r e has suggested many p o s s i b l e aspects of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness and i t i s now necessary to define those which may be thought most s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e d to reading a c q u i s i t i o n . To do t h i s a t h e o r e t i c a l l y d e f e n s i b l e conceptual framework of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between reading a c q u i s i t i o n and m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness i s presented. The conceptual framework i s based, i n p a r t , on Vygotsky's (1962) theory of language development, Downing's (1979) c o g n i t i v e c l a r i t y theory of reading and on a heirarchy of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s suggested by E. Clark (1978) and supported by Ryan (1980). 32 Vygotsky (1962) claimed t h a t , i n order to become l i t e r a t e , an i n d i v i d u a l must f i r s t come to the awareness of words as a r b i t r a r y symbols. This awareness may be regarded, i n f a c t , as a p r e r e q u i s i t e to achieving any of the forms of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness that may be required for the a c q u i s i t i o n of reading. As Vygotsky (1962) s t a t e s : The c h i l d must le a r n to d i s t i n g u i s h between semantics and phonetics and understand the nature of the d i f f e r e n c e . At f i r s t he uses verb a l forms and meanings without being conscious of them as being separate. The word to the c h i l d i s an i n t e g r a l part of the object i t denotes.... Simple experiments show that preschool c h i l d r e n " e x p l a i n " the names of objects by t h e i r a t t r i b u t e s . . . . The f u s i o n of the two planes of speech, semantic and v o c a l , begins to break down as the c h i l d grows o l d e r , and the distance between them gr a d u a l l y increases. Each stage i n the development of word meanings has i t s own s p e c i f i c i n t e r r e l a t i o n of the two planes. A c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to communicate through language i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of word meanings i n h i s speech and consciousness.... Only when t h i s development i s completed does the c h i l d become f u l l y able to formulate h i s own thought and to understand the speech of others. (pp.128-130) Thus the awareness of words as a r b i t r a r y symbols would seem primary to the c h i l d ' s a c q u i s i t i o n of reading and f a i l u r e to develop such awareness may e x p l a i n some of the d i f f i c u l t y young c h i l d r e n have of making sense of the a r b i t r a r y symbolic r e l a t i o n s h i p p r i n t e d words have to t h e i r e x p e r i e n t i a l world. Secondly, as the l i t e r a t u r e review has t r i e d to show, a c h i l d ' s awareness of the f u n c t i o n of language, as w e l l as h i s awareness of the d i f f e r e n c e s between spoken and w r i t t e n language, may be an important f a c t o r in h i s a c q u i s i t i o n of reading. John Downing (1979) has proposed a theory of l e a r n i n g to read which emphasizes the r o l e of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness 33 i n c r e a s i n g with age and i n s t r u c t i o n . His c o g n i t i v e c l a r i t y theory i s summarized i n eight p o s t u l a t e s of which p o s t u l a t e s 3- 6 are of p a r t i c u l a r relevance to t h i s study. These po s t u l a t e s are: 3. The l e a r n i n g to read process c o n s i s t s of the rediscovery of a) the functions and b) the coding r u l e s of the w r i t i n g system; 4. Their rediscovery depends on the l e a r n e r ' s l i n g u i s t i c awareness of the same features of communication and language as were a c c e s s i b l e to the c r e a t o r s of the w r i t i n g system; 5. Ch i l d r e n approach the task of reading i n s t r u c t i o n i n a normal stat e of c o g n i t i v e confusion which slowly develops i n t o i n c r e a s i n g c o g n i t i v e c l a r i t y about the functions and features of language; 6. Under reasonably good c o n d i t i o n s , c h i l d r e n work themselves out of the i n i t i a l s t a t e of c o g n i t i v e confusion i n t o i n c r e a s i n g c o g n i t i v e c l a r i t y about the functions and features of language. (p. 37) Clark (1978) has provided a review of research on developmental aspects of c h i l d r e n ' s awareness of language. She has summarized her f i n d i n g s by suggesting a developmental hierarchy of growth in m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness. The hierarch y commences with a c h i l d ' s spontaneous r e p a i r of speech to h i s a r t i c u l a t e explanations of r u l e s or the d e v i a t i o n s from those r u l e s (see Table 1). 34 Table 1 Metacognitive S k i l l s And Awareness Of Language 1. Monitoring one's on-going utterances (a) Repairing one's own speech spontaneously (b) P r a c t i c i n g sounds, words, and sentences (c) Adjusting one's speech to the age and status (and language spoken) of the l i s t e n e r 2. Checking the r e s u l t s of an utterance (a) Seeing whether the l i s t e n e r has understood or not (and then r e p a i r i n g when necessary) (b) Commenting on the utterances of oneself and others (c) C o r r e c t i n g the utterances of others 3. Testing for r e a l i t y (a) Deciding whether a word or d e s c r i p t i o n works or not (and i f not, t r y i n g another) 4. D e l i b e r a t e l y t r y i n g to le a r n (a) P r a c t i c i n g new sounds, words, and sentences (b) Role-playing and "doing the v o i c e s " for d i f f e r e n t r o l e s 5. P r e d i c t i n g the consequences of using i n f l e c t i o n s , words, phrases or sentences (a) Applying i n f l e c t i o n s to "new" words out of context (b) Judging, out of context, which utterance would be p o l i t e r , or which more appropriate for a s p e c i f i c speaker (c) C o r r e c t i n g word order and wording i n sentences e a r l i e r judged " s i l l y " 6. R e f l e c t i n g on the product of an utterance (a) I d e n t i f y i n g l i n g u i s t i c u n i t s (phrases, words, s y l l a b l e s , sounds) (b) P r o v i d i n g d e f i n i t i o n s (c) Constructing puns and r i d d l e s (d) E x p l a i n i n g why c e r t a i n sentences are p o s s i b l e and how they should be i n t e r p r e t e d Taken from: C l a r k , E. V. Awareness of language: Some evidence from what c h i l d r e n say and do. In A. S i n c l a i r et a l . , (Eds.). The c h i l d ' s conception of language. New York: Springer- V e r l a g , 1978. 35 Cl a r k ' s review does not s p e c i f i c a l l y focus on m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness as i t r e l a t e s to reading a c q u i s i t i o n but a review by Ryan (1980) does. Ryan concurs with Clark's ranking of the m e t a l i n g u i s t i c hierarchy by suggesting a progression from the minimal l e v e l of spontaneous r u l e - f o l l o w i n g behaviour, to the use of language s t r a t e g i e s in processing d i s t o r t e d sentences, to c a t e g o r i c a l judgements regarding grammaticality, and f i n a l l y to a r t i c u l a t e explanations of. r u l e s or p a r t i c u l a r d e v i a t i o n s from those r u l e s , (p. 41) Ryan's review concludes with a p r e d i c t i o n of the kinds of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c tasks that w i l l probably be most st r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d with reading performance, Tasks such as word segmentation and sentence r e p e t i t i o n [rather than] with the more demanding tasks such as s y n t a c t i c c o r r e c t i o n s or e x p l i c i t a r t i c u l a t i o n of language r u l e s . (p. 55) Ryan suggests that s t r u c t u r a l knowledge must be a c c e s s i b l e for d e l i b e r a t e a p p l i c a t i o n but i t need not be t o t a l l y conscious and v e r b a l i z e d by the c h i l d . Ryan concludes her paper with a proposal that "major research e f f o r t s be d i r e c t e d towards i l l u m i n a t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between a young c h i l d ' s reading l e v e l and h i s a b i l i t y in m e t a l i n g u i s t i c tasks which demand various degrees of awareness" (p. 55). This study proposes to be a c o n t r i b u t i o n toward such an e f f o r t . Table 2 presents s i x m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s which are here proposed to be e i t h e r necessary or extremely h e l p f u l to a c q u i s i t i o n of reading. These s i x a b i l i t i e s i n volve awarenesses s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e d to Vygotsky's and Downing's t h e o r i e s as d e t a i l e d above and fol l o w conceptually from the i m p l i c a t i o n s of 36 the reviews of E. Clark and Ryan a l s o discussed above. Each of the s i x a b i l i t i e s w i l l be assessed by means of a t e s t , the f i r s t of which has been designed by the author and the remaining f i v e taken from e x i s t i n g t e s t instruments or p r e v i o u s l y researched a c t i v i t i e s . For ease of reference t h i s b attery of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c tasks w i l l be c a l l e d the Test of M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Awareness (TOMA). The exact nature of the TOMA w i l l be described in Chapter II f o l l o w i n g the statement of the problem and research hypotheses. Chapter II w i l l a l s o provide a c l e a r r a t i o n a l e for the i n c l u s i o n of each subtest in the TOMA ba t t e r y . 37 Table 2 M e t a l i n g u i s t i c A b i l i t i e s Proposed To Relate To Reading A c q u i s i t i o n 1 Awareness of words as a r b i t r a r y symbols - Vygotsky (1934/1962) Test designed by R.W. Bruinsma 2 Awareness of the purposes of l i t e r a c y -Downing, 1979 Subtest B1 "Understanding L i t e r a c y Functions" from the Test of L i n g u i s t i c Awareness i n Reading Readiness - LARR (Ayers et a l ~ 1977) 3 Awareness of the s t r u c t u r e of language - C l a r k , 1978 Level 5 "Grammatic Completion" subtest of the Test of Language Development (TOLD) (Newcomer & H a m i l l , 1 977) 4 Awareness of language u n i t s - C l a r k , 1978 Level 6 A n a l y s i s of spoken language i n t o words, s y l l a b l e s and phonemes (Fox & Routh, 1975) 5 Awareness of the language of i n s t r u c t i o n - Downing, 1979 Subtest C2 "Technical Language of L i t e r a c y " from the LARR (Ayers e t . a l . , 1977) 6 Awareness of f u n c t i o n a l and l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s in language - a f t e r Watts, 1944 "Connectives Test" (Rodgers, Slade, & Conry, 1 974) 38 Statement Of The Problem The main problem of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n may be stated i n general terms as f o l l o w s : Is m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to reading achievement i n f i r s t grade c h i l d r e n ? M e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness was measured by the TOMA and reading achievement was measured by the reading subtests of the Stanford Achievement Test Primary Level I. O p e r a t i o n a l l y then, the problem may be stated as f o l l o w s : Are the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the a b i l i t i e s of f i r s t grade c h i l d r e n to perform the m e t a l i n g u i s t i c tasks of the TOMA s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s i n reading achievement on the reading subtests of the Stanford Achievement Test Primary Level I (RSAT) by these same c h i l d r e n ? The nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between f i r s t grade c h i l d r e n ' s performance on the TOMA and the RSAT was explored i n sev e r a l ways as discussed in Chapter II under the heading of S t a t i s t i c a l Analyses. A number of subsidary questions were a l s o considered i n t h i s study s p e c i f i c a l l y as they r e l a t e d to sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n reading performance and performance on m e t a l i n g u i s t i c t a s k s . There e x i s t s a larg e body of research evidence which suggests that i n North America at l e a s t , primary grade g i r l s tend to be superior to primary grade boys i n reading achievement (see f o r e.g., Dykstra & Tinney, 1969; Johnson, 1973 - 1974). L i t t l e of the research on the development of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness has focussed on sex d i f f e r e n c e s but i t was conjectured 39 t h a t , i f m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s u n d e r l i e reading, a c q u i s i t i o n , then g i r l s may a l s o show superior a b i l i t y in performance on m e t a l i n g u i s t i c tasks. This conjecture was examined i n t h i s study as o u t l i n e d in Chapter II which f o l l o w s . 40 CHAPTER II RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY This i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e l a t e d measures of se l e c t e d m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s of f i r s t grade c h i l d r e n to reading achievement during the Spring of the grade one year. The basic design employed i n the study was c o r r e l a t i o n a l u t i l i z i n g m u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s . Factor a n a l y t i c procedures were used to fu r t h e r e l u c i d a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between m e t a l i n g u i s t i c measures and reading achievement measures. The design and methodology are discussed i n t h i s chapter with respect to the f o l l o w i n g : 1 Subjects 2 Instrumentation 3 Data c o l l e c t i o n procedures 4 S t a t i s t i c a l procedures Subjects There were 113 subjects used i n t h i s study (64 males and 49 females). This comprised the major i t y of students of f i v e grade one c l a s s e s s e l e c t e d from a mid-sized school d i s t r i c t i n the c e n t r a l Fraser V a l l e y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The f i v e c l a s s e s were s e l e c t e d by the D i r e c t o r of I n s t r u c t i o n of the school d i s t r i c t as re p r e s e n t a t i v e of the d i s t r i c t p o p u l a t i o n . The subjects s e l e c t e d r e f l e c t e d the urban- r u r a l mix of the school d i s t r i c t as w e l l as i t s m u l t i - e t h n i c 41 composition. The predominant socioeconomic status of the sample was m i d d l e - c l a s s . No students for whom E n g l i s h i s a second language were included i n the sample. Instrumentat ion M e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness was measured by a Test of M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Awareness (TOMA) which was compiled by the i n v e s t i g a t o r (see Appendix A for a copy of the TOMA i n c l u d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and s c o r i n g ) . Reading achievement was measured by the reading subtests (A and B) of the Stanford Achievement Test Primary Level I Form A (Madden et. a l . , 1973). The f o l l o w i n g w i l l describe each subtest of the TOMA with a b r i e f statement of the r a t i o n a l e for i t s i n c l u s i o n w i t h i n the b a t t e r y . A d e s c r i p t i o n of the reading achievement measures concludes t h i s s e c t i o n . Test Of M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Awareness (TOMA) Subtest 1 : Awareness of words as a r b i t r a r y symbols . This subtest i s based on tasks suggested by Vygotsky (1962) and inv o l v e s an a c t i v i t y i n which c h i l d r e n are asked to exchange names of two common animals (cow and dog). Subsequent questions attempt to determine whether the c h i l d r e n can t r a n s f e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features of the animals to the new names or whether, as i n the case with Vygotsky's young c h i l d r e n , an exchange of names w i l l mean an exchange of fea t u r e s . Vygotsky suggests that a primary p r e r e q u i s i t e f or the a c q u i s i t i o n of 42 l i t e r a c y i s an awareness on the part of the c h i l d that words are a r b i t r a r y symbols. As Vygotsky (1962) says: The c h i l d must le a r n to d i s t i n g u i s h between semantics and phonetics and understand the nature of the d i f f e r e n c e . At f i r s t he uses v e r b a l forms and meanings without being conscious of them as being separate. The word to the c h i l d i s an i n t e g r a l part of the object i t denotes.... The f u s i o n of the two planes of speech, semantic and v o c a l , begins to break down as the c h i l d grows o l d e r . . . . A c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to communicate through language i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of word meanings in h i s speech consciousness.... Only when t h i s development i s completed does the c h i l d become f u l l y able to formulate h i s own thought and to understand the speech of others. (pp. 128 1 30) Subtest 1 i s designed to t e s t the hypothesis that an . awareness of words as a r b i t r a r y symbols i s primary to the c h i l d ' s a c q u i s i t i o n of reading. The subtest has a r e l i a b i l i t y of 0.77 as c a l c u l a t e d from the research data using the K-R 21 formula (Stodola & S t o r d a h l , 1967). Subtest 2 : Awareness of the purposes of l i t e r a c y . Subtest 2 i s taken from the Test of L i n g u i s t i c Awareness i n Reading Readiness (LARR) (Ayers et a l . , 1977). In the LARR the subtest i s e n t i t l e d "Understanding L i t e r a c y Function" and i s designed to discover whether or not the c h i l d understands the purposes of l i t e r a c y . In the t e s t the c h i l d i s to c i r c l e persons who are enjoying a book, l e a r n i n g that there i s a sale on, f i n d i n g what music to l i s t e n t o , t e l l i n g someone a story and s i m i l a r l i t e r a c y behaviours. As p r e v i o u s l y discussed i n the l i t e r a t u r e review, Downing's c o g n i t i v e c l a r i t y theory of l e a r n i n g to read p o s i t s that a c h i l d ' s awareness of the 43 functions of language are an important f a c t o r in h i s a c q u i s i t i o n of reading. Ayers and Downing (1980) report a K-R 20 r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.95 for t h i s subtest. Subtest 3: Awareness of the s t r u c t u r e of language. Subtest 3 i s taken from the Test of Language Development (TOLD) (Hammill & Newcomer, 1977). In the TOLD t h i s subtest i s c a l l e d "Grammatic Completion" and i s designed to measure the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to use common morphological forms. The subtest most c l o s e l y resembles the I l l i n o i s Test of P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c A b i l i t i e s Grammatic Closure subtest and Berko's Test of Morphology (Hammill & Newcomer, 1977). The c o r r e l a t i o n of the TOLD subtest with the ITPA subtest i s reported to be 0.78.' The TOLD Grammatic Completion subtest d i f f e r s from the ITPA Grammatic Closure subtest mainly i n the absence of p i c t o r i a l c l u e s . Newcomer and Hammill avoided p i c t o r i a l clues i n an attempt to insure that the task be t o t a l l y v e r b a l as i s the case i n the c h i l d ' s ordinary use of spoken morphological forms. A v a l i d a t i o n study of the TOLD (Roadhouse & Wong, 1978) showed that the Grammatic Completion subtest d i s c r i m i n a t e d among three groups of primary school c h i l d r e n : normal readers, reading- d i s a b l e d , and language delayed. Subtest 3 i s designed to t e s t a c h i l d ' s awareness of c e r t a i n key s t r u c t u r a l (grammatical) elements of spoken E n g l i s h . Although a completion format does not require a c h i l d to a r t i c u l a t e reasons for h i s choices, i t does force the c h i l d to b r i n g h i s grammatical knowledge to a l e v e l of conscious awareness. Thus the subtest i s designed to t e s t Ryan's (1980) hypothesis that s t r u c t u r a l knowledge must be a c c e s s i b l e to the 44 c h i l d for d e l i b e r a t e a p p l i c a t i o n to the reading a c q u i s i t i o n task but i t need not be t o t a l l y conscious and v e r b a l i z a b l e . I t i s a l s o designed to t e s t the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s hypothesis that s t r u c t u r a l understandings of language are l e s s important than f u n c t i o n a l ones as the c h i l d attempts to learn to read. Hammill and Newcomer (1977) report a K-R 20 r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.96 for t h i s subtest. Subtest 4: Awareness of language u n i t s . This measure represents a r e p l i c a t i o n of part of a study by Fox and Routh (1975). The o r i g i n a l study was designed to determine a c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to segment o r a l language i n t o u n i t s of various s i z e s . The general procedures used i n t h i s study have been described in the Review of L i t e r a t u r e s e c t i o n of t h i s study while s p e c i f i c procedures are o u t l i n e d i n Appendix A. Fox and Routh found s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between reading achievement and the a b i l i t y to segment sentences i n t o v a r i o u s smaller u n i t s . The reading achievement measure used in the study was admitted to be l i m i t e d i n scope (The Slosson Oral Reading Test - SORT; Slosson, 1963) and r e p l i c a t i o n with other populations was suggested. In view of the extensive l i t e r a t u r e on the p o s s i b l e r o l e of phonemic awareness in l e a r n i n g to read (see the l i t e r a t u r e review), and because the Fox and Routh methodology circumvents some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s suggested by other methods, t h i s procedure was chosen to assess the subjects' awareness of the sound s t r u c t u r e of the E n g l i s h language. No r e l i a b i l i t y data for the t e s t are reported by Fox and Routh; however a p i l o t of the subtest by the i n v e s t i g a t o r (n=26) r e s u l t e d i n a t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y of 0.89 and the r e l i a b i l i t y c a l c u l a t e d from the 45 a c t u a l data by means of the K-R21 formula was 0.87. Subtest 5: Awareness of the language of i n s t r u c t i o n . Subtest 5 i s again taken from the LARR developed by Ayers et a l . (1977) -- subtest C2 "Technical Language of L i t e r a c y " . I t t e s t s the c h i l d ' s knowledge of t e c h n i c a l terms used i n d e s c r i b i n g language such as " l e t t e r " , "word", "number", and so on. Along with Subtest 2 of the TOMA i t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to t e s t Downing's c o g n i t i v e c l a r i t y theory of l e a r n i n g to read. K-R 20 r e l i a b i l i t y of the subtest i s reported as 0.91 and i t was found to be a v a l i d p r e d i c t o r of reading achievement i n grade 1 as measured by the part scores and t o t a l scores on the Cooperative Primary Reading Test (Ayers & Downing, 1980). Subtest 6: Awareness of f u n c t i o n a l and l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n - ships in language. Robertson (1968) has demonstrated that c h i l d r e n ' s understanding of connectives i s an important f a c t o r in reading achievement. Rodgers (1974) reported on the a b i l i t y of seventy-four grade one c h i l d r e n to comprehend twenty s e l e c t e d connectives. He found that two-thirds of the c h i l d r e n d i d not know the meaning of the f o l l o w i n g connectives: i n s p i t e of, yet, for (as because), although, nevertheless, s t i l l , thus, and however. Two-thirds of the c h i l d r e n d i d not know the f o l l o w i n g words: and, so, but, i f and because. Approximately h a l f of the c h i l d r e n knew the meanings of the connectives: although (when i t occurred i n a medial p o s i t i o n w i t h i n the sentence), consequently, u n f o r t u n a t e l y , even i f , and because (also i n a medial sentence p o s i t i o n ) . 46 The subtest used here i s i d e n t i c a l to the one used by Rodgers, Slade, and Conry (1974) and i s described by them as: A twenty item sentence completion t e s t . Given the f i r s t part of the sentence (which began or ended with a c o n n e c t i v e ) , the c h i l d s u p p l i e d ( o r a l l y ) an appropiate ending. Example: " I f the wind blows very hard..." The t e s t developed by Rodgers, Slade, and Conry i s an o r i g i n a l one patterned on those developed by Watts (1944). No r e l i a b i l i t y data for t h i s subtest are presented i n the Rodgers et a l . study. A p i l o t of the subtest by the i n v e s t i g a t o r (n=26) r e s u l t e d i n t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y of 0.90. The appropiate completion of the connectives t e s t requires that a c h i l d be aware of both s t r u c t u r a l and f u n c t i o n a l aspects of E n g l i s h ; s t r u c t u r a l i n that s p e c i f i c s y n t a c t i c forms are used with d i f f e r e n t connectives and f u n c t i o n a l i n that the connectives themselves s i g n a l the purposes for which sentences are to be used, e.g., s t a t i n g c a u s a l i t y or c o n d i t i o n a l l y ; i n d i c a t i n g sequence or r e l a t i o n s h i p . Again, as i n TOMA Subtest 3, the c h i l d i s not asked to give a r t i c u l a t e explanations of the meaning and use of the connectives, but a "middle l e v e l " of awareness i s required to c o n s c i o u s l y r e f l e c t on the meaning and f u n c t i o n of a connective and respond i n a s y n t a c t i c a l l y and s e m a n t i c a l l y appropiate manner. The f a c t that connectives are used to i n d i c a t e important semantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n and between sentences suggests t h e i r importance i n reading comprehension. 47 Reading Subtests Of The Stanford Achievement Test The Stanford Achievement Tests are a respected battery of general achievement t e s t s used widely in the assessment of academic achievement K - 12. The Primary Level I of t h i s t e s t i s normed for c h i l d r e n i n grades 1.5 - 2.4. The Reading subtest of the Primary Level I t e s t c o n s i s t of two p a r t s : A - word reading and B - reading comprehension. Time for a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Part A i s 20 minutes and for Part B i t i s 25 minutes. Raw scores can be converted to p e r c e n t i l e ranks, stanines, grade equivalents and scaled scores. Data are provided on both content and construct v a l i d i t y . R e l i a b i l i t y of the Reading subtests i s reported as s p l i t - h a l f estimates based on odd-even scores c o r r e c t e d by Spearman-Brown Formula (Part A r =0.95; Part B r=0.95) as w e l l as based on the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (Part A r=0.94; Part B r=0.95). The standard e r r o r of measurement i n raw score points i s reported as 2.5 for Part A and 2.4 for Part B. Reading Part A c o n s i s t s of f i f t e e n p i c t u r e s each with three a s s o c i a t e d words to be s e l e c t e d for each p i c t u r e for a t o t a l of f o r t y - f i v e items. Reading Part B c o n s i s t s of sentences with missing words with three word choices provided of which the student i s to choose the one which c o r r e c t l y f i t s the context. Part B i s thus a modified c l o z e task r e q u i r i n g the student to be able to read c o n t e x t u a l l y . Part B has forty-two items. 48 Data C o l l e c t i o n Procedures Data c o l l e c t i o n proceeded in two phases. During March 1981 the c h i l d r e n s e l e c t e d for the study were administered the TOMA in two sessions. The f i r s t session c o n s i s t e d of group a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Subtest 2 and 5 to the f i v e i n t a c t c l a s s e s used i n the study. Two of the c l a s s e s were administered Subtest 2 f i r s t followed by Subtest 5 while three of the cl a s s e s were administered the two Subtests i n the opposite order. Adminstration of both Subtests required approxiametely twenty- f i v e minutes of c l a s s time. The second t e s t i n g session of TOMA was c a r r i e d out during a three week period from March 9 to March 27, 1981. Each subject was i n d i v i d u a l l y tested on the remaining subtests of the TOMA (1, 3, 4 and 6) randomly administered. Each i n d i v i d u a l t e s t i n g p e r i o d l a s t e d approximately twenty-five minutes and subjects' responses were recorded d i r e c t l y on the TOMA record form (see Appendix B). A l l t e s t i n g was done i n the morning between the hours of 9 and 12 Noon by the i n v e s t i g a t o r . Responses for Subtests 3, 4 and 6 were audiotaped so that they could be re- checked for accuracy of assessment and s c o r i n g . The second phase of data c o l l e c t i o n c o n s i s t e d of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the standardized reading measure. This took place between A p r i l . 2 1 .and A p r i l 30, 1981. Once again t e s t i n g was conducted i n two sessions during the mornings only. Reading subtests A and B were adminstered to i n t a c t c l a s s e s on two consecutive mornings f o l l o w i n g the procedures s p e c i f i e d i n the manual accompanying the t e s t . A l l t e s t s were handscored by the i n v e s t i g a t o r . Standardized t e s t i n g was delayed t i l l the end of 49 A p r i l , 1981 i n order to meet the requirement of the school d i s t r i c t which wanted the measure for purposes of end of year program e v a l u a t i o n and to allow the end of grade norms to be used i n sco r i n g the t e s t s . S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures The main purpose of the study was to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between f i r s t grade c h i l d r e n ' s performance on se l e c t e d m e t a l i n g u i s t i c measures and t h e i r reading achievement. The a n a l y s i s was conducted i n three phases. Phase I of the a n a l y s i s was concerned with examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among and between the subj e c t s ' performance on the subtests of the TOMA and RSAT. As w e l l , t h i s phase was concerned with e x p l o r i n g the underlying c o n s t r u c t s of the TOMA and the RSAT by means of fa c t o r a n a l y s i s . Three s p e c i f i c questions were posed during t h i s phase of the a n a l y s i s . Phase II analyses examined the p r e d i c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p of the TOMA to the RSAT employing regression a n a l y s i s . Three questions were posed during t h i s phase of the a n a l y s i s . Phase I I I was concerned with d i f f e r e n c e s i n the subjects' performance on both the RSAT and the TOMA as a fun c t i o n of t h e i r gender. Two questions were asked, two hypotheses stated and s t a t i s t i c a l procedures used to i n v e s t i g a t e these questions are o u t l i n e d . 50 The three phases of a n a l y s i s and the s p e c i f i c questions i n v e s t i g a t e d are d e t a i l e d below. Phase I : A n a l y s i s of the R e l a t i o n s h i p s of the TOMA and the RSAT and Analyses of Their Factor S t r u c t u r e . Quest ion _]_. Are there s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between f i r s t grade c h i l d r e n ' s scores on the TOMA and the RSAT? Hypothesis. There w i l l be p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between both subtest and composite scores on the TOMA and subtest and composite scores on the RSAT. S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures. Pearson-product moment c o r r e l a t i o n s were computed to produce a c o r r e l a t i o n matrix of a l l the v a r i a b l e s . Relevant c o r r e l a t i o n s were i s o l a t e d and test e d for s i g n i f i c a n c e at the 0.01 l e v e l of p r o b a b i l i t y using o n e - t a i l e d s i g n i f i c a n c e t e s t s . Question 2. Does the combined data of the TOMA and the RSAT e x h i b i t a d i s t i n c t and i n t e r p r e t a b l e f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e ? S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures. The Alberta-General Factor A n a l y s i s Program - AGFAP (Hakstian & Bay, 1973) was used to perform a v a r i e t y of f a c t o r analyses on a disattenu a t e d c o r r e l a t i o n matrix (Lord & Novick, 1968, p. 69-74 for r a t i o n a l e ) using the s i x v a r i a b l e s of the TOMA and the two va r i a b l e s of the RSAT. P r i n c i p l e components fa c t o r a n a l y s i s using one, two, and three f a c t o r s with a v a r i e t y of orthagonal and oblique r o t a t i o n s were performed. The r e s u l t s were examined to f i n d the a n a l y s i s which y i e l d e d the most parsimonious and pure f a c t o r s o l u t i o n . Quest ion 3. Does the TOMA alone e x h i b i t a d i s t i n c t and i n t e r p r e t a b l e f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e obtained from the TOMA c o r r e l a t i o n matrix? S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures. The AGFAP was used to perform the same f a c t o r analyses as for Question 2 but u t i l i z e d a 6 x 6 disattenuated c o r r e l a t i o n 51 matrix of the s i x TOMA subtests. The r e s u l t s were examined to f i n d the most parsimonious and pure f a c t o r s o l u t i o n and the nature of t h i s f a c t o r s o l u t i o n compared to that used in Question 2. Phase 11: Regression Analyses Question 4. What does each f a c t o r of the TOMA co n t r i b u t e to reading achievement, i . e . , what proportion of the variance i n reading achievement (dependent v a r i a b l e ) can be a t t r i b u t e d to variances of the TOMA fa c t o r s (independent v a r i a b l e s ) ? S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures. .Factor scores for each TOMA f a c t o r were obtained simply by i d e n t i f y i n g the s a l i e n t v a r i a b l e s of i n t e r e s t and using these to measure the f a c t o r s (see Gorsuch, 1974: 237-239 f o r a j u s t i f i c a t i o n for t h i s procedure). A m u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s was performed with the TOMA f a c t o r s as independent v a r i a b l e s and the RSAT f a c t o r as the dependent v a r i a b l e . Question 5. What proportion of the variance in the reading achievement measure (RSAT) can be a t t r i b u t e d to each of the variances i n the subtests of the TOMA? S t a t i s t i c a l Procedure. A stepwise m u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s was performed using TOMA subtests 1 - 6 as independent v a r i a b l e s and the RSAT composite reading achievement score as the dependent v a r i a b l e . R 2 was c a l c u l a t e d for each independent v a r i a b l e , and each p a r t i a l unstandardized regression c o e f f i c i e n t was converted to a beta weight and tested for s i g n i f i c a n c e by means of an F t e s t . Question 6. What i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the pre d i c t e d scores and the observed scores for the dependent v a r i a b l e (RSAT)? 