UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effect of story grammar instruction on recall, achievement and comprehension of grade two children 1983

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1983_A8 M44.pdf
UBC_1983_A8 M44.pdf [ 6.72MB ]
UBC_1983_A8 M44.pdf
UBC_1983_A8 M44.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0078355.json
JSON-LD: 1.0078355+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0078355.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0078355+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0078355+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0078355+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0078355.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECT OF STORY GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION ON RECALL, ACHIEVEMENT AND COMPREHENSION OF GRADE TWO CHILDREN by MARY JO MELNYK B.Ed.,The University Of E r i t i s h Columbia,1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department Of Education) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1983 © Mary Jo Melnyk, 1983 In 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 of the 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 of B r i t i s h C olumbia, I agree t h a t the 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 of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head of my Department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of E d u c a t i o n The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: 30 Sept 1983 i i Abstract This study was designed to test the effect of story grammar instruction on the unprompted r e c a l l , prompted r e c a l l , reading achievement, and comprehension of 165 Grade 2 students in 9 di f f e r e n t classes within the Catholic School System. Classes were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: story grammar instruction (based on story structure) modified reading instruction (researcher designed) or regular reading instruction (classroom teacher's method). Pretests for vocabulary, r e c a l l and reading achievement were administered and data were col l e c t e d on age, sex, socioeconomic status and language s k i l l s . Reading programs, including a b i l i t y groupings, reading material, word s k i l l s and vocabulary instruction were altered as l i t t l e as possible in an attempt to preserve usual classroom routines. Researcher designed seatwork a c t i v i t i e s were given to the story grammar and modified reading groups to help the researcher monitor the story grammar method and maintain the equality of researcher intervention between story grammar and modified reading. The study continued for eleven weeks. Analysis of covariance, used to test the e f f e c t of method, class (nested within method) and sex showed no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s for any posttest due to method. However, for the Unprompted Recall t e s t , g i r l s scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than boys. Further analyses of covariance, testing the effect of method, class (nested within method) and a b i l i t y , again indicated no s i g n i f i c a n t main effects for method. However, a b i l i t y was s i g n i f i c a n t in each posttest with good readers scoring higher than poor readers. In addition, method interacted with a b i l i t y for the Prompted Recall Detail posttest, indicating that poor readers receiving story grammar instruction scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than good readers in any of the three methods. In contrast, poor readers receiving modified or regular reading did not have a score s i g n f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from good readers. Method again interacted with a b i l i t y for the Achievement posttest. Poor readers receiving either story grammar or modified reading instruction scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than good readers in any of the three methods. In contrast, poor readers receiving regular reading did not have a score s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from good readers. These results d i f f e r from those found in previous studies and therefore cannot provide support for story grammar instruction with Grade 2 students. This study concludes with a discussion of the variables within the study design which may have adversely affected the re s u l t s . Recommendations for refinements in study design to control for these factors are made. i v Table of Contents Abstract i i L i s t of Tables ix L i s t of Figures xi L i s t of Charts x i i Acknowledgements x i i i Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale of the Study 1 Purpose of the Study 3 Limitations of the Study 4 Def i n i t i o n of Terms 5 Story Grammar 5 Story Grammar Instruction 7 Modified Reading Instruction 8 Regular Reading Instruction 8 Unprompted Written Recall 8 Prompted Written Recall - Deta i l 8 Prompted Written Recall - Inference 9 Comprehension - Detail 9 Comprehension - Inference 9 Reading Achievement 9 Good Readers 9 Poor Readers 10 Organization of the Paper 10 Chapter II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 11 Research Related to Story Grammar Theory 11 Expectations for Story Structure 12 Maturation and Story Grammar 14 Memory for Categories 17 Atypical Structure and Recall 21 Story Grammar Instruction 22 Analysis of Story Grammar Instruction Research 29 Samples 30 Duration of the Studies 31 Materials Used for Teaching 31 Teachers 32 Interaction with Students 32 Novelty of the Program 33 Measurement 33 Summary 34 Chapter III DESIGN OF THE STUDY 35 Population 35 Instrumentation 37 Standardized Tests 37 Researcher Designed Tests 39 Materials 42 Methods 42 Story Grammar Instruction 42 Modified Reading Instruction 4 9 Regular Reading Instruction 51 Procedures 52 Implementation of the Program 52 Teaching and Supervision of the Teachers 54 Testing 55 Modifications to Previous Research Designs 57 Samples 57 Duration of the Study 57 Materials 58 Teachers 58 Interaction 58 Novelty of the Program 59 Measurement 59 S t a t i s t i c a l Analyses 59 Summary 62 Chapter IV RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 63 Results 63 Pretests 63 Posttests 64 Analyses with Method, Class and Sex 66 Analyses with Method, Class and A b i l i t y 74 Discussion 82 Recommendations for Future Research 88 Summary 90 APPENDIX A - STORY GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION 91 Introducing the Story Grammar Concept 91 Contrived Stories 94 The Lion and The Mouse 94 The Gingerbread Man 94 The Fox and The Crow 95 The Big Race 95 Seatwork Examples 95 Outline Chart and Category Strips 96 Macro-Cloze 97 Seatwork A c t i v i t i e s 98 Seatwork Examples 99 Macro-Cloze 99 Incorrect Category 99 Category Questions ..100 Reordering Categories 100 APPENDIX B - MATERIALS FOR MODIFIED READING INSTRUCTION .101 Seatwork A c t i v i t i e s 101 Introducing Seatwork A c t i v i t i e s 102 Seatwork Examples 105 Cause and Effect 105 Pronoun Referents 106 Characterization 106 Inference 107 Comparison and Contrast 108 APPENDIX C - TESTS, DIRECTIONS, SCORING KEYS, AND SAMPLE PROTOCOLS 109 Researcher Designed Tests 109 Unprompted Recall Pretest 109 Unprompted Recall Posttest 110 Prompted Recall De t a i l and Inference Posttest 111 Comprehension Detail and Inference Posttest 112 Directions for Administration 114 Unprompted Recall Tests - Directions 114 Prompted Recall Detail and Inference Test Directions 115 Comprehension Detail and Inference Test Directions 116 Scoring Procedures 116 Description of Scoring Keys - 118 Scoring Keys 119 Unprompted Recall Pretest - A Father, His Son, and The Donkey 119 Unprompted Recall Posttest - The Garden 123 Prompted Recall Detail and Inference - Patrick Lost His Ticket 128 Comprehension Detail and Inference - The Yellow Moon 131 Samples of Student Protocols 134 Unprompted Recall Pretest Protocols 134 Unprompted Recall Posttest Protocols 135 Comprehension Detail and Inference Protocols 136 Prompted Deta i l and Inference Protocols 138 APPENDIX D - TABLES OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR POSTTESTS 139 BIBLIOGRAPHY 145 v i i L i s t of Tables I. Demographic Data for SGI, MRI, RRI, for Sex, Language, Socioeconomic Status and Parents 36 II. Means and Standard Deviations for the Pretests for SGI , MR I , and RRI 64 III. ANOVA for the Unprompted Recall Posttest with Method, Class, and Sex as Independent Variables 66 IV. ANOVA for the Achieve Posttest with Method, Class, and Sex as Independent Variables 68 V. Adjusted Means for the Achieve Posttest for the Classes 68 VI. ANOVA for the Comprehension Deta i l Posttest with Method, Class, and Sex as Independent Variables ....69 VII. ANOVA for the Comprehension Infer Posttest with Method, Class, and Sex as Independent Variables ....70 VIII. ANOVA for the Prompted Recall D e t a i l Posttest with Method, Class, and Sex as Independent Variables ....71 IX. ANOVA for the Prompted Recall Infer Posttest with Method, Class, and Sex as Independent Variables ....72 X. Adjusted Means for the Prompted Recall Infer Posttest for the Classes 73 XI. ANOVA for the Achieve Posttest with Method, Class, and A b i l i t y as Independent Variables 74 XII. ANOVA for the Comprehension Deta i l Posttest with Method, Class, and A b i l i t y as Independent Variables 76 XIII. ANOVA for the Comprehension Infer Posttest with Method, Class, and A b i l i t y as Independent Variables 77 XIV. ANOVA for the Prompted Recall Detail Posttest with Method, Class, and A b i l i t y as Independent Variables 78 XV. ANOVA for the Prompted Recall Infer Posttest with Method, Class, and A b i l i t y as Independent Variables 80 v i i i XVI. Adjusted Means for the Prompted Recall Infer Posttest for the Classes 81 XVII. Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Boys and G i r l s for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Unprompted Recall Test 139 XVIII. Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Boys and G i r l s for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Achieve Test 140 XIX. Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Boys and G i r l s for the Teaching Methods and the Total Population for the Comprehension Detail Test 140 XX. Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Boys and G i r l s for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Comprehension Inference Test 141 XXI. Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Boys and G i r l s for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Prompted Detail Test 141 XXII. Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Boys and G i r l s for the Methods and Total Population for the Prompted Inference Test 142 XXIII. Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Good and Poor Readers for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Achieve Test 142 XXIV. Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Good and Poor Readers for the Teaching Methods and the Total Population for the Comprehension Detail Test 143 XXV. Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Good and Poor Readers for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Comprehension Inference Test ...143 XXVI. Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Good and Poor Readers for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Prompted Det a i l Test 144 XXVII.Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Good and Poor Readers for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Prompted Inference Test 144 i x L i s t of F i g u r e s 1 . Method by A b i l i t y I n t e r a c t i o n on the Ach i e v e Test . . . . 7 5 2 . Method by A b i l i t y I n t e r a c t i o n on the Prompted R e c a l l D e t a i l Test 7 9 X L i s t of C h a r t s 1. Comparison of the Gordon and Melnyk S t o r y Grammars ....6 2. M o d i f i c a t i o n s of Gordon's S t o r y Grammar C a t e g o r i e s ...43 3. P a r s i n g of a S t o r y from Ginn 720 Program 47 4. Example of O u t l i n e C h a r t 92 5. Score Sheet f o r Unprompted R e c a l l P o s t t e s t 117 x i Acknowledgement I would l i k e to acknowledge the help and support of a number of people who made t h i s project possible. I want to thank my advisor, Dr. F. Pieronek, for her encouragement and dedication. Thanks also to my committee members, Dr. J. Catterson. and Dr. L. Gunderson, for their advice and involvement. Thanks to the Catholic School System and the p r i n c i p a l s of the nine p a r t i c i p a t i n g schools. My most sincere and h e a r t f e l t thanks must be for the nine teachers who allowed me to work with them and their students . These teachers devoted t h e i r time and energy as well as sharing their ideas and concerns. Three teachers from the Richmond School D i s t r i c t and two teachers from the Vancouver School D i s t r i c t are given my thanks for their contribution of p i l o t classes for the researcher designed tests. Both Dr. T. Rogers and B. Prosser must be acknowledged for th e i r generous contribution and guidance in the areas of measurement, design and s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. My thanks as well to a friend, P. White, who acted as a marker to check the interrater r e l i a b i l i t y of the researcher designed tests. There are two people who deserve much c r e d i t for their involvement. My mother and mother-in-law provided love and support in caring for my baby during this project. Lastly, I want to thank my husband and my baby for giving me the time and opportunity to complete my thesis. 1 I. INTRODUCTION Rationale of the Study Story grammar instruction is receiving increasing attention in the l i t e r a t u r e on reading comprehension (McCrae, 1982; Singer & Dreher, 1980; Spiegel & Whaley, 1980; Whaley, 1981). Most of the studies done indicate that students benefit from this approach to teaching reading comprehension (Chodos & Mosenthal, 1978; Gordon, 1980; McCrae, 1982; Spiegel & Whaley, 1980). However, one study had negative re s u l t s , and s p e c i f i c areas of weakness noted in the remaining research may affect the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of story grammar instruction to a l l ages of children in regular classrooms. There seems to be a need for further research that attempts to overcome the weaknesses noted. These weaknesses and possible corrective actions are discussed in the following paragraphs. One weakness that may be important is that the research samples were small and mainly represented students in the intermediate grades. New research should draw a sample from the primary grades and increase the number of students in each of the research programs. A second weakness is reflected . in the fact that most experimental programs had been implemented for only short lengths of time. Any new program should be taught for a longer period. 2 A t h i r d weakness in previous research is that some of the techniques or materials for teaching the experimental group trained a s k i l l similar or i d e n t i c a l to that measured by the posttest(s). The tests in new research should measure a s k i l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from that trained by the experimental program. A fourth weakness i d e n t i f i e d in the research i s that the materials used for teaching reading were often short in length, contrived, or taken from sources other than the usual classroom materials a v a i l a b l e . New research should u t i l i z e the classroom reading material available to teachers. A f i f t h weakness that may be important i s that the researcher taught the experimental and control groups, therefore introducing bias into the res u l t s . Further research should employ the s k i l l s of the classroom teachers who are responsible for reading i n s t r u c t i o n . A sixth weakness that was i d e n t i f i e d involved the amount of interaction between the teacher and the students. It appears that the experimental and control programs d i f f e r e d in the amount of interaction required between the teacher and the students. New research should require a similar amount of teacher-student interaction in both the experimental and control programs. 3 The last weakness is reflected in the fact that the l e v e l of interest of some programs was higher for the experimental method than for the control method. Any new method should control the l e v e l of interest so that i t is the same for both the experimental and control groups. It was proposed that a study be done that would attempt to correct the weaknesses described on the basis suggested. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of story grammar instruction based on a modification of Gordon's grammar (1980) with Grade 2 students. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the questions to be answered were: a. W i l l story grammar instruction result in better unprompted written r e c a l l for Grade 2 students than modified reading instruction or regular reading instruction? b. W i l l story grammar instruction result in better prompted written r e c a l l for Grade 2 students than modified reading instruction or regular - reading instruction? c. W i l l story grammar instruction result in better achievement for Grade 2 students than modified reading instruction or regular reading instruction? 4 d. W i l l story grammar instruction result in better reading comprehension for Grade 2 students than modified reading instruction or regular reading instruction? e. W i l l story grammar instruction result in a difference in unprompted written r e c a l l for good or poor readers than modified reading instruction or regular reading instruction? f. W i l l story grammar instruction result in a difference for prompted written r e c a l l for good or poor readers than modified reading instruction or regular reading instruction? g. W i l l story grammar instruction result in a difference in reading achievement for good or poor readers than modified reading instruction or regular reading instruct ion? h. W i l l story grammar instruction result in a difference in reading comprehension for good or poor readers than modified reading instruction or regular reading instruction? Limitations of the Study There are several l i m i t a t i o n s to the study. F i r s t l y , random sampling was not possible as class members were determined by the school d i s t r i c t . 5 Secondly, the use of Grade 2 students as subjects prevented the results from being generalized to older or younger students. A t h i r d l i m i t a t i o n resulted from the fact that the teachers in the program volunteered their classrooms, therefore their motivation to participate may have affected the res u l t s . A f i n a l l i m i t a t i o n f a l l s in the area of measurement. The researcher designed tests were not subjected to tests of v a l i d i t y or r e l i a b i l i t y and the Stanford Reading Achievement Test was not standardized on a Canadian Population. D e f i n i t i o n of Terms A number of terms used throughout th i s paper are defined to provide a general understanding of the study. These are defined below. Story Grammar Story grammar was defined as a modification of Gordon's (Gordon, 1980) story grammar. Chart 1 presents a comparison between the Gordon story grammar and the modification of that grammar, the Melnyk grammar. Chart 1 - Comparison of the Gordon and Melnyk S t o r y Grammars Gordon S t o r y Grammar Melnyk S t o r y Grammar SETTING Time, p l a c e , c h a r a c t e r s THEME Goal of main c h a r a c t e r OR Author's purpose f o r w r i t i n g s t o r y PLOT E p i s o d e s 1 , 2 , 3 . . . S t a r t e r Event B e q l n n l n g of the e p i s o d e Inner Response Emotion, c o a n i t l o n . p l a n or sub-goal of c h a r a c t e r A c t i o n E f f o r t to a c h i e v e qoal What Happens Outcome: s u c c e s s or f a i l u r e of a c t i o n R e a c t i o n C h a r a c t e r ' s response to outcome RESOLUTION F i n a l r e s u l t of the s t o r y OR response of the main c h a r a c t e r t o . t h e f i n a l s t a t e of a f f a i r s SETTING Time, p l a c e , c h a r a c t e r s GOAL Main goal of main c h a r a c t e r PLOT Happenings 1, 2, 3 ... B e g i n n i n g B e g i n n i n g of a happening Goal Sub-goal of a c h a r a c t e r T r y E f f o r t to a c h i e v e goal R e s u l t Outcome of T r y ENDING F i n a l r e s u l t of the s t o r y 7 As the chart shows, Gordon's o r i g i n a l story grammar is shown, as well as Melnyk's modifications to her grammar. Gordon's main categories were .modified by r e l a b e l l i n g the theme as the goal, and the resolution as the ending. The d e f i n i t i o n of the goal was s i m p l i f i e d by making i t the main goal of the main character, instead of the author's purpose in writing the story. Gordon's -subcategories were modified by r e l a b e l l i n g the episodes as the happenings, the starter event as the beginning, the inner response as the goal, the action as the try, and the outcome (what happens) as the r e s u l t . The reaction subcategory was completely eliminated. Story Grammar Instruction Story grammar instruction was defined as instruction in which children were: a) given s p e c i f i c information about story categories (see Melnyk's grammar - Chart 1 ) , and b) given practice in analyzing the stories of their regular reading program into the designated categories. This instruction constituted a p a r t i a l substitution for their regular instruction in reading. It was provided both through oral instruction by the teacher (see Appendix A, pages 91 - 93) and s p e c i a l l y structured seatwork exercises c a l l e d Macro-cloze, Story Outline, Reordering Categories, Category Questions, and Incorrect Category (see Appendix A, pages 98 - 1 0 0 ) . 8 Modified Reading Instruction Modified reading instruction (MRI) is defined as regular reading instruction modified by the addition of instruction in sequencing, d e t a i l , inference, cause and effect, comparison and contrast, characterization and pronoun reference. Ideas for teaching these s k i l l s as well as seatwork a c t i v i t i e s for reinforcement were supplied by the researcher. Regular Reading Instruction Regular reading instruction (RRI) i s defined as the teachers' customary classroom techniques for teaching reading comprehension. Unprompted Written Recall For the purposes of the study, r e c a l l i s defined as a form of comprehension consisting of an unprompted written account of information of factual or i n f e r e n t i a l type remembered after reading a simple narrative story, and measured by researcher designed tests. Prompted Written Recall - Detail This i s defined as a prompted written response of the short answer type, e l i c i t i n g factual information remembered after reading a story and measured by a researcher designed t e s t . 9 Prompted Written Recall - Inference This is defined as a prompted written response of the short answer type, e l i c i t i n g i n f e r e n t i a l information remembered after reading a story and measured by a researcher designed test. Comprehension - Detail This is defined as written responses of the short answer type e l i c i t i n g factual information after reading a short story and with the text available. This was measured by a researcher designed test. Comprehension - Inference This is defined as written responses of the short answer type e l i c i t i n g i n f e r e n t i a l information a f t e r reading a short story and with the text available. This was measured by a researcher designed test. Reading Achievement This i s defined as the t o t a l reading comprehension score as measured by the Stanford Reading Achievement Test, Primary Level 2, Form B. Good Readers Reading a b i l i t y was measured by the Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s , Level 7. The test manual gave the grade equivalent for a three month time span from December to March as 2.5, which was too high for a December tes t i n g . The 50th percentile for a 1 0 December testing was then assigned the grade equivalent of 2.3. This grade equivalent score matched a raw score of 54. Therefore good readers were defined as students who had a raw score of 54 or above on the Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s . Poor Readers Poor readers were defined as students who had scores below the raw score of 54 on the Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s . •Organization of the Paper Chapter II provides a review of the story grammar l i t e r a t u r e . In Chapter III, the study design is described. The results, the discussion of the results and the conclusions and implications of the study are included in Chapter IV. 11 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter presents a l i t e r a t u r e review that focusses on story grammar theory and story grammar in s t r u c t i o n . In the f i r s t section of the l i t e r a t u r e review, the research on story grammar theory is presented in re l a t i o n to several of the well supported generalizations about story grammar. In the second section, results of research studies in story grammar instruction w i l l be summarized. F i n a l l y , an analysis o f story grammar instruction research i s presented in the t h i r d section, providing the purpose for the present study. Research Related to Story Grammar Theory Story grammars are written, language-based representations of the hypothesized cognitive structures c a l l e d story schemata. This written structure enables researchers to experiment and draw conclusions about comprehension of narrative prose. Several d i f f e r e n t story grammars have been developed (Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Rumelhart, 1977; Stein & Glenn, 1979; Thorndyke, 1977). Although there exist some differences between the various story grammars, Nezworski, Stein & Trabasso state that "the s i m i l a r i t i e s are more common". The following generalizations about story grammars have been supported by the various studies reported in the l i t e r a t u r e . 