UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The development of cognitive skills in the preschool child Bauslaugh, Ann 1975

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A8 B39.pdf [ 5.49MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093400.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093400-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093400-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093400-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093400-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093400-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093400-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093400-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093400.ris

Full Text

THE DEVELOPMENT CF COGNITIVE SKILLS IN THE PRESCHOOL CHILD BY ANN BAUSLAUGH B.A. McGill University, 1962 A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1975 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thes is for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t i on of th is thes is fo r f i nanc ia l .gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of £ n i DJ^ l^Aj O c i i £ J i i r/if>cAA, The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date Qpfaoxju if I9l<> ABSTRACT The study attempted t o e v a l u a t e the l e v e l s o f c o g n i -t i v e s k i l l s o f k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n a t t e n d i n g day c a r e , and the apparent growth o f c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s over a p e r i o d o f time, u s i n g p u b l i s h e d t e s t s as instruments o f measure-ment. An i n f o r m a l e v a l u a t i o n o f the t e s t s was made. The review o f l i t e r a t u r e p r e s e n t e d t h r e e p o i n t s o f view r e g a r d i n g approaches t o the development o f c o g n i -t i v e s k i l l s . An a n a l y s i s o f the dat a , u s i n g t - t e s t s , was c a r r i e d out and c o n c l u s i o n s were s t a t e d . I m p l i c a t i o n s o f the study were made, and q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the growth of c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s o f k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n a t t e n d i n g day ca r e c e n t r e s were r a i s e d . i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. THE PROBLEM 1 Background of the Problem 1 Questions of the Study 4 Importance of the Study 6 De f i n i t i o n s of Terms 7 Limitations of the Study 8 Organization of the Paper 9 II . REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH 11 Interdependence of Cognitive and A f f e c t i v e Domains 11 Defining Cognition 12 J u s t i f i c a t i o n for S p e c i f i c Training i n Cognition 13 Approaches to Cognitive Development 15 Natural Maturation Point of View 16 H i s t o r i c a l Perspective 16 Implications f o r C u r r i c u l a 18 The Continuous Progress Point of View .... 20 H i s t o r i c a l Perspective 21 Influences on Curriculum Design 26 S k i l l s A c q u i s i t i o n 28 H i s t o r i c a l Perspective 28 Influence on Curriculum Design ....... 30 Summary 31 I I I . DESIGN OF THE STUDY 44 Subjects , 44 Materials < 45 Procedures 47 February Testing 47 iv CHAPTER PAGE June Testing 47 Test Correction and Scoring 48 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA 50 Results of t-Test Analyses 50 Results of Test Evaluation 54 Range of Scores 54 V a l i d i t y 54 C l a r i t y of Instructions 54 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 57 Summary of Findings 57 S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis for Cognitive S k i l l s . 57 C r i t i c a l Evaluation of Boehm/Slater Test .. 58 Conclusions 59 Implications of the Study 60 Further Questions to be Investigated 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY 62 APPENDICES * 72 A. Scores on February 1975 Testing 74 B. Scores on June 1975 Testing 80 -V LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. R e s u l t s of t-Tests to Analyse S i g n i f i c a n c e of D i f f e r e n c e of Means on Subtests and Test T o t a l of the Boehm/Slater: C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s Assessment B a t t e r y 51 I I . R e s u l t s of t-Test to Compare D i f f e r e n c e s Between Mean Scores on the L e t t e r Knowledge -Le v e l One ( I d e n t i f y i n g ) Subtest of the Murphy-D u r r e l l Reading Readiness A n a l y s i s 53 I I I . R e s u l t s of Test E v a l u a t i o n of Subtests of Boehm/ S l a t e r : C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s Assessment B a t t e r y . 56 v i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The w r i t e r wishes to express her g r a t i t u d e t o her a d v i s o r , Dr. Cora Paton, f o r time f r e e l y g i v e n over the pas t year, and f o r her encouragement i n the f i e l d of e a r l y c h i l d -hood e d u c a t i o n . The w r i t e r s i n c e r e l y thanks Dr. Jane C a t t e r s o n whose advice and a s s i s t a n c e d u r i n g the p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s paper were i n v a l u a b l e , and whose d e v o t i o n to t e a c h i n g was an i n s p i r a t i o n . The c o o p e r a t i o n and i n t e r e s t o f the s u p e r v i s o r s and c h i l d r e n who took p a r t i n the study was a p p r e c i a t e d . CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The study was concerned w i t h an e v a l u a t i o n o f the l e v e l s o f c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s o f k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n a t t e n d i n g day c a r e c e n t r e s and was d i r e c t e d a t answering two g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s : 1) What is^ the apparent growth i n c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s o f c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d i n day care c e n t r e s a t t e n d i n g p u b l i c k i n d e r g a r t e n when the instrument o f measurement i s the Boehm/Slater: C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s Assessment B a t t e r y and the L e t t e r Knowledge - L e v e l One ( I d e n t i f y i n g ) sub-t e s t o f the Murphy-Durrell Reading Readiness A n a l y s i s ? 