52 S t a t i s t i c a l Procedure. P r e d i c t i o n equations were c a l c u l a t e d to express the pr e d i c t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p between scores obtained on various numbers of the TOMA subtests and those obtained on the c r i t e r i o n measure (RSAT). Standard e r r o r s of estimate for each equation were c a l c u l a t e d and r e s i d u a l s were examined. The c o e f f i c i e n t of a l i e n a t i o n (k) and the index of fo r e c a s t i n g e f f i c i e n c y were c a l c u l a t e d for the mu l t i p l e regression p r e d i c t i o n equations. Phase I I I : A n a l y s i s of the Subjects' Performance by Gender Quest ion 7. Are there s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s betweeen composite and subtest scores obtained on the RSAT by boys and g i r l s when d i f f e r e n c e s i n age are c o n t r o l l e d ? Hypothesis. G i r l s in t h i s study w i l l score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than boys on both the composite RSAT (Part A plus B) and each subset of the RSAT. S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures. Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were c a l c u l a t e d f i r s t on RSAT subtest t o t a l scores by sex and then on each of RSAT Part A and Part B scores by sex with d i f f e r e n c e s in age as a c o v a r i a t e . One-tailed s i g n i f i c a n c e was set at 2 < 0.05. Quest ion 8. Are there s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between composite and subtest scores obtained on the TOMA by boys and g i r l s when d i f f e r e n c e s i n age are c o n t r o l l e d ? Hypothesis. G i r l s i n t h i s study w i l l score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than boys on both the composite TOMA and each of i t s subtests. S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures. Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were c a l c u l a t e d f i r s t on TOMA subtest scores by gender and then on each of TOMA subtest 1 - 6 scores by gender. Age d i f f e r e n c e s in subjects were c o n t r o l l e d for i n each case by using age i n months as a c o v a r i a t e . One-tailed s i g n i f i c a n c e was set at p_ < 0.05. 53 Except for the f a c t o r analyses,, a l l s t a t i s t i c a l analyses u t i l i z e d programs from the S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the S o c i a l Sciences (Nie et a l . , 1975). 54 CHAPTER I I I ANALYSIS OF THE DATA: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter presents d e s c r i p t i v e data and the r e s u l t s of the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the data relevant to the three phases and eight questions examined i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Results for Phase I I I Questions 7 and 8 Questions 7 and 8 were concerned with whether there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s on scores obtained by boys and g i r l s on the reading achievement measures ( i . e . , RSAT) and the m e t a l i n g u i s t i c measures ( i . e . , TOMA). The r e s u l t s of t h i s phase of the analyses are reported f i r s t , since they have a bearing on the r e s u l t s of Phase I and I I . I t was hypothesized that the g i r l s ' scores would s i g n i f i c a n t l y exceed boys' scores on both measures. Despite the f a c t that there i s evidence from a wide range of studies that primary grade g i r l s tend to be superior to primary grade boys i n reading achievement (Dykstra & Tinney, 1969; Gates, 1961; Gunderson, 1965; H i r s t , 1969; Johnson, 1973 - 74), the r e s u l t s of t h i s study f a i l to support the hypothesis. Using d i f f e r e n c e s in age i n months as a c o v a r i a t e , none of the ANOVA comparisons of d i f f e r e n c e s of boys' and g i r l s ' scores on the two subtests of the reading measure (RSAT) proved to be s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.05 l e v e l (Table 10, Appendix C). 55 Since the main t h e s i s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s that m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s u n d e r l i e reading achievement, i t was al s o hypothesized that g i r l s i n the study would . score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than boys on both the composite TOMA and each of i t s subsets. Again, with age d i f f e r e n c e s c o n t r o l l e d f or by c o v a r i a t i o n , none of the ANOVA comparisons of the d i f f e r e n c e s of the boys' and g i r l s ' scores on the s i x subtests of the TOMA proved to be s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.05 l e v e l (Table 10, Appendix C) . Since none of the age c o v a r i a t e measures were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t , the boys' and g i r l s ' scores on the RSAT and the TOMA subtests were a l s o compared using simple t - t e s t s . A l l t - .test comparisons were found to be n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.05 l e v e l , thus c o r r o b o r a t i n g the ANOVA f i n d i n g s reported above. As there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance on both the RSAT and the TOMA subtests as a fun c t i o n of the subjects' gender, a l l subsequent analyses were performed on the sample as a whole without regard to gender. Results for Phase I Question 1 The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the subjects' scores on the TOMA and the RSAT was explored i n Question 1. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t was hypothesized that there would be p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between both subtest and composite scores on the TOMA and subtest and composite scores on the RSAT. 56 Table 3 reports the means, standard d e v i a t i o n s and i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s for the s i x TOMA v a r i a b l e s and the two RSAT v a r i a b l e s as w e l l as t h e i r composites. 57 Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations And I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s For The TOMA And RSAT V a r i a b l e s V a r i a b l e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 . TOMA 1 0. 11 0.41 0. 26 0. 21 0.33 0.47 0.25 0.28 0. 28 2. TOMA 2 — — 0.32 0. 26 0. 39 0.32 0.55 0.31 0.37 0. 36 3. TOMA 3 0. 46 0. 36 0.56 0.79 0.30 0.29 0. 31 4. TOMA 4 0. 36 0.20 0.77 0.33 0.34 0. 35 •5. TOMA 5 0.41 0.67 0.45 0.43 0. 45 6. TOMA 6 0.62 0.31 0.36 0. 35 7. TOMA composite 0.48 0.49 0. 51 8. RSAT 1 0.83 0. 94 9. RSAT 2 0. 97 10. RSAT Composite Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev 1 . 3.48 2.01 2. 10. 85 3. 59 3. 17.18 5.37 4. 72. 36 8. 47 5. 22.72 4.22 6. 8. 69 3. 28 7. 135.02 18.74 8. 34. 1 2 8. 71 9. 26.41 11.41 10. 60. 54 19. 27 Note: p < 0.05 for r values between 0.20 and 0.24 p < 0.01 for r values between 0.25 and 0.30 p < 0.001 for r values greater than 0.30 58 The hypothesis that there would be a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between TOMA and RSAT scores was supported for composite and subtest scores. The c o r r e l a t i o n between the TOMA composite and the RSAT composite was 0.51 which i s s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the 0.0001 l e v e l of p r o b a b i l i t y . Thus approxiamately 26 percent of the variance i n reading achievement as measured by the RSAT can be accounted for by the variance in the composite TOMA scores. Furthermore, each of the s i x TOMA subtests i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to each of the two RSAT subtests as w e l l as i t s composite ( a l l ps < 0.01). TOMA Subtest 5 had the highest c o r r e l a t i o n with the RSAT subtests and RSAT composite. Thus TOMA Subtest 5 alone accounts for approxiametely 20 percent of the variance in reading achievement as measured by RSAT. Question 2 P r i n c i p a l components f a c t o r a n a l y s i s was used to explore the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e of the eight v a r i a b l e s used i n the study. Table 4 reports the 8 x 8 disatten u a t e d c o r r e l a t i o n matrix used i n the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . D i s a t t e n u a t i o n was used to adjust the c o r r e l a t i o n s with regard to the r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the measures c o r r e l a t e d (Lord & Novick, 1968). One, two, and three f a c t o r s o l u t i o n s with a v a r i e t y of orthagonal and oblique r o t a t i o n s were examined. A three f a c t o r s o l u t i o n u t i l i z i n g a 0.25.Harris- Kaiser oblique r o t a t i o n was found to represent the best simple s t r u c t u r e s o l u t i o n . Table 5 reports the relevant data for t h i s f a c t o r s o l u t i o n . Other three f a c t o r s o l u t i o n s u t i l i z i n g d i f f e r i n g degrees of axes r o t a t i o n y i e l d e d s i m i l a r but l e s s f a c t o r i a l l y pure r e s u l t s . 59 Table 4 Disattenuated C o r r e l a t i o n s Used In Factor A n a l y s i s V a r i a b l e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. TOMA 1 — 0.13 0.48 0.32 0.25 0.40 0.30 0.53 2. TOMA 2 0.34 0.29 0.41 0.35 0.33 0.39 3. TOMA 3 0.50 0.38 0.61 0.31 0.31 4. TOMA 4 0.40 0.23 0.36 0.38 5. TOMA 5 0.45 0.48 0.46 6. TOMA 6 0.33 0.34 7. RSAT 1 0.88 8. RSAT 2 60 Table 5 Factor Loadings And Eigenvalues For The Six TOMA And The Two RSAT V a r i a b l e s Factor V a r i a b l e s I II I I I 1. TOMA 1 0.83 -0.20 -0.44 2. TOMA 2 0.05 -0.10 0.84 3. TOMA 3 0.87 0.11 0.13 4. TOMA 4 0.48 -0.25 0.07 5. TOMA 5 0.23 -0.27 0.51 6. TOMA 6 0.69 0.11 0.31 7. RSAT 1 0.02 -0.93 0.05 8. RSAT 2 0.03 -0.91 0.08 Eigenvalue 3.71 1.17 0.89 TOMA Subtests 1, 3, 4, and 6 loaded on Factor I ; RSAT Subtests 1 and 2 loaded on Factor I I , and TOMA Subtests 2 and 5 loaded on Factor I I I . Loadings were considered s a l i e n t at a magnitude of 0.40 and above (Gorsuch, 1974, p. 185). 61 The s o l u t i o n i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 5 i s f a c t o r i a l l y q u i t e simple and can be i n t e r p r e t e d to f i t the nature of the t e s t v a r i a b l e s i n a conceptually s a t i s f y i n g manner. Factor I seems to measure more s t r u c t u r a l aspects of language awareness. This i s e s p e c i a l l y to be noticed i n the high loading of TOMA Subtest 3 on t h i s f a c t o r . I t may be r e c a l l e d that TOMA Subtest 3 i s a grammatic completion e x e r c i s e . TOMA Subtest 4 which was designed to measure the sound s t r u c t u r e of language, loads most h e a v i l y on Factor I (0.48), although there i s a l s o a moderate loading (-0.25) of t h i s v a r i a b l e on Factor II suggesting some r e l a t i o n s h i p to the reading comprehension construct p o s i t e d for t h i s f a c t o r . TOMA Subtest 6 i s a connectives t e s t which c l e a r l y depends on a c h i l d ' s s y n t a c t i c ( s t r u c t u r a l ) sense of the language as w e l l as r e q u i r i n g awareness of the purpose (function) for which the connective i s to be used. The high loading (0.83) of TOMA Subtest 1 on Factor I i s somewhat more d i f f i c u l t to account f o r . I t may be r e c a l l e d that TOMA Subtest 1 measures the c h i l d ' s understanding of the a r b i t r a r y semantic r e l a t i o n s h i p of a word to i t s r e f e r e n t . In a p r a c t i c a l sense, an awareness of t h i s a r b i t r a r y word - referent r e l a t i o n s h i p presents an understanding of a profound p r i n c i p l e of language, i . e . , that there i s no s t r u c t u r a l l y necessary r e l a t i o n s h i p between a symbol and i t s r e f e r e n t . Thus the word "cow", i n i t s e l f , t e l l s nothing about the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of cows per se; c h i l d r e n who do not r e a l i z e t h i s misunderstand the primary s t r u c t u r a l a r b i t r a r i n e s s of a given language. 62 Factor II c l e a r l y represents the reading comprehension construct of the RSAT. Reading Part A of the RSAT i s a word (vocabulary) comprehension measure, and Part B i s a connected prose comprehension measure i n a modified c l o z e format. I t i s suggested that Factor I I I represents a f u n c t i o n a l language c o n s t r u c t . TOMA Subtest 2 i s a t e s t designed to measure a c h i l d ' s awareness of the purposes (functions) of reading and w r i t i n g . TOMA Subtest 5 i s designed to measure the c h i l d ' s awareness of the meanings (func t i o n s ) of the "reading i n s t r u c t i o n r e g i s t e r " (Downing, 1979). TOMA Subtest 5 a l s o loads to a l i m i t e d extent on Factor II (-0.27) and Factor I (0.23), i n d i c a t i n g that t h i s subtest shares some common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of these f a c t o r s as w e l l . Question 3 Factor a n a l y t i c procedures s i m i l a r to that employed to answer Question 4 were used to determine the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e of the TOMA alone. A two fa c t o r s o l u t i o n u t i l i z i n g p r i n c i p a l components f a c t o r i n g with a 0.25 H a r r i s - K a i s e r oblique r o t a t i o n provided the best simple s t r u c t u r e s o l u t i o n . Table 6 reports the relevant data for t h i s f a c t o r s o l u t i o n . I t may be noted that the nature of the f a c t o r s o l u t i o n used to achieve t h i s s o l u t i o n i s i d e n t i c a l to that used i n Question 4 except the number of f a c t o r s i s reduced from three to two. Again the TOMA subtests have s a l i e n t loadings on the two f a c t o r s i n the same manner as before with an ad d i t o n a l increase i n f a c t o r s i m p l i c i t y . 63 Table 6 Factor Loadings And Eigenvalues For The Six TOMA V a r i a b l e s Factor V a r i a b l e s I II 1. TOMA 1 0.93 -0.33 2. TOMA 2 -0.03 0.86 3. TOMA 3 0.80 0.12 4. TOMA 4 0.50 0.29 5. TOMA 5 0.25 0.66 6. TOMA 6 0.64 0.24 Eigenvalues 2.87 0.95 For subsequent a n a l y s i s i t was decided to consider TOMA Subtests 1, 3, 4, and 6. as representing a " s t r u c t u r a l awareness of language" construct while TOMA Subtests 2 and 5 were considered to represent a more " f u n c t i o n a l awareness of language" c o n s t r u c t . 64 Results for Phase II Question 4 M u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s was used to determine the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n of Nthe two TOMA f a c t o r s (Structure and Function) to reading achievement. The dependent v a r i a b l e i n the m u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s was the composite RSAT. I t was considered appropiate to combine the two readings subtests for composite a n a l y s i s for a number of reasons. F i r s t , the Pearson r between the two subtests was 0.83, i n d i c a t i n g considerable common variance between them. Second, both subtests measure a component of reading comprehension, and i t was not c l e a r that t h i s construct should be p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o a number of sub-constructs p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the case of beginning readers. T h i r d , the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s supported the notion that both RSAT subtests are measuring a s i n g l e c o n s t r u c t . The independent v a r i a b l e s i n the m u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s were the TOMA Structure f a c t o r and the TOMA Function f a c t o r defined by f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . These v a r i a b l e s were created by i d e n t i f y i n g a l l the s a l i e n t TOMA v a r i a b l e s of the f a c t o r s and summing these v a r i a b l e s to measure the f a c t o r s (Gorsuch, 1974, p. 238). 65 Table 7 reports the r e s u l t s of the m u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s using the f a c t o r data. The Function f a c t o r entered the regression equation f i r s t and accounted . for approxiametely 24 percent (R 2 = 0.24) of the variance i n the reading comprehension scores. Adding the S t r u c t u r e f a c t o r to the regression equation accounted for an a d d i t i o n a l 5 percent of the variance in reading comprehension. Thus awareness of the f u n c t i o n a l aspects of language was . considerably more s u c c e s s f u l i n accounting for reading achievement than was awareness of s t r u c t u r a l language f a c t o r s . Table 7 Summary Results Of The M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s Using Factor Data Dependent Independent Simple M l t p l R 2 V a r i a b l e s V a r i a b l e s R R B Beta Factor I (Reading Comp. ) Factor II 0.49 (Funct ion) Factor I I I 0.44 (Structure) 0.49 0.24 1.07 0.36 15.29 1 0.54 0.29 0.34 0.25 7.671 1 p < 0.01 66 Question 5 A stepwise m u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s using a l l s i x TOMA subtests as independent v a r i a b l e s was performed to discover the proportion of the variance i n the RSAT which could be a t t r i b u t e d to each of the variances i n the subtests of the TOMA. Table 8 reports the summary r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s . . Table 8 Summary Results Of The Stepwise M u l t i p l e Regression Analyses Using Raw Score Data Dependent Independent r R R 2 B Beta F V a r i a b l e V a r i a b l e s Composite TOMA 5 0.45 0.45 0.20 1.18 0. 