1 2 1. Readers and/or l i s t e n e r s have certain expectations to which a story should conform (Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Handler & Goodman, 1982; Thorndyke, 1977). 3. Expectations based on the story schema are evident in both adults and children. Although there are some effects on r e c a l l due to age, studies confirm that a l l ages have an understanding of story structure (Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Stein & Glenn, 1979; Stein & Glenn, 1982; Whaley, 1981a). 4. Certain story categories are remembered better than others. In much of the l i t e r a t u r e t h i s is thought to result from the h i e r a r c h i c a l nature of story grammars (Guthrie, 1977; Kintch & Keenan, 1973; Stein & Glenn, 1979; Thorndyke, 1977). 5. Poorly structured or unstructured stories w i l l be given a more t y p i c a l structure when recalled (Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Rumelhart, 1977; Thorndyke, 1977). These generalizations and the related research are discussed under the following headings: Expectations For Story Structure, Maturation and Story Grammar, Category Saliency and Atypical Structure and Recall. Expectations For Story Structure It i s generally accepted that adults and children have certain expectations to which stories should conform. These expectations are used during reading to organize information. If s t o r i e s do not conform to the schemata, then readers w i l l 1 3 encounter d i f f i c u l t y remembering, Thorndyke (1977) studied this effect with adults, who either read or listened to a story that was written with four d i f f e r e n t grammar structures (the-, structures became progressively less comprehensible). Thorndyke rewrote a story by moving the theme category from i t s usual place. The result was a NORMAL story (the theme in the correct place), an AFTER THEME story (the theme at the end of the story), a NO THEME (theme omitted from the story), and a RANDOM story ( a l l the grammar categories rearranged). As the story structure became less t y p i c a l , subjects had d i f f i c u l t y remembering story events. Subjects were confused when stories did not follow the t y p i c a l story pattern. Whaley (1981 a) studied students in grades 3,5 and 11. Subjects read unfinished stories and predicted endings. They also completed macro-cloze tasks in which s p e c i f i c story categories (setting, goal, attempts) were missing. The hypothesis that readers expect cer t a i n structures was supported. In a recent study by Mandler and Goodman (1982), the psychological v a l i d i t y of story structure was tested. The purpose of the research was to discover the degree to which story categories influence text processing. Mandler and Goodman hypothesized that reading rate should be slower when processing the propositions from the beginning of a category than when reading the additional information within that category. For the study, highly structured stories with two sentences per i 4 story category were constructed such that each sentence had ten words, and contained the same number of l e t t e r s , pronoun references within each category were the same for each of the sentences and there were no causal or temporal connectives between categories. The 16 undergraduates p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the study controlled their own rate of reading by pressing a control button on a computer. The computer recorded reading rate for each sentence. Results indicated that processing time was decreased when students read information from the beginning of a category when compared to reading the additional information within that category. The authors state that these findings provide support for the psychological v a l i d i t y of story grammars. Maturation and Story Grammar A number of studies have shown that the story r e c a l l s of children as young as fiv e have a basic story structure. Baker and Stein (1981) report that these findings have c l a r i f i e d the work of Piaget (1926), who found that young children often confused the l o g i c a l sequence when r e t e l l i n g s t o r i e s . In c i t i n g Piaget's work, Baker and Stein infer that Piaget used stories inappropriate for young children due to their length and complexity. However, i t appears that some developmental differences with respect to story schema do e x i s t . Adults r e c a l l more information than older children who r e c a l l more than younger children In 1979, Stein and Glenn conducted a study that involved 24 1 5 f i r s t and 24 f i f t h grade students who listened to four different s t o r i e s and then gave oral r e c a l l s . They found that Grade 5 children recalled s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than Grade 1 children. In addition, the f i f t h graders also r e c a l l e d more internal responses (goals) than the f i r s t graders. Mandler and Johnson (1977) analyzed the oral r e c a l l protocols from Grade 1, Grade 4, and university students who had lis t e n e d to two simple s t o r i e s . They found that the Grade 1 subjects recalled settings, i n i t i a t i n g events and outcomes; the Grade 4 subjects recalled settings, i n i t i a t i n g events, outcomes, attempts and endings; the University subjects recalled a l l of these categories plus causes and internal responses. Generally, i t was concluded that the older the subject, the more complete the r e c a l l . Age i s also a factor in a b i l i t y to r e c a l l i l l o g i c a l l y or poorly structured s t o r i e s . Recall is decreased more in younger children than in older children or adults when the story structure does not adhere to that of a t y p i c a l story grammar. In 1982, Stein and Glenn conducted a study that endeavored to fin d the reactions of 20 Grade 2 and 20 Grade 6 students to disorganized text. Each story was written in two versions: one with a ty p i c a l story structure and one with an atypical structure (no temporal markers, no pronoun references at the beginning of sentences, and verbs in the past tense). Each sentence of the story was typed on a separate s t r i p of paper and presented randomly to each c h i l d . The subjects' task was to 1 6 reorder the s t r i p s to make a good story. Results revealed that Grade 6 students were s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than Grade 2 students at ordering the atypical story into a story grammar structure. S i m i l a r l y , Baker and Stein (1981) c i t e work by Stein (1976) which "demonstrated developmental differences in the strategies children use to deal with disruptions in l o g i c a l structure" (p.21). Generally, i t was found that the story r e c a l l s of the older students more closely resembled a story with a t y p i c a l grammar structure. A t h i r d developmental difference in story structure knowledge i s i l l u s t r a t e d when children are asked to t e l l a story. Baker and Stein (1981) c i t e a study by Stein (1977) in which Kindergartners and t h i r d and f i f t h graders were asked to produce a story after l i s t e n i n g to a story s e t t i n g . The children's stories were rated according to their resemblance to a t r a d i t i o n a l story structure. It was found that: The more sophisticated structures were characterized by their inclusion of purposive behaviors and increasingly well-specified motives and goals.... there was a clear developmental progression in the l o g i c a l complexity of the s t o r i e s , presumably r e f l e c t i n g increasing knowledge of the constituents of a well- formed story. (p.33) A further study of story production by children in Kindergarten, Grade 3 and Grade 6 was undertaken by Stein and Glenn in 1982. In their study children listened to three d i f f e r e n t settings for a story and were then asked to f i n i s h the story. The children's s t o r i e s often resembled the basic story structure c a l l e d a TRY 1 7 as outlined by Rumelhart (1977). The TRY episode contains a main character, his goal, his attempt to obtain the goal and the outcome of the attempt. Only f i f t y percent of a l l the Kindergartners told stories with TRY episodes, while 72% of the Grade 3 students and 78% of the Grade 6 students told stories with this structure. Results from the study show the development of the story structure concept from younger to older children. Clearly, i t appears children have a basic understanding of story structure which becomes more complex over t ime. Memory for Categories Generally i t is believed that the information in certain story categories i s better remembered than the information in other story categories. Story category i s a good predictor of the information that w i l l be recalled. Some researchers believe that the categories that are better remembered are those that are located highest in the h i e r a r c h i c a l story grammar structure (Thorndyke, 1977). Thorndyke (1977) studied subjects' r e c a l l for propositions at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of a story. Sixty-four undergraduates at Stanford University read or listened to a highly structured story and then gave a written r e c a l l . Thorndyke found that "the h i e r a r c h i c a l relationships among propositions resulting from structural analysis of plot were a strong determinant of r e c a l l . " (p.89). 18 In a review of story grammar l i t e r a t u r e , Rumelhart (1977) presented a problem-solving schema for stories which he ca l l e d a TRY. Based on his research he maintained that the information related to the main character's main goal is at a higher level i n the story structure than the information related to subgoals. This again supports the theory that r e c a l l is related to the h i e r a r c h i c a l nature of story grammars. However, Stein and Glenn (1979) reported on a study in which 24 f i r s t and f i f t h grade students listened to simple stories and gave oral r e c a l l s . A careful analysis of the protocols revealed that certain categories were more memorable than others. Stein and Glenn state that: This consistency in r e c a l l demonstrates that s p e c i f i c items c l e a r l y d i f f e r in terms of their importance in the organization and production of story material, (p. 98) It should be noted that Stein and Glenn do not make any d i r e c t statements about the height of the categories in the story structure or the relationship between r e c a l l and the h i e r a r c h i c a l structure of story grammars. Stein and Glenn were interested in the students' memory for the seven categories in the experimental s t o r i e s . They found that in a l l four stories, the categories d i f f e r e d in the degree to which they were remembered. Stein and Glenn use the term salience to describe this finding. They found that the salience of each category was consistent for each story and both grade levels, showing that category i s the important factor in r e c a l l , not the height of 1 9 the information in the story structure. It appears that the d i s t i n c t i o n between category saliency and category height may be important. In a review of story grammar l i t e r a t u r e in 1982, Stein outlines her objections to the theory that the information highest in the story structure hierarchy w i l l be better recalled than information at a lower l e v e l . She states that the d i f f i c u l t i e s with this theory are: 1. There are no differences in these theories about events that w i l l be encoded, represented in memory, or r e c a l l e d . Different processes may be operating for these three facets of text comprehension. 2. There is no method to specify which goal is the most important. Each reader might choose a d i f f e r e n t goal and therefore a d i f f e r e n t story structure would r e s u l t . 3. The causal relationships between events often determines the events' importance in the hierarchy. However, c r i t e r i a for determining causal r e l a t i o n s is not f u l l y developed and too dependent on individual researchers. On the other hand, in a study by Nezworski, Stein and Trabasso (1982) i t would appear that these authors (including Stein) are giving support to the notion that height in the story structure a f f e c t s r e c a l l . Nezworski et a l investigated the effect of c o n t r o l l i n g the semantic content of story categories on r e c a l l . The authors c i t e work by Rumelhart (1977) supporting the notion of the TRY schema in which the main goal, attempt and 20 outcome are better remembered when they are high in the hierarchy. In designing the study, the authors wrote a t y p i c a l l y structured story with a setting and one episode ( i n i t i a t i n g event, internal response, etc. ) . The story is about a woman who wants to get a tig e r ' s whisker. There is no reason given in the story for thi s wish. The authors then constructed extra information for each category that would allow the inference that the woman needs the whisker to make medicine for her sick husband. This extra information could be inserted as an addition into any of the categories in the o r i g i n a l story and provide the reader with the necessary information to make the inference. The information in each of these additional categories was written to conform to that category, but a l l of the categories contained the same content: the sick husband needed medicine. The authors hypothesized that an event d i r e c t l y related to the main (superordinate) goal would be remembered better than others not as d i r e c t l y related. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the information allowing the inference about the woman's main goal would be most eas i l y r e c a l l e d and would not be dependent on the category. There should be no difference "in the frequency of r e c a l l i n g the added information in any of the five altered versions of the sto r i e s " (p. 199). However, i f r e c a l l i s dependent on category,then the patterns of category r e c a l l found in previous studies would occurr. Certain categories would be better remembered than other categories irrespective of the added information. 21 Children from Kindergarten and Grade 3 participated in the study. There were 72 boys and 72 g i r l s at each grade l e v e l . These subjects were assigned to story versions with an equal number of boys and g i r l s for each version. Each subject was tested i n d i v i d u a l l y . The children listened to the story and completed four tasks including a verbal r e c a l l . Results indicated that the added information r e l a t i n g to the superordinate goal was well recalled. Recall of this information was not related to the category in which i t was placed. These findings are d i f f e r e n t from previous research in which r e c a l l appeared to depend on category. The pattern of r e c a l l of categories found in previous studies was not supported. The authors state: In our view, knowledge of human i n t e n t i o n a l i t y overrides structural considerations when i t comes to comprehension; structural factors...play an important role in the organization and r e t r i e v a l of discourse information. (p. 206) Atypical Structure and Recall Researchers have found that stories which are unstructured or poorly structured w i l l be changed and given a structure more familiar to the individual when rec a l l e d . Mandler and Johnson (1977) discuss their story grammar and i t s implications for r e c a l l . The authors state that "the more a story conforms to an ideal structure, the better the r e c a l l w i l l be" (p. 132). In their study of r e c a l l with Grade 1, Grade 4, and university 22 subjects, they noted that r e c a l l for one of the four experimental stories was d e f i n i t e l y poorer as a result of less structure and more ambiguity in that story. Story Grammar Instruction Few studies have measured the effectiveness of story grammar instruction on comprehension. Of the eight studies found in the l i t e r a t u r e , seven reported positive results from teaching story grammar and one study found no positive e f f e c t s . The studies showing a b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t from story grammar instruction are discussed below chronologically and followed by the one study showing no e f f e c t . The e a r l i e s t of the seven studies that reported positive results was one conducted by Spiegel and Whaley (1980) who studied the e f f e c t s of story grammar instruction with 20 Grade 4 students. These subjects were selected from a pool of 50 students on the basis of low scores on a pretest for story structure knowledge. Subjects were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group, with each group receiving six 30- 45 minute sessions. The experimental group had lessons in macro-cloze technique (omission of story categories) and in reordering scrambled s t o r i e s . The control group had lessons in dictionary usage and were required to read the same st o r i e s as the experimental group. Post-tests for story structure and comprehension showed the experimental group did s i g n i f i c a n t l y better on both measures indicating that instruction had improved the story concept and reading comprehension of students with 23 poor prior story schemata. In a study by Gordon (1980), there were two experimental groups: one group received instruction in story grammar and story content, the other in inferencing. However, for the purposes of t h i s paper, only the experimental group receiving story grammar instruction is discussed. The subjects were 42 Grade 5 students from a non-professional lower middle class area. The top 50 percent of the students in three d i f f e r e n t classes (as determined by the classroom teachers) were chosen to partic i p a t e in the study and were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. A l l students were reading material from the same basal reader. Each group received instruction for 30 minutes a day for eight weeks. The lessons d i f f e r e d only during the f i r s t ten minutes; the subsequent twenty minutes were the same for each group. The experimental group was taught to be aware of the techniques used in understanding narrative and were therefore involved in metacomprehension. The results of numerous post-tests indicated that the experimental group did s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than the control group on a test of written r e c a l l . S p e c i f i c a l l y , this group remembered four story categories better than the control subjects. These were: minor settings, i n i t i a t i n g events, reactions and resolutions. However, results obtained from a standardized reading comprehension test showed no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s from treatment. Bowman and Gambrell (1981) studied the effects of story 24 structure questioning on 100 Grade 6 students with a reading level between Grade 3.0 and Grade 9.0. The children who were divided into good readers (level 7.5 - 9.0), average readers (level 5.0 - 7.0), and poor readers (level 3.0 - 4.5) and randomly assigned to the experimental or control group. Each subject had at least three or four training sessions before the posttest. In the study, the experimental subjects were taught the parts of a schema using a chart. After reading a story, they f i l l e d in a chart and answered six schema-based questions. The control subjects were taught the differences between l i t e r a l , i n f e r e n t i a l and problem-solving questions with the aid of a chart. They then read a story, completed a chart and answered six questions (three l i t e r a l , two i n f e r e n t i a l , and one problem- solving). Results of a free r e c a l l test showed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the groups. However on a cued r e c a l l task, the story structure group did s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than the control group.. McCrae (1982) conducted a study with 44 Grade 5 students divided into two classes, an experimental and a control group. Each class received fiv e hours of inst r u c t i o n : the experimental group learned and used a story grammar technique while the control group read the same stories and answered t r a d i t i o n a l comprehension questions. The stories used were short fables. Post-test results indicated that the experimental group had s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher scores on a r e c a l l task in which they read 25 a story and produced a written r e c a l l . Nelson ( 1 9 8 2 ) studied the effect of story grammar instruction with 78 children in Grade 1. The students from three di f f e r e n t schools were randomly assigned to story grammar instruction or regular reading i n s t r u c t i o n . A l l instruction was done by the classroom teacher. Both groups read the same stories during the five weeks of the study: fiv e stories from the prescribed basal reader and seven stories from a di f f e r e n t reader. The experimental group was instructed with the story grammar three days a week for 30 minute sessions. On the f i r s t day, the children listened to the teacher read the story, responded to f i v e story grammar questions, and completed a group outline chart. For the second day, small groups of children completed their own story grammar outline charts. On the t h i r d day, the children participated in another a c t i v i t y such as macro-cloze, prediction or reordering scrambled s t o r i e s . Post-test results indicated that the experimental group obtained s i g n i f i c a n t l y better scores on the comprehension subtests of two di f f e r e n t standardized reading tests, on a researcher designed multiple choice question test and on a free oral r e c a l l task. A study by Singer and Donlan (1982), was based on story structure questioning. One of the researchers taught reading to 29 Grade 11 students who were randomly assigned to a control or experimental group. Both groups had two 60 minute lessons a week for three weeks. At each session, both groups were given 26 the s t o r y background as w e l l as a v o c a b u l a r y r e v i e w . Then each stude n t l i s t e n e d t o a r e c o r d i n g of the s t o r y w h i l e f o l l o w i n g on a copy. Halfway through the s t o r y , the e x p e r i m e n t a l group were asked t o pose t h r e e q u e s t i o n s they would l i k e t o have answered. The c o n t r o l group were g i v e n t h r e e q u e s t i o n s by the r e s e a r c h e r . The s t o r y was then f i n i s h e d . At t h i s p o i n t , the c o n t r o l group wrote an essay based on the s t o r y , w h i l e the e x p e r i m e n t a l group d i s c u s s e d s t o r y elements based on a s t o r y grammar s t r u c t u r e s t r e s s i n g p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g . These s t u d e n t s were taught the schema and shown how t o g e n e r a t e s p e c i f i c s t o r y q u e s t i o n s based on a g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n o u t l i n e f o r a s t o r y schema. Each group answered ten m u l t i p l e c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s based on the elements of the s t o r y a f t e r each r e a d i n g s e s s i o n . These q u i z z e s were a n a l y z e d a t the end of the s t u d y , and t h e r e 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 two groups on the f i r s t two t e s t s . However, the e x p e r i m e n t a l group performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r on the l a s t f o u r q u i z z e s than the c o n t r o l group. The study by Beck, Omanson and McKeown (1982) i s based on Omanson's c e n t r a l i t y t h e o r y . A b r i e f r e v i e w of c e n t r a l i t y t h e o r y i s g i v e n b e f o r e a d i s c u s s i o n of the s t u d y by Beck et a l . T h i s review shows the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c e n t r a l i t y t h e o r y and s t o r y grammar, t h e r e b y p r o v i d i n g the purpose f o r i n c l u d i n g a study based on c e n t r a l i t y t h e o r y i n a r e v i e w of r e s e a r c h i n s t o r y grammar i n s t r u c t i o n . In 1982, Omanson d i s c u s s e d an a n a l y s i s f o r . n a r r a t i v e s i n which the r e a d e r i s s e a r c h i n g f o r t e x t to e x p l a i n the a c t i o n ( s ) 27 of the main character(s). Omanson's theory of c e n t r a l i t y hypothesizes that central units are recalled better than d i s t r a c t i v e units. Omanson states that his c e n t r a l i t y theory d i f f e r s from story grammars in two main ways: the size of the unit of analysis (clauses versus categories) and the type of processing (data-driven versus schema-driven). Mandler (1982) and Stein (1982) reviewed the c e n t r a l i t y theory proposed by Omanson. Mandler states that c e n t r a l i t y text analysis i s similar to a story grammar analysis. The basic assumptions that narrative resembles r e a l - l i f e and that knowledge of s o c i a l actions guides understanding are assumptions basic to story grammar theory as well. In 1982 Stein also reviewed Omanson's c e n t r a l i t y theory and found i t almost i d e n t i c a l to story grammar theory except the units were not given labels. It appears l i k e l y that c e n t r a l i t y theory is c l o s e l y related to story grammar theory, thus making instruction based on c e n t r a l i t y theory of interest in a review of story grammar instruction research. Beck et a l studied the effect of instruction based on the assumption that the reading lesson should focus on story content and the readers background knowledge should be activated before reading. Materials for t h i s study were taken from the Ginn 720 program, Level 8 (one story) and Level 7 (one story). The control group received the lesson as directed by the teacher's manual for the program. However, the experimental group received a modified version of the lesson. The lessons were 28 changed in four ways: the background knowledge, the pictures, the question for pre-reading each s i l e n t reading unit, .and the questions posed at the end of each s i l e n t reading unit. For example, when presenting the background knowledge in the Level 7 story about a raccoon, the regular lesson stresses discussing raccoons as p l a y f u l . The modified version focusses on habitual behavior and coincidences which are necessary for understanding the story. For the pre and post questions, the regular lesson used poorly focussed or general knowledge questions - the central story l i n e was not emphasized. However, the revised questions were written to highlight central story content. Pictures in the regular stories tended to be cartoonish, and were redrawn for the modified stories to be more l i f e l i k e . Based on results of a standardized reading test, the forty- eight Grade 3 children (low socioeconomic status, 75% black) involved in the study were divided into two groups of 24 s k i l l e d readers and 24 less s k i l l e d readers. Half of each of these groups were given the regular Ginn 720 lesson, and the other half were given the modified lesson. The s k i l l e d group read the story from Level 8, while the less s k i l l e d group read the Level 7 story. Each c h i l d was taught i n d i v i d u a l l y , with the examiner reading the story while the c h i l d followed on a copy. A free r e c a l l test and then a 35 forced-choice question test were given. Results revealed that the modified group recalled s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the Ginn 720 group and answered s i g n i f i c a n t l y more questions. 