2) What i s the evidence c o n c e r n i n g the u s e f u l n e s s of the Boehm/Slater: C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s Assessment B a t t e r y as an assessment instrument i n such s t u d i e s as the one d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s paper, and f o r e v a l u a t i o n o f p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n by t e a c h e r s and s u p e r v i s o r s ? BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM C h i l d r e n ' s p r e s c h o o l years have long been acknowledged to be o f prime importance f o r t h e i r l a t e r development. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , these years have been spent i n the home, car e d f o r by the mother o f the f a m i l y . In r e c e n t y e a r s , however, more mothers, by c h o i c e or n e c e s s i t y , have been a c c e p t i n g employment o u t s i d e the home and p l a c i n g t h e i r c h i l d r e n i n day c a r e c e n t r e s . I n i t i a l l y these mothers were seeking c u s t o d i a l c a r e f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n , and e a r l y day c a r e c e n t r e s were p r i m a r i l y con-cerned w i t h p r o v i d i n g a s a f e and h e a l t h f u l environment. Subsequently concern was expressed over the c o g n i t i v e and 1 2 a f f e c t i v e a s p e c t s of the c h i l d r e n ' s development as w e l l as t h e i r p h y s i c a l w e l l b e i n g . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the apparent dichotomy between c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e development has sometimes l e d to emphasis on one a r e a to the d e t r i m e n t o f the o t h e r . T h i s s i t u a t i o n need not be, as the two a s p e c t s should complement each o t h e r and, indeed, must complement each o t h e r . During the l a s t few y e a r s i t can be seen t h a t such a d i v i s i o n has i n f a c t e x i s t e d . In r e a c t i o n to a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m and emphasis on s t r u c t u r e d l e a r n i n g found i n p u b l i c s c h o o l s , p r e s c h o o l s , i n c l u d i n g day care c e n t r e s , n u r s e r y s c h o o l s and k i n d e r -g a r t e n s , tended to focus on the a f f e c t i v e a s p e c t s o f c h i l d r e n ' s development. More r e c e n t l y , however, as p a r e n t s became d i s t u r b e d over academic i n a d e q u a c i e s i n t h e i r o l d e r c h i l d r e n , a t t e n t i o n i n the p r e s c h o o l s has been foc u s e d on c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s and attempts have been made to a v o i d l a t e r s c h o o l f a i l u r e s by programmes o f e a r l y i n t e r v e n t i o n . The importance o f the n u r t u r i n g of c o g n i t i v e growth i n k i n d e r g a r t e n s and day c a r e c e n t r e s i s , t h e r e f o r e , a s u b j e c t which, though always t o p i c a l , w i l l b e g i n to take on s p e c i a l importance as k i n d e r g a r t e n s and day c a r e c e n t r e s p r o l i f e r a t e i n Canada g e n e r a l l y , and B r i t i s h Columbia s p e c i f i c a l l y . The p r e c i s e r o l e o f these i n s t i t u t i o n s i n the e d u c a t i o n o f young c h i l d r e n i s bound to be i n c r e a s i n g l y c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n and some e n q u i r i e s w i l l be concerned more w i t h c o g n i t i v e than a f f e c t i v e f a c t o r s . As e n q u i r i e s b e g i n to be made, some a t t e n t i o n w i l l be focused on d e f i n i t i o n s o f c o g n i t i v e development, w i t h t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n f o r c u r r i c u l a and t e s t s designed to measure the p r o d u c t s of c u r r i c u l a . C o g n i t i v e development has been d e f i n e d as "the r e c a l l o r r e c o g n i t i o n of knowledge and the development o f i n t e l l e c t u a l . . 1 2 a b i l i t i e s and s k i l l s . " Some a u t h o r i t i e s a l s o i n c l u d e g r o s s and f i n e motor development under the g e n e r a l r u b r i c o f c o g n i t i o n , p o i n t i n g out t h a t muscle c o n t r o l i s the b a s i s f o r 3 much primary l e v e l l e a r n i n g . General d e f i n i t i o n s are u s u a l l y e a s i e r to agree upon than s p e c i f i c d e f i n i t i o n s , however, s i n c e s p e c i f i c s t a t e -ments tend to have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r programmes designed t o encourage growth i n s p e c i f i e d a r e a s . Most c u r r e n t thought i n c u r r i c u l u m development and t e s t d e s i g n , i n f a c t , i n -v o l v e s statements about o b j e c t i v e s and how to a c h i e v e and a s s e s s them, r a t h e r than statements about g e n e r a l p h i l o s -ophy . B a s i c a l l y t h e r e i s agreement t h a t c h i l d r e n ' s c o g n i t i v e growth i s an important a s p e c t of the development of t h e i r whole b e i n g s . I t i s i n the approach to the n