26 7.20 RSAT TOMA 4 0.35 0.50 0.25 0.40 0. 18 3.42 TOMA 2 0.36 0.52 0.27 0.91 0. 1 7 3.48 TOMA 1 0.28 0.55 0.30 1 .32 0. 1 4 1 .80 TOMA 6 0.35 0.56 0.31 0.82 0. 1 4 1 .80 TOMA 3 0.31 0.56 0.31 -0.20 0. 05 0.24 p < 0.01 67 From an examination of Table 8 i t i s c l e a r that achievement on TOMA Subtest 5 i s most h i g h l y associated with reading achievement as measured by the RSAT. Approximately two-thirds of the TOMA bat t e r y ' s p r e d i c t i v e power resided i n Subtest 5 alone and only the beta weight of t h i s subtest i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (Beta = 0.26; F = 7.20; p < 0.01). The f i n d i n g for Question 6 that a Function f a c t o r was a bette r p r e d i c t o r of reading achievement than was a Structure f a c t o r i s due p r i m a r i l y to the presence of TOMA Subtest 5 i n the "Function" f a c t o r . TOMA Subtest 2, the other v a r i a b l e in the Function f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t e d r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e to the p r e d i c t i o n of reading scores. I t i s of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to note that TOMA Subtest 3, which i s c l e a r l y the most " s t r u c t u r a l " measure in the ba t t e r y , i s the l e a s t s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e i n the m u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s . The i n c l u s i o n of t h i s v a r i a b l e i n the a n a l y s i s accounts for no a d d i t i o n a l variance i n the reading achievement score. Question 6 This question examined the "goodness of f i t " between the scores p r e d i c t e d by the m u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s and the a c t u a l scores achieved by the study's subjects on the reading achievement measure. 68 The equation for the p r e d i c t i o n of reading achievement on the RSAT from the e n t i r e TOMA battery i s RSAT = -13.55 +1.18 (TOMA 5) +.40 (TOMA 4) + 1.32 (TOMA 1) + 0.82 (TOMA 6) - 0.20 (TOMA 3) This equation, with a m u l t i p l e R of 0.56, accounts for about 31 percent of the variance i n reading achievement. The standard e r r o r of estimate for t h i s equation i s 16.46. By using only TOMA Subtest 5 i n the regression a n a l y s i s , 20 percent of the variance i n reading achievement can be accounted f o r . The p r e d i c t i o n equation i s RSAT = 13.47+2.07 (TOMA 5) The standard e r r o r of estimate for t h i s equation i s 17.25. Since between 69 and 80 percent of variance in reading achievement i s unaccounted for by the TOMA subtest scores (depending on the number of subtests used), there c l e a r l y e x i s t other s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s which account for the remaining v a r i a n c e . An examination of the r e s i d u a l s and the standarized r e s i d u a l p l o t s f or the two regression equations i n d i c a t e s the s u b s t a n t i a l but l i m i t e d power that the m e t a l i n g u i s t i c v a r i a b l e s have i n p r e d i c t i n g reading achievement. A summary of the p r e d i c t i v e usefulness of the TOMA battery i s provided i n Table 9 which i n d i c a t e s values of the c o e f f i c i e n t of a l i e n a t i o n (k) as w e l l as i n d i c e s of f o r e c a s t i n g e f f i c i e n c y (E) as a fun c t i o n of the number of TOMA v a r i a b l e s entered i n t o the m u l t i p l e regression p r e d i c t i o n equation. 69 The c o e f f i c i e n t of a l i e n a t i o n (k) compares the standard e r r o r of estimate with the standard d e v i a t i o n of the dependent measure. I t i s thus a comparison of p r e d i c t i v e e r r o r for a set of data with the p r e d i c t i v e e r r o r in the worst p o s s i b l e p r e d i c t i o n s i t u a t i o n (S / S 1-R 2), and the reduction i n p r e d i c t i v e e r r o r r e f l e c t e d by R i s the index of f o r e c a s t i n g e f f i c i e n c y (E = 1-k) ( K i r k , 1978, p. 138). Table 9 Value Of K And E, As A Function Of The Number Of TOMA V a r i a b l e s Entered In A M u l t i p l e Regression Equation M u l t i p l e VARIABLE R k E 1. TOMA 5 0.45 0.89 0.11 2. TOMA 4 0.50 0.87 0.13 3. TOMA 2 0.52 0.85 0.15 4. TOMA 1 0.55 0.84 0.16 5. TOMA 6 0.56 0.83 0.17 6. TOMA 3 0.56 0.83 0.17 70 Summary of Results The hypothesis that g i r l s ' scores on both the RSAT and the TOMA would s i g n i f i c a n t l y exceed the boys' scores on these same measures was r e j e c t e d , as d i f f e r e n c e s i n scores on a l l subtest measures as fun c t i o n of gender were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The hypothesis of a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness as measured by the TOMA and reading achievement as measured by the RSAT was accepted. Factor a n a l y s i s suggested the existence of three f a c t o r s among the eight v a r i a b l e s i n the study. Factor I was considered to be a s t r u c t u r a l language awareness c o n s t r u c t , Factor II a reading comprehension c o n s t r u c t , and Factor I I I a f u n c t i o n a l language awareness c o n s t r u c t . Using the reading comprehension f a c t o r as the dependent measure and the Stru c t u r e and Function f a c t o r s as independent measures i n a m u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s , the Function f a c t o r accounted for about 24 percent of the variance i n reading comprehension while the Structure f a c t o r added about 5 percent for a t o t a l of about 29 percent of the variance accounted f o r . A m u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s using a l l the TOMA subtests i n d i c a t e d that Subtest 5 (Awareness of the Language of I n s t r u c t i o n ) accounted for the greatest amount of variance i n reading achievement (20 percent) while the a d d i t i o n of the remaining f i v e subtests added only another 11 percent to the variance accounted f o r . 71 The index of f o r e c a s t i n g e f f i c i e n c y for the e n t i r e TOMA was 17 percent and for TOMA Subtest 5 alone i t was 11 percent. 72 Chapter IV SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Th i s chapter summarizes the study, d i s c u s s e s l i m i t a t i o n s , draws c o n c l u s i o n s based on the f i n d i n g s , and suggests i m p l i c a t i o n s p e r t i n e n t to the types of s u b j e c t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d in the study. The chapter concludes with recommendations f o r f u r t h e r study. Summary The purpose of t h i s study was two-fold: (1) to suggest s p e c i f i c m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s r e l a t i n g to reading a c q u i s i t i o n and to provide a c o n c e p t u a l l y d e f e n s i b l e r a t i o n a l e f o r the measurement of these a b i l i t i e s by a b a t t e r y of t e s t s , and (2) to gather e m p i r i c a l data concerning the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the d e f i n e d m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s to reading achievement i n a group of f i r s t grade c h i l d r e n . The review of l i t e r a t u r e in Chapter I and the subsequent development of a conceptual framework f o r the problem suggested s i x aspects of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness that were c o n s i d e r e d of p o s s i b l e importance f o r e a r l y reading achievement: 1. Awareness of words as a r b i t r a r y symbols 2. Awareness of the purposes of l i t e r a c y 3. Awareness of the s t r u c t u r e of language 4. Awareness of the language u n i t s 5. Awareness of the language of i n s t r u c t i o n 73 6. Awareness of the r e l a t i o n a l aspects of language Each of these aspects of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness was o p e r a t i o n a l l y measured by means of a subtest; a l l of the subtests together comprised a Test of M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Awareness (TOMA). The e m p i r i c a l component of t h i s study involved an examination of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the scores of 113 f i r s t grade c h i l d r e n on the TOMA and those on a standardized reading achievement measure (the reading subtests of the Standford Achievement Test - RSAT). Objectives Of The Study The o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s study were to answer the f o l l o w i n g questions: 1. Are there s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the f i r s t grade c h i l d r e n ' s scores on the TOMA and those on the RSAT? 2. Do the combined data of the TOMA and the RSAT e x h i b i t a d i s t i n c t and i n t e r p r e t a b l e f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e ? 3. Does the TOMA alone e x h i b i t a d i s t i n c t and i n t e r p r e t a b l e f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e which can be harmonized with the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e obtained from the combined TOMA-RSAT c o r r e l a t i o n matrix? 4. What does each f a c t o r of the TOMA co n t r i b u t e to reading achievement? 5. What proportion of the variance i n the reading achievement measure (RSAT) can be a t t r i b u t e d to each of 74 the variances in the subtests of the TOMA? 6. What i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the pr e d i c t e d scores and the observed scores for the dependent v a r i a b l e ? 7. Are there s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the composite and subtest scores obtained on the reading achievement measure (RSAT) by boys and g i r l s when d i f f e r e n c e s i n age are c o n t r o l l e d ? 8. Are there s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between composite and subtest scores obtained on the TOMA by boys and g i r l s when d i f f e r e n c e s i n age are c o n t r o l l e d ? Procedures There were 113 subjects used i n the study (64 males and 49 females). The subjects were f i r s t grade students i n c l a s s e s s e l e c t e d from a mid-sized school d i s t r i c t i n the c e n t r a l Fraser V a l l e y i n B r i t i s h Columbia. E n g l i s h was the f i r s t language of a l l the subjects and the predominant socio-economic character of the sample was midd l e - c l a s s . During March, 1981, a l l subjects were administered the subtests of the TOMA in two separate sessions. In A p r i l , 1981, a l l subjects were adminstered the reading achievement measure, a l s o i n two sessions. A l l t e s t i n g and scorin g were c a r r i e d out by the i n v e s t i g a t o r . 75 A n a l y s i s Of Data And Questions A n a l y s i s of the data was conducted in three phases, each designed to answer a number of questions posed i n the study. Phase I concerned i t s e l f with e x p l o r i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance on the RSAT and the TOMA as a fun c t i o n of the subjects' gender. Phase II was concerned with examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among and between the subjects' performances on the subtests of the TOMA and the RSAT as w e l l as with e x p l o r i n g the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e of the TOMA and the RSAT. Phase I I I analyses examined the p r e d i c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p of the TOMA to the RSAT employing m u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s . A b r i e f summary of the f i n d i n g s for the eight questions posed i n the study f o l l o w s : 1. Scores on the TOMA and the RSAT were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d . Table 3 reports the extent and s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n f i c a n c e of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The o v e r a l l Pearson r between the composite TOMA and the composite RSAT was 0.51 (p < 0.001). 2. The combined data of the TOMA and the RSAT suggest a three f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e i n t e r p r e t e d as a reading comprehension f a c t o r , a s t r u c t u r a l language f a c t o r , and a f u n c t i o n a l awareness f a c t o r . 3. The TOMA alone e x h i b i t s a two f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e i n t e r p r e t e d as the same Structure and Function f a c t o r s as i n Question 4. 4. M u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s with the combined RSAT as the dependent v a r i a b l e and the two f a c t o r s of the TOMA 76 as the independent v a r i a b l e , i n d i c a t e d that the Function f a c t o r accounted for about 24 percent and the Structure f a c t o r an a d d i t i o n a l 5 percent of the variance i n the RSAT. 5. M u l t i p l e regression a n a l y s i s using the s i x subtests of the TOMA as independent v a r i a b l e s and the combined RSAT as dependent v a r i a b l e confirmed the primary c o n t r i b u t i o n of TOMA Subtest 5 to the reading achievement scores (R 2 = 0.20; Beta = 0.26; p < 0.01) followed by TOMA Subtest 4 (R 2 = 0.25); TOMA Subtest 2 (R 2 = 0.27); TOMA Subtest 1 (R 2 = 0.30); TOMA Subtest 6 (R 2 = 0.31); TOMA Subtest 3 (R 2 = 0.31), a l l with n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t beta values. 6. The standard e r r o r of estimate f or the p r e d i c t i o n equation u t i l i z i n g a l l s i x TOMA subtests (R = 0.56) was 16.46; for the p r e d i c t i o n equation using only Subtest 5 (R = 0.45) i t was 17.25 7. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between boys' and g i r l s ' scores on the RSAT with age c o n t r o l l e d by c o v a r i a t i o n . 8. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between boys' and g i r l s ' scores on the TOMA with age c o n t r o l l e d by c o v a r i a t i o n . 77 L i m i t a t ions Of The Study The conclusions to be presented must be considered in l i g h t of the f o l l o w i n g l i m i t a t i o n s of the study: 1. The r e s u l t s of the study i n d i c a t e that much of the variance in reading achievement was unaccounted for and could be c o n t r i b u t e d to v a r i a b l e s other than those used in t h i s study. Two important v a r i a b l e s not considered are socio-economic status and i n t e l l i g e n c e . There i s evidence to suggest that s o c i o - c u l t u r a l and s o c i o - l i n g u i s t i c f a c t o r s may be c r u c i a l i n determining the ease with which c h i l d r e n l e a r n to read ( E n t w i s t l e , 1971, 1979) but t h i s study has not considered these f a c t o r s . School d i s t r i c t p o l i c y made i t impossible to obtain I.Q. scores for the subjects of the study; thus t h i s p o t e n t i a l l y important underlying v a r i a b l e could not be considered i n the a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s . I.Q. has been shown to be an important f a c t o r in reading achievement ( L i v o , 1970; Lohnes & Gray, 1972) and i t may be that a ver b a l i n t e l l i g e n c e f a c t o r a l s o u n d e r l i e s achievement i n some or a l l of the m e t a l i n g u i s t i c tasks. The present study cannot provide i n s i g h t i n t o these p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 2. A l l c o r r e l a t i o n a l s t u d i e s are subject to the common er r o r of confusing c o r r e l a t i o n with c a u s a t i o n . This study has demonstrated the degree to which m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness as measured by performance on 78 the TOMA tasks i s r e l a t e d to e a r l y reading achievement as measured by the RSAT. As the presumed r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two v a r i a b l e s i s conceptually strong, the s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n obtained may be suggestive of some causal connections among the v a r i a b l e s of the RSAT and the TOMA. This study does not, however, demonstrate such causal connections. 