29 The seven studies described a l l showed b e n e f i c i a l results from SGI, when compared to other in s t r u c t i o n a l methods, on some aspect of reading comprehension. A pooling of the results indicates that in at least one instance, students receiving SGI performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y better in tasks of unprompted r e c a l l , prompted r e c a l l , story structure knowledge, comprehension questions, and standardized reading achievement. The one study reporting no positive effects from story grammar instruction was conducted by Singer and Dreher (1980). This study indicated there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between scores on written r e c a l l s by subjects receiving story grammar instruction and subjects in a control group. The subjects were 28 Grade 5 students randomly assigned to three treatment groups: story grammar, reading s t o r i e s , or extra s o c i a l studies (watching films and l i s t e n i n g to commentary). The groups were a l l involved in three 45 minute lessons. The results showed only that good readers recalled more than poor readers in each group. Analysis of Story Grammar Instruction Research The results reported in the l i t e r a t u r e are somewhat encouraging. Most of the studies report positive e f f e c t s on reading r e c a l l or comprehension when students are instructed with a story grammar technique. Singer and Dreher (1980) found no difference. Unfortunately, i t may be premature to accept the posi t i v e results as there are not s u f f i c i e n t studies to indicate that story grammar instruction i s b e n e f i c i a l in a l l situations. 30 Furthermore, there are a number of weaknesses within the studies that can be c r i t i c i z e d , challenging the v a l i d i t y of the reported r e s u l t s . There are seven areas for concern that j u s t i f y the need for further research. These w i l l be reviewed in relationship to the nine studies. The areas for discussion are: a. Samples b. Duration of the studies c . Materials used for teaching d. Teachers e. Interaction with students f . Novelty of the program g- Measurement Each design weakness w i l l be defined and then i l l u s t r a t e d with examples from the research. Samples With the exception of the studies by Nelson (1982) and Beck, Omanson, and McKeown (1982), the research drew samples from the intermediate grades. This l i m i t s the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the results to intermeditate grade students. Although Nelson drew her sample from Grade 1, the i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques and r e c a l l post-test were o r a l , and did not require the children to read. S i m i l a r i l y , Beck et a l drew a sample from Grade 3 but the ins t r u c t i o n and posttesting were o r a l . There i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that story grammar instruction w i l l affect reading and writing d i f f e r e n t l y from l i s t e n i n g and speaking. 31 The limited sample sizes also affect the strength of the conclusions. With the exception of the studies by Nelson (1982) and Bowman and Gambrell (1981), the number of subjects p a r t i c i p a t i n g in each treatment group was less than 25 ( the exact number of students in each group in each study was: 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 22). Duration of the Studies With the exception of Gordon (1980) and Nelson (1982), the other seven studies were limited in respect to time on task and the length of time allowed for students to integrate this new knowledge. In the classroom some concepts or facts require repetition and review, especially with younger students. Teachers need to know i f the effect of story grammar instruction w i l l improve with longer exposure, or i f a week of lessons i s suf f ic ient. Materials Used For Teaching There are two concerns about the materials employed in four of the eight studies (McCrae, 1981; Singer & Dreher, 1980; Spiegel & Whaley, 1980). F i r s t l y , no attempt was made to match the experimental reading material with the reading levels of a l l the subjects. Secondly, the material was unusually short, or contrived, or taken from sources other than the student's usual reading material. In order to generalize the research results to the classroom, the studies must show that students can apply th i s knowledge to their usual reading material at their own 32 l e v e l . Teachers In some studies, i t appears that the researcher taught the experimental and control groups (Gordon, 1980; McCrae, 1982). This aspect of many of the studies was not c l e a r l y discussed. However, after c a r e f u l l y analyzing the studies, i t seems l i k e l y that the researcher was often involved as the' teacher. When the researcher teaches both programs, there i s a l i k e l i h o o d that results are contaminated because of the researcher's interest in the experimental program. It is also possible that his/her bias may influence the results, thus weakening the internal v a l i d i t y of the study. Interaction with Students The amount of interaction between the teacher and students may influence study r e s u l t s . In some of the studies (McCrae, 1982; Singer & Donlan, 1982; Singer & Dreher, 1980) i t appears that the experimental program required more d i r e c t questioning and interaction by the teacher. For example, in the study by McCrae (1982), the experimental group rearranged paper s t r i p s printed with the story categories as seatwork, while the control group answered t r a d i t i o n a l comprehension questions. It may be that the experimental subjects were engaged in a task that i s not often used for comprehension seatwork and therefore may have needed more d i r e c t i o n , while the control subjects answered questions that are usually given as seatwork and probably 33 required l i t t l e or no d i r e c t i o n . Novelty of the Program Perhaps each new program implemented by a teacher i s perceived by the students as d i f f e r e n t and more int e r e s t i n g . Many of the studies (McCrae, 1982; Singer & Donlan, 1982; Singer & Dreher, 1980; Spiegel & Whaley, 1980) employed experimental designs in which the experimental programs appear substantially d i f f e r e n t from the control programs. These differences might be in the type of seatwork assigned (cutting out and arranging paper s t r i p s versus writing answers to questions), or the interest l e v e l of the tasks (reordering scrambled stories versus dictionary usage). For example, in a study by Spiegel and Whaley (1980), the experimental subjects completed macro-cloze exercises while the control subjects had lessons in dictionary usage. It may be that macro-cloze i s an exercise that was new and d i f f e r e n t whereas dictionary usage would be a more fam i l i a r exercise. Measurement The l a s t weakness in the study designs i s in the area of measurement. In the studies by Spiegel and Whaley (1980), Singer and Donlan (1982), Bowman and Gambrell (1981), and Beck et a l (1982) the posttests were often similar to or i d e n t i c a l to the training materials and techniques. The influence of t h i s factor is d i f f i c u l t to assess because of the lack of description of the programs and/or posttests in the studies. However, i f in 34 fact the experimental program is providing training in the s k i l l needed to complete the posttests, then naturally the experimental group should perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y better. Summary The l i t e r a t u r e review highlighted research results from the areas of story grammar theory and story grammar instr u c t i o n . C r i t i c i s m s of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l study designs were reviewed as well. Theorists in the area of cognitive psychology have developed several generalizations about story grammar theory. These generalizations provide the basic information underlying schema theory. Researchers continue to test these generalizations as seen in the study by Mandler and Goodman (1982) on the readers' expectations for story structure and the study by Nezworski et a l (1982) on the influence of the height of the story information on r e c a l l . Eight studies assessing the effect of story grammar instruction on r e c a l l or reading comprehension were reviewed and c r i t i c i z e d . Positive results were reported in seven of the studies while no results were reported in one. When the study designs were c r i t i c a l l y analyzed, several weaknesses were found. Factors that needed more control included sample sizes, length of programs, materials for teaching, interest of the instructor, degree of instructor-subject interaction, novelty of the. program and degree of match between the program and posttests. 35 I I I . DESIGN OF THE STUDY Chapter 3 describes the study design. This includes information about the subjects, tests, materials, teaching methods, procedures and s t a t i s t i c s . In addition, the s p e c i f i c plans for correcting the design weaknesses found in previous research as-cited in Chapter 2 are discussed. Populat ion Nine classes of grade 2 children from nine d i f f e r e n t schools in the Catholic School System participated in this research. The test results from a t o t a l of 165 children were used for the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses. A number of children were not included in the f i n a l analysis for the following reasons: a. Absent during pretesting (12). b. Absent during posttesting (12). c. Scores below the f i f t h percentile on the Stanford Reading Achievement Test or the Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s (16). d. Did not begin the written r e c a l l pretest (3). e. Changed schools during the program (2). f. Other: Crying during the test (1), f a i l u r e of two or more grades (1), broken arm (1) and eye-drops on the day of testing (1). A l l of the schools were located in urban areas: eight schools were in Vancouver, one school was in Burnaby. Teachers were asked to provide information on the following: age, 36 language s k i l l s (English or English as a second language), socioeconomic status (high, middle, or low), and parents (two parents or single parent). Teachers were asked to base their judgements about socioeconomic status according to the parents' profession and in relationship to Greater Vancouver. Table I presents the composition of the SGI, MRI, and RRI groups in rel a t i o n to these factors. Table I - Demographic Data for SGI, MRI, RRI, for Sex, Language, Socioeconomic Status and Parents Teaching Method Demographic Data N Story Grammar Modi f ied Reading Regular Reading Sex Boys 76 42% 46% 60% G i r l s 89 58% 54% 40% Language English 78 59% 38% 58% Other 87 41% 62% 42% Soc ioeconomic Status High 5 5% 0% 4% Middle 1 38 80% 82%. 90% Low 22 1 5% 18% 6% Parents Two 1 4 98% 82% 91 % One 151 2% 18% 9% 37 Data were analyzed from a t o t a l of 76 boys and 89 g i r l s with a mean age of 7 years and 5.5 months (range of 6 years 11 months to 8 years 5 months). Fifty-two percent of the children spoke English as a second language and nine percent came from single parent homes. Most of the children (83 percent.) represented middle class homes with 13.5 percent from lower class and 3.5 percent from upper class homes. Instrumentation For the study two standardized tests and four informal researcher designed instruments were employed. A description of the standardized tests i s given followed by a description of the researcher designed t e s t s . Standardized Tests The Stanford Reading Achievement Test, Level 2, Form A was standardized on a sample of over 275,000 children representative of the population of children in the United States. Level 2, Form A, of the Stanford Reading Achievement Test was standardized during three months of the year: October, February, and May. In the norms booklet for t h i s test (Madden, Gardner, Rudman, Karlsen & Merwin, 1973), the authors state that v a l i d i t y should be judged by each test user according to an analysis of the test items and a knowledge of the test's development. The r e l i a b i l i t y (Spearman-Brown) for the vocabulary subtest i s .85 while that for the two comprehension subtests is .95 and .96 respectively. A review of this test by Salvia and Ysseldyke 38 (1981) indicated that the "standardization, r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y are exceptionally good" (p. 168). Two other reviews in Buros (1978) show that the Stanford Reading Achievement Test is considered to be a good standardized test of reading achievement. Although both reviewers questioned some aspects of the test, their comments were mostly favorable. Glass (1978) states: The test has been thoroughly studied and i t s properties c a r e f u l l y documented.... The content v a l i d i t y of the test appears to be adequate .... Curriculum analyses, expert reviews and f i e l d tryouts preceded item s e l e c t i o n . . . . In technical qualit y , content v a l i d i t y and completeness, th i s test is the equal of other major achievement tests, (p.745) Rankin (1978) makes the following observations: From a technical standpoint, the test i s well constructed....Despite some lapses, technical data are very complete ....this recent edition...deserves a high rating. (p. 745) The Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s was standardized in 1966 in Canada on a s t r a t i f i e d random sample representing an English speaking population. The manual describing the development of the Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s was incomplete in a discussion of v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y . Information was not available for the Primary Level 7 test. 39 Researcher Designed Tests Unprompted Written Recall. Two tests were designed to measure unprompted written r e c a l l , one as a pretest and one as a posttest. The unprompted r e c a l l (UR) tests were constructed, by the researcher to be similar to those in previous studies. The stories appropriate for Grade 2 students were located in a number of basal readers. Then each story was parsed by the story grammar to determine i t s degree of structure. The stories were chosen based on a high degree of structure, the fact that they were not present in basal readers employed in the study, and the r e l a t i v e l y short length of each story. The two s t o r i e s f i n a l l y chosen for the r e c a l l tests were: 1) A Father, His Boy and A Donkey, and 2) The Garden. Each story was rewritten to simplify the vocabulary and reduce sentence length, in an attempt to prevent reading d i f f i c u l t i e s due to reada b i l i t y or vocabulary. The Spache rea d a b i l i t y for A Father, His Boy and A Donkey was 1.9 while that for The Garden was 2.1. Directions for administering the tests were formulated. E s s e n t i a l l y , students were asked to read the story and then print everything that they could remember. Following t h i s , the tests were administered to students in f i v e classes not involved in the study. This helped to determine the s u i t a b i l i t y of the directions and to provide examples of protocols from which a scoring key could be constructed. Copies of these tests are located in Appendix C. 40 Prompted W r i t t e n R e c a l l - De t a i l and I n f e r e n c e The t e s t , with i t s two s u b t e s t s , was designed by the researcher to measure prompted written r e c a l l (PR). The t e s t was constructed in a similar manner t o the unprompted written r e c a l l test. The procedure for choosing suitable stories was the same. B a s a l readers were surveyed f o r short, highly structured, unfamiliar s t o r i e s . The story selected was The Yellow Moon. It was rewritten for purposes of c l a r i t y and s i m p l i c i t y . Next, the researcher constructed fourteen d e t a i l and fourteen inference comprehension questions for the story to be answered by short answers. These were given to a class of graduate students in reading education. Each student chose seven factual and seven i n f e r e n t i a l questions for the story that would best test a c h i l d ' s comprehension of that story. The researcher examined the choices made by the graduate students, giving each question a point every time i t was selected. The questions receiving the greatest number of points were included in the test. The seven factual questions form the Prompted Recall Detail Test (PRD) while the seven i n f e r e n t i a l questions form the Prompted Recall Inference Test (PRI). These two subtests are analyzed separately in Chapter IV, but were administered as a single test during the posttest session. As with the UR test, the PRD and PRI tests were administered to children in fiv e d i f f e r e n t classes. This enabled scoring keys to be constructed as well as revisions to the test d i rections to be made. A copy of the test, the. 4 1 administration directions and the scoring keys are found in Appendix C. Reading Comprehension - Detail and Inference. This test with i t s two subtests was constructed by the researcher to measure comprehension of a simple narrative with the text readily available to the student. As with the UR and PR tests, a story was located that met the following c r i t e r i a : high degree of structure, r e l a t i v e l y short length, and not included in the basal readers employed in the schools. The story f i n a l l y chosen was c a l l e d Patrick Lost His Ticket. This story was rewritten to simplify the vocabulary and shorten sentence length. Questions were then constructed by the researcher (fourteen factual and fourteen i n f e r e n t i a l ) to measure comprehension of the story. The answers to be given were of the short response type. In a procedure used for the PR tests, these questions were given for rating to a class of graduate students in reading. The researcher then selected seven factual questions for the Comprehension D e t a i l Test (CD) and seven i n f e r e n t i a l questions for the Comprehension Inference Test (CI) based on these ratings. These two subtests are analyzed separately in Chapter IV, but were administered as a single test during the posttest session. In keeping with the UR and PR tests, the CD and CI tests were administered to students in fiv e d i f f e r e n t classes to enable construction of scoring keys and revision of test d i r e c t i o n s . A copy of the test, administration directions and scoring keys are found in Appendix C. 42 Materials The Ginn 720 or Language Patterns reading programs were used for teaching reading to a l l three groups (seven classes used Language Patterns, and two used- Ginn 720). Both programs are comprised of a series of graded readers prescribed by the Ministry of Education in B r i t i s h Columbia. Seatwork a c t i v i t i e s were designed and provided by the researcher for the Story Grammar and Modified Reading groups. A description and samples of these a c t i v i t i e s can be found in Appendix A for the SGI method and Appendix B for the MRI method. Methods The three teaching methods are described in d e t a i l , including a description of the teachers' own methods used during 50 percent of the program. Story Grammar Instruction This group received SGI based on the theory outlined in Chapter I. The teachers were asked to follow up this information using a story grammar approach when teaching their reading groups. The teachers were shown the information in Chart 2 (Modifications to Gordon's Story Grammar Categories), and shown how to teach the category labels from the modified story grammar. 