u r t u r i n g o f t h a t growth t h a t c o n f l i c t of o p i n i o n a r i s e s . Three p o i n t s o f view seem t o be r e f l e c t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e . The f i r s t view, which c o u l d be c a l l e d the " n a t u r a l m a t u r a t i o n " view, h o l d s t h a t c h i l d r e n have w i t h i n them-s e l v e s a c e r t a i n degree of p o t e n t i a l which w i l l n a t u r a l l y u n f o l d , g i v e n enough time. Proponents of t h i s view would a d v i s e w a i t i n g u n t i l the c h i l d matures. They would suggest t h a t w h i l e one should not w i t h o l d s t i m u l i , one should not a c t i v e l y p r o v i d e c a t a l y s t s t o development. The second view c o u l d be c a l l e d the "continuous p r o g r e s s " approach, r e f e r r i n g to the f a c t t h a t each c h i l d i s always ready; t h a t i s , ready f o r the next stage i n h i s development. In t h i s case t h e r e i s no grand c u l m i n a t i n g p o i n t but a con-tinuum along which the c h i l d moves, each a t h i s own r a t e . The t e a c h e r would, then, supply continuous s t i m u l u s so long as i t was a p p r o p r i a t e . The t h i r d view i s the " s k i l l s a c q u i s i t i o n " stance, which suggests t h a t t h e r e are c e r t a i n s k i l l s a c h i l d r e q u i r e s be-f o r e he i s ready f o r more advanced l e a r n i n g . These s k i l l s or t r a i t s c o u l d range from p h y s i c a l s i z e t o v e r b a l f a c i l i t y and would, s i n g l y or i n t o t a l , determine the c h i l d ' s r e a d i -ness f o r f u r t h e r growth i n a s p e c i f i c c o g n i t i v e a r e a . T h i s i m p l i e s a t e a c h e r - d i r e c t e d c u r r i c u l u m , w i t h a c l e a r o u t l i n e of o b j e c t i v e s , procedures and e v a l u a t i v e methods. 4 There seems to be no need to c l a r i f y the f i r s t point of view, but there seems to be a f i n e d ifference between the second and t h i r d points of view. In the case of the continuous progress approach, the teacher i n t e r a c t s with the children and provides a stimulating environment. The teacher who advocates the s k i l l s a c q u i s i t i o n approach structures the environment and d i r e c t l y teaches the s k i l l s she considers necessary to the children's development. More i n t e r e s t i n g than the actual convergence or divergence of those views of how children's cognitive s k i l l s grow are the implications of such views for pre-school c u r r i c u l a . Much more information than at present ex i s t s i s needed about current programmes and t h e i r r e s u l t s . Kindergartens were made mandatory i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n 1972 and day care centres for three to f i v e year olds are now p u b l i c l y funded. This means that c h i l d r e n may be entered i n both day care and kindergarten at the same time. The changed educational s i t u a t i o n suggests that some research would be appropriate on the status of c h i l d r e n of equivalent ages i n the programmes provided and the changes that occur i n these c h i l d r e n during t h e i r attendance at kindergartens and day care centres. Such assessment should be valuable i n 1) evaluating e x i s t i n g programmes as a basis for new programmes or adjustments to e x i s t i n g programmes, and 2) evaluating assessment techniques. QUESTIONS OF THE STUDY The purposes of t h i s study were 1) to evaluate the change i n cognitive s k i l l s of c h i l d r e n attending kinder-garten and day care, using published tests i n February and June and 2) to evaluate informally the s u i t a b i l i t y of the tests used for measuring the growth of cognitive s k i l l s i n children of kindergarten age. To f u l f i l l the purposes of the study a number of s p e c i f i c questions were formulated. Those related to the 5 growth of c o g n i t i v e development were: 1) Was t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d on the t e s t t o t a l o f the Boehm/Slater: C o g n i t i v e  S k i l l s Assessment B a t t e r y i n the February t e s t i n g and the June t e s t i n g ? 2) Was t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d a t each t e s t i n g on each s u b t e s t of the Boehm/Slater: C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s Assessment B a t t e r y ? The s u b t e s t s were: a) B a s i c I n f o r m a t i o n b) I d e n t i f y i n g Body P a r t s c) C o l o r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n d) Shape I d e n t i f i c a t i o n e) Number Knowledge f) I n f o r m a t i o n From P i c t u r e s g) P i c t u r e Comprehension h) S t o r y Comprehension i ) M u l t i p l e D i r e c t i o n s j) Large Muscle C o o r d i n a t i o n k) Memory 1) V i s u a l - M o t o r C o o r d i n a t i o n m) Vo c a b u l a r y n) Symbol D i s c r i m i n a t i o n o) V i s u a l - A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n P) A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n 3) Was t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on the L e t t e r  Knowledge - L e v e l One ( I d e n t i f y i n g ) s u b t e s t o f the Murphy-D u r r e l l Reading Readiness A n a l y s i s on the February t e s t i n g and the June t e s t i n g ? The s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s s e l e c t e d t o be answered con-c e r n i n g the u s e f u l n e s s o f the Boehm/Slater: C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s  Assessment B a t t e r y as i n instrument f o r measuring the c o g n i t i v e growth o f k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n were: 1) Did a l l s u b t e s t s p r o v i d e f o r a range of s c o r e s from a p o s s i b l e zero f o r ve r y weak p u p i l s to i n c r e a s i n g l y h i g h e r s c o r e s f o r s t r o n g e r p u p i l s ? 