3. This study does not address the question of the r o l e of reading i n s t r u c t i o n i n developing m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness. E h r i (1979), f or example, has noted the problem of the " a l t e r n a t i v e causal r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e x i c a l awareness and l e a r n i n g to read" (p. 84). She sta t e s that the problem may be more apparent than r e a l i n that " l e x i c a l awareness may i n t e r a c t with the reading a c q u i s i t i o n process, e x i s t i n g as both a consequence of what has occurred and as a cause f a c i l i t a t i n g f u r t h e r progress" (p. 84). The a v a i l a b i l i t y of subjects placed considerable c o n s t r a i n t s on the time at which students could be te s t e d . Subjects who were t e s t e d with the TOMA had already received about s i x months of p r i o r reading i n s t r u c t i o n . The extent to which t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n l e d to an increase in subjects' m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness i s d i f f i c u l t to assess. Thus i t remains to be demonstrated that development of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness does f a c i l i t a t e progress i n l e a r n i n g to read. The present i n v e s t i g a t i o n has only demonstrated, w i t h i n the l i m i t a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d , that the l e v e l of development of 79 c h i l d r e n ' s m e t a l i n g u i s t i c concepts can c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the p r e d i c t i o n of t h e i r reading achievement towards the end of grade one. 4. Conclusions about the r e l a t i o n s h i p of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness and reading achievement are l i m i t e d by the s e l e c t i v e number of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c concepts assessed and to the s p e c i f i c reading achievement measure employed. Conclusions And I m p l i c a t i o n s Of The Study The f o l l o w i n g conclusions are suggested from the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study: 1. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the boys and -the g i r l s in the sample on any of the reading or m e t a l i n g u i s t i c subtests. There are suggestions that c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s may account for the d i f f e r e n c e s i n language and reading a b i l i t y u s u a l l y found between boys and g i r l s i n Canada and the United States (Johnson & Greenbaum, 1980). Johnson (1973 - 74) found that boys read s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than g i r l s i n England and N i g e r i a while g i r l s g e n e r a l l y made more s i g n i f i c a n t gains i n reading i n the United States and Canada. He reported that r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that the d i f f e r e n c e s could be a t t r i b u t e d to c u l t u r a l i n f l u e n c e s . I t may thus be that the f i n d i n g of no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s due to gender i n t h i s study i s r e l a t e d to the a t t i t u d e s about reading that the teachers have i n s t i l l e d i n t h e i r young 80 students. 2. M e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness as measured by the TOMA i s a s i g n i f i c a n t though l i m i t e d p r e d i c t o r of reading achievement for the f i r s t grade subjects of t h i s study. The 31 percent of variance i n reading achievement accounted for by m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness i s both a s t a t i s t i c a l l y and e d u c a t i o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t amount, e s p e c i a l l y i f i t can be subsequently demonstrated that t h i s amount i s separate from that due to s o c i o - l i n g u i s t i c and i n t e l l i g e n c e f a c t o r s . Although caution must be e x e r c i s e d i n drawing i m p l i c a t i o n s from t h i s r e s u l t , a major pedagogical i m p l i c a t i o n does suggest i t s e l f ; i . e . , a l l other f a c t o r s being equal, a c h i l d with a high l e v e l of l i n g u i s t i c awareness might have r e l a t i v e l y l e s s d i f f i c u l t y i n l e a r n i n g to read (by any method) than a c h i l d with a low l e v e l of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness. I f a "bottom-up", part-to-whole approach to beginning reading i n s t r u c t i o n i s employed, such an approach would tend to favour c h i l d r e n with high l e v e l s of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness. Such a method might prove more d i f f i c u l t for a c h i l d with a low l e v e l of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness. For the l a t t e r c h i l d , the Language Experience Approach (LEA) would probably be more s u i t a b l e . The conceptual grounds for the above i m p l i c a t i o n s have been a l l u d e d to i n the t h i r d s e c t i o n of the l i t e r a t u r e review. B r i e f l y , as Vygotsky and others have i n d i c a t e d , w r i t i n g i s a much more h i g h l y c o n v e n t i o n a l i z e d and a b s t r a c t form of communication than i s o r a l language. Learning to read n e c e s s a r i l y involves the c h i l d i n a conscious process of 81 t h i n k i n g about language and dealing with i t in h i g h l y a b s t r a c t ways. Thi s , i n essence, i s what the possession of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness allows the c h i l d to do. A "bottom-up" approach to beginning reading i s , by d e f i n i t i o n , a more a n a l y t i c a l approach to l e a r n i n g to read than i s a "top-down" approach. A c h i l d with a high degree of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness i s , i n f a c t , capable of an a n a l y s i s of language; thus the l i n g u i s t i c a l l y aware c h i l d i s ready to b e n e f i t from a reading program that r e l i e s on a part-to-whole a n a l y s i s of language, for example, a synthetic-phonetic approach to beginning reading. A c h i l d with a low l e v e l of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness i s not accustomed to " t h i n k i n g about language". Such a c h i l d functions p r i m a r i l y at a semantic l e v e l of language use and a n a l y s i s . Research i n r e c a l l of information demonstrates that people tend to remember the semantic content of messages more e a s i l y than t h e i r s y n t a c t i c or phonological aspects (Franks & Bransford, 1976). In a d d i t i o n , research in reading comprehension i n d i c a t e s that comprehension occurs only when one can i n t e g r a t e unknown information with what i s already known ( P e r f e t t i , 1976). Therefore, with c h i l d r e n possessing l i t t l e m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness, i t would seem most productive to employ a beginning i n s t r u c t i o n a l methodology that emphasizes meaning and the most f a m i l i a r forms of language. A language experience approach would seem to f u l f i l l both requirements i n that i t employs the c h i l d ' s own f a m i l i a r o r a l language to move towards the understanding of the nature of more a b s t r a c t w r i t t e n language. 82 3. M e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness r e l a t e d to f u n c t i o n a l aspects of language i s a more s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r of reading achievement than i s awareness of s t r u c t u r a l aspects of language. To the extent that t h i s conclusion i s warranted by the data, i t helps to e x p l a i n f i n d i n g s in others stu d i e s of the lack of r e l a t i o n s h i p of language measures to e a r l y reading achievement. Many of these studies attempted to r e l a t e s t r u c t u r a l aspects of language development to reading achievement. For example, Bougere (1969) asked the question: "Is the r e l a t i o n s h i p between measures of o r a l language competency and e a r l y reading achievement strong enough to be u s e f u l for p r e d i c t i o n purposes?" A l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s of the ver b a l output of a s t r a t i f i e d random sample of 60 f i r s t graders was made on the basis of 18 language measures. P r e d i c t i v e data were scores on these measures as w e l l as on the Metropolitan Readiness Test. C r i t e r i o n data were scores on the Stanford Achievement Test Primary I B a t t e r y . Results showed that none of the language measures p r e d i c t e d achievement as w e l l as the Me t r o p o l i t a n Readiness Test. The author concludes that "there i s a need for q u a l i t a t i v e as w e l l as q u a n t i t a t i v e aspects of o r a l language behaviour" (p. 56). Cordes (1965) s i m i l a r l y found no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between reading achievement and o r a l language a b i l i t y f or 305 grade one boys. Oral language a b i l i t y was measured by items of the Berko Morphology Test and o r a l responses to colo r e d p i c t u r e s . The Berko Morphology Test items were s e l e c t e d to measure the a b i l i t y of the subjects to apply morphological r u l e s to new words and i s s i m i l a r i n many respects 83 to TOMA Subtest 3, which i s a grammatic completion subtest. In the present study, TOMA Subtest 3 had the lowest r e l a t i o n s h i p to reading achievement. As the l i t e r a t u r e review has demonstrated, there i s an extensive body of research on the p o s s i b l e importance of a c h i l d ' s awareness of the phonemic nature of language and e a r l y reading achievement ( f o r e.g., Liberman et al_. , 1967; Holden & Ma c G i n i t i e , 197.2; Liberman, 1973; Calf e e , Lindamood, & Lindamood, 1973; Fox & Routh, 1975; Shankweiler & Liberman, 1976). Although the evidence summarized i n Table 8 i n d i c a t e s that TOMA Subtest 4 was the second most powerful p r e d i c t o r of reading achievement, i t explained only an a d d i t i o n a l 5 percent of the variance i n reading achievement. I t may be, as Eh r i (1979) has suggested, that the Fox and Routh (1975) p r o t o c o l i s too r e p e t i t i v e and thus overestimates the r e a l phonemic segmentation a b i l i t y of the c h i l d . On the other hand, as c r i t i c s of other segmentation tasks point out (Cla r k , 1978; Lundberg, 1978), these tasks often require the c h i l d to understand and remember q u i t e complex i n s t r u c t i o n s . In view of the d i f f i c u l t y i n designing c l e a r and e f f e c t i v e phonemic segmentation tasks for young c h i l d r e n , the r e s u l t s of t h i s and other s t u d i e s p e r t a i n i n g to t h i s task must be viewed with some ca u t i o n . In general, the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study suggest that researchers would do w e l l to d i s t i n g u i s h between s t r u c t u r a l and f u n c t i o n a l aspects of language knowledge and awareness, and that teachers should pay p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n to a c h i l d ' s awareness of the f u n c t i o n a l aspects of language. 84 4. TOMA Subtest 5 — Awareness of the language of i n s t r u c t i o n . - accounted for the greatest amount of the variance in reading achievement. The 20 percent of variance i n reading achievement accounted for by TOMA Subtest 5 suggests that teachers should make every e f f o r t to discover whether t h e i r students understand the "reading i n s t r u c t i o n r e g i s t e r " . Downing's c o g n i t i v e c l a r i t y theory suggests the importance of young c h i l d r e n having c l e a r l y i n mind what i t i s they have to do to lea r n to read. Being c l e a r about the meaning of such reading n s t r u c t i o n terms as " l e t t e r " , "number", "word", " p r i n t i n g " , " w r i t i n g " , e t c . , seems to be very important i n approaching the le a r n i n g - t o - r e a d task. Recommendations For Further Research This i n v e s t i g a t i o n has provided p a r t i a l answers to some of the problems under study and has suggested other areas for future research. The f o l l o w i n g suggestions for f u r t h e r study are o f f e r e d : 1. I t i s recommended that t h i s study be r e p l i c a t e d but with the f o l l o w i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n s : a) Use a group of subjects who have had no formal reading i n s t r u c t i o n . b) C o l l e c t information p e r t a i n i n g to so c i o - l i n g u i s t i c f a c t o r s and i n t e l l i g e n c e and add these as independent v a r i a b l e s i n the m u l t i p l e 85 regression a n a l y s i s . c) C r o s s - v a l i d a t e the r e s u l t i n g p r e d i c t ions equat ion(s) with a new sample of. s i m i l a r subjects to determine the s t a b i l i t y and g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of these equations. 2. The lack of d i f f e r e n c e between boys and g i r l s i n reading achievement and m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness measures merits f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I t i s recommended that study be undertaken of p o s s i b l e c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s that i n f l u e n c e reading achievement in beginning readers. 3. The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study suggest the existence of d i f f e r i n g degrees of r e l a t i o n s h i p between reading achievement and awareness of s t r u c t u r a l vs. f u n c t i o n a l aspects of language. I t i s recommended that t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n be f u r t h e r explored by research. 4. This study has concerned i t s e l f p r i m a r i l y with m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness at the phoneme through sentence l e v e l of language. Future research should a l s o be d i r e c t e d at examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p of e a r l y reading achievement and m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness to extended discourse s t r u c t u r e . 5. I t i s recommended that e f f o r t be made to design and implement l o n g i t u d i n a l experimental stud i e s employing 86 groups of c h i l d r e n r e c e i v i n g d i f f e r i n g amounts of t r a i n i n g in m e t a l i n g u i s t i c concepts with a view of a s c e r t a i n i n g the impact of such d i f f e r e n t i a l p r i o r to t r a i n i n g on subsequent reading achievement. 87 Bib l i o g r a p h y A n g l i n , J.M. The growth of word meaning, M.I.T. Press, 1970. Cambridge, Mass: Ayers, D., Downing, J . , & Shaeffer, B. Test of l i n g u i s t i c awareness in reading readiness. V i c t o r i a , B.C.: U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , 1977. Ayers, D., & Downing, J . Chi l d r e n ' s l i n g u i s t i c concepts and reading achievement. Unpublished Research Paper U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1980. B e r n s t e i n , B.(Ed.), C l a s s , codes and c o n t r o l . T h e o r e t i c a l s t u d i e s towards a sociology of language (Vols. ~~1 & 2). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971, 1973. B l o o m f i e l d , L. Language. New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, 1933. Bougere, M.B. Selected f a c t o r s i n o r a l language r e l a t e d to f i r s t grade reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly . 1969, 5, 31-57. B r i t t o n , J . Language and l e a r n i n g . New York: Penguin Books, 1970. Bruner, J . S. The ontogenesis of speech a c t s . Journal of C h i l d Language, 1975, 2, 1-19. Bruner, J . S. The r o l e of dialogue i n language a c q u i s i t i o n . In A. S i n c l a i r , R. J . J a r v e l l a , & W. J . M. Le v e l t (Eds.), The c h i l d ' s conception of language. New York: Springer - V e r l a g , 1978. C a l f e e , R. C , Lindamood, P., & Lindamood, . C. A c o u s t i c - phonetic s k i l l s and reading: Kindergarten through t w e l f t h grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 64, 293-298. Cazden, C. B. Language i n e a r l y childhood and reading: A review for 1969. Washington, D.C: ERIC Clearinghouse i n L i n g u i s t i c s , 1970. 88 Cazden, C. B. C h i l d language and education. Toronto: H o l t , Rhinehart •&• Winston, 1972. Cazden, C. B. Play and m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness: One dimension of language experience. The Urban Review, 1974, 7-J_, 28-39. Chomsky, C. Consciousness is_ relevant to l i n g u i s t i c awareness. Paper presented at the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Seminar on L i n g u i s t i c Awareness and Learning to Read. V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1979. Chukovsky, K. From two to f i v e . Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1963. C l a r k , E. V. Awareness of language: Some evidence from what c h i l d r e n say and do. In A. S i n c l a i r , R. J . J a r v e l l a , & W. J . H. L e v e l t (Eds.), The c h i l d ' s conception of language. New York: Springer - V e r l a g , 1978. C l a r k , M. M. Young f l u e n t readers. London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1976. C l a r k , M. M. What can we le a r n from them? - A comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of c h i l d r e n who f a i l e d to l e a r n to read i n school and those who were reading f l u e n t l y before s t a r t i n g school. Paper presented at the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Seminar on L i n g u i s t i c Awareness and Learning to Read. V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1979. Cordes, A. E. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of o r a l language a b i l i t y to the reading achievement of f i r s t grade boys. Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, 1965. Dale, P. S. Language development: Structure and f u n c t i o n . (2nd ed.) New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, 1976. DeStefano, J . S. Awareness i n the reading process - l i n g u i s t i c and e x t r a l i n g u i s t i c . Paper presented at the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Seminar on L i n g u i s t i c Awareness and Learning to Read. V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1979. d e V i l l i e r s , J . G., & d e V i l l i e r s , P. A. Competence and performance i n c h i l d language: Are c h i l d r e n r e a l l y competent to judge? Journal of C h i l d Language, 1974, j _ , 11-22. 89 d e V i l l i e r s , J . G., & d e V i l l i e r s , P. A. Language a c q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge, Mass: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1978. Donaldson, M. Children's minds. Glasgow: Fontana / C o l l i n s , 1978. Dore, J . Chi l d r e n ' s i l l o c u t i o n a r y a c t s . In R. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse comprehension and production. H i l l s d a l e , N.Y.: Lawrence, Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , 1977, 227-245. Downing, J . The development of l i n g u i s t i c concepts in c h i l d r e n ' s t h i n k i n g . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 1970, 4, 5-19. Downing, J . The reading i n s t r u c t i o n r e g i s t e r . Language A r t s , 1976, 53, 962-966, 780. Downing, J . Reading and reasoning. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1979. Downing, J . , O l i l l a , L., & O l i v e r , P. Concepts of language i n c h i l d r e n from d i f f e r i n g socio-economic backgrounds. Journal of Educational Research, 1977, 70, 277-281. Downing, J . , & O l i v e r , P. The c h i l d ' s concept of "a word. Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y , 1974, 9, 568-592. Dykstra, R., & Tinney, R. Sex d i f f e r e n c e s in reading readiness: F i r s t grade achievement and second grade achievement. In. J . A l l e n F i g u r e l (Ed.), Reading and r e a l i s m , 1968 Proceedings, V o l . 13, Part 1. Newark Delaware: 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 , 1969, 623-628. E h r i , L. C. Word consciousness i n readers and pre-readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 6j_-2, 204-212. E h r i , L. C. L i n g u i s t i c i n s i g h t : Threshold of reading a c q u i s i t i o n . In T. E. Waller & G. E. MacKinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and p r a c t i c e . New York: Academic Press, 1979. 90 E n t w i s t l e , D. R. I m p l i c a t i o n s of language s o c i a l i z a t i o n for reading models and for l e a r n i n g to read. Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y , 1971, 7-J_, 111-167. E n t w i s t l e , D. R. The c h i l d ' s s o c i a l environment and l e a r n i n g to read. In T. G. Waller & G. E. MacKinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances i n theory and p r a c t i c e , v o l I . New York: Academic Press, 1979, 145-169. Evanechko, P., O l l i l a , L., Downing, J . , & Braun, C. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the reading readiness domain. Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 1973, \_, 61-78. Evans, M. , Taylor, N., & Blum, I . Children's w r i t t e n language awareness and i t s r e l a t i o n to reading a c q u i s i t i o n . Journal of Reading Behaviour, 1979, ±±-]_, 7-19. Ferguson, C. L i t e r a c y and language awareness. Seminar given at the U n i v e r s i t y of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., 1981. F l a v e l l , J . H. Metacognitive aspects of problem s o l v i n g . In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of i n t e l l i g e n c e . H i l l s d a l e , N. Y.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , 1976. Fox, B., & Routh, D. K. Analysing spoken language i n t o words, s y l l a b l e s , and phonemes: A developmental study. Journal of P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c Research, 1975, 4, 331-342. F r a n c i s , H. Children's experience of reading and notions of u n i t s i n language. B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, _43, 17-23. F r a n c i s , W. N. Graphemic a n a l y s i s of l a t e Middle E n g l i s h manuscripts. Speculum, 1962, 3_7, 32-47. Franks, J . , & Bransford, J . Memory for s y n t a c t i c forms as a f u n c t i o n of semantic content. In H. Singer & R. Ruddell (Eds.), T h e o r e t i c a l models and processes of reading. Newark: I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading Associaton, 1976. F r i e s , C. C. L i n g u i s t i c s and reading. New York: H o l t , Rinehart & Winston, 1963. 91 Gates, A. I. Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n reading a b i l i t y . Elementary School J o u r n a l , 1961, 6j_, 431-434. Gleason, H. A. L i n g u i s t i c s and e n q l i s h grammar. New York: H o l t , Rinehart & Winston, 1965. Gleitman, L. R. M e t a l i n g u i s t i c s i s not k i d - s t u f f . Paper presented at the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Seminar on L i n g u i s t i c Awareness and Learning to Read. V i c t o r i a , .B.C., 1979. Gleitman, L. R., Gleitman, H., & Shipley, E. F. The emergence of c h i l d as grammarian. Cog n i t i o n , 1972, 1-2/3, 137-163. Goodman, K. S., & Goodman, Y. H. Learning about p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c processes by analysing o r a l reading. Harvard Educational Review, 1977, 47-2, 317-333. Gorsuch, R. L. Factor a n a l y s i s . Toronto. W.B. Saunders Co., 1974. G u i l f o r d , J . P., & Fruchter, B. Fundamental s t a t i s t i c s i n psychology and education (5th ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1 973. Gunderson, D. V. Reading readiness: Fact and fancy. Journal of the Reading S p e c i a l i s t , 1965, 5, 1-5. Hakstian, A. R., & Bay, K. S. User's manual to accompany the A l b e r t a Genral Factor A n a l y s i s Program (AGFAP). Edmonton, A l b e r t a : D i v i s i o n of Educational Research S e r v i c e s , U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a , 1973. H a l l i d a y , M. A. K. Language s t r u c t u r e and language f u n c t i o n . In J . Lyons (Ed.), New horizons i n l i n g u i s t i c s . Baltimore: Penguin Books, L t d . , 1970. H a l l i d a y , M. A. K. E x p l o r a t i o n s i n the functions of language. London: Arnold, 1973. Hammill, D. D., & Newcomer, P. L. Test of Language Development. A u s t i n , Texas: Empire Press, 1977. 92 H i r s t , W. E. Sex as a p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e for success i n f i r s t grade reading achievement. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1969, 2, 23-28. Holden, M. H., & M a c G i n i t i e , W. H. Children's conceptions of word boundaries i n speech and p r i n t . Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63, 551-557. Hymes, D. On communicative competence. In J . Pride & J . Holmes (Eds.), Soc i o l i n g u i st i c s . Penguin, 1 972 . Johns, J . L. F i r s t graders' concepts about p r i n t . Reading Research Qu a r t e r l y , 15-4, 1980, 529-549. Johnson, C. S., & Greenbaum, G. R. Are boys d i s a b l e d readers due to sex-role stereotyping? Educational Leadership, 1980, 3, 492-496. Johnson, D., & Myklebust, H. Learning d i s a b i l i t i e s : Educational p r i n c i p l e s and p r a c t i c e s . New York: Grune and S t r a t t t o n , 1967. Johnson, D. D. Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n reading across c u l t u r e s . Reading Research Qu a r t e r l y , 1973-1974, 9, 67-86. K i r k , R. E. Introductory s t a t i s t i c s . Monterey, C a l i f . : Brooks/ Cole, 1978. L e v e l t , W. J . M., S i n c l a i r , A., & J a r v e l l a , R. J . Causes and functions of l i n g u i s t i c awareness i n language a c q u i s i t i o n : some introductory, remarks. In A. S i n c l a i r , R.J. J a r v e l l a & W. M. L e v e l t (Eds.), The c h i l d ' s conception of language. New York: Springer - Ve r l a g , 1978. Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D., & Studdert- Kennedy, M. Perception of the speech code. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1967, 74, 431-461. Liberman, I. Y. Segmentation of the spoken word and reading a c q u i s t i o n . B u l l e t i n of the Orton S o c i e t y , 1973, 2J3 , 65-77 . 93 L i v o , N. J . Reading readiness f a c t o r s and beginning reading success. The Reading Teacher, 1970, 24-2, 124-129. Lohnes, P. R., & Gray, M. M. I n t e l l i g e n c e and the Cooperative Reading Studies. Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y , 1972, 7-3_, 466- 476. Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. S t a t i s t i c a l t h e o r i e s of mental t e s t scores. Don M i l l s , Ontario: Addison Wesley, 1968. Lundberg, I. Aspects of l i n g u i s t i c awareness r e l a t e d to reading. In S i n c l a i r , A. et a l (Eds.), The c h i I d ' s conception of language. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1978, 83- 96. MacKay, D., & Thompson, B. The i n t i a l teaching of reading and w r i t i n g : Some notes towards a theory of l i t e r a c y . Programme in l i n g u i s t i c s and E n g l i s h teaching, Paper No. 3. London: U n i v e r s i t y College and Longmans, 1968. Madden, R., Gardner E. F., Rudman H. C , K a r l s e n , B., & Merwin J . C. Stanford Achievement Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, 1973 Marquardt, W. F. Language i n t e r f e r e n c e i n reading. The Reading Teacher, 1964, J_8, 214-218. M a t t i n g l y , I. G. Reading, the l i n g u i s t i c process and l i n g u i s t i c awareness. In J . F. Kavanagh & I . G. M a t t i n g l y (Eds.), Language by eye and by ear: The r e l a t i o n s h i p between speech and reading. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press, 1972, 133-147. M a t t i n g l y , I . G. Reading, l i n g u i s t i c awareness and language a c q u i s i t i o n . Paper presented at the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Seminar on L i n g u i s t i c Awareness and Learning to Read. V i c t o r i a , 1979. M e l t z e r , N. S., & Hearse, R. The boundaries of w r i t t e n words as seen by f i r s t graders. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 1969, 1, 3-13. Meyer, M., & P a r i s , S. G. Children's metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1978,70-5, 680-690. 94 Nie, Norman H.,. H u l l , C. H a d l a i , Jenkins, Jean G., Steinbrenner, K a r i n . , & Bent, Dale H. S t a t i s t i c a l package for the s o c i a l sciences 2nd ed., Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975. Papandropoulou, . 1 . , & S i n c l a i r , H. What i s a word? Experimental study of c h i l d r e n ' s ideas on grammar. Human Development, 1974, _T7, 241-258. P e r f e t t i , C. Language comprehension and f a s t decoding: Some p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c p r e r e q u i s i t e s for s k i l l e d reading comprehension. In H. Singer & R. Ruddell (Eds.), T h e o r e t i c a l models and processes of reading. Newark: 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 , 1976. Read, C. Children's c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of speech sounds i n E n g l i s h . Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1975. Reid, J . F. Learning to think about reading. Educat i o n a l Research, 1966, 9, 56-62. Roadhouse, A., & Wong, B. A v a l i d a t i o n study of the Test of Language Development (TOLD). Vancover, B.C.: ERIBC Report No 78:13, 1978. Robertson, J . E. P u p i l understanding of connectives i n reading. Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y , 1968, 3-3, 388-417. Rodgers, D. Which connections? Signals to enhance comprehension. Journal of Reading, j_7-6, 1974, 462-466. Rodgers, D., Slade, K., & Conry, R. Oral languge, reading a b i l i t y and socioeconomic background i n three grade one c l a s s e s . The A l b e r t a Journal of Educational Research, 1974, 20-4, 316-326. Ryan, E. B. M e t a l i n g u i s t i c development and reading. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), Language awareness and reading. Newark, Delaware: 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 , 1980. Savin, M. B. What the c h i l d knows about when he s t a r t s to l e a r n to read. In J . F. Kavanagh & I. G. M a t t i n g l y (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye. Cambridge, Mass: M. I. T. Press, 1972. 95 Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I . Y. E x p l o r i n g the r e l a t i o n s between reading and speech. In R. M. Knights & D. J . Bakker (Eds.), Neuropsychology of l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s : T h e o r e t i c a l approaches. Baltimore, Md: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1976. Slosson, R. L. Slosson Oral Reading Test (SORT). East Aurora, New York: Slosson Educational P u b l i c a t i o n s , Inc., 1963. Soderbergh, R. Reading in e a r l y childhood - A l i n g u i s t i c study of a pre-school c h i l d ' s gradual a c q u i s i t i o n of reading a b i l i t y . Washington, D.C: Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1977. Stodola, Q., & S t o r d a h l , K. Basic educational t e s t s and measurement. Chicago: SRA, 1967. Tough, J . The development of meaning: A study of c h i l d r e n ' s use of language. London: A l l e n & Urwin, 1977. Vernon, M. D. Backwardness i n reading. London: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1957. Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass.: The M. I. T. Press, 1962. Wardhaugh, R. Theories of language a c q u i s i t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to beginning reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y , 1 971 , 7-j_, 1 68-1 94. Wa11s, A. F. The language and mental development of c h i l d r e n . London: George & Harrap Co., 1944. Weir, R. H. Language i n the c r i b . The Hague: Mouton, 1962. Wi l k i n s o n , A. M. The foundations of language: Ta l k i n g and reading i n young c h i l d r e n . London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1970. 96 APPENDIX A. Test of M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Awareness (TOMA) Manual for A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 97 Subtest 1. Awareness of Words as A r b i t r a r y Symbols ( a f t e r Vygotsky 1962:129) Say to the c h i l d : I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUTS WORDS AND PLAY A WORD GAME WITH YOU. IN THIS GAME I WILL ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS TO WHICH YOU ANSWER EITHER "YES" OR "NO". LET'S PRETEND THAT YOU ARE TRAVELLING IN A STRANGE COUNTRY WHERE EVERYTHING IS BACKWARDS, UPSIDE-DOWN, INSIDE-OUT AND JUST GENERALLY MIXED UP. IN THIS COUNTRY A DOG IS CALLED "COW" AND A COW IS CALLED "DOG". (Show the c h i l d a p i c t u r e of a dog. Ask: IN THIS COUNTRY OF MAKE BELIEVE WHAT IS THIS ANIMAL CALLED? I f the c h i l d responds with "COW", carr y on with the PROCEED se c t i o n below. If the c h i l d responds with "DOG" remind him/her that i n t h i s strange country a dog i s c a l l e d "cow" and a cow i s c a l l e d "dog". Ask, while p o i n t i n g to the p i c t u r e of the dog: NOW WHAT DO WE CALL THIS ANIMAL IN OUR STRANGE COUNTRY? I f the c h i l d - responds with "COW" c a r r y on with PROCEED below. I f the c h i l d s t i l l responds with "DOG", stop the game and say; I GUESS THIS IS A PRETTY HARD GAME. LET'S JUST FORGET IT AND GO ON TO THE NEXT ONE. ) PROCEED Say to the c h i l d : ANSWER "YES" OR "NO" TO THESE QUESTIONS 1. IN THIS STRANGE COUNTRY, DOES A COW HAVE HORNS? Response YES NO Score 0 1 2. IN THIS STRANGE COUNTRY, DOES A DOG GIVE MILK? Response YES NO Score 1 0 3. IN THIS STRANGE COUNTRY, CAN A COW BARK? Response YES NO Score 1 0 4. IN THIS STRANGE COUNTRY, Response YES NO Score 0 1 5. IN THIS STRANGE COUNTRY, Response YES NO Score 1 0 6. IN THIS STRANGE COUNTRY, Response YES NO Score 0 1 Score p o s s i b l e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 DOES A COW HAVE HOOVES? DOES A DOG EAT GRASS? CAN A DOG SLEEP ON YOUR BED? 99 Subtest 2. Awareness of the Purposes of L i t e r a c y Taken from Subtest B1 "Understanding L i t e r a c y Functions" Test of L i n g u i s t i c Awareness in Reading Readiness (LARR) by Ayers et a_l. , 1977 A l l i n s t r u c t i o n s and t e s t procedures are e x a c t l y as pre s c r i b e d by the authors of the t e s t . S coring; The r u l e on every item i s that the c h i l d SCORES 1 i f every c o r r e c t response in that item i s made and no i n c o r r e c t response i s made. In a l l other cases the score i s 0. The manual and scorin g key foll o w on the next page. Note: Test used with permission of the authors. 