43 Chart 2 - Modifications of Gordon's Story Grammar Categories SETTING GOAL PLOT Happen ng A Beginning A - Beginning of episode Goal A - Sub-goal in an episode Try A - E f f o r t to achieve sub-goal Result A - Outcome of the Try Happening B - categories w i l l be the same as for Happening A Happening C,D,E... ENDING The teachers' oral questions about the story were to be formulated to e l i c i t information from the story categories. Each category was discussed in relationship to the type of information with which i t was normally associated. This enabled teachers to ask general story grammar questions (What is the setting? What is a try?) and questions s p e c i f i c to a story (How did the mouse try to help the l i o n ? ) . Further aspects of SGI needing c l a r i f i c a t i o n w i l l be discussed under the following headings: introducing the story 44 grammars, continued teaching of story grammars, scheduling instruction and s u i t a b i l i t y of the materials. Introducing Story Grammar. Teachers were instructed to define only four story grammar categories i n i t i a l l y (setting, main goal, happenings, and ending). Then the happening categories (beginning, sub-goal, attempt, and outcome) were introduced. Teachers i l l u s t r a t e d the type of information for each category by reading simple stories that had been rewritten by the researcher for the purpose of introducing the story grammars. These contrived stories were short and probably familiar to the children, therefore providing material at their independent reading l e v e l (see Appendix A, pages 94 - 9 5 ) . The researcher suggested that children underline story sentences that matched the various categories with colored crayons. Class outline charts using large paper s t r i p s printed with the information corresponding to the grammar categories were also suggested. A copy of the directions on teaching story grammar that was given to the teachers i s located in Appendix 1. Two teachers found the colored crayons useful, and two teachers found the outline charts h e l p f u l . A l l three teachers used much oral discussion to teach the story grammar categories. Continued Teaching of the Story Grammar. Teachers used their regular basal reader to reteach and reinforce story grammar. Seatwork a c t i v i t i e s , designed by the researcher, were completed by students for ten of the s t o r i e s read by each reading group during the twelve weeks. These a c t i v i t i e s were 45 based on the basal reader used by each group. This insured that no group received more a c t i v i t i e s than another due to a faster reading pace. The t o t a l number of a c t i v i t i e s , including those from the four contrived stories, equalled twelve. Suggestions for modifying the d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of these a c t i v i t i e s were given to the teachers. The modifications did not change the underlying story grammar concept. For example, teachers were instructed to provide part answers or page numbers before xeroxing. For paper s t r i p a c t i v i t i e s , teachers could number some of the s t r i p s . Teachers di s t r i b u t e d the seatwork for the appropriate s t o r i e s , giving children help in completing them as needed. A l l three teachers used the sheets for instruction as well as reinforcement by o r a l l y previewing the sheets. The SGI group also received instruction in comprehension s k i l l s other than story grammar. There were two reasons for using this approach. F i r s t l y , comprehension techniques are usually taught in conjunction with one another, not separately. Secondly, some of the material in the basal readers, as indicated in the i n i t i a l parsing of the s t o r i e s , did not have a story grammar structure. Scheduling Instruction. For approximately f i f t y percent of their reading comprehension program, the SGI teachers used the story grammar method and for the other f i f t y percent, these teachers used their own method. For example, when reading two 46 stories a week, the teacher might use story grammar instruction for one story and her normal comprehension technique for the second story. In contrast, the teacher might use SGI for one week, and then her own method for the next week. This was checked by the researcher who had access to the children's seatwork and the teachers' reading instruction logs. S u i t a b i l i t y of Materials. The s u i t a b i l i t y of the materials for a story grammar approach was determined by parsing some of the stories from both sets of readers. Chart 3 presents an example of the parsing of a story from the Ginn 720 program, and indicates that some of the basal s t o r i e s did represent narratives having a structure similar or i d e n t i c a l to the story grammar. Only stories that conformed to t h i s pattern were used for teaching story grammar. 47 Chart 3 - P a r s i n g of a Story from Ginn 720 Prog ram SETTING An Eagle, a cat and a p i g l i v e d in a t r e e in the woods. GOAL Cat wanted to s l e e p . PLOT Happening A Beginn ing: Goal: Try: Result: Happening ,B Beginning: Goal: Try: Result: Happening C Beginn ing: Goal: Try: Result: Cat went up the tree. He wanted to make Eagle and Pig unhappy (inferred). He told Eagle that Pig was unhappy. He to l d Pig that Eagle was unhappy. Eagle and Pig were unhappy, and l e f t the tree. Cat went back up the tree to his home. He wanted to sleep. When night came, he couldn't sleep. He was unhappy. At last the morning sun came up. Cat wanted to fi n d his friends. He talked to Eagle and to Pig. Eagle and Pig wanted to be friends with Cat ENDING Eagle and Cat and Pig went back to the tree. 48 An informal questionnaire, the reading instruction log and the seatwork provided information on the three teachers' i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods when they were not using story grammar lessons. The teachers were asked to describe their method for teaching a new story as well as to l i s t the various a c t i v i t i e s they used for teaching or reinforcing comprehension. Each teacher used a di f f e r e n t method for teaching a story. One teacher previewed vocabulary and discussed the story background before giving a directed s i l e n t reading lesson. This teacher then had oral questions and oral reading. The second teacher previewed vocabulary before a directed oral reading lesson. This was followed by questions and discussion. The t h i r d teacher used a directed oral reading followed by questions and discussion. A l l three teachers assigned comprehension questions as the most frequent seatwork exercises when teaching with their own methods. They also used workbook material for seatwork to practice the following s k i l l s : sequencing, true and fals e , and cause and e f f e c t . Only two teachers assigned workbook pages to practice context clues and main idea. 4 9 Modified Reading Instruction The MRI students were taught comprehension s k i l l s with the regular basal program but the teacher received extra ideas and a c t i v i t i e s from the researcher. These ideas and a c t i v i t i e s were varied and d i f f e r e n t from those normally used in the classroom The researcher designed the extra comprehension a c t i v i t i e s to complement the stories in the basal readers. The teachers were given instructions in teaching such comprehension s k i l l s as characterization, cause and e f f e c t , pronoun reference, comparison and contrast, d e t a i l , inference and sequence. The seatwork was used to reinforce the teachers' presentation of each s k i l l . Every reading group completed twelve of these seatwork a c t i v i t i e s to provide equality between the amount of material given to the Story Grammar and the Modified Reading teachers. A description and examples of these a c t i v i t i e s are given in Appendix B. These teachers taught the Modified Comprehension program for f i f t y percent of the time and their own program for f i f t y percent of the time. The informal questionnaire, reading instruction log and samples of seatwork provided information about the teachers' methods. The teachers' methods for teaching the story are discussed below followed by a description of the comprehension s k i l l s used for seatwork. A l l three teachers introduced the story vocabulary and background. However, each teacher used a d i f f e r e n t method for 50 reading the story. The three methods were: directed s i l e n t or oral reading, directed oral reading, and an undirected s i l e n t reading. The teachers then asked oral comprehension questions to i n i t i a t e a story discussion. Each teacher included some form of oral reading at this time or during the next reading session. The following comprehension s k i l l s were used for seatwork a c t i v i t i e s by a l l the teachers when using their own methods: general questions, sequencing, true and false (or fact and fantasy), • cause and e f f e c t , inference, context clues and main ideas. The s k i l l most commonly assigned was answering questions about the story. The other s k i l l s were used less frequently, and usually obtained from the basal workbook (two teachers). Two teachers used workbook material for practice in sentence combining and following d i r e c t i o n s . One teacher assigned prediction for seatwork. The purpose for including the MRI group was to provide a measure of the effect of researcher intervention on the reading program. The story grammar technique required much discussion between the researcher and the teacher. Furthermore, the a c t i v i t i e s associated with the SGI were d i f f e r e n t from those normally used by teachers. As well, the seatwork a c t i v i t i e s designed by the researcher were supplied to each story grammar teacher to decrease the workload associated with p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a study. The a c t i v i t i e s also provided more control over and uniformity within the story grammar method because the researcher was able to check that the a c t i v i t i e s were being 51 completed. It seemed possible that the students receiving SGI might improve because of the novelty of the a c t i v i t i e s or the fact that their teacher had an outside contact giving her more assistance than was normal. Therefore the MRI group was included to balance this factor. The Modified Reading teachers received the same special attention as SGI teachers. They also received extra a c t i v i t i e s to use with their reading program. The teachers were not told that story grammar instruction was the method of interest. These teachers did not have any information about the other teaching methods used in the study. Regular Reading Instruction The t h i r d group, RRI, was taught comprehension using the teachers' regular program. The teachers of these classes did not receive any additional ideas or materials from the researcher. These teachers were not given any information about the other two teaching methods. As with the teachers of the Story Grammar and Modified Reading groups, these teachers were asked to complete an informal questionnaire to provide information on their method of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Each teacher used a d i f f e r e n t method for teaching the story. One teacher used a directed oral reading approach, with 52 word meaning discussed during the oral reading of the story. One teacher previewed the vocabulary and used a directed s i l e n t reading approach with her low group with oral rereading for the second session. However, in the top groups, children read the story s i l e n t l y at their desks and then formed a group for questioning and oral rereading. The t h i r d teacher previewed the vocabulary and provided some story background before a directed s i l e n t reading of the story. This was followed by oral rereading. The following comprehension s k i l l s were used for seatwork a c t i v i t i e s by a l l three teachers: general questions (most frequently assigned s k i l l ) and context clues. Uninterrupted sustained s i l e n t reading, sequencing, true and false, following di r e c t i o n s , inference and main idea were used by two teachers. Only one teacher used sentence combining as a comprehension a c t i v i t y . Procedures The procedures are discussed in d e t a i l and include: implementation of the program, teaching and supervision of the teachers, and testing. Implementation of the Program The study took place over a period of eleven weeks during the months of January through March, 1983. Within the nine classes, the children were grouped by their teacher according to reading l e v e l and placed in the appropriate reader. Instruction 53 in the following s k i l l s was not controlled or changed by the researcher: word s k i l l s including phonics and structural analysis, study s k i l l s including mapping or dictionary usage, spel l i n g or creative writing. A l l groups within a l l the classes read approximately one and a half s t o r i e s each week. The mean number of stories was 1 6 . 5 with a range of 10 to 29. For the story grammar group the mean number of stories read was 14 with a range of 10 to 27. For the modified reading group the mean number of stories read was 18 with a range of 16 to 28. For the regular reading comprehension group the mean number of stories read was 18 with a range of 16 to 20. Two classes used the Ginn 720 program, and seven classes read from the Language Patterns s e r i e s . The reading groups in the Ginn 720 program read more stories than those in the Language Patterns program. Therefore, t h i s has increased the number of stories read in the MRI and RRI programs because the Ginn program was used in one class from each of these groups. A l l classes read the four contrived stories that were used to introduce the story grammar concept. It was possible that reading these s t o r i e s could influence a student's story grammar concept because the stories were highly structured. Therefore to eliminate this factor, a l l students read a l l four s t o r i e s . 54 Teaching and Supervision of the Teachers The teachers met with the researcher twice before the program began. During these meetings the pretesting procedures were discussed and a timetable for testing each class was constructed. The teachers of the SGI classes were instructed in the story grammar theory (rules and parsing technique), and methods for i n s t r u c t i o n . An eight page booklet was constructed to f a c i l i t a t e t h i s discussion with the teacher. The teachers of MRI were shown a variety of ideas for teaching comprehension. Also, a six page booklet was made to f a c i l i t a t e t h i s discussion. The teachers of RRI were not given any additional help or information in teaching reading. They were instructed to continue teaching in their usual manner. A l l teachers were asked to complete a weekly log for each reading group. The teachers recorded the story read, the mode of reading ( s i l e n t or o r a l ) , the type of comprehension stressed (oral and written), and the time spent on comprehension. Teachers provided the researcher with the name of the reader story that each group would be reading at the beginning of the study. This information was used to construct the seatwork a c t i v i t i e s for the SGI and MRI programs. The researcher v i s i t e d the schools in a random order eight 55 times during the eleven weeks of the study. The v i s i t s lasted from 15 to 25 minutes. The childrens' seatwork and the teachers' logs were checked. Problems with or concerns about the program were discussed and suggestions made for changing the d i f f i c u l t y l e vel of certain a c t i v i t i e s . For example, teachers may have wanted to provide part answers for some a c t i v i t i e s . The researcher was able to ensure that the seatwork for the story grammar and modified comprehension programs were being completed. It was also possible to maintain the i n t e g r i t y of each method by checking for researcher designed a c t i v i t i e s in the regular reading comprehension classes. Test ing Pretesting and posttesting of the classes was done in a random order. The researcher gave the directions for a l l tests, then both the classroom teachers and the researcher supervised. The tests did not provide a means of grouping the students within the classroom. The teachers grouped the children according to their own needs. The pretest session in early December, 1982 lasted approximately three hours per c l a s s . The tests administered included the Stanford (vocabulary and comprehension subtests), the Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s (comprehension subtest) and the UR pretest. The children were given three stretching and resting breaks as well as a recess period between tests. A l l tests were marked and recorded by the researcher. The UR pretest and the comprehension subtest of the Stanford Reading 56 Achievement Test, Form A, were computer marked as well to provide an item analysis and r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t . The Hoyt r e l i a b i l i t y for the Stanford, Form A was .96. The posttest session was divided into two parts. During the f i r s t session, the week after the program ended, the comprehension subtests of the Stanford Reading Achievement, Form B (ACHIEVE) and the CD and CI tests were given. This session was approximately 75 minutes in length. The UR, PRD and PRI tests were administered three weeks afte r the end of the program in a 45 minute session. A l l tests were marked and recorded by the researcher. A l l four of these tests were computer marked as well. The Hoyt r e l i a b i l i t y for the Stanford was .95. A teacher trained by the researcher marked a sample (27%) of the UR pretests and posttests as well as a sample (27%) of the PRD, PRI, CD, and CI tests to provide a measure of interrater r e l i a b i l i t y . The trained teacher marked the protocols according to the scoring keys and directions found in Appendix 2. The interrater r e l i a b i l i t y measure for the UR pretest was 98.2%, and for the UR posttest was 98.8%. The PRD and PRI tests had a combined interrater r e l i a b i l i t y of 97.6% and the CD and CI had a combined interrater r e l i a b i l i t y of 96.4%. 57 Modifications to Previous Research Designs A review of the l i t e r a t u r e on story grammar instruction resulted in the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of several weaknesses within the study designs of previous research. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the aspects of the study designs requiring modification were: the samples, duration of the study, the materials, the teachers, the amount of interaction required by the program, the novelty of the program, and measurement. The method used in this study to control for or modify each of these factors i s discussed. Samples This study drew a sample from Grade 2 which d i f f e r s from the age levels of students in previous research in an attempt to improve the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of story grammar to the primary grades. Secondly, the number of students p a r t i c i p a t i n g was increased in comparison to previous research to improve the strength of the conclusions. Duration of the Study The program in t h i s study continued for eleven weeks. This is in contrast to the r e l a t i v e l y short duration of programs in some previous research. It was hoped that a longer i n s t r u c t i o n a l time frame would result in s i g n i f i c a n t positive effects from story grammar instruction on the ACHIEVE, PRD, PRI, CD and CI tests. 58 Mater i a l s This study d i f f e r s from previous research in which contrived s t o r i e s were used for instruction by employing the basal readers prescribed for the schools. This procedure ensured that the reading material was representative of narrative commonly used for i n s t r u c t i o n . Teachers In previous research, the instruction was often done by the researcher. This study employed the s k i l l s of the classroom teacher for instruction, thereby minimizing the effect of researcher bias. However, the variable of teacher differences becomes a concern. Therefore, three classes were assigned to each treatment to control for teacher differences in t h i s study. Interact ion The amount of interaction between the teacher and the student required in story grammar instruction may have varied greatly from that required in control programs in previous research. An attempt to control the amount of interaction between the teachers and students in t h i s study was made through the use of the seatwork a c t i v i t i e s . The a c t i v i t i e s for both the story grammar and modified reading groups d i f f e r e d from those t r a d i t i o n a l l y assigned for reinforcement and therefore required increased interaction from teachers in both the experimental and control programs. 59 Novelty of the Program As c i t e d in Chapter 2, there is a p o s s i b i l i t y that the novelty of an approach may affect the students' responses to the program. An attempt was made to control this factor by including the modified reading program. The teachers in this program were given some new ideas and a c t i v i t i e s for teaching reading comprehension in the same way that the teachers of the story grammar program were given new ideas and a c t i v i t i e s . Measurement In t h i s study, the seatwork a c t i v i t i e s designed for the experimental group are not similar to the r e c a l l , reading achievement or reading comprehension posttests. It was hoped that t h i s should minimize the measurement weaknesses c i t e d in Chapter 2. S t a t i s t i c a l Analyses The research design was a h i e r a r c h i c a l analysis of variance with class nested within method. Classes 1, 2, and 3 received Method 1; classes 4, 5, and 6 received Method 2; classes 7, 8, and 9 received Method 3. The University of B r i t i s h Columbia GENLIN s t a t i s t i c a l program was used to analyze the r e s u l t s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the hypotheses to be tested were: 1. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in unprompted r e c a l l : a. between the three methods. 60 b. for boys in each method. c. for g i r l s in each method. d. between the boys and g i r l s . e. for the good readers in each method. f. for the poor readers in each method. g. between the good and poor readers. 2. There, w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in prompted r e c a l l d e t a i l : a. between the three methods. b. for boys in each method. c. for g i r l s in each method. d. between the boys and g i r l s . e. for the good readers in each method. f. for the poor readers in each method. g. between the good and poor readers. 3. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in prompted r e c a l l inference: a. between the three methods. b. for boys in each.method. c. for g i r l s in each method. d. between the boys and g i r l s . e. for the good readers in each method. f. for the poor readers in each method. g. between the good and poor readers. 4. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in reading achievement: 61 a. between the three methods. b. for boys in each method. c. for g i r l s in each method. d. between the boys and g i r l s . e. for the good readers in each method. f. for the poor readers in each method. g. between the good and poor readers. 5 . There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in comprehension d e t a i l : a. between the three methods. b. for boys in each method. c. for g i r l s in each method. d. between the boys and g i r l s . e. for the good readers in each method. f. for the poor readers in each method. g. between the good and poor readers. 6. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in comprehension inference: a. between the three methods. b. for boys in each method. c. for g i r l s in each method. d. between the boys and g i r l s . e. for the good readers in each method. f. for the poor readers in each method. g. between the good and poor readers. 62 Summary The preceding discussion provided a detailed description of the study design. Information about the students in the population included the number involved, their sex, age, socioeconomic status, and language s k i l l s . The standardized tests and researcher designed tests were described with reference to reviews of the standardized tests in Buros (1975) and Salvia and Ysseldyke (1981). The materials used for teaching were b r i e f l y discussed with reference to further d e t a i l s in Appendix 1. An outline of the three teaching methods employed in the study was given: the Story Grammar method used the story grammar approach, the Modified Reading method used a researcher designed approach, and the Regular Reading method used the classroom teacher's approach. Each teacher's reading program was described in general terms. Further information on the procedures involved in implementing the program, teaching and supervising the teachers, and testing the students was presented. In addition, a presentation was included of the methods for c o n t r o l l i n g variables in the design that had been c i t e d as weaknesses in previous research. Lastly, the s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses were restated and the s t a t i s t i c a l procedure (analysis of covariance) for analyzing the results was described. 63 IV. RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter presents the results of the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses, followed by a discussion of their relationship to previous and future studies. Specific conclusions about story grammar instruction and suggestions for future research are made at the end of the chapter. Results Pretests Means and standard deviations are reported for the four pretests in Table I I. The four pretests included the vocabulary (Vocab) and comprehension (Comp) subtests of the Stanford Reading Achievement Test, the researcher-designed r e c a l l test (Recall), and the comprehension subtest of the Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s (CTBS). 64 Table II - Means and Standard Deviations for the Pretests for SGI, MRI, and RRI Methods Pretest Story Grammar Modified Reading Regular Reading Vocab X 22. 66 21.10 22.56 s (5.66) (5.17) (5.07) Comp X 62.61 60.08 66.41 s (18.20) (17.62) ( 17.46) Recall X 4.93 4.90 6.11 s (2.48) (2.16) (2.69) CTBS X 53. 