2) Did the t e s t s i n c l u d e d as instruments o f measurement 6 seem to measure the s k i l l s they p u r p o r t e d t o measure? 3) Were a l l i n s t r u c t i o n s s u f f i c i e n t l y c l e a r f o r c h i l d r e n o f k i n d e r g a r t e n age, o r were m o d i f i c a t i o n s n e c e s s a r y to make them s u i t a b l e ? IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY At the p r e s e n t time t h e r e a re many c h i l d r e n i n B r i t i s h Columbia spending l a r g e p o r t i o n s o f t h e i r days i n k i n d e r -gartens and day c a r e c e n t r e s , and l a r g e amounts o f p u b l i c funds a r e being spent to p r o v i d e p e r s o n n e l , s u p p l i e s and b u i l d i n g s f o r these c h i l d r e n . T r a i n i n g o f s u p e r v i s o r s f o r the day c a r e c e n t r e s and t e a c h e r s f o r the k i n d e r g a r t e n s i s a l s o c o s t l y . The q u e s t i o n i s , then, a re the b e s t p o s s i b l e programmes being p r o v i d e d f o r the funds expended? The age range o f c h i l d r e n i n day c a r e c e n t r e s f o r t h r e e to f i v e year o l d s can, and i n f a c t o f t e n does, pose a s e r i o u s e d u c a t i o n a l problem. The d i f f e r e n c e i n developmen-t a l l e v e l between a t h r e e year o l d e n t e r i n g day c a r e f o r the f i r s t time, and a f i v e year o l d who has ex p e r i e n c e d two o r t h r e e y e a r s i n the c e n t r e can be expected t o be s i g n i f i c a n t , and the area f o r g r e a t e s t concern i s o f t e n t h a t of the e n t e r i n g t h r e e year o l d . Indeed, i f the o l d e r c h i l d r e n seem a b l e t o cope adequately on t h e i r own, w i t h the s u p e r v i s o r s ' time o f t e n a t a premium, development o f p r o -grammes adequately a d j u s t e d t o the v a r i e d needs of the age groups may sometimes be c o n s i d e r e d t o be o f secondary importance. Yet modern c u r r i c u l u m t h e o r y suggests t h a t each c h i l d must be approached on h i s own a c t u a l l e v e l , not the l e v e l i n d i c a t e d by h i s c h r o n o l o g i c a l age. I f t h i s i s to be done, assessment o f each c h i l d ' s s t a t u s , and programmes based on t h a t assessment seem necessa r y . Otherwise we w i l l not make optimum use of k i n d e r g a r t e n s and day c a r e c e n t r e s . General developmental l e v e l s have been c a r e f u l l y t a b u l a t e d i n the me d i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . 7 However, i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n do not n e c e s s a r i l y conform t o those norms. I f we are to as s e s s c h i l d r e n ' s l e v e l s o f c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s w i t h r e a s o n a b l e accuracy, a p p r o p r i a t e and s e n s i t i v e instruments f o r measuring must be prepared o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , e x i s t i n g instruments must be t e s t e d and r e f i n e d on v a r i e d age groups. S u i t a b l e programmes can then be based on the f i n d i n g s o f these t e s t s . T h i s study i s intended t o make a c o n t r i b u t i o n to the l i t e r a t u r e on e a r l y c h i l d h o o d e d u c a t i o n by opening q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the development o f c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s o f k i n d e r g a r t e n age c h i l d r e n a t t e n d i n g day c a r e c e n t r e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. U s i n g two p u b l i s h e d t e s t s , the study measured the amount of growth t h a t took p l a c e over a f o u r month p e r i o d o f time under e x i s t i n g programmes i n k i n d e r -g a r t e n s and day c a r e c e n t r e s . I t a l s o a s s e s s e d the apparent s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses o f the t e s t s , which were developed as instruments f o r e v a l u a t i n g the c o g n i t i v e development o f p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . DEFINITION OF TERMS The f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s were developed f o r the purposes o f the study: Day c a r e c e n t r e s . These a r e f a c i l i t i e s f o r th r e e t o f i v e year o l d c h i l d r e n , funded by p u b l i c funds, where c h i l d r e n a re cared f o r by t r a i n e d s u p e r v i s o r s and, i n the case o f c o o p e r a t i v e s , by pa r e n t s as a s s i s t a n t s . K i n d e r g a r t e n s . These a r e h a l f day c l a s s e s h e l d i n the p u b l i c s c h o o l system f o r c h i l d r e n who are f i v e y e ars o l d or w i l l be f i v e years o l d on or b e f o r e December 31 f o l l o w i n g the opening o f the f a l l term. Programmes. There are b a s i c g u i d e l i n e s s e t out f o r c u r r i c u l a f o r both k i n d e r g a r t e n s and day c a r e c e n t r e s , i n the f i r s t case by the Department o f E d u c a t i o n and i n the second case by the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Board. A g r e a t 8 d e a l o f f l e x i b i l i t y i s allowed, and i t i s g e n e r a l l y l e f t t o the d i s c r e t i o n o f the i n d i v i d u a l t eacher i n the k i n d e r g a r t e n or s u p e r v i s o r i n the day c a r e c e n t r e to p l a n programmes. C o g n i t i v e s k i l l s development. T h i s term i s used to d e s c r i b e c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e l l e c t u a l growth and r e f e r s to the l e a r n i n g o f p a r t i c u l a r " s k i l l s " deemed o f the c o g n i t i v e domain by the a u t h o r s o f the t e s t s used i n the study. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The f o l l o w i n g are c o n s i d e r e d to be the l i m i t a t i o n s o f the study: 1) The t e s t s used were l i m i t e d t o e x i s t i n g i n s t r u m e n t s . The d a t a a r e dependent on the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y o f those t e s t s . 2) The study was l i m i t e d t o a comparison o f s c o r e s on s e l e c t e d s u b t e s t s c o n s i d e r e d to measure c e r t a i n c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s . Those s u b t e s t s d i d not n e c e s s a r i l y measure a l l c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s , nor d i d the s c o r e s o b t a i n e d n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t the r e a l range o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n l e v e l s o f c o g n i t i v e development among the c h i l d r e n . 3) The p o p u l a t i o n was l i m i t e d t o k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n a t t e n d i n g t e n day c a r e c e n t r e s on the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia campus and i t s e n v i r o n s . 4) The study d i d not d e a l w i t h sex, age, l.Q. d i f f e r e n c e s or v a r i a t i o n s i n socio-economic background. 5) The p e r i o d o f time between the t e s t s was approx-i m a t e l y f o u r months, p o s s i b l y too s h o r t a p e r i o d o f time to expect s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n l e v e l s o f c o g n i t i v e development. 6) The study concerned growth i n c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s from February to June. I t c o u l d be s p e c u l a t e d t h a t g r e a t e r d i f f e r e n c e s i n s c o r e s might have been o b t a i n e d had the t e s t s been g i v e n d u r i n g the f a l l term. ORGANIZATION OF THE PAPER The f i r s t c h a pter o f the t h e s i s c o n t a i n s a statement and d i s c u s s i o n o f the problem, statements about the importance and l i m i t a t i o n s o f the study, d e f i n i t i o n s o f terms used i n the study, and an o u t l i n e o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the study. The second chapter c o n s i s t s o f a review o f the r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e r e f l e c t i n g views on t o p i c s r e l e v a n t to the study. The t h i r d c h apter d e s c r i b e s the d e s i g n o f the study: the s u b j e c t s , m a t e r i a l s and procedures. Chapter IV i n c l u d e s the p r e s e n t a t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f the da t a . The summary o f f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n and i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the study a r e pre s e n t e d i n Chapter V. 10 NOTES TO CHAPTER I xBenjamin S. Bloom (ed.)/ Taxonomy of E d u c a t i o n a l  O b j e c t i v e s (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1956), p.7 2 A.E. Boehm, "Out o f the Classroom," E x c e p t i o n a l  C h i l d r e n , 37:523-527, March, 1971; see a l s o J.W. Denison, " P e r c e p t u a l I n f l u e n c e s i n the Primary Grades," J o u r n a l o f  School Psychology, 7:38-46, No. 3, 1968-69, and B.R. S l a t e r " P e r c e p t u a l Development a t the K i n d e r g a r t e n L e v e l , " J o u r n a l  o f C l i n i c a l Psychology, 27:263-266, 1971, and B.R. S l a t e r , "Achievement i n Grade 3 by C h i l d r e n Who P a r t i c i p a t e d i n P e r c e p t u a l T r a i n i n g During K i n d e r g a r t e n , " P e r c e p t u a l and  Motor S k i l l s , 36:763-766, 1973. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The review o f l i t e r a t u r e i s pr e s e n t e d under f o u r headings: Interdependence o f C o g n i t i v e and A f f e c t i v e Domains, D e f i n i n g C o g n i t i o n , J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r S p e c i f i c T r a i n i n g i n C o g n i t i o n , and Approaches t o C o g n i t i v e De-velopment. INTERDEPENDENCE OF COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE DOMAINS Throughout modern e d u c a t i o n a l h i s t o r y t h e r e has been a c o n t r o v e r s y over the r e l a t i v e importance o f the a f f e c t i v e and c o g n i t i v e a s p e c t s o f a c h i l d ' s development. C u r r e n t l y , the c o n t r o v e r s y appears to have reached another o f those apexes t h a t develop r e g u l a r l y . Whether t h e r e i s r e a l l y any need f o r such d i s p u t e s i s d o u b t f u l . As P i a g e t p o i n t s out, t h e r e a r e no p u r e l y a f f e c t i v e o r i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t s . Each c o n t r i b u t e s t o the f u n c t i o n i n g o f the o t h e r . Almy and Dewey agree t h a t any c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y s hould be c a r r i e d out i n s o c i a l 2 s i t u a t i o n s . F r o s t p l a i n l y s t a t e s t h a t no dichotomy, i n 3 f a c t , e x i s t s i n p r a c t i c e . One can assume, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t any c u r r i c u l u m t h a t a c c e n t s e i t h e r the c o g n i t i v e o r the a f f e c t i v e s t r a n d o f the c h i l d ' s development a t the de t r i m e n t o f the o t h e r s t r a n d w i l l s u r e l y meet w i t h f a i l u r e , f o r the g o a l , the development of the whole c h i l d , w i l l remain e l u s i v e . When " c o g n i t i v e development" or "growth of c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s " i s d i s c u s s e d , one should understand t h a t those o b j e c t i v e s i n c l u d e d i n the a f f e c t i v e domain ( i n t e r e s t , 4 a t t i t u d e , v a l u e s , a p p r e c i a t i o n and adjustment ) are a l s o 5 met w i t h i n the s t r u c t u r e o f the c u r r i c u l u m . 