1 00 PRACTICE EXERCISE FOR SUBTEST 1 AFTER THE TEST BOOKLETS HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED, FOR SAMPLE EXERCISE (a) SAY: We are going to play a game. Please turn the page and put your f i n g e r on the p a i l . POINT TO THE PAIL IN THE TEST BOOKLET. CHECK TO SEE THAT EACH CHILD HAS FINGER ON THE CORRECT PLACE. Now l i s t e n c a r e f u l l y while I t e l l you how to play the game. Look at the b i g box with the p i c t u r e in i t . Which things can you r i d e in? PAUSE. Yes, you can r i d e i n the two c a r s . Now to play the game you must draw a c i r c l e around each car. DRAW CIRCLES ON THE TEST BOOKLET CLEARLY SHOWING THE CIRCLING OF ONE CAR AND THEN THE OTHER. Now, i n the same p i c t u r e , c i r c l e the part that people can read. C i r c l e the part that people can read. PAUSE. Yes, you should have c i r c l e d the sign on the s t o r e . DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU ARE CIRCLING THE BOX WHICH SAY VICTOR'S HARDWARE. ENSURE THAT EACH CHILD HAS CIRCLED THE SIGN BOX. FOR SAMPLE (b) SAY: Now, put your f i n g e r on the r i n g . MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THE CHILDREN HAVE MOVED THEIR FINGER TO THE RING. In the row of boxes, c i r c l e each thing that you can wr i t e with. C i r c l e each t h i n g that you can w r i t e with. PAUSE. Yes, you should have c i r c l e d the pen i n the f i r s t box because you can wr i t e with i t , and you should have c i r c l e d the p e n c i l i n the l a s t box because you can wri t e with i t , too. You should not have c i r c l e d the base b a l l or the le a f because you do not wr i t e with them. Now that you know how to play the game, l e t ' s look at some more p i c t u r e s and s t o r i e s . A f t e r t h i s I w i l l not help you play the game. You must do i t a l l by y o u r s e l f . Remember to look c a r e f u l l y at the p i c t u r e s and l i s t e n to the story to f i n d out which p i c t u r e s to draw a c i r c l e around. Just t r y to do the best you can by y o u r s e l f . Now turn the page.  1 02 CHECK THAT EACH CHILD HAS TURNED THE PAGE. 1. Put your f i n g e r on the banana. Some of the people i n the row of boxes wanted to enjoy a s t o r y about spaceships. C i r c l e each person who i s enjoying a story about spaceships. 2. Put your f i n g e r on the t a b l e . Some of the people i n the row of boxes wanted to enjoy a s t o r y . C i r c l e each person who i s enjoying a s t o r y . 3. Put your f i n g e r on the comb. C i r c l e each person who i s l e a r n i n g how to b u i l d a birdhouse. Now turn the page. 4. Put your f i n g e r on the p a i l . C i r c l e each person who i s f i n d i n g what shows are on t e l e v i s i o n . 5. Put your f i n g e r on the watch. C i r c l e each person who i s f i n d i n g what time the bus goes. 6. Put your f i n g e r on the saw. C i r c l e each person who i s l e a r n i n g that there i s a sale on. 7. Put your f i n g e r on the b a l l o o n . C i r c l e each person who i s f i n d i n g what music to l i s t e n t o . Now turn the page. 8. Put your f i n g e r on the plane. C i r c l e the c h i l d r e n who asked people to pay money for the d r i n k s . 9. Put your f i n g e r on the r a b b i t . C i r c l e each person who i s t e l l i n g someone a st o r y . 10. Put your f i n g e r on the t r e e . C i r c l e each person who i s t e l l i n g t h e i r f r i e n d what they made for dinner. Now turn the page. 11. Put your f i n g e r on the broom. C i r c l e each person who i s t e l l i n g someone a s t o r y . 12. Put your f i n g e r on the elephant. C i r c l e each person who i s helping t h e i r brother remember what g r o c e r i e s to buy. 13. Put your f i n g e r on the duck. C i r c l e each person who knew how to remember a r e c i p e . 14. Put your f i n g e r on the flower. C i r c l e each person who knew how to remember t h e i r f a v o u r i t e s t o r y . Now turn the page. 1 03 Put your f i n g e r on the l e a f . C i r c l e each person who i s sending a message. Put your f i n g e r on the banana. C i r c l e each person who i s g i v i n g d i r e c t i o n s . Put your f i n g e r on the dog. C i r c l e each person who i s t e l l i n g the c l a s s about going to the f a i r . Put your f i n g e r on the snake. C i r c l e each person who i s l e a v i n g a message. TEST OF LINGUISTIC AWARENESS IN READING READINESS Subtest Bl Understanding L i t e r a c y Functions Douglas Ayers John Downing Brian Schaefer U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , Canada I l l u s t r a t o r : Dawn Chuddy © COPYRIGHT 1977 1 05 i i  107 1 08 109 TEST OF LINGUISTIC AWARENESS IN READING READINESS Subtest B1 Understanding L i t e r a c y Functions Douglas Ayers John Downing Brian Schaefer U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , Canada I l l u s t r a t o r : Dawn Chuddy © COPYRIGHT 1977 1.1.1 1 1 2  1 1 4 1 1 5 1 16 Subtest 3. Awareness of the Structure of Language Taken from the "Grammatic Completion" subtest of the Test of Language Development (TOLD) by Newcomer and Hammill, 1977. A l l i n s t r u c t i o n s and t e s t procedures are e x a c t l y as prescr i b e d by the authors of the t e s t . The manual and scoring i n s t r u c t i o n s f o l l o w . Grammatic Completion I n s t r u c t i o n s : The Examiner says to the c h i l d , "I AM GOING TO SAY SOME SENTENCES NOW. IN EACH SENTENCE ONE WORD IS MISSING. SEE IF YOU CAN TELL ME THE MISSING WORD IN EACH SENTENCE. TRY THIS ONE, 'BILL IS A BOY AND JOHN IS A ( ) ,'" Read each item c l e a r l y and slowly p r o v i d i n g s u f f i c i e n t time for the subject to respond. The accuracy of the c h i l d ' s response to the example item i s not important. The demonstration item only serves to convey the procedure, i . e . , the subject must supply missing words. Should the c h i l d f a i l to supply a word, Examiner must say, "CAN YOU TELL ME THE WORD THAT GOES HERE?, 'BILL IS A BOY AND JOHN IS A ( )'?" I f the c h i l d s t i l l f a i l s to respond, the Examiner holds up a p e n c i l and say, I WRITE WITH A PENCIL AND THIS IS A ( )." Regardless of the subject's response to t h i s item, the Examiner should proceed to item #1. If the subject provides the missing word on the f i r s t demonstration, the Examiner goes d i r e c t l y to item #1. Testing i s discontinued a f t e r 5 consecutive f a i l u r e s . S coring: The Examiner should record a l l subject's answers on the score sheet i n the space provided at the end of the sentence. Each c o r r e c t response should be scored 1, while e r r o r s are scored 0. The number c o r r e c t equals the t o t a l raw score. A maximum of 30 poi n t s may be obtained. Spontaneous c o r r e c t i o n s of e a r l i e r responses are accepted. The Examiner may not o f f e r prompts i n an e f f o r t to e l i c i t a response. On a l l t e s t items, the missing word i s located at the end of the sentences. Although one-word responses are c a l l e d f o r , i n some instances, the c h i l d may complete the sentence with more than one word, e.g., item 22 -- "JOHN LIKES TO THROW A BALL EVERY DAY. YESTERDAY HE (THREW A BALL)." Or item 12 — "BETTY LIKES TO EAT COOKIES. EVERY DAY SHE (EATS SOME COOKIES)." C r e d i t should be given for these types of responses, as long as the co r r e c t form of the missing word i s s u p p l i e d . In cases where the c h i l d provides m u l t i p l e word responses which do not include the word depicted i n the parentheses in the items, no c r e d i t i s 11 7 given ~ e.g., item 18 — "A PERSON WHO PLAYS A DRUM IS A (DRUM PLAYER)." -- no c r e d i t ; item 14 — "JANE LIKES TO JUMP. NOW SHE IS (GOING TO JUMP)." ~ no c r e d i t ; item 9 ~ "THE HAT BELONGS TO MOTHER. WHOSE HAT IS IT? IT IS (MOM'S)." — no c r e d i t . The c h i l d does not receive c r e d i t unless he gives the p r e c i s e form s t i p u l a t e d w i t h i n the parentheses. I terns: a dress and Joan has a dress. They have two Right now he i s ( p l a y i n g ) , the boy. Whose shoes are they? They (swimming). Today he i s Whose toys are they? Yesterday Whose hat she i s (played). i t ? I t i s Whose dress i s i t ? I t i s 1. Mary has (dresses) 2. Joey l i k e s to play. 3. The shoes belong to are the (boy's). 4. Betty l i k e s to swim every day. Today she i s 5. A lady l i k e s to d r i v e . Everyday she (drives) 6. A boy l i k e s to r i d e h i s b i c y c l e everyday, ( r i d i n g ) . 7. They toys belong to the c h i l d r e n They are the ( c h i l d r e n ' s ) . 8. A g i r l plays the piano everyday. 9. The hat belongs to mother, (mother's). 10. The dress belongs to the woman, the (woman's). 11. A person who sings i s a ( s i n g e r ) . 12. Betty l i k e s to eat cookies. Everyday she ( e a t s ) . 13. John l i k e s to cook everyday. Yesterday he (cooked). 14. Jane l i k e s to jump. Now she i s (jumping). 15. A cake might be s m a l l , but a cupcake i s ( s m a l l e r ) . 16. A person who p a i n t s fences i s a ( p a i n t e r ) . 17. A dog can be b i g , but a horse i s ( b i g g e r ) . 18. A person who plays a drum i s a (drummer). 19. Joe had a gumdrop, and Sue had a handful of gumdrops, but Tom had a bagful so he had the (most). 20. Bob i s a man. B i l l i s a man. Bob and B i l l 21. A cake might be s m a l l , and a cupcake cookie i s the ( s m a l l e s t ) . 22. John l i k e s to throw a b a l l everyday. (threw). 23. Today I found a l e a f . Yesterday I found two ( l e a v e s ) . 24. A boy l i k e s to r i d e h i s b i c y c l e everyday. Yesterday, (rode). 25. A spoonful of i c e cream i s good, two spoonfuls are b e t t e r , and a d i s h f u l i s ( b e s t ) . 26. Joe had one gumdrop. She had a handful of gumdrops so she had (more). 27. Mary i s woman. Joan i s a woman. Mary and Joan are two (women). 28. Betty l i k e s to draw everyday. Yesterday she (drew). 29. I have a mouse. She has a mouse. We have two (mice). 30. J e f f ate the candy q u i c k l y , and when B i l l came, i t had a l l been (eaten). 1 s are two smaller, (men). but a Yesterday he he 1 18 Subtest 4. Awareness of Language Un i t s A f t e r Fox and Routh, 1975 (Used with permission) PRELIMINARY TASKS Begin by saying: I AM GOING TO SAY SOME THINGS TO YOU AND I WANT YOU TO SAY JUST WHAT I SAY. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I SAY, "PETER JUMPS", YOU WOULD SAY "PETER JUMPS." NOW LET'S TRY IT. PETER JUMPS. Give the c h i l d an opportunity to respond to the example. When he responds c o r r e c t l y ask him to repeat the f o l l o w i n g eight sentences: ( 1) He f e l l . ( 2) Where i s Mother? ( 3) Maybe she can go. ( 4) Someone found a book. ( 5) We went a f t e r school. ( 6) A l l the people went home. ( 7) A lady l i v e d i n that house. ( 8) The l i t t l e boy looked out the window. NOTE: I f the c h i l d responds by repeating only part of the sentence, repeat the example with the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s : "NO, IS ONLY PART OF WHAT I SAID. PLEASE SAY ALL OF IT. " PART _1_. SEGMENTING SENTENCES INTO WORDS. Give the c h i l d the task of segmenting i n t o words the same eight sentences he has repeated in the PRELIMINARY TASKS. Say: 1 19 NOW I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING TO YOU AND I WANT YOU TO SAY JUST A LITTLE BIT OF IT. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I SAY "PETER JUMPS", YOU WOULD SAY "PETER". NOW LET'S TRY.IT. I'LL SAY "PETER JUMPS". I f the c h i l d responds c o r r e c t l y t o the example he i s then p r e s e n t e d w i t h the e i g h t s e n t e nces t o be segmented. For each s e n t e n c e , i f the c h i l d responds w i t h a m u l t i - w o r d p h r a s e , the ex p e r i m e n t o r then r e p e a t s t h i s phrase back t o him s a y i n g , "TELL ME A LITTLE BIT OF (PHRASE)." In t h i s way the c h i l d i s l e d t o segment each m u l t i p l e word phrase c o m p l e t e l y i n t o words, i f he i s c a p a b l e of doin g so, b e f o r e p r o g r e s s i n g t o the remainder of the sen t e n c e . The SCORING PROCEDURE i n v o l v e s drawing a l i n e under each response u n i t produced by the c h i l d w i t h a number under the l i n e t o i n d i c a t e the o r d e r of the responses t o t h a t s e n t e n c e . For example, the s i x c o n s e c u t i v e responses t o the l a s t sentence i n the s e r i e s might be s c o r e d i n the f o l l o w i n g way: The l i t t l e boy l o o k e d out the window. 1 4 5 2 6 3 A sentence i s s c o r e d as s u c c e s s f u l l y segmented i f the c h i l d i s a b l e i n t h i s way t o d i v i d e i t i n t o a l l of i t s s e p a r a t e words. I f the c h i l d responds t o the f i r s t example by r e p e a t i n g the e n t i r e sentence i n s t e a d of a p o r t i o n of i t say, "NO, IS ALL OF WHAT I SAID. SAY JUST A LITTLE BIT OF IT." Then repeat the example. PART 2. SEGMENTING WORDS INTO SYLLABLES T h i s t a s k r e q u i r e s the c h i l d t o segment i n t o s y l l a b l e s or u n i t s s m a l l e r than the words g i v e n the f o l l o w i n g b i s y l l a b i c words taken from the p r e v i o u s s e n t e n c e s : MAYBE, WINDOW, AFTER, LITTLE, SOMEONE, LADY, MOTHER, and PEOPLE. Say t o the c h i l d : NOW, I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING TO YOU AND I WANT YOU TO SAY JUST A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT I SAY. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I SAY "PETER," YOU WOULD SAY "PETE." NOW LET'S TRY IT. I'LL SAY "PETER." The c h i l d i s r e q u i r e d t o segment each word a t whatever boundary he chooses. Responses a r e r e c o r d e d by u n d e r l i n i n g the p o r t i o n of the word which the c h i l d used f o r h i s r e s p o n s e . Two SCORES are o b t a i n e d from the c h i l d ' s performance on t h i s t a s k , the 1 20 number of words, segmented in any way and the number segmented at the c o n v e n t i o n a l s y l l a b l e boundary i n d i c a t e d by a standard d i c t i o n a r y . I f the c h i l d g ives a complete word response i n t h i s task in s t ead of a p o r t i o n of a word, he i s t o l d , "NO, IS ALL OF WHAT IS SAID. PLEASE SAY JUST A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT I SAY. " PART 3. SEGMENTING SYLLABLES INTO INDIVIDUAL SOUNDS This task r e q u i r e s the c h i l d to segment s y l l a b l e s i n t o i n d i v i d u a l sounds. The 13 s y l l a b l e s to be used a r e : MAY, BE, AFT, WIN, DOW, L I T , TLE, SOME, ONE, LAD, MOTH, PEO, and PLE. Say to the c h i l d : I AM GOING TO SAY SOMETHING TO YOU AND I WANT YOU TO SAY JUST A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT I SAY. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I SAY " P E T E , " YOU WOULD SAY " P E . " NOW LET'S TRY IT . I ' L L SAY " P E T E . " For s y l l a b l e s three phonemes long ( i . e . AFT, WIN, L IT , SOME, ONE, LAD, MOTH), the two phonemes remaining a f t e r i n i t i a l segmentation at the beginning or end of the s y l l a b l e are presented w i t h the i n s t r u c t i o n : "TELL ME A LITTLE BIT OF . " Responses are recorded by drawing a l i n e number under the sounds made by the c h i l d , w i t h a number beneath the l i n e to i n d i c a t e response o r d e r . The t o t a l SCORE on t h i s task i s the .number of the 33 phonemes present in the s y l l a b l e s i d e n t i f i e d by the c h i l d . Note : A l l responses should be tape-recorded to f a c i l i t a t e s c o r i n g by r e - a n a l y s i s i f necessary . 121 Subtest 5. Awareness of the Language of I n s t r u c t i o n . Taken from Subtest C2 "Technical Language of L i t e r a c y " Test of L i n g u i s t i c Awareness i n Learning to Read (LARR) by Ayers et a_l. , 1 977 . A l l i n s t r u c t i o n s and t e s t procedures are e x a c t l y as pr e s c r i b e d by the authors of the t e s t . Scoring: The ru l e on every item i s that the c h i l d scores 1 i f every c o r r e c t response i n that item i s made and no i n c o r r e c t response i s made. In a l l other cases the score i s 0. The manual, t e s t booklet and scori n g key f o l l o w . Note: Test used with permission of the authors. 1 22 SUBTEST 5 AFTER THE TEST BOOKLETS HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED, FOR SAMPLE EXERCISE (a) SAY: Now, we are going to play another game. Remember, you must look and l i s t e n c a r e f u l l y so that you w i l l know how to play the game. Open the booklet. Find the apple in the f i r s t box. Put your finger on the apple. POINT TO THE APPLE IN THE TEST BOOKLET, THEN CHECK THAT EACH CHILD HAS THE CORRECT PLACE. Now look at the things in the long box. POINT TO THEM. Here, here, here and here. I want you to find each thing that is an animal• Which is the animal? Yes, this one. The rabbit. To play the game you draw a c i r c l e around your choice of the things I t e l l you to look for. I told you to look for each thing that is an animal. So draw a c i r c l e around the rabbit because i t is an animal. DRAW CIRCLE AROUND THE RABBIT IN YOUR TEST BOOKLET. CHECK THAT EACH CHILD MADE ONLY THE ONE CIRCLE. FOR SAMPLE (b) SAY: Now, put your finger on the flag in the next small box. POINT TO THE FLAG IN THE TEST BOOKLET. CHECK TO SEE THAT EVERY CHILD HAS FINGER ON THE RIGHT PLACE. In the long box beside the flag find each thing that someone can eat. Then c i r c l e each thing that someone can eat. Did you find the things that someone could eat? Yes, someone could eat the banana, the apple and the strawberry. So you should have made a c i r c l e around the banana. DRAW A CIRCLE AROUND THE BANANA IN THE TEST BOOKLET. PAUSE. PAUSE. And around the apple. 1 23 DRAW A SECOND CIRCLE AROUND THE APPLE IN THE TEST BOOKLET. And another c i r c l e around the strawberry. DRAW A CIRCLE AROUND THE STRAWBERRY. CHECK THAT EACH CHILD HAS MADE THREE CIRCLES. Now that you know how to play the game l e t ' s play i t with some other t h i n g s . 1. Put your f i n g e r on the t r e e . Look at the other things i n the long box. C i r c l e each thing that you think i s a number. C i r c l e each number. 