1 9 50.84 54.07 s (10.50) (11.23) (9.91) Posttests Analysis of covariance was used to i n d i v i d u a l l y test each of the six dependent variables: Recall, Achieve, Comprehension D e t a i l , Comprehension Infer, Prompted Recall D e t a i l , and Prompted Recall Infer. O r i g i n a l l y , i t was proposed that a l l four independent variables (method, class, sex and a b i l i t y ) be used as factors in these analyses. However, use of a l l four factors caused the number of students in some of the c e l l s to be too low (less than two). Therefore, analysis of covariance with method, class (nested in method) and sex as the independent variables was performed for each of the six dependent variables. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for method for any of the dependent variables. There was no main effect for sex for five of the dependent variables, however there was a main effect for 65 Unprompted Recall. Considering the results from these analyses, analysis of covariance was next used to test five of the dependent variables: Achieve, Comprehension D e t a i l , Comprehension Infer, Prompted Recall D e t a i l , and Prompted Recall Infer, with method, class (nested in method) and a b i l i t y as the main factors. The posttest scores for Unprompted Recall were not used in this second set of analyses because of the s i g n i f i c a n t main effect of sex for Unprompted Recall. In order to test the a b i l i t y factor for significance i t would have been necessary to include the factor for sex ( i . e . perform a four- way analysis of covariance) and this would have resulted in some c e l l s having i n s u f f i c i e n t numbers of students. The covariate for a l l analyses was the Unprompted Recall pretest. Analysis of covariance was used to test each dependent variable (UR, PRD, PRI, CD, CI, and Achieve) with method, class and sex as independent variables. The six posttest means (adjusted using the r e c a l l pretest as the covariate), and the corresponding standard deviations are reported for boys and g i r l s for SGI, MRI, and RRI in Tables XVII through XXII (Appendix D). Analysis of covariance was used to test f i v e dependent variables (UR, PRD, PRI, CD, CI, and Achieve) with method, class and a b i l i t y as independent variables. The f i v e posttest means (adjusted for the covariate) and the corresponding standard deviations are reported for good and poor readers for SGI, MRI, and RRI in Tables XXIII through XXVII (Appendix D). 66 Analyses with Method, Class and Sex The results of the analysis of covariance for the six posttests are presented in Tables III through X. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t main effects for method, and no s i g n i f i c a n t method by sex interactions. Results for each posttest are discussed separately. Table III - ANOVA for the Unprompted Recall Posttest with Method, Class, and Sex as Independent Variables Source df Mean Square F-Ratio Probability Meth 2 1.21 0.11 0.899 Class 6 23.56 2.07 0.059 Sex 1 77.21 6.80 0.010 Meth x Sex 2 18.76 1 .65 0. 1 95 Cl(Meth) x Sex 6 10.26 0.90 0. 494 Recall 1 455.03 40.08 0.000 Residual 1 46 1 1 .35 Total 1 64 67 Unprompted Recall. Results revealed that method was not s i g n i f i c a n t F(2,146)=0.11, p=.899 for the Unprompted Recall test (Table I I I ) . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t method by sex interaction with F(2,146)=1.65 and p=.l95. Class was not s i g n i f i c a n t F(6,146)=2.08 p=.059. However, sex was s i g n i f i c a n t (F(1,146)=6.80 p=.0l0) with g i r l s scoring higher than boys (Table XVII - Appendix D). The mean score for g i r l s was 11.55 while that for boys was 10.14. Achieve. Results indicate method (F(2,146)=.13, p=.876) and sex (F(1,146)=.39 p=.532) were not s i g n i f i c a n t for the Achieve test (Table IV). Likewise, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t method by sex interaction F(2,146)=1.36 p=.260. However there was a s i g n i f i c a n t class effect F(6,146)=2.28 p=.039. Although there was a s i g n i f i c a n t F, both Scheffe and Bonferroni tests f a i l e d to show any s i g n i f i c a n t differences in pair means. Perusal of class means for the Achieve test (Table V) showed that class 3 (SGI) and class 6 (MRI) appeared d i f f e r e n t from class 2 (SGI) and class 9 (RRI). There may not have been a s u f f i c i e n t number of subjects within each class for an analysis by the Scheffe or Bonferroni test to find s i g n i f i c a n c e . 68 Table IV - ANOVA for the Achieve. Posttest with Method, Class, and Sex as Independent Variables Source df Mean Square F--Ratio Probabi 1i ty Meth 2 21 .67 0 . 1 3 0. 876 Class 6 372 75 2 28 0. 039 Sex 1 64 00 0 39 0. 532 Meth x Sex 2 222 05 1 36 0. 260 CI(Meth) x Sex 6 1 60 75 0 98 0. 438 Recall 1 4455 20 27 30 0. 000 Residual 1 46 163. 20 Total 1 64 Table V - Adjusted Means for the Achieve Posttest for the Classes Classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X 74.12 78.28 69.38 75.69 70.84 75.72 65. 1 5 75.88 78. 15 N 22 1 7 23 1 1 20 19 1 0 23 20 69 Comprehension D e t a i l . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t effects due to any main factor or due to any interaction (Table VI). Table VI - ANOVA for the Comprehension Detail Posttest with Method, Class, and Sex as Independent Variables Source df Mean Square F-Ratio Probability Meth 2 4.27 1 .92 0. 1 50 Class 6 1 .07 0.48 0.823 Sex 1 0.31 0.14 0.709 Meth x Sex 2 4.26 1 . 9 1 0. 1 52 Cl(Meth) x Sex 6 3.30 1 .48 0. 188 Recall 1 61 .86 27.77 0.000 Res idual 1 46 2.23 Total 1 64 70 Comprehension Infer. S i m i l a r l y , for the Comprehension Infer Test, there were no main effects or interactions due to method, class or sex (Table VII). Table VII - ANOVA for the Comprehension Infer Posttest with Method, Class, and Sex as Independent Variables Source df Mean Square F-Ratio Probability Meth 2 2.13 0.48 0.617 Class 6 2.65 0.60 0.730 Sex 1 0.31 0.069 0.793 Meth x Sex 2 2.73 0.62 0.540 Cl(Meth) x Sex 6 4.89 1.11 0.361 Recall 1 92.77 21 .00 0.000 Res idual 1 46 4.42 Total 1 64 71 Prompted Recall D e t a i l . In Table VIII, i t can be seen that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t main effects or interactions due to method, class or sex. Table VIII - ANOVA for the Prompted Recall D e t a i l Posttest with Method, Class, and Sex as Independent Variables Source df Mean Square F-Ratio Probabi1i ty Meth 2 1 .75 0.41 0.661 Class 6 2.11 0.50 0.807 Sex 1 0.91 0.22 0.642 Meth x Sex 2 6.00 1 .43 0.244 Cl(Meth) x Sex 6 6.76 1.61 0.149 Recall 1 86.86 20.63 0.000 Residual 1 46 4.21 Total 1 64 72 Prompted Recall Infer. Method was not s i g n i f i c a n t F(2,146)=.60 p=.943 for the Prompted Recall Infer test (Table IX). Likewise, sex (F(1,146)=.59 p=.445) and method by sex interaction (F(2,146)=.52 p=.595) were not s i g n i f i c a n t . Table IX - ANOVA for the Prompted Recall Infer Posttest with Method, Class, and Sex as Independent Variables Source df Mean Square F-Ratio Probability Meth 2 0.30 0.59E-01 0.943 Class 6 15.05 2.95 0.009 Sex 1 3.00 0.59 0.445 Meth x Sex 2 2.66 0.52 0.595 Cl(Meth) x Sex 6 5.55 1 .09 0.373 Recall 1 63.66 1 2.46 0.000 Residual 1 46 5.11 Total 1 64 Class was s i g n i f i c a n t F(6,146)=2.95 p=.009 and therefore both a Scheffe and Bonferroni test were performed. They indicated that no pair of means d i f f e r e d . Although Scheffe and Bonferroni showed no difference, an examination of the class means (Table X) showed that classes 6 (MRI) and 7 (RRI) had higher mean scores than classes 5 (MRI) and 9 (RRI) on the Prompted Recall Infer Test. 73 T a b l e X - A d j u s t e d Means f o r t h e Prompted R e c a l l I n f e r P o s t t e s t f o r t h e C l a s s e s Classes ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X 7.12 6.61 7.17 6.92 6.04 8.45 7.92 7.67 6.15 N 22 1 7 23 1 1 20 1 9 1 0 23 20 To summarize, there were no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s for any posttest due to method or method by sex interaction. Sex was s i g n i f i c a n t for the Unprompted Recall test with g i r l s scoring higher than boys. Although class was s i g n i f i c a n t for the Achieve test and for the Prompted Recall Infer test, the Scheffe and Bonferroni test indicated that no two pairs of means were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . 74 Analyses with Method, Class and A b i l i t y Results for these analyses of covariance for the five posttests are given in Tables XI through XVI. Achieve. Results indicate that method (F(2,146)=.30, p=.739) and class (F(6,146)=2.01, p=.068) were not s i g n i f i c a n t for the Achieve test (Table XI). However, both a b i l i t y and the method by a b i l i t y interaction were s i g n i f i c a n t . A b i l i t y had a main effect F(1.146)=67.01, p=.000. A Scheffe test (means reported in Table XXIII - Appendix D) showed that good readers (x=80.34) scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than poor readers (x=65.53). Table XI - ANOVA for the Achieve Posttest with Method, Class, and A b i l i t y as Independent Variables Source df Mean Square F-Ratio Probability Meth 2 33.87 0.30 0.739 Class 6 225.09 2.01 0.068 A b i l i t y 1 7494. 1 67.01 0.000 Meth x A b i l i t y 2 466.42 4.17 0.017 Cl(Meth) x A b i l i t y 6 90.83 0.81 0.562 Recall 1 921.62 8.24 0.005 Residual 1 46 111.84 Total 1 64 75 For the method by a b i l i t y interaction F(2,146)=4.17, p=.017, the Scheffe test showed that poor readers receiving Story Grammar and Modified Reading Instruction had s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower scores than the good readers in a l l three programs. However, the poor readers in Regular Reading were no dif f e r e n t from the good readers in the three programs. This interaction can be seen more c l e a r l y in Figure 1. Figure 1 - Method by A b i l i t y Interaction on the Achieve Test Good Readers Poor Readers 85 80 75 Mean Score 70 65 60 0 1 Story Grammar Modi f ied Reading Regular Reading Methods 76 Comprehension Detail., As shown in Table XII, method, class and the method by a b i l i t y interaction were not s i g n i f i c a n t for the Comprehension Detail t e s t . A b i l i t y had a s i g n i f i c a n t effect F(1,146)=22.03 and p=.000. A Scheffe test showed that good readers (x=4.64) scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than poor readers (x=3.5l) as seen by the means in Table XXIV (Appendix D). Table XII - ANOVA for the Comprehension Detail Posttest with Method, Class, and A b i l i t y as Independent Variables Source df Mean Square F-Ratio Probability Meth 2 4. 08 2. 07 0. 1 29 Class 6 1 . 1 6 0. 59 0. 737 A b i l i t y 1 43. 32 22. 03 0. 000 Meth x A b i l i t y 2 4. 98 2. 54 0. 083 Cl(Meth) x A b i l i t y 6 2. 23 1 . 1 4 0. 345 Recall 1 18. 47 9. 39 0. 003 Residual 1 46 1 . 97 Total 164 77 Comprehension Infer. It was found that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t main effects due to method or class (Table XIII). In addition, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t method by a b i l i t y interaction for the Comprehension Infer test. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for a b i l i t y (F ( 1 , 1 4 6 ) = 1 9 . 8.3 , p=. 000) with the Scheffe" test showing good readers (x=5.09) scoring higher than poor readers (x=3.59). The means are reported in Table XXV (Appendix D). Table XIII - ANOVA for the Comprehension Infer Posttest with Method, Class, and A b i l i t y as Independent Variables Source df Mean Square F-Ratio Probability Meth 2 1 .48 0. 38 0.683 Class 6 2.52 0.65 0.692 A b i l i t y 1 77.25 19.83 0.000 Meth x A b i l i t y 2 1.61 0.42 0.661 Cl(Meth) x A b i l i t y 6 5.14 1 .32 0.252 Recall 1 29.21 7.50 0.007 Residual 1 46 3.89 Total 1 64 78 Prompted Recall D e t a i l . As with a l l the previous analyses, no s i g n i f i c a n t effects for method or class were found (Table XIV). However, a b i l i t y was s i g n i f i c a n t F(1,146)=20.13, p=.000 and method by a b i l i t y interaction was s i g n i f i c a n t F(2,146)=6.57 p=.002. Scheffe tests indicated that good readers with a mean of 6.48, scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than poor readers with a mean of 5.04. Table XIV - ANOVA for the Prompted Recall D e t a i l Posttest with Method, Class, and A b i l i t y as Independent Variables Source df Mean Square F-Ratio Probabi1i ty Meth 2 2. 05 0. 58 0. 559 Class 6 1 . 24 0. 35 0. 098 A b i l i t y 1 70. 77 20. 1 3 0. 000 Meth x A b i l i t y 2 23. 1 0 6. 57 0. 002 Cl(Meth) x A b i l i t y 6 6. 33 1 . 80 0. 1 03 Recall 1 23 .46 6. 67 0. 01 1 Residual 1 46 3. 51 Total 1 64 In addition, poor readers receiving SGI scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than good readers from any of the three programs, whereas poor readers receiving MRI or RRI did not have a score s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from good readers in any of the three programs (means reported in Table XXVI - Appendix D). This interaction i s i l l u s t r a t e d in Figure 2. 79 Figure 2 - Method by A b i l i t y Interaction on the Prompted Recall Detail Test Good Readers Poor Readers 8 I Mean 5 Score 4 3 0 Story Modified Regular Grammar Reading Reading Methods 80 Prompted Recall Infer. Results showed that neither method nor method by a b i l i t y interaction were s i g n i f i c a n t (Table XV). However, class was s i g n i f i c a n t F(6,146)=3.98, p=.00l. Results of the Scheffe test showed that no pair of means d i f f e r e d . However, the Bonferroni test indicated that classes 9 (RRI) and 5 (MRI) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than class 6 (MRI). The means are reported in Table XVI. Furthermore, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t a b i l i t y e f f e c t , F(1,146)=17.89, p=.000. The mean for good readers was 7.75 while that for poor readers was 6.22 (Table XXVII). Table XV - ANOVA for the Prompted Recall Infer Posttest with Method, Class, and A b i l i t y as Independent Variables Source df Mean Square F-Ratio Probabi1i ty Meth 2 0.68 0.15 0.858 Class 6 17.75 3.98 0.001 A b i l i t y 1 79.74 17.89 0.000 Meth x A b i l i t y 2 10.83 2.43 0.092 Cl(Meth) x A b i l i t y 6 5.95 1 . 34 0.245 Recall 1 10.71 2.40 0. 1 23 Residual 1 46 4.46 Total 1 64 Table XVI - A d j u s t e d Means f o r the Prompted R e c a l l I n f e r P o s t t e s t f o r the C l a s s e s C l a s s e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X 7.15 6.42 7.19 6.54 6.21 8.60 8.42 7.51 6.10 N 22 1 7 23 1 1 20 1 9 1 0 23 20 82 Di scussion This discussion focusses on interpreting the s t a t i s t i c a l results in relationship to the two major purposes of the study. Possible reasons for these results are explored with reference to the study design. Lastly, some of the s i g n i f i c a n t effects found in the analysis, but not d i r e c t l y related to the major purposes, are discussed. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of story grammar instruction on the unprompted r e c a l l , prompted r e c a l l , achievement and comprehension of Grade 2 children. The s t a t i s t i c a l analyses of the data indicate that none of the three teaching methods used in this study had a s i g n i f i c a n t effect on any of these reading s k i l l s . It would appear that story grammar instruction did not improve the students' reading s k i l l s above that of the other methods. The second major purpose of the study was to assess the eff e c t of story grammar instruction in relationship to reading a b i l i t y . The results show that for two posttests (Achieve and Prompted Recall Detail) there were s i g n i f i c a n t method by a b i l i t y interactions. Evidence suggests that poor readers from the RRI program did not have scores s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from good readers in any of the three programs for the Achieve test. In addition, poor readers from the MRI and RRI groups did not have a score s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from good readers in any of the 83 three programs for the Prompted Recall Detail test. However, poor readers receiving SGI or MRI did have scores s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from good readers in a l l three methods on the standardized reading achievement test. S i m i l a r l y , only the poor readers receiving SGI had scores s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from good readers in a l l three methods on d e t a i l questions when the text was not av a i l a b l e . Based on the findings i t appears that poor readers did not respond as well to story grammar instruction as did good readers. There are a number of explanations for the results found in t h i s study, some are related to methods and design. However, additional discussion of previous studies i s necessary to explore possible reasons for the i n a b i l i t y of this study to provide support for story grammar instru c t i o n . Story Grammar Instruction may not be a more useful teaching method in terms of improving the s k i l l s measured in t h i s study than Modified Reading Instruction or Regular Reading Instruction. Perhaps the teaching of more t r a d i t i o n a l comprehension s k i l l s (Modified Reading method and Regular Reading method) overlaps with the teaching of story grammar. A l l of the teachers in this study used story questions (oral or written) as a comprehension a c t i v i t y . Their questions may have been similar enough to story grammar questions so that the methods overlapped. There i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that stories in the basal readers were too lengthy to use in Story Grammar Instruction. It may be 84 t h a t Grade 2 c h i l d r e n cannot i n t e r n a l i z e the grammar when c o n f r o n t e d w i t h l o n g , complex s t o r i e s . However, u n l e s s s t o r y grammar can be a p p l i e d t o c l a s s r o o m m a t e r i a l s , i t appears u n l i k e l y t o be r e a d i l y a c c e p t e d by t e a c h e r s . A second d i f f i c u l t y w i t h m a t e r i a l s i n v o l v e s the r e a d a b i l i t y l e v e l of b a s a l r e a d e r s . Most of the c h i l d r e n c l a s s i f i e d as poor r e a d e r s appeared t o be p l a c e d i n m a t e r i a l t h a t was too d i f f i c u l t . The s t u d e n t s i n the s t o r y grammar group had t o a d j u s t not o n l y t o d i f f i c u l t r e a d i n g m a t e r i a l , but a l s o t o r e l a t i v e l y new t e a c h i n g t e c h n i q u e s . In a d d i t i o n , the time devoted t o i n s t r u c t i n g t e a c h e r s i n the s t o r y grammar concept and t e a c h i n g methods may have been i n s u f f i c i e n t . In orde r t o e l i m i n a t e r e s e a r c h e r b i a s , i n s t r u c t i o n was conducted by c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h i s meant the presence of a new f a c t o r : t e a c h i n g the t e a c h e r s . A l t h o u g h encouraged t o ask q u e s t i o n s , a l l of the t e a c h e r s tended t o r e a s s u r e the r e s e a r c h e r t h a t they u n d e r s t o o d and c o u l d t e a c h SGI or MRI. A l s o , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e i r l a c k of f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e s e programs caused t h e t e a c h e r s t o t e a c h t h e s e programs l e s s e f f e c t i v e l y . Another a s p e c t t o c o n s i d e r i s the type of seatwork a c t i t v i t y d e s i g n e d f o r the s t o r y grammar method. I t may be p o s s i b l e t h a t the s t o r y r e o r d e r i n g , m a c r o - c l o z e , o u t l i n i n g and i n c o r r e c t c a t e g o r y e x e r c i s e s were not a p p r o p r i a t e f o r Grade 2 s t u d e n t s . Perhaps more emphasis on s t o r y grammar q u e s t i o n s would have produced b e t t e r r e s u l t s . 85 Because the researcher was not involved in the instruction, i t may be that the teachers helped the children complete the seatwork exercises but did not apply the story grammar technique when reading the basal stories thus compromising the method due to lack of oral practice, discussion and review. The interaction between method and a b i l i t y showed that poor readers receiving SGI scored d i f f e r e n t l y from good readers. However, poor readers within the MRI or RRI groups did not score d i f f e r e n t l y from good readers. An effect due to perhaps, teachers finding the methods d i f f i c u l t to apply. They may have tended to be less thorough with their low groups because of the extra time and e f f o r t they required when introducing new a c t i v i t e s . On the other hand, i t may be that poor readers are not at a le v e l at which they can comprehend story grammar structure, especially when combined with complex and lengthy s t o r i e s . Lastly, there remains the p o s s i b i l i t y that the design weaknesses in previous studies combined to create p o s i t i v e results from story grammar instruction in those studies. Although the results of this study cannot be interpreted as proof that story grammar is not b e n e f i c i a l to reading s k i l l s , i t is true that the study does not lend support to story grammar inst r u c t i o n . Perhaps by modifying the design of previous studies, the effect of story grammar instruction in this study was not as great. It may be that the theory underlying story grammar instruction is not s u f f i c i e n t l y developed to be applied 86 to the classroom. Recently, a number of researchers have c r i t i c i z e d story grammar theory. Much of the c r i t i c i s m is focussed on what is perceived to be the theory's i n a b i l i t y to account for the influence of personal knowledge, emotional reaction and reader bias in comprehension. In a perusal of the early research work in story grammar theory, one is struck by the emphasis on the relationship between story structure and comprehension and the lack of discussion of content or reader variables. The c r i t i c i s m s by Omanson (1982) and Spiro (1982) were ce r t a i n l y influenced by this apparent omission of the influence of reader and content variables on comprehension. On the other hand, some story grammar theorists have refuted these c r i t i c i s m s . They maintain that the underlying assumptions of story grammar theory have always included the understanding that variables other than structure influence text comprehension. Spiro (1982) discusses the l i m i t a t i o n s of schema-based theories of comprehension, maintaining that although story grammars are representational frameworks for story content and stucture, they cannot represent the a f f e c t i v e aspects of a text. Therefore, the grammars cannot account for the reader's a f f e c t i v e response to the reading material. Spiro states that: Experiences are f e l t , and to the extent that feeling contributes to understanding...a representation... programmed on a computer w i l l be d e f i c i e n t . (p. 83) 87 Spiro argues that readers engage in meditative thinking while reading, r e l a t i n g the story to themselves and the world as well as integrating the feelings generated from reading into their background experiences. This personal evaluative understanding is what "schema theory w i l l be inadequate to deal with, and that is never reached in laboratory texts" (p. 80). Both Omanson (1982) and Weaver and Dickinson (1982) c r i t i c i z e story grammars when contrasting them with their new text analyses. Omanson believes the story grammars are in e f f e c t i v e because they are not based on the reader's motivation and understanding of s o c i a l actions. Weaver and Dickinson c r i t i c i z e story grammars for their assumption that content and reader knowledge are separate from syntactic structures. These authors state that: Story grammar theory suggests that story content has status which i s independent of syntactic categories, (p. 236) Mandler's (1982) response to Weaver and Dickinson's c r i t i c i s m s , was that story grammars do not exclude the effect of other text variables such as sentence structure, word meaning, or emotional content. She believes that story grammars cannot be dismissed because they do not account for a l l aspects of text processing, but that story grammar must be used in conjunction with our knowledge of other aspects of memory and r e c a l l . When responding to Omanson's c r i t i c i s m s , Mandler states that story grammar theorists also believe that narration resembles r e a l - 88 l i f e and that knowledge of s o c i a l actions guides reading. Mandler proposes the d i f f e r e n t text analyses be combined to provide a more comprehensive analysis. It becomes apparent from these c r i t i c i s m s that story grammar theory requires further research. Findings of this study do not support the notion that story grammar instruction i s superior to other techniques for Grade 2 students. . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences on any reading s k i l l in favor of Story Grammar Instruction. Various possible explanations have been presented to account for these r e s u l t s . Recommendations for Future Research Based on the findings of the study, several recommendations for future research can be made, some to correct weaknesses in the study design, while others are made in response to more recent findings about story grammars. Recommendations are: - 1. It is recommended that in a nested design study with three or more factors, each class have a s u f f i c i e n t number of students (25 or more). This should help to solve the problem of indadequate c e l l numbers, especially for classes in which there is an uneven d i s t r i b u t i o n of boys and g i r l s and good and poor readers. 2. In studies where teachers must learn a new teaching method, i t i s recommended that they receive training and supervision during the year before the study, to ensure that 8 9 each is competent in applying the method and has internalized i t s u f f i c i e n t l y to be confident when teaching. 3. It is also recommended that a l l seatwork material be tested for d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l during the year before the study. Then perhaps two levels of each a c t i v i t y can be produced - one for competent readers and one for less s k i l l e d readers. 4. For a classroom study requiring use of reading materials, i t is necessary that every precaution be taken to ensure that students are reading from material at their i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l . This, too, might best be done during the year before the study. Perhaps the teachers can agree to administer a placement test in September of the study year. Results from t h i s test could be analyzed by the teacher and researcher and used to assign children to reading material at appropriate l e v e l s . 5. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e suggests a recommendation about measuring devices. Perhaps the story grammar concept could be measured more accurately by asking children to r e c a l l poorly organized stories (Stein, 1982). It may be that children taught with a story grammar would be better at r e c a l l i n g disorganized text because they would have a method for restructuring the passage. 90 Summary The purpose of the study was to assess the effect of story grammar instruction on Grade 2 students in an environment that was as closely related to the regular classroom as possible. This involved applying story grammar by using the school's basal readers. Furthermore, i t necessitated involving classroom teachers who required training and supervision. The study also attempted to address design weaknesses found in previous studies by increasing the number of subjects, including a second control group, applying the method to primary grade students, and lengthening the treatment time. F i n a l l y , the results and discussion were presented accompanied with recommendations for future research. 91 A P P E N D I X A - STORY GRAMMAR I N S T R U C T I O N This appendix contains the following materials: a. A description of how to introduce the story grammar concept that was given to the SGI teachers. b. The four stories used to introduce the story grammar concept ( a l l nine classes received these s t o r i e s ) . c. Seatwork a c t i v i t i e s to complement the four contrived stories (only the SGI group received these materials). d. A l i s t of the seatwork a c t i v i t i e s given to the SGI group. e. Examples of the a c t i v i t i e s given to the teachers of SGI . Introducing the Story Grammar Concept The directions to the teachers were as follows: Use the four stories provided by the researcher (The Lion and The Mouse, The Gingerbread Man, The Big Race, and The Fox and The Crow). I n i t i a l l y teach the story categories (setting, goal, happenings, ending) to the whole c l a s s . I l l u s t r a t e the categories by reading The Lion and The Mouse to the children. Then reread the story and break i t into the four main categories. Discuss the story information that belongs in each category. Ask the children questions to e l i c i t t heir comprehension of the categories (General: What do we learn in the setting? What is the goal? What are the happenings? S p e c i f i c : What i s the goal in t h i s story (lion)? What i s the setting in this story? What i s the ending in t h i s story?). Show the children a demonstration chart with the outline (refer to Chart 5). Review the categories. Take the story s t r i p s for the four main categories and have children read them aloud. Ask the children where each paper s t r i p should be placed. Give copies of the story to the children. Read the story again with the children. Ask them category questions again. Then give the children colored pencils. Use one color for each category. Ask them to underline each category with a d i f f e r e n t color. Children w i l l need a lot of d i r e c t i o n for t h i s a c t i v i t y . Then allow time for independent practice with the seatwork a c t i v i t y for The Lion and The Mouse. Chart 4 - Example of Outline Chart Setting: Goal: Happenings Ending: The l i o n wanted to eat the mouse. A mouse met a l i o n walking in the woods A mouse is not too l i t t l e to help a lion, The l i o n l e t the mouse go. Then the mouse helped the l i o n get out of the net. 9 3 The children f i l l in an outline sheet of their own patterned after the class chart. You might also print two or three category questions on the blackboard for the children to answer ( i . e . What is the setting of the story? What is the lion's goal? What happened to make the l i o n l i k e the mouse?). On the next day, review the four story categories. Review the story outine chart for The Lion and The Mouse. Teach the sub-categories in the Happenings category (beginning, sub-goal, try, r e s u l t ) . Use the same story (Lion and Mouse) to i l l u s t r a t e these new categories. Reread the Happenings category of the story to the class. Read i t again and indicate the new categories by naming them as you read. Show the new outline chart for the Happenings category. Read through the sentence s t r i p s and ask children to place them in the correct category. Ask category questions. Then give each c h i l d a copy of the Happenings part of the story as well as colored pens. Proceed as on the f i r s t day - have a c h i l d read a category and then underline with a colored pen. Provide independent practice by having children complete the outline chart for seatwork. The next day, review a l l the story categories. I l l u s t r a t e using The Lion and The Mouse chart. Ask oral category questions. Have children place the story s t r i p s into the chart. Read the story The Gingerbread Man to the children. Then read the categories on the outline chart for The Gingerbread Man. Ask children to read category sentence s t r i p s for the chart. Place the s t r i p s on the chart in the correct order. Note that not a l l the information in the story is used in the outline. Some information is not necessary to the basic story outline. This should be pointed out to the children. Remove a l l the s t r i p s from the chart and mix them. Ask children to iden t i f y each category s t r i p and place i t on the chart again. Give copies of the story to the children. Read the story again. You may want to use the colored pens to underline categories. Independent practice should be provided by using the outline chart seatwork provided for the story. During the next week, use the next two s t o r i e s : The Fox and The Crow and The Big Race. Seatwork a c t i v i t i e s have been, provided for both s t o r i e s . The children should complete these during an independent practice time. Work through the stories in the basal reader, using the story grammar for 50% of the comprehension time. Some stories do not conform to the story grammar and during that week, you w i l l not teach story grammar. Therefore, during the next week, you w i l l use story grammar for the entire week. 94 Keep reviewing the categories and the information appropriate to each category. Use the seatwork provided to provide independent practice. Contrived Stories The Lion and The Mouse One day a mouse met a l i o n in the woods. The l i o n was hungry. He wanted to eat the mouse. The l i o n caught the mouse in his paws. The mouse was a f r a i d . He did not want the l i o n to eat him. The mouse said, "Wait. Please l e t me go. I w i l l help you one day i f you let me go." The l i o n said, "How w i l l a mouse help a lion? You are too l i t t l e . But I w i l l l e t you go." So the l i o n l e t the mouse go. The l i o n went off to get some water. But on his way, the• l i o n got caught in a big net. The net was made of rope. The l i o n wanted to get out of the net. But he could not get out by himself. The l i o n c a l l e d , "Help. Help." The mouse came back to the l i o n . The mouse b i t the ropes in the net and made a hole. The l i o n got out of the net. The l i o n said, "Thank you Mouse. Now I see that you are not too l i t t l e to help a big l i o n . " The Gingerbread Man An old woman and an old man l i v e d in a house in the woods. They had a good house but they were sad. They wanted to have a l i t t l e boy. The old woman made a gingerbread man. She put him on the pan to bake. But the gingerbread man wanted to run and play. He hopped off the pan. Then he ran away and said, "Run, run as fast as you can. You can't catch me I'm the Gingerbread Man. " The gingerbread man met a horse. The horse was eating grass. But the grass was not very good. The horse wanted to eat the gingerbread man. He thought the gingerbread man would taste good. The horse said, "Come and play with me." But the. gingerbread man ran away and said, "Run, run as fast as you can. You can't catch me I'm the Gingerbread Man." Then the gingerbread man came to a r i v e r . It was cold and deep. He wanted to get across the r i v e r . He t r i e d to swim, but could not. He did not know what to do. The gingerbread man was sad because he could see the old woman and the old man. They were running along the road to take him home. Then the gingerbread man met a fox. This fox was smart. The fox wanted to eat the gingerbread man. He l i k e d to eat gingerbread because i t was so good. The fox said, "I w i l l help 95 you to cross the r i v e r . Get on my back. Then I w i l l swim to the other side." The gingerbread man got on the fox. The fox swam into the r i v e r . Then the fox stopped. He opened his mouth and ate the gingerbread man. The old woman and the old man went home alone, but the fox had a good lunch. The Fox and The Crow A long time ago, a fox was walking in the woods. The fox saw a crow s i t t i n g in a tree. The crow had some grapes in her mouth. The fox wanted to eat the grapes because they looked so good. So the fox went over and sat under the tree. He wanted to make the crow drop the grapes. The fox said, "Mrs. Crow! Wi l l you sing for me? You must have a beautiful voice." The crow thought the fox was so nice that she opened her mouth to sing. Then the grapes dropped out of her mouth. The fox caught the grapes and had a good lunch. The Big Race One beautiful summer day, a rabbit was walking in the woods. The rabbit wanted to have a race with a f r i e n d . He l i k e d to win races. Then the rabbit saw a t u r t l e having a nap. He wanted the t u r t l e to race with him. The rabbit said, "Turtle, wake up. W i l l you have a race with me?" The t u r t l e was a good friend, and he said,"Yes. I w i l l race with you." They started the race and began to run to the pond. The rabbit was faster than the t u r t l e . Soon the t u r t l e was far behind. But the rabbit ran so fast that he got t i r e d . Suddenly, the rabbit wanted to go to sleep. He sat down in some flowers, and f e l l fast asleep. The t u r t l e was near the pond. He couldn't see the rabbit. He thought the rabbit must be l o s t . Suddenly, the t u r t l e wanted to win the race. He ran as fast as he could. He was getting t i r e d . But, he kept running, and then he won the race. The rabbit was s t i l l asleep, and didn't know that he had lost the race. Seatwork Examples The following exercises i l l u s t r a t e the type of a c t i v i t y that was given to the students of the experimental program after they had read the contrived s t o r i e s . 96 Outline Chart and Category Strips The mouse said he would help the l i o n , i f the l i o n l e t him go. Then the lio n got caught in a net and the mouse helped him get out. The l i o n wanted to eat the mouse. A mouse met a l i o n in the woods, A mouse was not too l i t t l e to help a big lion, The previous sentence s t r i p s were cut out by the children and pasted onto the following chart in the correct categories: Sett ing: Goal: Happenings: Ending: 97 Macro-cloze One beautiful summer day, a rabbit was walking in the woods. The rabbit, wanted Then the rabbit saw a t u r t l e having a nap. The rabbit wanted The rabbit said, "Turtle, w i l l you have a race with me?" The t u r t l e said, "Yes, I w i l l . " Soon the t u r t l e was far behind. But the rabbit was t i r e d . He wanted to go to sleep. He sat down in some flowers and The t u r t l e was near the pond. He couldn't see the rabbit. Suddenly, He ran as fast as he could. The rabbit was s t i l l asleep, and didn't know that he had lost the race. 98 Seatwork A c t i v i t i e s The following a c t i v i t i e s were used for seatwork for the children receiving story grammar ins t r u c t i o n . a. Macro-cloze. The researcher deleted a story category (e.g. attempt) from a whole story printed on a sheet of paper. Blank lines indicated the deleted section. Students f i l l e d in the appropriate sentence or sentences to make a complete story. b. Story Outline. The researcher parsed the basal reader story and printed each story category on a s t r i p of paper. She then printed the category t i t l e s (e.g. setting, goal, t r y , result) on a sheet of paper in the correct order. The students matched the sentence s t r i p s with the' category t i t l e s to make a story outline. Incorrect Category. The researcher substituted information in categories from one story into a second story. The students located the incorrect information and crossed i t out. Category Questions. The questions that would e l i c i t categor ies. researcher constructed information from s p e c i f i c Reordering Categories. The researcher printed each story category from a basal reader story on s t r i p s of paper. These paper s t r i p s were then scrambled. The students had to rearrange the s t r i p s in the correct order. 99 Seatwork Examples Macro-cloze Dawn needed to find water. Dawn was going to go up the mountain. She wanted to look for water. At last she became so t i r e d that she sank down on a rock to rest. "If only a f a i r y would help me," said Dawn. She wanted some help to find the water. As she spoke there was a l i t t l e sound of f a l l i n g stones. Incorrect Category Directions: There are four sentences that do not belong Cross them out. The animals were having a birthday party for their friend Rusty. Sandy wanted to fi n d somewhere for his winter.sleep. Sandy couldn't go to his old spot because the tree was gone. Barny wanted Sandy to rest in h i s cave. Sandy said he had a problem. His problem was snoring. Rusty blew out the candles on the cake. One morning Sandy knew i t was time to go to Barny's cave. He lumbered along u n t i l he met Barny. Rusty wanted the other animals to play hide and go seek. Then Barny and Sandy went to sleep in the cave. 100 Category Questions 1. What is Sandy's goal in the story? 2. How did Sandy try to get this goal? 3. What i s the result of Sandy's try? 4. What is the ending in th i s story? Reordering Categories Directions: Cut out the paper s t r i p s and place them in the right order. The t u r t l e was near the pond A rabbit wanted to have a race The rabbit lost the race The rabbit went to sleep The t u r t l e said he would race to the pond The race started Soon the t u r t l e was far behind 101 APPENDIX B - MATERIALS FOR MODIFIED READING INSTRUCTION This appendix contains the following materials: f. A l i s t of the a c t i v i t i e s given to the MRI teachers. g. A description of how to teach s p e c i f i c comprehension s k i l l s that was given to the MRI teachers. h. Examples of some of the seatwork a c t i v i t i e s given to the MRI teachers. Seatwork A c t i v i t i e s The following a c t i v i t i e s were designed by the researcher for use as seatwork for the children in the modified reading program. a. Sequencing S t r i p s . A story is divided into parts, with each event printed on a separate s l i p of paper. Students rearrange these paper s t r i p s to form a corr e c t l y sequenced story. b. Characterizat ion. Students are taught a certain number of personality t r a i t s such as: vanity, jealousy, greed, kindness, generosity, cooperation, cruelty, selfishness, and honesty. These are printed on a sheet of paper. After a story i s read, students draw two or three characters and print words for the appropriate t r a i t s onto the picture. The students must print a sentence to j u s t i f y their word choices. c. Inferenc ing. The researcher printed inferences on paper. Students found the story facts from which the inferences were drawn. This a c t i v i t y was also reversed. The researcher printed the facts, and the students made the inferences (the researcher printed page numbers beside the questions to simplify the task). d. Cause and Effect S t r i p s . The researcher printed causes on half the paper s t r i p s and eff e c t s on the other half. Students matched the s t r i p s to produce the correct cause-effect pairs and pasted them into their books. e. Det a i l s . The researcher printed WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW on the paper beside page numbers from the story. The students generated questions beginning with the key words. 1 02 f. Pronoun Referents. The researcher rewrote a section of the story on paper. Above some of the pronouns, the researcher printed a number. The students printed the word to which the pronoun referred beside the number. g. Comparison and Contrast. The researcher made a chart to compare two (three,four,five) d i f f e r e n t characters or objects on a s p e c i f i c number of q u a l i t i e s . For example, in a story about three children at school, the chart might ask the students to compare: attitude to school, clothing, lunch, hair color, and distance from school. Introducing Seatwork A c t i v i t i e s The following suggestions were given to the teachers of the modified comprehension classes: a. Sequencing: Prepare a series of pictures. Put the pictures on the blackboard in the wrong order as you t e l l a story (you're story w i l l be in the wrong sequence as well). Ask the children to t e l l you what is wrong. Repeat this procedure, but use sentences from a simple story. Put each sentence on a s t r i p of paper and tape to the board. Get the children to rearrange the s t r i p s to make a good story. b. Characterization: Discuss personality t r a i t s with the children. Develop some simple explanations for certain t r a i t s and post them on the walls ( i . e . vanity: thinking that you look good; jealousy: want something that someone else has; generosity: sharing your things with others; e t c . ) . Then as a group, read a story and decide on the t r a i t s that the character exhibits. Children should defend their choices in oral discussions. c. Inferencing: Explain that sometimes we- can make a guess about people or things, from the information we see, hear, or read. This w i l l require much group practice and teaching. i . Begin with pictures. Show a picture of children in coats and mitts (no scenery),and ask what the weather must be l i k e . Then ask how the children knew the answer. i i . Use simple stories and ask the group to give you the inference ( i . e . The boy went into the kitchen. He got out an apple. What can you guess about what he w i l l do? What can you guess 103 about why he w i l l eat the apple? It is a hot day. B i l l is too hot. He gets out a towel. What can you guess about what B i l l w i l l do?). i i i . Make riddles about objects and have children guess the object. iv . Show the children the facts in the story and ask them to make an inference. Do th i s as a group a c t i v i t y . Pretend you are a detective with a l l the clues in a case, and you must discover the answer. Cause and E f f e c t : Explain that some actions cause other events to happen (e.g. A b a l l thrown at a window causes the window to break). This i s a d i f f i c u l t concept and w i l l require group practice and r e p e t i t i o n . i . Give some causes and l e t children predict the ef f e c t s ( i . e . Leaving the water on in the sink causes... Giving your friend a present causes... In a car, putting on the brake causes... If you plant seeds in the ground, the water and sun cause... ). i i . Give some effects and let the children find the causes ( i . e . What causes ...snow? ...your Mom to be mad? ...your Dad to be happy? ...a f i r e ? ...the police to turn their siren on?). Some effects have many causes ( i . e . f i r e s , broken windows, lateness for school, e t c . ) . i i i . Prepare large cause and effect s t r i p s for use with the whole group. Have the children match the s t r i p s to produce acceptable sentences. iv . Use pictures: Put a picture of a burning candle, an open can of soup, a messy room, a broken cup and a birthday cake on the blackboard. Ask children to give the causes for these pictures. v. Then di-scuss cause and effect with s p e c i f i c reference to a story in the reader. De t a i l s : Print simple sentences on the blackboard and have the children decide what question each sentence answers. Let the children match question words (who, what, how, etc) with the sentence answers. Pronoun Referents: This s k i l l i s d i f f i c u l t and requires much group teaching and practice. You may want to use pictures in teaching t h i s s k i l l . For example, you can make up an easy story about a dog, a 1 04 cat, a boy and a house. Put pictures of these characters right in the story. T e l l the children that they are going to try to find d i f f e r e n t words with which to replace the pictures. i . Begin by printing short sentences on the blackboard ( i . e . The b a l l i s round. It i s yellow). Ask the children what " i t " refers to. i i . Oral read sentences with pronouns in the reader. Ask what the pronouns refer to. i i i . Print sentences without pronouns and ask the children to supply them ( i . e . The snow is white. We l i k e to play in . ) . g. Comparison and Contrast: I n i t i a l l y , complete a chart with c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the children in the classroom. Put their names in the rows, and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on the columns. F i l l in the information. Then ask questions such as: How is Bob di f f e r e n t from James? How is Karen the same as Susan? Which three people have the same hair color? Then complete a chart with the students but use the information from a simple story. Ask questions that stress comparing and contrasting q u a l i t i e s and characters in the story. 1 05 Seatwork Examples Cause and Effect ' Directions: Print a sentence to t e l l what these things cause in the story. 1 . Seeing a star caused 2 . Seeing two men on horses caused the raccoon 3. The small rock r o l l i n g down the h i l l caused Directions: Cut out the cause and effect s t r i p s . Match them and then paste them in your book. CAUSE STRIPS EFFECT STRIPS The raccoon's hunger caused the men to run away The branch making a cracking noise caused the old woman to bu i l d a barn A rabbit running down the road caused the f i r s t man to say "What was that?" The raccoon's black mask in the moonlight caused the men to think someone was following them 1 06 Pronoun Referents Directions: Some words have numbers above them. Print a word that means the same as the numbered word. A hungry old fox was hunting for his 1 supper. He saw a fat partridge in the brush. He 2 did not want to frighten her 3 away, so he sat down and spoke s o f t l y . "What a beautiful bird you " a r e . " 1 . Character izat ion Directions: Draw the partrige and the fox. Then choose three words that w i l l t e l l about each animal. Print the. words beside the animal. Then print a sentence that t e l l s why you chose those words. greedy vain (think you look good) sad shy ( a f r a i d of people) kind generous (share with others) smart jealous (want something that a fri e n d has) honest sly (play mean t r i c k s ) 1 07 In ference Directions: Sometimes a story w i l l not t e l l you everything. But the story w i l l give "clues" or "hints". Then you must make a good guess. 