11 12 P s y c h o m o t o r ' s k i l l s are separated by some authors from g c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e s k i l l s . Other a u t h o r i t i e s seem to group psychomotor s k i l l s under the l a b e l of c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s , 7 o f t e n c l a s s i f i e d as p r e c u r s o r s of more a b s t r a c t l e a r n i n g . Because the r e l a t i o n s h i p between psychomotor and c o g n i t i v e development has not been c l e a r l y d e s c r i b e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e , and because m a n i p u l a t i o n u s u a l l y does precede more a b s t r a c t 8 l e a r n i n g , i t may be assumed t h a t t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t c o n n e c t i o n , not n e c e s s a r i l y c a u s a l , to j u s t i f y the i n c l u s i o n of motor s k i l l s w i t h i n the g e n e r a l c a t e g o r y o f c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s . Boehm and S l a t e r q u i t e c l e a r l y c l a s s i f y 9 psychomotor s k i l l s under the g e n e r a l r u b r i c o f c o g n i t i o n . DEFINING COGNITION There have been many d e f i n i t i o n s of c o g n i t i o n . However, a f a i r l y comprehensive statement suggests t h a t the c o g n i t i v e domain " i n c l u d e s those o b j e c t i v e s which d e a l w i t h the r e c a l l or r e c o g n i t i o n of knowledge and the development o f i n t e l -l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s and s k i l l s . " " ^ I t i s important to note t h a t the r o t e l e a r n i n g o f f a c t s i s not what i s i m p l i e d by the word "knowledge." Rather i t i n v o l v e s "the more complex p r o c e s s e s o f r e l a t i n g and j u d g i n g . U n d e r s t a n d i n g and i n s i g h t must be a n a t u r a l p r o d u c t of knowledge; the u t i l i z a t i o n i n a new s i t u a t i o n o f f a c t s a c q u i r e d i s the 12 p r o o f o f r e a l l e a r n i n g . As John H o l t puts i t , "The t r u e t e s t o f i n t e l l i g e n c e i s not how much we know how to do, but 13 how we behave when we don't know what to do." The p l a c e o f i m a g i n a t i o n i n c o g n i t i v e development has r e c e i v e d some a t t e n t i o n . I t has been p o i n t e d out i n a t a l k by Northrup F r y e , an E n g l i s h p r o f e s s o r a t the U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, t h a t man's a b i l i t y to "compare what he does w i t h 14 what he can imagine being done" i s the crux o f a l l c r e a t i v i t y . The t i t l e o f the l e c t u r e , "The Educated Imagination," as w e l l as i t s c o n t e n t suggests t h a t i m a g i n a t i o n can and should be taught. M c M i l l a n agrees, s t a t i n g t h a t i m a g i n a t i o n i s necessary f o r advancement i n a l l spheres o f l i f e . She goes on to say t h a t i t i s something t h a t o c c u r s n a t u r a l l y i n young c h i l d r e n and i s worth d e v e l o p i n g i n s c h o o l . " ^ Thus i t may be concluded t h a t i m a g i n a t i o n i s not o n l y an important p a r t of the c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s , but perhaps i t s h i g h e s t form. What i s commonly termed " c o g n i t i v e development", then, would seem to i n v o l v e the a c q u i s i t i o n o f knowledge, the a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e t h a t knowledge and to form new i d e a s or concepts from b a s i c m a t e r i a l . JUSTIFICATION FOR SPECIFIC TRAINING IN COGNITION What i s the r a t i o n a l e f o r i n c l u d i n g s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g towards c o g n i t i v e development i n the g e n e r a l e d u c a t i o n o f young c h i l d r e n ? The most b a s i c j u s t i f i c a t i o n i s t h a t a c q u i s i t i o n o f knowledge i n c r e a s e s ones "acquaintance w i t h r e a l i t y , " or a t l e a s t r e a l i t y i n as f a r as i t i s knowable. Knowledge, i n t h i s sense, would help one d e a l w i t h the 17 pragmatic a s p e c t s o f l i f e . Another j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r c o g n i t i v e t r a i n i n g would i n v o l v e i t s importance as a b a s i s f o r f u r t h e r e d u c a t i o n . Problem s o l v i n g , which must be based on some s o r t o f knowledge, serves a c y c l i c a l purpose. The new knowledge, a c q u i r e d through the problem s o l v i n g approach, should h e l p to prove or d i s p r o v e the "antecedent knowledge," and so b u i l d up the s t o r e of knowledge i n a g i v e n a r e a . T h i s s o r t of knowledge i s important, not because o f the f a c t s them-s e l v e s , but because o f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to o t h e r o b j e c t i v e s . Knowledge i s h i g h l y regarded i n our s o c i e t y as a 19 c r i t e r i o n o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . I t i s perhaps t h i s j u s t i f i -c a t i o n f o r knowledge t h a t l e a d s to the g r e a t e s t amount