2. Put your f i n g e r on the r i n g . Look at the things i n the long box. C i r c l e each t h i n g that you think i s a number. 3. Put your f i n g e r on the shoe. In the long box c i r c l e each t h i n g that i s a l e t t e r . C i r c l e each l e t t e r . 4. Put your f i n g e r on the b i r d . C i r c l e each l e t t e r . Now turn the page. Check that each c h i l d has turned the page. 5. Put your f i n g e r on the goat. C i r c l e each l e t t e r . 6. Put your f i n g e r on the house. C i r c l e each t h i n g that i s p r i n t i n g . C i r c l e each piece of p r i n t i n g . 7. Put your f i n g e r on the saw. C i r c l e each piece of p r i n t i n g . 8. Put your f i n g e r on the l e a f . C i r c l e each piece of pr i n t ing. 9. Put your f i n g e r on the sock. C i r c l e each t h i n g that i s w r i t i n g . C i r c l e each piece of w r i t i n g . 10. Put your f i n g e r on the p e n c i l . C i r c l e each piece of w r i t i n g . 11. Put your f i n g e r on the watch. C i r c l e the top l i n e of the s t o r y . C i r c l e the top l i n e of the s t o r y . 12. Put your f i n g e r on the mouse. C i r c l e the bottom l i n e of the s t o r y . C i r c l e the bottom l i n e of the s t o r y . Now turn the page. 13. Put your f i n g e r on the p a i l . C i r c l e each t h i n g that i s 1 24 a word. C i r c l e each word. Put your f i n g e r on the brush. C i r c l e each word. Put your f i n g e r on f i s h . C i r c l e the f i r s t word in the box. C i r c l e the f i r s t word. Put your f i n g e r on the broom. C i r c l e the f i r s t word i n the box. Put your f i n g e r on the r a b b i t . C i r c l e the f i r s t two words i n the box. C i r c l e the l a s t two words. Put your f i n g e r on the flower. C i r c l e he l a s t word i n the box. C i r c l e the l a s t word. Put your f i n g e r on the snowman. C i r c l e the l a s t two words in the box. C i r c l e the l a s t two words. Put your f i n g e r on the c h a i r . C i r c l e each thing that i s a c a p i t a l l e t t e r . C i r c l e each c a p i t a l l e t t e r . Put your f i n g e r on the hand. C i r c l e each c a p i t a l l e t t e r . Put your f i n g e r on the banana. C i r c l e each t h i n g that i s a pe r i o d . C i r c l e each p e r i o d . Put your f i n g e r on the cup. C i r c l e each p e r i o d . Put your f i n g e r on the candle. C i r c l e each thing that i s a question mark. C i r c l e each question mark. Put your f i n g e r on the c a t . C i r c l e the f i r s t l e t t e r i n each word. C i r c l e the f i r s t l e t t e r i n each word. Put your f i n g e r on the t r i c y c l e . C i r c l e the l a s t l e t t e r in each word. C i r c l e the l a s t l e t t e r i n each word. Put your f i n g e r on the ra d i o . C i r c l e each t h i n g that i s a sentence. C i r c l e each sentence. Put your f i n g e r on the bear. C i r c l e each thing that i s someone's name. C i r c l e each name of someone. 125 TEST OF LINGUISTIC AWARENESS IN READING READINESS Subtest C1 Technical Language of L i t e r a c y Douglas Ayers John Downing Brian Schaefer U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , Canada I l l u s t r a t o r : Dawn Chudy © COPYRIGHT 1977 1 26 a b ! i i I I i I •1 2 7 10 11 12 13 9 T G 4 t r u c k to h o u s e T E L L I N G /IflAA i AAAA P e o p l e wen t s t o r e . . m e e t i n g 777 c h a i r Tom is a fat d o g . He has a b o n e , i t is h i s f o o d . T h e r e a r e of b i r d s . A w r e n is many k i n d s Some a r e s m a l l a s m a l l b i r d . • m O O O O O t h i s F E L E P H A N T man b C a n y o u r e a d ? S h e w e n t to t o w n . My w a t c h is b r o k e n . Take a s e a t . Look at a l l t h e h o u s e s . V i c t o r i a , C a n a d a . 23 24 25 26 27 28 "SI D r . S m i t h b o u g h t a c a r . O t t a w a , O n t a r i o , C a n a l l b i r d s f l y ? Y e s , t h e y c a n . B u t c a n a n e m u f l y ? See my dog. Come h e r e . The plant grows 22 blow snow flow C •A 29 grows t r e e b u s h S u s a n comb 1 30 Key TEST OF LINGUISTIC AWARENESS IN READING READINESS Subtest C1 Technical Language of L i t e r a c y Douglas Ayers John Downing Brian Schaefer U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , Canada I l l u s t r a t o r : Dawn Chudy © COPYRIGHT 1977 ! 132 ''22 -R C P . . . . If a e . ( H ) 2 i D rO " S m i t h b o u g h t a c a r£) o O t t a w a , O n t a r i o ^ ) fi C a n a l l b i r d s f 1 y © Y e s , t h e y c a n . B u t c a n a n e m u (I y0 © e e © y $)<j. C o rn(D h e r ® . |R==A o g o J -— ; blow [The plant g r o w s j 2 2 snow grows . t r e e b us h (sjjTTn) c o m b 133 A 3 C D 9 0.. Q 4 7 ® CO  fUW\ % 0§ 5 '0* AAAy\ ^ p T o p T ^ ^ — V . ~ — ~ s t o r e . m e e t i n g /•X \ 777 c h a i r # CL? m i s He h a s It i s h a f a t 6qji^ a b o n e , s f o od . 2J T h e r e a r e of b i r d s . ( ^ A w r e n is m a n y k i n d s S o m e a r e s m . i l a s m a l l bTnT}> 1.  135 Subtest 6. Awareness of Fu n c t i o n a l and L o g i c a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s in Language Taken from the "Connectives Test" developed by Rodgers, Slade and Conry, 1974 Note: I t i s e s s e n t i a l that the c h i l d ' s response to t h i s t e s t be audiotaped i n order that the responses may be acc u r a t e l y judged for appropiateness. Say to the c h i l d : IN THIS ACTIVITY I AM GOING TO READ SOME INCOMPLETE SENTENCES TO YOU. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FINISH THEM FOR ME SO THAT THEY MAKE SENSE. HERE'S IS ONE THAT WE CAN PRACTICE ON: e.g. S a l l y and John asked mother for .... (Help the c h i l d make a c o r r e c t response and o f f e r a d d i t i o n a l examples but make sure that none of the examples use the connectives featured i n the t e s t . Test. ) Scoring: Score 1 for each sentence completion which provides a semantically appropiate response i n term of the connective used. 1 36 TEST OF CONNECTIVES 1. The mouse saw the c a t , and - 2. Ice-cream i s good t o e a t , but - 3. At k i n d e r g a r t e n the c h i l d r e n s i n g songs, a l s o - 4. Mary got her a r i t h m e t i c r i g h t , so - 5. Because i t snowed a l l n i g h t - 6. A l t h o u g h L i s a dropped the cup on the f l o o r - 7. D a v i d would l i k e a b i k e f o r h i s b i r t h d a y ; n e v e r t h e l e s s - 8. Benny h u r t h i s f o o t , c o n s e q u e n t l y - 9. The c a r ran r i g h t over the k i t t e n , y e t - 10. In s p i t e of a l l the sunny weather - 11. The Canucks win a l o t of t h e i r hockey games; however - 12. I f the wind blows v e r y h ard - 13. Matthew b u i l t a dog-house f o r h i s puppy; u n f o r t u n a t e l y - 14. U n l e s s you have the money - 15. John a t e h i s supper q u i c k l y , f o r - 16. Lucy's c o u s i n sent her a d o l l f o r her b i r t h d a y ; s t i l l - 17. We p l a n t e d some t u l i p s and d a f f o d i l s , thus - 18. My s i s t e r had a B a r b i e d o l l f o r her b i r t h d a y , a l t h o u g h - 19. Robert went t o the s t o r e , because - 20. C h r i s t m a s i s a happy t i m e , even i f - 1 37 APPENDIX B. Record Form for the Test of M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Awareness 138 T 0 M A TEST OF METALINGUISTIC AWARENESS Name Grade School Examiner Sex Year Month Day Date Tested Date of B i r t h Age SUBTEST RAW SCORES 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. TOTAL SUBTEST 1. AWARENESS OF WORDS AS ARBITRARY SYMBOLS Score 1 or 0 1 . NO 2. YES 3. YES 4. NO 5. YES 6. NO No. of 1s No. of Os Total SUBTEST 2. AWARENESS OF THE PURPOSES OF LITERACY SCORE SCORE 1 Or 0 1 Or 0 1 . D 1 1 . A C 2. A B C 12. B C D 3. A D 13. D 4. B C 14. A D 5. B C 15. A B C 6. B D 16. C D 7. C 17. A B C 8. A B D 18. B C D 9. B D 19. A 10. C 20. B D No. of 1s No. of 0s Tot a l /20 SUBTEST 3. AWARENESS OF THE STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE Score GRAMMATIC COMPLETION D i s c o n t i n u e a f t e r 5 c o n s e c u t i v e f a i l u r e s 1 or 0 1 . Marv has a d r e s s and Joan has a d r e s s . Thev have two ( d r e s s e s ) . 1 . 2 . Joev l i k e s to p l a v . Riqht now he i s ( p l a y i n g ) . 2 . 3 . The shoes b e l o n g to the boy. Whose shoes are they? Thev are the ( b o y ' s ) . 3 . 4 . B e t t v l i k e s to swim everv day. Today she i s (swimming). 4 . 5 . A 1adv l i k e s to d r i v e . Everyday she ( d r i v e s ) . 5 . 6 . A bov l i k e s to r i d e h i s b i c v c l e everyday. Today he i s ( r i d i n q ) . 6 . 7 . They toys b e l o n g to the c h i l d r e n . Whose toys are they? Thev are the ( c h i l d r e n ' s ) . 7 . 8 . A g i r l p l a y s the piano everyday. Y e s t e r d a y she ( p l a y e d ) . 8 . 9 . The hat belonas to mother. Whose hat i s i t ? I t i s ( M o t h e r ' s ) . 9 . 10. The d r e s s b e l o n g s to the woman. Whose d r e s s i s i t ? I t i s the (woman's). 10. 1 1 . A person who s i n g s i s a ( s i n g e r ) . 1 1 . 12 . B e t t v l i k e s to eat c o o k i e s . Everyday she ( e a t s ) . 12 . 13 . John 1 Ikes to cook everyday. Yesterday he (cooked). 13 . 14 . Jane l i k e s to iump. Now she i s (lumping). 14 . 15 . A cake might be s m a l l , but a cupcake i s ( s m a l l e r ) . 15 . 16 . A person who p a i n t s fences i s a ( p a i n t e r ) . 16 . 17 . A dog can be b i g , but a horse i s ( b i g q e r ) . 17 . 18 . A person who p l a y s a drum i s a (drummer). 18 . 19 . Joe had a gumdrop, and Sue had a handful of gumdrops, but Tom had a b a g f u l so he had the (most). 19. 20. Bob i s a man. B i l l i s a man. Bob and B i l l a r e two (men). 20. 21 . A cake might be s m a l l , and a cupcake i s s m a l l e r , but a c o o k i e i s the (sma11est). 21 . 22 . John l i k e s to throw a b a l l everyday. Yesterday he ( t h r e w ) . 22 . 23 . Today I found a l e a f . Y e s t e r d a y I found two ( l e a v e s ) . 23 . 24 . A bov l i k e s to r i d e h i s b i c v c l e everyday. Yesterday, he ( r o d e ) . 24 . 25 . A spoonful of i c e cream i s good, two s p o o n f u l s are b e t t e r , and a d i s h f u l i s ( b e s t ) . 25. 26 . Joe had one gumdrop. She had a handful of gumdrops so she had (more). 26 . 27 . Mary i s woman. Joan i s a woman. Mary and Joan are two (women). 27 . 28 . B e t t v l i k e s to draw everyday. Yesterday she (drew). 28 . 29 . I have a mouse. She has a mouse. We have two ( m i c e ) . 29. 30. J e f f a t e the candy q u i c k l y , and when B i l l came, i t had a l l been ( e a t e n ) . 30. No. of 1s No. of Os T o t a l ( 3 0 ) SUBTEST 4. AWARENESS OF LANGUAGE UNITS Part j _ . Segmenting Sentences i n t o Words 1. He f e l l . 2. Where i s mother? 3. Maybe she can go. 4. Someone found the book. 5. We went a f t e r school. 6. A l l the people went home. 7. A lady l i v e d i n that house. 8. The l i t t l e boy looked out the window. Part 2. Segment ing Words i n t o 1. Maybe 2. Window 3. A f t e r 4. L i t t l e No. of words segmented i n any No. of words segmented at the Part 3_. Segmenting S y l l a b l e s 1 . May 2. be 3. A f t 4. Win 5. dow 6. L i t 7. t i e 143 S y l l a b l e s 5. Someone 6. Lady 7. Mother 8. People way /8 conventional s y l l a b l e boundary / 8 Subtotal /I 6 i n t o I n d i v i d u a l Sounds 8. Some 9. one 10. Lad 11. Moth 12. Peo 13. pie Subtotal /33 T o t a l /84 1 44 SUBTEST 5. AWARENESS OF THE LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION SCORE 0 or 1 SCORE 0 or 1 SCORE 0 or 1 1. 1 1 . 21 . 2. 12. 22. 3. 13. 23. 4. 14. 24. 5. 15. 25. 6. 16. 26. 7 . 17. 27. 8. 18. 28. 9. 19. 29. 10. 20. To t a l /29 145 SUBTEST 6. AWARENESS OF THE FUNCTIONAL AND LOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS IN LANGUAGE SCORE SCORE 1 or 0 1 or 0 1 . and 11. however 2. but 12. I f 3. a l s o 13. unfortunately 4. so 14. Unless 5. Because 15. for 6. Although 16. s t i l l 7. nevertheless 17. thus 8. consequently 18. although 9. yet 19. because 10. In s p i t e of 20. even i f T o t a l /20 APPENDIX C. ANOVA Data For Sex D i f f e r e n c e s Table 10 ANOVA Data For Sex Di f f e r e n c e s In Achievement On TOMA And RSAT V a r i a b l e s With Age As A Covariate (n=113) V a r i a b l e s f 1 P TOMA 1 3.277 0. 073 TOMA 2 1 .270 0. 262 TOMA 3 0. 1 37 0. 712 TOMA 4 0.842 0. 361 TOMA 5 0.917 0. 340 TOMA 6 0.009 0. 923 TOMA Composite 0.115 0. 735 RSAT 1 2.705 0. 1 03 RSAT 2 1 .290 0. 259 RSAT Composite 1 .977 0. 163 APPENDIX D. Raw Data Column A B C D E F G H I J K L L Key I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Age i n months Sex Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw No. Score - TOMA 1 Score - TOMA 2 Score - TOMA 3 Score - TOMA 4 Score - TOMA 5 Score - TOMA 6 Score - TOMA Composite Score - RSAT 1 Sco,re - RSAT 2 Score - RSAT Composite A B C D E F G H I J K L M 1 83 1 1 1 2 1 3 68 "1 4 8 1 1 6 34 1 6 50 2 82 2 2 1 2 1 5 63 20 6 1 18 30 25 55 3 77 1 6 1 3 16 80 23 8 1 46 42 38 80 4 78 1 3 1 4 1 2 74 25 9 137 39 39 78 5 79 2 3 12 1 1 72 22 6 126 42 34 76 6 85 1 6 16 26 77 28 1 6 169 45 41 86 7 77 1 3 2 9 71 1 4 4 103 1 4 1 4 28 8 77 2 3 1 6 16 57 25 9 126 29 1 3 42 9 92 1 6 7 1 3 73 25 1 0 1 34 30 20 50 1 0 77 2 5 12 1 9 74 25 9 1 44 41 41 82 1 1 79 1 3 7 9 74 24 1 2 129 45 38 83 1 2 74 1 1 1 5 1 7 74 25 1 0 1 43 34 1 2 46 1 3 83 2 1 1 7 1 4 71 27 1 0 1 40 44 37 81 14 83 1 5 1 2 22 73 27 1 1 150 38 34 72 1 5 76 2 3 1 2 7 26 23 10 81 3 5 29 64 1 6 85 1 6 1 1 24 71 26 10 148 34 24 58 18 86 1 6 1 7 25 75 26 7 1 56 41. 42 83 19 79 1 4 12 20 77 25 8 146 42 37 79 20 84 1 5 1 3 21 81 27 8 1 55 44 40 84 21 86 2 5 19 25 77 27 1 3 1 66 36 38 74 22 84 1 4 9 18 74 22 6 1 33 39 1 7 56 23 82 2 0 1 3 19 74 24 10 140 40 36 76 24 82 1 2 1 1 1 1 72 1 9 5 120 33 1 6 49 25 76 1 6 1 3 1 3 69 24 7 1 32 40 38 78 26 83 1 2 5 1 2 68 26 7 120 43 34 77 27 76 2 5 1 1 19 76 17 9 1 37 31 1 8 49 28 95 1 6 1 0 23 78 25 9 151 40 28 68 29 81 1 4 1 0 20 71 24 8 1 37 18 1 2 30 30 76 2 1 9 1 6 60 25 4 1 1 5 36 27 63 31 92 1 4 1 4 1 7 53 21 9 1 18 31 1 9 50 32 92 1 5 9 16 70 23 5 128 37 1 6 53 33 86 1 5 1 3 17 74 23 1 1 143 27 1 6 43 34 80 2 5 1 2 21 75 25 1 1 149 27 1 5 42 35 93 2 4 10 9 65 26 5 1 19 42 32 74 36 76 2 0 3 3 57 25 1 89 38 31 69 37 87 1 2 7 9 79 27 8 1 32 37 21 58 38 76 2 3 1 2 1 4 60 26 1 1 1 26 26 1 4 40 39 86 2 2 10 20 78 26 1 2 148 45 40 85 40 86 1 0 10 1 7 66 22 10 1 25 24 9 33 41 85 1 5 9 1 7 67 21 8 1 27 32 18 50 42 80 2 6 9 20 74 26 10 145 23 1 5 38 43 86 2 6 6 27 76 23 1 2 1 50 32 25 57 44 79 2 1 1 2 1 6 66 20 6 121 34 31 65 45 76 1 5 9 19 75 23 10 141 38 35 73 46 77 2 1 8 1 5 73 22 6 1 25 26 18 44 47 82 1 6 10 19 75 22 9 141 35 1 4 49 48 79 2 2 10 1 6 73 21 7 129 39 24 63 49 84 2 0 14 23 72 17 10 136 42 31 73 50 82 2 0 9 1 7 51 24 1 6 1 1 7 38 37 75 51 83 1 6 16 22 81 26 7 158 38 36 74 52 79 1 5 1 1 22 78 23 5 1 44 38 29 67 53 82 1 6 1 1 23 74 24 1 6 1 54 35 39 74 54 84 2 3 12 22 79 25 10 151 43 41 84 55 74 2 3 12 1 4 80 20 7 136 38 29 67 A B C D E F G H I J K L M 56 75 1 3 1 6 20 72 22 7 140 1 4 5 19 57 75 1 4 1 1 19 79 22 9 1 44 43 40 83 58 76 2 2 13 16 75 19 5 1 30 28 18 46 59 76 2 5 1 1 19 70 25 8 138 30 13 43 60 77 2 2 1 5 1 5 72 22 8 1 34 31 20 51 61 84 1 2 1 3 1 74 14 3 97 1 3 1 2 25 62 78 2 3 1 5 18 82 28 1 3 159 45 40 85 63 85 1 6 1 7 23 79 25 1 6 1 66 41 41 82 64 74 1 3 1 4 1 7 69 19 5 1 27 20 1 5 35 65 80 2 0 1 2 5 58 19 3 97 23 7 30 66 87 1 5. 3 1 4 47 1 8 78 1 2 6 18 67 84 1 3 5 22 63 1 2 6 1 1 1 35 1 6 51 68 87 1 0 5 6 62 1 3 7 93 27 1 9 46 69 87 1 6 8 21 80 26 5 1 46 37 33 70 70 79 1 6 6 24 75 24 1 4 149 45 39 84 71 81 2 4 1 4 1 9 79 22 1 1 1 29 37 37 74 72 83 2 4 8 1 5 77 22 7 1 33 32 1 3 45 73 81 1 3 1 5 1 7 79 25 10 149 30 35 65 74 79 1 1 9 20 66 16 9 121 30 19 49 75 90 2 4 1 2 1 6 73 26 9 140 44 33 77 76 79 1 6 8 16 74 24 12 140 27 17 44 77 85 1 1 8 19 75 19 5 1 27 22 1 5 37 78 71 1 1 1 3 1 1 75 24 1 2 1 36 25 24 49 79 79 2 3 1 0 1 1 81 25 2 1 32 43 36 79 80 84 1 5 9 23 78 25 12 1 52 20 1 0 30 81 79 2 5 6 1 4 75 22 9 131 30 25 55 82 75 1 3 6 25 76 26 1 1 1 47 21 4 25 83 89 2 5 6 22 70 25 10 138 40 26 66 84 81 2 1 7 22 80 27 10 1 47 37 21 58 85 80 1 0 10 1 6 78 24 9 1 37 26 5 31 86 94 2 1 9 1 1 75 21 6 1 23 1 4 1 6 30 87 85 1 6 6 18 81 23 7 141 38 35 73 88 94 2 5 1 0 1 6 79 1 4 9 1 33 36 19 55 89 80 1 2 2 4 52 20 4 84 18 3 21 90 73 1 3 3 17 65 20 4 1 1 2 1 5 6 21 91 80 2 5 8 24 78 23 9 1 47 44 39 83 92 83 2 0 1 5 21 79 25 6 1 46 41 27 68 93 83 1 4 1 3 1 9 75 25 8 1 44 45 38 83 94 79 2 5 1 3 19 74 25 1 2 148 41 29 70 95 77 2 3 4 9 59 1 2 4 91 3 3 34 67 96 77 2 6 1 3 1 3 75 23 8 1 38 32 21 53 97 76 1 5 1 3 22 73 19 8 140 42 39 81 98 85 1 6 1 4 1 5 77 21 7 1 40 44 39 83 99 77 1 5 7 18 79 16 13 1 38 42 31 73 100 76 2 6 1 7 27 77 26 14 167 43 39 82 101 85 1 6 1 4 24 83 28 1 3 168 44 42 86 103 82 1 6 16 19 80 27 12 160 44 41 85 1 04 77 2 5 1 2 17 80 25 8 1 47 40 39 79 1 05 80 1 3 1 4 18 77 26 1 1 149 45 40 85 106 81 1 5 1 2 22 76 28 15 158 39 39 78 1 07 79 1 1 1 1 18 78 19 1 128 22 23 47 108 85 1 2 1 1 17 75 26 13 1 44 30 38 68 109 83 1 0 1 4 23 80 25 9 151 44 39 83 1 1 1 82 2 6 14 22 80 28 13 163 40 39 79 A B C D E F G H I J K L . M 112 87 2 1 11 23 82 26 12 155 39 39 78 113 76 2 5 15 17 64 23 11 135 35 32 67 115 77 2 0 12 19 78 20 9 138 25 15 40 1 16 76 1 1 7 3 69 20 0 100 30 18 48 1 17 75 1 2 11 20 63 25 10 131 18 8 26

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Japan 3 0
France 1 0
China 1 0
United States 1 0
City Views Downloads
Tokyo 3 0
Unknown 1 0
Beijing 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items