1. page 117 Andrew put his hands above his eyes. Guess why he did that: 2. page 118 Andrew said "Can whales walk?" Guess how old Andrew i s : 3. page 119 But Sue knew something was wrong. Guess how she knew. 1 08 Comparison and Contrast Directions: Use the information from the story to complete the chart. BEAVERS DOGS T e l l how they look: T e l l what they do i f they see danger: T e l l where they l i v e : T e l l what they eat: 1 09 APPENDIX C - TESTS, DIRECTIONS, SCORING KEYS, AND SAMPLE PROTOCOLS This appendix contains a l l of the materials related to the tests and test procedures. This includes the following: a. Copies of the researcher-designed t e s t s . b. Directions for administering the researcher-designed tests. c. Scoring procedures for the tests. d. Scoring keys for the tes t s . e. A sample scoring guide for a r e c a l l t e s t . f. Samples of student protocols and the i r scores. Researcher Designed Tests Unprompted Recall Pretest The Father, His Son, and the Donkey A father and his boy had a l i t t l e donkey that was not very good. They needed to plant some wheat. But they had no seeds. "We must trade the donkey for some seeds," said the father. So they began to walk to the market to trade the donkey for some seeds. On the way, the father and his boy met some children. "Look at them!" said a g i r l . "The father makes his l i t t l e boy walk!" The father heard the l i t t l e g i r l . He said, " I ' l l l e t the boy ride. Donkeys are made to ride on." So he put the boy on the donkey. The man walked beside the boy and the donkey. They went on their way to the market. Soon they met a l i t t l e old woman. "I'm surprised at the boy," the old w.oman said. "He makes his poor o l d father walk." The boy heard the old woman. The boy said, "Stop, Father. I'm going to walk and l e t you rid e . " The boy got down from the donkey and the man got up. They went on their way. 1 1 0 Soon they met a man. "Where is that big man going on the poor l i t t l e donkey?" asked the man. "You w i l l break i t s back." So the father jumped down and picked up the l i t t l e donkey. The boy helped, and they put the donkey on the father's back. They walked down the road. At l a s t , they came to a h i l l . Just then, the father f e l l over a rock. Down he went with the donkey on top of him. The boy ran to help his father.. "What a day!" the father said. "From now on, I won't l e t people t e l l me what to do. I ' l l do what I think i s best." Unprompted Recall Posttest The Garden Frog was in his garden. Cat came walking by. Cat said, "You have a fine garden, Frog." Frog said, "Yes, i t i s nice, but i t was hard work." "I wish I had a garden," said Cat. Frog said, "Here are some flower seeds. Plant them in the ground. Soon you w i l l have a garden." Cat ran home. Cat wanted to plant the seeds. He dug some holes, and planted the flower seeds. Cat walked around the garden waiting for the seeds to grow. Cat wished the seeds would grow. Cat put his head close to the ground and said loudly, "Now seeds, start growing." Then Cat put his head very close to the ground and shouted, "NOW SEEDS START GROWING." Cat looked at the ground. But the seeds did not start to grow. Frog came running up the path to Cat's garden. Cat said, "My seeds w i l l not grow." Then Frog told Cat what to do. He said, "You are shouting too much. Leave the seeds alone for a few days. Let the sun shine on them, l e t the rain f a l l on them. Soon your seeds w i l l start to grow." That night, Cat looked out of his window. But the seeds were not growing. Cat thought the seeds must be a f r a i d of the dark. So Cat went out to his garden with some candles. Cat said, "I w i l l read the seeds a story and they w i l l not be a f r a i d . " Cat read a long story to his seeds. The next day, Cat sang songs to his seeds. And the next day Cat played music for his seeds. Cat looked at the ground. But the seeds s t i l l did not start to grow. 111 Cat was t i r e d and he f e l l asleep. Then Frog came walking by. Frog shouted. "Cat, Cat, wake up, wake up. Look at your garden." Cat looked at his garden. L i t t l e green plants were coming up out of the ground. Cat said, "At l a s t my seeds have stopped being a f r a i d to grow. But you were right, Frog. A garden is very hard work." Prompted Recall Detail and Inference Posttest Patrick Lost His Ticket Patrick was in f i r s t grade. He could go to school on the bus and cross the street at the stop l i g h t . He had his very own key and could open his own front door. Patrick got ready for school by himself. He put on his blue jacket and cap. He put on his blue mittens and picked up his lunch. Then his mother asked,"Have you got your bus ti c k e t ? " She came into the h a l l and gave him a kiss. Mother said, "Yes, I see you have your t i c k e t . " Then she opened the door. Patrick ran down the front walk and then walked slowly along the sidewalk. He said good morning to the big police dog in the Smith's yard. He did not r e a l l y l i k e that dog, but he wanted i t to l i k e him. The l i g h t at the corner was green, and Patrick marched across the street. He stopped at the bus stop and put his books and his lunch on the bench. He took off his mitt and f e l t in his pocket. His tic k e t was not there. He took off his other mitt and f e l t in his pocket. The tic k e t was not there. He unzipped his jacket and f e l t in his jeans pocket. His tic k e t was not there. And the bus was coming. He opened his lunch, but the ticket was not there. And the bus was coming. The bus stopped in front of Patrick, and the door opened. Patrick got on the bus and said, "I've lost my t i c k e t . " The bus driver laughed. The people in the front seat laughed. Everyone could see where Patrick had put the t i c k e t . The bus driver reached over and took the ticket out of Patrick's cap. The ticket had been stuck in the front of Patrick's cap. The bus driver said, "You are funny, Patrick." Patrick said, "Oh, I forgot." 1 1 2 Then Patrick jumped up on the big seat and pretended he was driving the bus. He thought about his lost t i c k e t . •. Tomorrow, he would put i t in his mitt so he could feel i t as he walked to the bus stop. Story Questions 1. Did Patrick l i v e close to school? (inference) 2. How did Patrick get to school every day? (detail) 3. T e l l 2 things that Patrick did to get ready for school. (detail) 4. Why did Patrick need the ticket? (inference) 5. What did mother ask when Patrick was ready for school? (detail) 6. How did Patrick f e e l about the dog.? (inference) 7. Why was Patrick upset at the bus stop? (inference) 8. Give two places that Patrick looked for the lost t i c k e t . (detail) 9. What did the bus driver do when he saw Patrick? (detail) 10. Why did the people on the bus laugh? (inference) 11. How did the bus driver help Patrick? (detail) 12. Where was the ticket? (detail) 13. What w i l l Patrick do when he gets off the bus? (inference) 14. How do you think Patrick f e l t when the people laughed? (inference) Comprehension D e t a i l and Inference Posttest The Yellow Moon It was a very dark night. A l l the bugs in the garden were going home. A l l of a sudden the ladybugs said, "Look! The moon has f a l l e n . It has fa l l e n into the garden. It i s right here on the path." A l i t t l e ant looked too. She saw that the moon had. f a l l e n . She to l d every ant she met. And they a l l said, "The 1 1 3 moon has f a l l e n ! The moon has f a l l e n ! " A big grasshopper saw something on the path. He looked at i t . He hopped over i t . Then he c a l l e d , "Look here, everybody. The moon has f a l l e n ! " A toad hopped out of the pond and came to see. "What's going on?" she asked. The ladybugs and the ants t o l d her that the moon had f a l l e n . "Don't be so s i l l y , " said the toad. "The moon can't f a l l out of the sky." "But i t did," said the ladybugs and the ants. "Just look over there, Mrs. Toad." The toad looked, and there was the moon. She told them to rub their eyes and i t would go away. So they a l l rubbed their eyes. But the moon was s t i l l there - big and round and yellow. The toad went up close to i t . "I know what happened," she said. "The moon didn't f a l l down. Somebody pulled i t down. There's a str i n g on i t . " They a l l 'thought about what they should do. The toad said, " I ' l l put i t back. I ' l l kick i t just l i k e a f o o t b a l l . I ' l l kick i t back into the sky. Everybody got out of the way. Then the toad kicked i t with a l l her might! Bang! The moon was gone! They a l l looked up into the sky. The moon was back in the sky. The toad looked very pleased with herself. Just then a l i t t l e g i r l ran down the path. "Who broke my yellow balloon?" she asked. "I l e f t i t here before supper." But the ladybugs and the ants and the grasshopper and the toad didn't care. There were so happy the moon was back in the sky. Story Questions 1. What did the bugs see on the path? (detail) 2. Who came out of the pond to see what happened? (detail) 3. Why did the toad t e l l them not to be s i l l y ? (inference) 4. What i s the f i r s t thing the toad and bugs did to make the moon go away? (detail) 5. Why d i d the toad think that someone pulled the moon down? (inference) 6. Why did everyone get out of toad's way? (inference) 7. How did the toad put the moon back? (detail) 8. Why did the toad look pleased with herself? 1 1 4 (inference) 9. What did they see in the sky after the toad kicked the moon? (detail) 10. Why did the l i t t l e g i r l run down the path? (inference) 11. What did the g i r l ask? (detail) 12. How did the animals feel about the g i r l ' s balloon? (inference) 13. Who broke the g i r l ' s balloon? (detail) 14. Where was the moon when the bugs couldn't see i t ? (inference) Directions For Administration Some general comments about the administration of the tests in this study are given followed by the s p e c i f i c directions for each test. The UR pretest had a time l i m i t of 15 minutes, which was ample for most students. The UR posttest had a time l i m i t of 20 minutes. The time was increased because i t was f e l t that the students probably had better writing s k i l l s than before. The researcher or teacher d i s t r i b u t e d the stories and as the children finished and raised their hands, the researcher or teacher took the story from the c h i l d and gave him/her a piece of foolscap with the directions "Put your name on the top". The PRD and PRI, and CD and CI tests had time l i m i t s of 17 minutes. Unprompted Recall Tests - Directions You are going to read a story (examiner displays story). When you f i n i s h reading, you w i l l p r int down everything you remember from the story. You w i l l try to t e l l me the story. But you w i l l not be able to look at the real story to help you. You must try to t e l l me everything that happened in the story. F i r s t , I w i l l give you the story. Then when you f i n i s h , put your hand up. I w i l l take the story away and give you some paper. You print the story on the paper. You cannot look at the real story when you print i t on the paper. You are going to try to remember as much of the story as you can. You should 1 1 5 t e l l the story just the way ycu would t e l l your mother about a story you had read at school. Remember: read the story; put your hand up. I w i l l give you paper. Print down everything you remember. Do the best you can. Try to remember as much as you can. Do not worry about s p e l l i n g . It does not matter. I w i l l t e l l you what to do again. Listen c a r e f u l l y . Read the story. Put your hand up. Print the story on the paper. Remember as much as you can. The story i s c a l l e d ... (examiner gives the name of either the UR pretest or the UR posttest). Prompted Recall Detail and Inference Test Directions You are going to read a story and answer 14 questions. I am going to show you some examples of questions and how you should answer them. F i r s t , l e t ' s read the short story on the blackboard (Children read the following story: Tom was at the zoo. He saw the animals. Tom was happy.). Now l e t ' s answer the questions (Children read the following questions: Who was at the zoo? What did Tom see? Why i s Tom happy? Where w i l l Tom go now? The examiner e l i c i t s the following responses: 1. Tom; 2. animals; 3. because he is at the zoo or because he saw the animals; 4. he might go home, or to school, or to a friend's house, or any other place that i s reasonable). You do not have to answer with a complete sentence. Sometimes, just one word i s enough. But sometimes, you need to put a longer answer (Examiner w i l l also point out that some questions are thinking questions and might not be in the story). You are going to read a story and answer some questions. I w i l l give you the story to read. When you f i n i s h , put your hand up. Then I w i l l give you the questions to answer. You w i l l not be able to reread the story to fin d the answers. You are going to try to remember the answers by yourself. Do not worry about s p e l l i n g . Spelling does not matter. Remember, read the story. Then put your hand up. I w i l l give you the questions and some paper. Put the answer on the paper. Put the numbers of the questions on the paper too. The name of the story i s Patrick Lost His Ticket. 1 1 6 Comprehension Detail and Inference Test Directions The directions for this test are the same as paragraph 1 for the Classroom Comprehension (No Text Comprehension). Then the following directions are given: You are going to read a story and answer some questions. I w i l l give you the story, the questions, and the paper for you to print the answer. You should read the story and then answer the questions. Remember to print the numbers of the questions on the paper. Spelling does not matter. Do not worry about s p e l l i n g . Remember, read the story. Then read the questions and answer them on the piece of paper. Put the numbers of the questions on the paper. The name of the story is The Yellow Moon. Scoring Procedures Some general rules for scoring these tests were formulated and then a separate scoring key was made for each test. The general scoring procedures w i l l be discussed followed by a description of the scoring keys. Then a scoring key for each test has been included as well as a score sheet for marking student responses (Chart 4) and sample student protocols marked according to the scoring keys. A l l of the tests were marked in accordance with the following rules: a. Incorrect s p e l l i n g was not an error. The examiner was allowed to interpret according to the context of the story in which the s p e l l i n g error was made. For example, 'pant' was acceptable as 'plant' in the r e c a l l posttest (The Garden). b. Incorrect verb tense was not an error. For example, 'the man get on donkey' was acceptable. c. Ommission of connecting words such as and, a, the, to, and but was not an error. d. Incorrect c a p i t a l i z a t i o n or punctuation were not errors. e. Incomplete sentences were not errors. f. Certain word substitutions were allowed as indicated on each scoring key. Chart 5 - Score Sheet for Unprompted Recall Posttest Characters a b c Place a b c Goal a b c Beginning 1 a b Goal 1 a b Try 1 a b Result 1 a b Beginning 2 a b c Goal 2 a b Try 2 a b c Result 2 a b Beginning 3 a b c Goal 3 a b Try 3 a b c Result 3 a b Beginning 4 a b Goal 4 a b Try 4 a b c Result 4 a b Beginning 5 a b Goal 5 a b Try 5 a b Result 5 a b c Ending a b c 1 1 8 g. References within the subjects' protocols to previous text are allowed and marked as correct. For example, the student might p r i n t : The father wanted to get on the donkey and so he did. According to the scoring key, this represents only a goal (the father wanted to get on the donkey). The second half of the sentence (and so he did) does not match the possible responses on the scoring key for the category c a l l e d a try. However, the words "and so he did" refer to the fact that the father did get on the donkey. Therefore the student i s given credit for the try category and the sentence is marked as: The father wanted to get on the donkey and so he got on the donkey. Description of Scoring Keys The keys for the tests were formulated to be as objective as possible. The tests were administered in two d i f f e r e n t schools with f i v e d i f f e r e n t classes. The protocols from these schools were analyzed and the correct responses categorized into the story grammar (UR tests) or into the question numbers (PRD, PRI, CD, CI). The resulting scoring keys look l i k e a multiple choice test. Each UR story was parsed into the various story categories and subcategories. Each of the PR and comprehension stories were divided into 14 items. These test items were then divided into single or double point items. For example, in a UR test, the category "characters" might have included 2 people or animals. The possible points might be awarded as follows: mention of 2 characters would receive 2 points; any 1 character would receive 1 point, and no mention of characters would receive 0 points. For the PRD and PRI ,CD and CI tests, the question might require 2 answers ( i . e . t e l l two places Patrick looked for the t i c k e t ) . Two correct responses would receive 2 points; one correct response would receive 1 point and no response or an incorrect response would receive 0 points. A score sheet as shown in Chart 5 was then completed for each student for each test based on his or her written protocols. The subject's written responses had to match one of the possible answers on the scoring key in order to score points. 1 1 9 The possible answers on the scoring keys are written in as concise • a manner as possible with slashes to indicate the word "or" and brackets to indicate parts of sentences. For example, the following might be l i s t e d as a possible response: (go/rode/went/walk/taking donkey to) (city/town/store). This would allow any of the following student sentences to receive a point: Dad went to c i t y ; Boy walk town; Go store; rode to town. A second example would be: (Dad/Boy) (put/took/got) donkey on (dad/back/shoulders/top) OR Donkey (was on/got on) (top/dad/back/shoulders). This would allow any of the following sentences to receive points: He put donkey on top; Donkey got on shoulders; Boy took donkey on back. The general format of the scoring keys is as follows. The category (UR test) or question number (PRD, PRI, CD, CI) are in the l e f t hand column. The possible responses are printed in the next four columns. However, the column for no response and incorrect response has been deleted from the scoring keys for purposes of c l a r i t y . No responses and incorrect responses were recorded when marking the protocols, and awarded 0 points. The points awarded for the responses are d i r e c t l y under the possible responses. Scoring Keys Unprompted Recall Pretest - A Father, His Son, and the Donkey The following word substitutions are allowed in a l l of the subjects' written protocols: Father: Dad, man, he, I, you Son: boy, c h i l d , he, I, you Father & Son: they, the, their, we, us, Dad & Boy (or any other combination involving the separate substitutions for Father or for Son). There i s one item for which pronouns cannot be substituted for nouns. The written protocols must use the words Father, Dad, or Son, Boy to score points in the character category. 120 met: saw, heard, came to, looked, passed trade: s e l l , change donkey: he, i t people: them, they, persons, anyone, nobody, someone, kids boys, g i r l s , children Category Response A Response B Response C Charac. Father Son Response A and B 1 1 2 Place (go/rode/went/walk/, taking donkey to) (c ity/town/store) town/store) 1 s e l l donkey 1 (need/plant/get/for/ want/grow) wheat 1 they met kids 1 Man want boy (ride/ get on/go on) donkey OR Man said boy (can go/ get on/can ride) donkey OR (taking donkey to/ go/rode/went)(food- market/supermarket/ market) 1 (for/buy/plant/get/ want/need) seeds 1 Goal A Response A and B Goal B 2 Begin. 1 Goal 1 1 Man said (get on/go on/jump on) boy 1 Boy (hopped on/get up/ get on/go on/jump on/ went on/went up) donkey . 1 Boy (sat on/was on/ rode) donkey Try 1 Dad (put/made/let) boy (ride/on/get on) donkey 1 Father walk Result 1 Response A and B 1 1 2 Begin. 2 They met (lady/woman) 1 Boy want Dad (get on/ ride/get up) OR Boy said Dad (can go on/get on/take)donkey 1 Boy (jumped off/came off/climbed down/get off/went off/jumped off/went down/came down/down from) donkey 1 Dad (rides/on/get up/ get on/went on/climbed up/came on/jump on) 1 They saw man 1 Dad didn't want (hurt/ break) donkey's back 1 Goal 2 Boy walks 1 Response A and B Try 2 2 Result 2 Begin. 3 Goal 3 1 22 Try 3 Dad (went/jumped down/got off) 1 (picked up/carried) donkey 1 Response A and B 2 Result 3 (Dad/Boy)(took/put/ got) donkey on (dad/ shoulders/back/top) OR donkey (was on/got on) (top/dad/shoulders/ back) 1 They saw ( h i l l / mountain) 1 (need/want/had to) (climb/go up) 1 Dad (stumbled/fell/ tripped) 1 Donkey (fell/landed) OR ( f e l l / t r i p p e d ) with donkey Begin.4 Goal 4 Try 4 (over/on)(rock/ stone/boulder) 1 (on top/over/on) Response A and B Result 4 2 Response A and B 1 1 2 Ending Dad (won't/don't)(let/ want/allow) people (decide/ t e l l me what to)(think/do) OR Dad (won't/don't)(let/ want/allow) people boss (me/him) OR Dad said people (won't/don't)(tell me what to do/boss) Dad do what i s (best/good/right) Response A and B . 1 1 2 1 23 Unprompted Recall Posttest - The Garden The following word substitutions are allowed in a l l of the subjects' written protocols: seeds: sunflower seeds, them, i t , flowers, plants, flower seeds Frog: toad, he, cat, she, me, I, other animal Cat: frog, he, toad, me, I, other animal garden: yard, ground, s o i l shouted: yelled, t e l l s , said, screamed grow: come up, come up out of, came up, sprout, turn into want: would l i k e , wish a f r a i d : scared, frightened plants (verb): put in Category Response A Response B Response C Charac. frog/toad cat Response A and B 1 1 2 Place house/place 1 I (want/like) some seeds OR Can I have seeds OR said he didn't have (seeds/garden) 1 garden 1 want (one/plants/ grow/garden) OR Can I (have/get/ make) garden 2 Goal 124 Begin.1 (Take/have some/here) seeds OR (Do/if) you want (seeds/garden) OR Frog said (Here/there/ I give) seeds OR Frog give seeds OR (Here/there) seeds said frog 1 Cat wants plant seeds 1 Cat (digs/makes)(in ground/holes) 1 Cat (plants/puts) seed OR put one in each hole 1 Cat (walks/turns/went) (around/on dirt/about) Goal 1 Try 1 Result 1 Begin. 2 Cat waits Response A and B 1 1 2 Goal 2 Cat wants seeds grow 1 Cat (shouts/mad) seeds OR NOW SEEDS START GROW OR (said Cat/Cat said) (start/seed) grow OR (seeds/start)grow (Cat said/said Cat) Try 2 Cat puts (head/ face/mouth/ear) (down/close/near/ next to)(ground/ seeds) Response A and B 1 1 2 1 25 Result 2 Beg i n.3 Goal 3 Try 3 (seeds/garden)(would/ do) not (grow/come) OR There were no plants OR Nothing grew 1 Frog (walked by/came/ passed by/ran up) 1 Frog (wants to find out/asked) about noise OR What (is/the)(noise/ shout ing/racket) OR (Why you/Who/How come) shout ing 1 Frog said (because you/ Two responses Frog (came/walked/ ran)(up/down/along) (garden/house/path) OR Frog (came/ran) cat's (garden/house not to/to stop) shout OR You (make much noise) bugging them) OR Wait ( u n t i 1 / f o r ) ( r a i n / sun) OR (Let/they need)(rain/ sun)(shine/pour/fall/ come on them/get on them) OR Leave in (rain/sun) OR Let seeds (grow i n / s i t in/have)(rain/sun) OR Frog (explained/told cat) what to do OR from Column A 126 Result 3 Begin.4 Goal 4 Try 4 Result 4 Leave seeds (alone/for a while/for days) OR (Give them/they need) (a break/time) OR (Wait/it takesHa few days/a couple of days/ some days/a while) OR Let them (rest for day/grow by themselves) 1 Seeds grow Cat looks out 1 Cat doesn't want seeds to be a f r a i d OR Cat (thinks/said) seeds a f r a i d OR Seeds (scared of dark/ a f r a i d at night) 1 Cat (light/goes with/ brought/put/got/went with) candle OR (sing/read/do nice stuff/play music/read story/try everything to make garden grow) 1 Seeds do not grow Two responses from Column A Begin.5 Cat (was/feels/became/ got)(t i red/sleepy) Goal 5 1 Cat (went to/wants to/ fall s ) ( a s l e e p / s l e e p ) OR Cat took nap i Try 5 i Frog said Wake up/Wake up said frog OR Frog wakes Cat OR Frog y e l l e d so Cat woke up 1 Green (sprouts/things/ stems/stuff)(growing/ coming) OR (plants/garden) grow OR (green bud/seed grew) OR (planted with/there were) flowers Result Cat (looks a t / went to) garden Response A and B 1 1 2 Ending Cat (happy/smiled/ pleased) OR Cat has (b e a u t i f u l / nice/fine) garden OR Cat (think/know/said) garden i s ( d i f f i c u l t / hard) OR It was hard (work/have garden/grow flowers) OR Seeds aren't scare 1 Two responses from Column A 2 1 28 Prompted Recall Detail and Inference - Patrick Lost His Ticket The Yellow Moon Any of the following word substitutions are allowed in a l l of the subjects' written protocols: Patrick: he, him t i c k e t : i t cap: hat jacket: coat bus dr i v e r : he, him mittens: gloves Category Response A Response B Response C 1 (infer) No/nope/didn't OR Did not l i v e (close/ near) school OR Lived far 1 Bus 1 2 (detail) 3 (detail) (put/got in/take/got/ wore/picked up/did not forget)(lunch/cap/ jacket/mittens) 1 Two responses from Column A 2 4 (infer) to get (school/ride/ on bus) OR else he couldn't get to school OR 1 29 (detail) (infer) 7 (infer) . 