o f 20 21 r o t e l e a r n i n g , and t e a c h i n g towards t e s t s . H a r r i s e x p l a i n s t h a t some e t h n i c groups (he suggests the Jews s p e c i f i c a l l y ) " v a l u e l e a r n i n g not o n l y as a means of c o p i n g w i t h and advancing i n the e x t e r n a l world, but a l s o as a 22 t h i n g i n i t s e l f . " J ewish p a r e n t s tend to p e n a l i z e f a i l u r e , 23 and reward s i g n s of l o v e of l e a r n i n g . A broader i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the concept of i n t e l l i g e n c e might produce b e t t e r c u r r i c u l a : u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f p r i n c i p l e s based on the l e a r n i n g o f f a c t s and concepts and the a b i l i t y t o use those p r i n c i p l e s i s a c r i t e r i o n o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . When s t a t i n g the case f o r t r a i n i n g i n c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s , i t i s o f t e n v a l u a b l e t o examine the arguments a g a i n s t such t r a i n i n g . One such argument suggests t h a t a l l c u r r i c u l a should be " c h i l d - c e n t r e d . " The i m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t c h i l d -c e n t r e d c u r r i c u l a must, per se, be a f f e c t - c e n t r e d . However, educators who advocate a c h i l d - c e n t r e d c u r r i c u l u m , depending on the c h i l d t o take the i n i t i a t i v e i n d e t e r m i n i n g what he would l i k e to l e a r n , might, through c o n s c i e n t i o u s i n h i s i n t e n t i o n s , be a s k i n g the c h i l d to choose without a c l e a r u n d erstanding of the a l t e r n a t i v e s . A r n o l d s t a t e s t h i s problem c o n c i s e l y : C h i l d r e n choose n e i t h e r w i s e l y nor w e l l u n t i l they have enough e x p e r i e n c e to equip them t o make d e c i s i o n s on t h e i r own b e h a l f . A p e r m i s s i v e e d u c a t i o n t h a t a l l o w s them de c i s i o n - m a k i n g without the r e q u i r e d exper-i e n c e g i v e s them no b a s i s on which to choose. C h i l d r e n need informed a d u l t s who, m i n d f u l o f the c h i l d ' s v i e w p o i n t and p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e , can g i v e them guidance t h a t makes such p r i o ^ ^ e x p e r i e n c e s u s e f u l . One concludes t h a t a f o u n d a t i o n o f knowledge seems to be necessary f o r d e c i d i n g what one i s r e a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n knowing more about. Another argument f o r an emphasis on the a f f e c t i v e c u r r i c u l u m i s based on what seems to be a c u r r e n t t r e n d towards s e a r c h i n g f o r ones " i d e n t i t y . " The s e a r c h may take the form o f rap s e s s i o n s w i t h peers and may i n v o l v e long d i s c o u r s e s on the meaning o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I t has been suggested t h a t no such s e a r c h would be needed i f c h i l d r e n had been exposed to l e s s c o g n i t i o n and more a f f e c t i n t h e i r e a r l y y e a r s . John H o l t , however, d i s p u t e s the v a l i d i t y o f the c u r r e n t l y popular s o r t of i d e n t i t y - h u n t i n g . He suggests t h a t we " f i n d our i d e n t i t y by choosing, by t r y i n g t h i n g s out, by f i n d i n g out through e x p e r i e n c e what we 25 l i k e and what we can do." Each e x p e r i e n c e , i n f a c t , h e l p s form our i d e n t i t y . Thus, he would suggest, d i s c o v e r i n g o n e s e l f i n v o l v e s a sound b a s i s i n knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e . 2 6 F i n a l l y , the " w i l l t o l e a r n " or the j o y i n h e r e n t i n 27 the l e a r n i n g process i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the development o f c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s . From the time an i n f a n t f i r s t d i s -c o v e r s h i s hands he d e l i g h t s i n each new a d d i t i o n t o h i s s t o r e o f s k i l l s . I t seems a n a t u r a l c o n c l u s i o n t h a t f u t u r e l e a r n i n g should be r o o t e d i n the c h i l d ' s obvious n a t i v e c u r i o s i t y . M o t i v a t i o n s u r e l y does not have t o be and should not be a r t i f i c a l l y imposed from w i t h o u t . For most sm a l l c h i l d r e n , as w e l l as f o r most a d u l t s , knowledge does not n e c e s s a r i l y have t o have p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s ; l e a r n i n g i n i t s e l f i s a rewarding e x p e r i e n c e . James Hymes, J r . , d i s c u s s i n g the knowledge e x p l o s i o n , s t a t e s t h a t the edu c a t o r ' s main concern i s to develop i n the c h i l d a l o v e o f l e a r n i n g so t h a t he w i l l go on l e a r n i n g 2 8 the r e s t o f h i s l i f e . Dewey based much of h i s t e a c h i n g on 29 the same p r i n c i p l e . J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the development o f c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s , then, i s based on the i n t e r e s t s and needs o f both the i n d i v i d u a l and s o c i e t y . S t a t e d simply, humans would r a t h e r know than not know. APPROACHES TO COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT Three b a s i c p o i n t s o f view r e g a r d i n g approaches t o c o g n i t i v e development seem to be r e f l e c t e d i n the l i t e r a -t u r e . They are the n a t u r a l m a t u r a t i o n , continuous p r o g r e s s and s k i l l a c q u i s i t i o n