8 (detail) couldn't go without ticket OR he give i t bus driver OR for bus 1 i f (he/you)(had/got) t icket OR (have/did/do) you (got/bring/have)ticket OR have your ticket Patrick? 1 (not good/unhappy/bad/ ucky/awful/mean/angry/ not happy/sorry/sad) 1 (could not find/did not have/lost/had no/ did not find) ticket OR tic k e t (gone/lost) OR didn't know where ti c k e t was 1 (mitten/glove/lunch/ jacket/coat/pocket/ pant/shirt/jeans) ( a f r a i d / u n l i k i n g / worried/hate/ didn't like/scared) OR (want/wish/felt) ( f r i e n d s / l i k e him) OR thought dog bad OR would be nice dog OR wanted (dog be nice to him/to l i k e him) Two responses from Column A 1 30 (detail) (infer) 1 1 (detail) 1 2 (detail) 1 3 (infer) 1 4 (infer) laughed ticket (where he put i t / i n front) OR ticket (stuck in/on/ in/under) cap OR said l o s t ticket 1 (f inding/taking/ getting/giving)ticket OR (pull/took) ticket out OR took ti c k e t (off/out) OR took cap gave ticket 1 (cap/hat) (play/work/cry/cross street/think about i t / thank bus driver) 1 (happy/exc ited/funny/ surpr i sed/unhappy/sad/ mad/scared) people (saw t i c k e t / know where i t is) OR he lost t i c k e t but i t wasn't l o s t OR Patrick lost t i c k e t but didn't OR said didn't have tic k e t but did OR Patrick (couldn't/ didn't) (know/see) t icket (get/pull/take/ find) ticket (out of/from/of f/under) (cap/him/hat) OR OR look on hat and found ticket (go to/walk to) school (embarrassed/upset/ ashamed/nervous/ shy/concerned/dumb/ shameful/silly/ worried) 131 Comprehension Detail and Inference - The Yellow Moon The Yellow Moon The following substitutions are allowed in any of the subjects' written protocols. toad: frog, he, she, I bugs: ants, insects, ladybugs, animals, they g i r l : she, c h i l d , boy moon: i t balloon: b a l l broke: popped, wrecked, exploded, destroyed Quest ion Column A Column B Column C 1 (detail) ladybugs 1 2 (detail) moon (fallen/down) 1 3 (infer) Any reasonable answer 1 4 (detail) (rubbed/wiped) eyes 1 5 (infer) toaddooked at/saw/ touched)(rope/twine/ string) OR (moon had/because of/ there was) s t r i n g / rope/twine) 132 (infer) (detail) 8 (infer) (detail) OR string (attached/was on) moon down/ up) moon 1 (moon was not toad get moon OR toad (kick/put) OR (so toad would not kick bugs/might h i t them) OR bugs thought (toad could put moon up again/moon would f a l l on them) OR they (didn't want to get kicked/could have got hurt) OR moon might (pop/hit someone) 1 k ic ked 1 was happy/ brave/animals everyone toad was saw moon OR toad (kicked/put/got) moon (back/in place/up) OR moon (went up/in sky/ back) OR toad did (something helpful/something amazing/a good thing) 1 moon 1 33 1 0 (infer) balloon (popped/not there/gone/missing) OR to see who pop balloon OR someone pop balloon 1 who wrecked balloon 1 (dropped/look f o r / had l o s t / f o r g o t / left/couldn't f i n d / trying to find) balloon OR (see if/because) balloon was there OR (see/get/f ind/for) balloon (11) (detail) 1 2 (detail) (didn't/no one/never) (care/mind/worry) OR not sorry OR no one (care/mind/ worry) 1 toad 1 1 3 (infer) 1 4 (infer) sky 1 (under/hidden by/ behind)(cloud/tree/ house/smoke) OR up in clouds 2 1 34 Samples of Student Protocols Ten student protocols are included for i l l u s t r a t i n g the scoring procedures. They have been typed for purposes of c l a r i t y but are otherwise unchanged. After each protocol, there is a s p e c i f i c score given for the student's reponses. Examples from a l l of the researcher designed tests are given. Unprompted Recall Pretest Protocols Student A The fother was on The Doncky and he f e l l down the h i l l . This subject was given cr e d i t for the following categories: Characters (1 point); Result 2 (1 point) and Try 4 (1 point). As Subject A did not mention the Boy from the story, he/she only received part marks in the characters category. This example i l l u s t r a t e s protocols that received low scores on this t e s t . Student B frthar whet to the mrkit. The docky wush bad. They whr coen to pla t s . A men bot the docky Points were awarded as follows: Characters (1 point) and Place (2 points). This subject used a format that was t y p i c a l for many of the protocols. The story was written in point form. Each thought on a new l i n e . The la s t two sentences received no points. Student C Once there l i v e d a man with a boy and a donkey. The man ad the boy hade no wheat for there donkey so they went to the store to get some seeds, on there way to the store they met some children, there 1 35 Student C represents protocols from students using a story format_during r e c a l l . Some children attempted to write a story including as many d e t a i l s as possible. Usually they were only able to include the very beginning of the story. Points for Student C were given for these categories: Characters (2); Place ( 1 ) ; Goal A ( 1 ) and Beginning 1 ( 1 ) . Unprompted Recall Posttest Protocols Student D The frog had a Petty graden The cat sed you heve a nice graden here teck the sass and pant the sass wuot not grow so the shutd then the cam bye and the cat sad my sass Points for Student D were given for these categories: Characters (2), Place ( 1 ) , Beginning 1 ( 1 ) and Result 2 ( 1 ) . This protocol i l l u s t r a t e s the type of responses that received low scores. Also, i t should be noted that the student's sentence "so the shutd then the cam bye" was not given points because some key words are missing and cannot be inferred by reference to previous text. The student would have had to print "so cat shouted at seeds frog came by" in order to score points. Student E the seds wudint grow he sang a song he sed a store te seds did i n t growe the frog t o l d him to plant the seds The following points were given for t h i s protocol: Characters (1), Result 2 (1), Try 4 (2) and Result 4 (1). The spe l l i n g mistakes (wudint, sed) and punctuation and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n mistakes were ignored.. Student F Frog was in the garden when cat came walking and 1 36 said What a fine garden you have I wish I could have one. said cat well here is some seeds for you to planet. So off went cat. to planet his seeds when he came home. he went in the grass to dig a hole and then when he was done he put seeds and then waited for them to grow, after a while later cat started to y e l l at the plant he y e l l Start growing plant Frog came running to what was wrong. Then he could see what was wrong cat was y e l l i n g at the planet. Frog said don't do that you are destorving them. then after and an hour or so f e l l night that night This protocol represents r e c a l l s from students receiving high scores. Points were awarded as follows: Characters (2), Place (2), Goal (2), Beginning 1 (1), Try 1 (1), Result 1 (1), Beginning 2 (1), Try 2 (1), Beginning 3 (1) and Try 3 (1). There is an example of a reference ot previous text in this protocol. The students wrote, "Then he could see what was wrong cat was y e l l i n g at the planet. Frog said don't do that you are destorving them". In the scoring key, these sentences correspond to the Try 3 category. However, for this category the student must write "Frog said to stop shout/yell". But Student F did not use these words. Student F wrote "Frog said don't do that". however the word "that" refers to " y e l l i n g at the plants". Therefore, Student F is given c r e d i t for Try 3. Comprehension Deta i l and Inference Protocols Student G 1. Yes he did l i v e across the school 2. at the bus stop 3. his blue mittins and coat 4. 5. 6. sad 1 37 7. he loast his Ticket 8. 9. happy 10. He t r i d e to loke for i t 11. f ind i t 12. under the stars 13. glad that he fond 14. Student G did not answer questions 4, 5, 8 and 14 and therefore scored 0 points for these questions. Furthermore, the answers to questions 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 12 and 13 are incorrect and therefore receive 0 points. The only correct responses were question 6 (1) and 7 (1). This protocol i s an example of those receiving extremely low scores. It also demonstrates a scoring procedure in which context can influence the f i n a l score. For question 3, the student response i s "At the Bus stop". The correct response i s "bus". The question was: How did Patrick get to school every day? Although Student G had the word "bus" in the answer, no points were given because the context in which "bus" i s printed is incorrect as an answer. Student H NO by bus Put on his blue jacket, and cap for the bus did he have the ticket he wanted to l i k e him he thout he lost his t i c k e t in his poket and in his jeans laugh the t i c k e t was in his cap he showed him wher the ticket was in his cap go to school shamful This protocol i l l u s t r a t e s responses from students receiving high marks for this t e s t . Points were awarded as follows: question 11 was incorrect and received 0 points; questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 12 received 1 point; Questions 3, 6, 8, 13 and 14 received 2 points. 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1 1 . 12. 13. 14. 1 38 Prompted D e t a i l and Inference P r o t o c o l s Student I 1 . 2 . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 . dugs The moon f e l l SO toad can kik i t 8. Beus She kik The moon dack 9. moon 10. To get her b a l l o o n . 11. wher was her b a l l o o n . 12. 13. animals 14. In the path Student I was awarded p o i n t s as f o l l o w s : 3, 4, 5, 7 , and 12 (0 p o i n t s - no answer); 11, 13, 14 (0 p o i n t s - i n c o r r e c t responses); 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9 (1 p o i n t ) and 10 (2 p o i n t s ) . T h i s p r o t o c o l r e c e i v e d a. r e l a t i v e l y low sc o r e . 1. A l l the bugs i n the garden. 2. The moon has f a l l e n . 3. Because the moon can't f a l l out of the sky. 4. Rub t h e i r eyes 5. Because there was a s t r i n g on i t . 6. Because the toad t o l d them t o . 7. By k i c k i n g i t . 8. She put back the moon. 9. The moon. 10. To get her b a l l o o n . 11. Who broke my yellow b a l l o o n . 12. They d i d n ' t c a r e . 13. The toad. 14. Up i n the sky behind the c l o u d s . T h i s i s an example of p r o t o c o l s r e c e i v i n g h i g h scores f o r t h i s t e s t . N o tice that the s p e l l i n g , c a p i t a l i z a t i o n and punctuation are good. Many of the c h i l d r e n who had high scores were able to p r i n t i n a s i m i l a r manner. However, there were some c h i l d r e n who c o u l d p r i n t the c o r r e c t answer, but with many more mistakes. The p o i n t s were awarded as f o l l o w s : q u e s t i o n 6 (0 p o i n t s - i n c o r r e c t response); q u e s t i o n s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 , 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 (1 p o i n t ) ; q u e s t i o n s 10 and 14 (2 p o i n t s ) . Student J 1 39 A P P E N D I X D - T A B L E S OF MEANS AND STANDARD D E V I A T I O N S FOR P O S T T E S T S This appendix contains the Tables with the adjusted means and standard deviations for the posttests for both the analysis of covariance with method, class and sex as independent variables and for the analysis of covariance with method, class and a b i l i t y as independent variables. Table XVII - Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Boys and G i r l s for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Unprompted Recall Test Story Modi f ied Regular Totals Grammar Reading Reading Sex __ Boys X 9.54 9. 72 11.02 10.14 s (4.19) (3.21) (3.23) (3.70) G i r l s X 1 2.40 1 1 .59 1 1 .02 1 1 .55 s (4.43) (3.12) (3.96) (3.88) Totals X 11.01 10.72 10.94 10.90 s (4.52) (3.25) (3.68) (3.91) 1 40 Table XVIII - Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Boys and G i r l s for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Achieve Test Story Grammar Modi f ied Reading Regular Reading Totals Sex Boys X 72.91 70.47 76.22 73.28 s (16.45) (14.61) ( 1 T.73) (14.75) G i r l s X 73.37 76.60 73.80 73.28 s (15.03) ( 12.83) (12.37) (13.38) Totals X 73.51 73.75 74.72 73.97 s (15.66) (13.84) (12.00) (14.05) Table XIX - Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Boys and G i r l s for the Teaching Methods and the Total Population for the Comprehension Detail Test Story Grammar Modi f ied Reading Regular Reading Totals Sex Boys X 4.70 3.77 4.30 4.19 s (1.52) ( 1 .58) (1.61) (1 .59) G i r l s X 4.18 4.31 3.83 4.11 X (1.65) ( 1 .80) (1.48) (1.62) Totals X 4.43 4.08 3.90 4.15 s (1.59) (1.70) (1.52) (1.60) 141 Table XX - Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Boys and G i r l s for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Comprehension Inference Test Story Grammar Modi f ied Reading Regular Reading Totals Sex Boys X 4.70 3.88 4.61 4.39 s (2.15) (2.66) (2.30) (2.35) G i r l s X 4.46 4.48 4.44 4.49 s (2.17) (2.17) (2.16) (2.08) Totals X 4.56 4.23 4.50 4.44 s (2.15) (2.28) (2.19) (2.21 ) Table XXI - Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Boys and G i r l s for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Prompted Detail Test Story Grammar Modi f ied Reading Regular Reading Totals Sex Boys X 5.90 5.52 5.80 5.78 s (2.56) (2.02) (1.89) (2.21 ) G i r l s X 5.86 6.48 5.58 5.93 s (2.65) (1.84) (1.75) (2.11) Totals X 5.89 6.03 5.66 5.86 s (2.58) (1.96) ( 1.79) (2.16) 1 42 Table XXII - Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Boys and G i r l s for the Methods and Total Population for the Prompted Inference Test Story Grammar Modi f ied Reading Regular Reading Totals Sex Boys X 7.04 6.75 6.94 6.94 s (2.72) (2.57) . (2.20) (2.51 ) G i r l s X 6.96 . 7.53 7.23 7.22 s (2.66) (2.37) (2.18) (2.40) Totals X 7.02 7.17 7.10 7.09 s (2.67) (2.46) (2.19) (2.46) Table XXIII - Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Good and Poor Readers for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Achieve Test Story Grammar Modi f ied Reading Regular Reading Totals A b i l i t y Good X 81 .66 81.16 79. 1 3 80.34 s (7.05) (6.83) (9.46) (7.88) Poor X 61 .93 64.92 69.77 65.53 s (15.20) (13.57) (13.26) (14.49) Totals X 73. 18 74. 16 74.71 73.97 s (15.66) (13.84) (12.01) (14.05) 1 43 Table XXIV - Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Good and Poor Readers for the Teaching Methods and the Total Population for the Comprehension Detail Test Story Grammar Modi f ied Reading Regular Readi ng Totals A b i l i t y Good X 4. 98 4.75 4.15 4.64 s (1.08) (1.55) (1.59) (1.43) Poor X 3.69 3.24 3.64 3.51 s (1.69) (1.37) ( 1 .34) (1.50) Totals X 4.43 4.09 3.89 4.15 s (1.59) (a.70) (1.52) (1.60) Table XXV - Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Good and Poor Readers for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Comprehension Inference Test Story Grammar Modi f ied Reading Regular Reading Totals A b i l i t y Good X 5.21 4.97 5.04 5.09 s (1.45) (1.89) (2.08) (1.88) Poor X 3.68 3.30 3.83 3.59 s (2.42) (1.94) (2.15) (2.19) Totals X 4.56 4.20 4.51 4.44 X (2.15) (2.280 (2.19) (2.21 ) 1 44 Table XXVI - Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Good and Poor Readers for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Prompted Detail Test Story Grammar Modi f ied Readi ng Regular Readi ng Totals A b i l i t y Good X 7.08 6.17 6.01 6.48 s (1.77) (1.61) ( 1 .56) (1.70) Poor X 4.24 5.81 5.33 5.04 s (2.34) (2.26) (2.06) (2.33) Totals X 5.86 6.07 5.66 5.86 s (2.58) (1.96) ( 1 .79) (2.16) Table XXVII - Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Good and Poor Readers for the Teaching Methods and Total Population for the Prompted Inference Test Story Grammar Modi f ied Reading Regular Reading Totals A b i l i t y Good X 7.92 7.74 7.35 7.75 s (1.93) (2.19) (2.14) (2.06) Poor X 5.75 6.48 6.92 6.22 s (2.79) (2.52) (2.29) (2.61) Totals X 6.99 7.21 7.11 7.09 s (2.67) (2.47) (2.19) (2.46) 1 45 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Beck, I.L., Omanson, R.C, McKeown, M.G. An in s t r u c t i o n a l redesign of reading lessons: Effects on comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 1982, j_7, 462-481. 2. Black, J.B. & Bower, G.H. Story understanding as problem-solving. Poetics, 1980, 9, 223-250. 3. Bowman, M. & Gambrell, L. The effects of story structure questioning upon reading comprehension. Los Angeles, Ca: American Educational Research Association, 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number ED 203 301) 4. Clymer, T. Reading 720: Teacher's E d i t i o n . Canada: Ginn, 1978. 5. Fass, W. & Schumacher, G.M. Schema theory and prose retention: Boundary conditions for encoding and r e t r i e v a l e f f e c t s . Discourse Processes, 1981, 4, 17-26. 6. Glass, G.V. Stanford achievement test: Reading tests, 1973 e d i t i o n . In O.K. Buros (Ed.), The eighth mental measurements yearbook (Vol. 2). Highland Park, N.J.: Gryphon, 1978. 7. Goetz, E.T. & Armbruster, B.B. Psychological correlates of text structure. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce, & W.F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (Vol. 1). H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980. 8. Gordon, C.J. The effects of instruction in metacomprehension and inferencing on children's comprehension a b i l i t i e s . Unpublished doctoral dissertaion, University of Minnesota, 1980. 9. Greig, M. & Bjerring, J. University of B r i t i s h Columbia GENLIN. Vancouver, B.C.: University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977. 10. Guthrie, J.T. Story comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 1977, 30, 574-577. 11. Johnson, N.S. & Mandler, J.M. A tale of two structures: Underlying and surface forms in st o r i e s . Poetics, 1980, 9, 51-86. 12. King, E.M. (Ed.) Canadian Tests of Basic S k i l l s : Manual for Administrators, Supervisors and Counsellors. Canada: Nelson, 1976. 13. Kintsch, W. Memory for prose. . In C.N. Cofer (Ed.), The structure of human memory. San Francisco, Ca. : Freeman, 1 46 1976. 14. Kintsch, W. & Keenan, J. Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 1973, 5_, 257-274. 15. McCartney, R.A. & Nelson, K. Children's use of s c r i p t s in story r e c a l l . Discourse Processes, 1980, 4, 59-70. 16. McCrae, S. Story grammar instruction in the intermediate grades. Unpublished major paper, University of V i c t o r i a , 1982. 17. Madden, R., Gardner, E.F., Rudman, H.C., Kalsen, B. & Merwin, J.C. Stanford Achievement Test, Norms Booklet, Form A, Primary Level 2. New York, N.Y.: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1973. 18. Mandler, J.M. Some uses and abuses of a story grammar. Discourse Processes, 1982, 5, 305-318. 19. Mandler, J.M. & Goodman, M.S. On the psychological v a l i d i t y of story structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1982, 2_, 507-523. 20. Mandler, J.M. & Johnson, N.S. Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and r e c a l l . Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9, 111-151. 21. Mandler, J.M. & Johnson, N.S. On throwing out the baby with the bathwater: A reply to Black and Wilensky's evaluation of story grammars. Cognitive Science, 1980, 4, 305-312. 22. Nelson, K.A. The relationship between story grammar instruction and f i r s t graders' understanding of narrative material. Unpublished master's thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1982. 23. Nezworski, T., Stein, N.L., & Trabasso, T. Story structure versus content in children's r e c a l l . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1982, 2_, 196-206. 24. Omanson, R.C. An analysis of narratives: Identifying c e n t r a l , supportive and d i s t r a c t i n g content. Discourse Processes, 1982, 5, 195-224. 25. Pearson, P.D. & Camperell, K. Comprehension of text structures. In J.T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews. Newark, D.E..: International Reading Association, 1981. 26. Rankin, E.F. Stanford achievement test: Reading tests, 1 47 1973 e d i t i o n . In O.K. Buros ( E d . ) , The e i g h t h mental measurements yearbook ( V o l . 2 ) . H i g h l a n d P ark, N.J.: Gryphon, 1978. 27. Rumelhart, D.E. U n d e r s t a n d i n g and summarizing b r i e f s t o r i e s . In D. Laberge & S.J. Samuels ( E d s . ) , B a s i c p r o c e s s e s i n r e a d i n g : P e r c e p t i o n and comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. 28. Rumelhart, D.E. Schemata: The b u i l d i n g b l o c k s of c o g n i t i o n . In R.J. S p i r o , B.C. Bruce, & W.F. Brewer ( E d s . ) , T h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s i n r e a d i n g comprehension ( V o l . 1). H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980. 29. Rumelhart, D.E., & O r t o n y , A. The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of knowledge i n memory. In R.C. Anderson, R.J. S p i r o , & W.E. Montague ( E d s . ) , S c h o o l i n g and the a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. 30. Ryan, E.B., S h e r i d a n , E.M. & S h o r t , E . J . Schema u t i l i z a t i o n by s k i l l e d and l e s s s k i l l e d s i x t h grade r e a d e r s . Los A n g e l e s , Ca: American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , 1981. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e Number ED 205 908) 31. Sadow, M.W. The use of s t o r y grammar i n t h e d e s i g n of q u e s t i o n s . The Reading Teacher, 1982 35, 518-521. 32. S a l v i a , J . & Y s s e l d y k e , J.E. Assessment i n s p e c i a l and r e m e d i a l e d u c a t i o n . B o s t o n , Mass.: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1 981 . 33. S i n g e r , H. & Donlan, D. A c t i v e comprehension: Problem- s o l v i n g schema w i t h q u e s t i o n g e n e r a t i o n f o r comprehension of complex s h o r t s t o r i e s . Reading R e s e a r c h Q u a t e r l y , 1982, __7, 166-186. 34. S i n g e r , H. & Dreher, M. S t o r y grammar i n s t r u c t i o n u nnecessary f o r i n t e r m e d i a t e grade s t u d e n t s . The Reading Teacher, 1980, 34, 261-268. 35. S t e i n , N.L. How c h i l d r e n u n d e r s t a n d s t o r i e s : A d e v e l o p m e n t a l a n a l y s i s . In L.G. Katz ( E d . ) , C u r r e n t t o p i c s i n e a r l y c h i l d h o o d e d u c a t i o n ( V o l . 2 ) . Norwood, N.J.: A b l e x , 1979. 36. S t e i n , N.L. What's i n a s t o r y : I n t e r p r e t i n g the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of s t o r y grammars. D i s c o u r s e P r o c e s s e s , 1982, 5, 319-335. 37. S t e i n , N.L. & Glenn, C.G. An a n a l y s i s of s t o r y comprehension i n e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . In R.O. F r e e d l e ( E d . ) , New d i r e c t i o n s i n d i s c o u r s e p r o d u c t i o n ( V o l . 2 ) . Norwood, N.J.: A b l e x , 1979. 1 4 8 38. Stein, N.L. & Glenn, C.G. Children's concept of time: The development of a story schema. In W.J. Friedman (Ed.), The developmental psychology of time. New York, N.Y.: Academic Press, 1982. 39. Spiegel, D.L. & Whaley, J.F. Elevating comprehension s k i l l s by s e n s i t i z i n g students to structural aspects of narrat ives. San Diego, Ca: National Reading Conference, 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number ED 199 634) 40. Spiro, R.J. Schema theory and reading comprehension: New dir e c t i o n s. Technical Report No. 191. Cambridge, Mass.: I l l i n o i s University, 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number ED 199 662) 41. Spiro, R.J. Long-term comprehension: Schema-based versus experiential and evaluative understanding. Poetics, 1982, _ M , 77-86. 42. Stevens, B. Children's awareness of story order. Madison, Wis.: Wisconsin University, 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number ED 209 659) 43. Thorndyke, P.W. Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9, 77-110. 44. Thorndyke, P.W. & Yekovich, F.R. A c r i t i q u e of schema- based theories of human story memory. Poetics, 1980, 9, 23-50. 45. Weaver, P.A. & Dickinson, D.R. Scratching below the surface structure: Exploring the usefulness of story grammars. Discourse Processes, 1982, 5, 225-243. 46. Whaley, J.F. Story grammars and reading i n s t r u c t i o n . The Reading Teacher, 1981a, 34, 762-771. 47. Whaley, J.F. Reader's expectations for story structures. Reading Research Quarterly, 1 98 1 b, 90-114.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 7 2
United States 4 3
Japan 3 0
Philippines 2 0
Taiwan 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 7 0
Unknown 4 1
Tokyo 3 0
Absecon 1 0
Redmond 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

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

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items