p o i n t s o f view. Though d i v i s i o n s can a l s o be made alo n g o t h e r l i n e s (e.g., the b e h a v i o u r i s t and phenomenological v i e w s ) , the above c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s a re 16 u s e f u l i n p r o v i d i n g a framework f o r s t u d y i n g c u r r i c u l u m d e -s i g n s w h i c h r a n g e f r o m t h e " c l o s e d " t o t h e "open" s y s t e m s . The t h r e e p o i n t s o f v i e w a r e p r e s e n t e d u n d e r t h e s e h e a d i n g s : N a t u r a l M a t u r a t i o n , C o n t i n u o u s P r o g r e s s and S k i l l A c q u i s i t i o n . I n e a c h c a s e a h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e i s o u t -l i n e d a n d i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c u r r i c u l a d i s c u s s e d . N a t u r a l M a t u r a t i o n P o i n t o f V i e w The t e r m n a t u r a l m a t u r a t i o n r e f e r s t o t h e u n f o l d i n g , s e q u e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t o b s e r v e d i n c h i l d r e n , a n d i n c l u d e s a l l a r e a s o f d e v e l o p m e n t . H i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . The f i r s t d e f i n i t i v e s t a t e m e n t c o n c e r n i n g m a t u r a t i o n was made by J e a n J a c q u e s R o u s s e a u i n E r n i l e ^ i n w h i c h he p r o p o s e d t h a t " a l l d e v e l o p m e n t c o n s i s t s o f i n t e r n a l l y r e g u l a t e d s e q u e n t i a l s t a g e s , w h i c h a r e t r a n s -f o r m e d one i n t o t h e o t h e r i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h a p r e a r r a n g e d 31 o r d e r a n d d e s i g n . " C h i l d r e n a r e i n n a t e l y g o o d a n d , 32 u n l e s s i n t e r f e r e d w i t h , w i l l r e m a i n v i r t u o u s . P e s t a l o z z i , who e s t a b l i s h e d an o r p h a n a g e a t S t a n z , S w i t z e r l a n d , f o l l o w e d t h e p h i l o s o p h y s e t o u t b y R o u s s e a u . C o n t r a r y t o t h e b e l i e f s o f e d u c a t e d men o f t h e t i m e , P e s t a l o z z i a r g u e d t h a t he c o u l d do h i s work w i t h o u t a r t i f i c i a l means, u s i n g o n l y t h e i n f l u e n c e o f N a t u r e and t h e 33 d a y ' s n a t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s . F r o e b e l , t o o , b e l i e v e d t h a t a l l t h i n g s , i n c l u d i n g c h i l d r e n , u n f o l d t o r e v e a l t h e i r e s s e n c e b u t he s t r e s s e d , t o a g r e a t e r d e g r e e , t h e more r e l i g i o u s a s p e c t s o f e d u c a t i o n . The p u r p o s e o f e d u c a t i o n was t o d e v e l o p a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f s e l f , h u m a n i t y , God a n d N a t u r e a n d, i n so d o i n g , g u i d e man 34 t o a p u r e and h o l y l i f e . R e c o g n i t i o n was g i v e n by R o u s s e a u , P e s t a l o z z i and F r o e b e l t o t h e c h i l d ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o h i s own d e v e l o p m e n t and t o t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f a s u i t a b l e c l i m a t e f o r h i s g r o w t h . T h i s p o i n t o f v i e w h a s i n f l u e n c e d t h e t h e o r i e s w h i c h advocate the nondirective, child-centred approach to the 35 education of young c h i l d r e n . Gesell r e i t e r a t e d Rousseau's concepts of inner c o n t r o l , using the word "maturation" to describe the developmental sequences that are r e l a t i v e l y i n v a r i a b l e i n a l l areas of growth. He taught that c e r t a i n undesirable stages i n behavior were in e v i t a b l e and best handled by noninterfer-36 ence. Stated b r i e f l y , "the c h i l d i s i n league with Nature 37 and he does his own growing." Piaget denied that maturation alone could account f o r the learning that takes place i n the ear l y years; maturation 38 i s never independent of experience. In contrast to 3 9 Rousseau's p o s i t i o n on "negative learning," Piaget stated that a c t u a l i z a t i o n presupposes c e r t a i n p h y s i c a l experiences 40 and c e r t a i n s o c i a l conditions. B e i l i n argued that i n spite of the environmental aspects of Piaget's theory, how-ever, he i s , at l e a s t by implication, a maturationist. The reason for t h i s conclusion was based on the fi x e d sequence 41 of stages outlined by Piaget. Gesell"s and Piaget's theories were based on a great deal of observation, and stages of development were c l e a r l y o u tlined. Their works evidenced less romanticism and a more s c i e n t i f i c o r i e n t a t i o n than previous maturationists. 42 . Montessori spoke of "inner formation." Education was i n her opinion, a natural process which develops spontan-eously i n the human being. She ref e r r e d to the "absorbent 43 mind" which enables the c h i l d to .absorb learning from the moment of b i r t h and t h i s learning remains f i x e d i n the l i v i n g organism, not i n the memory. Montessori, a feminist and a physician, began her work untrained i n the f i e l d of early childhood education. Work with retarded c h i l d r e n sparked her i n t e r e s t i n education of young ch i l d r e n and led to the es t a b l i s h i n g of casa dei bambini, consisting o r i g i n a l l y of a single room i n a 44 tenement. Working long hours each day she developed mat rials and methods whic  allowed so-called i d i o t c h i l d r e n to pass primary "level exams."'" As a whole the maturationists appear to face the common problem of the apparent contradiction between the unfolding of the c h i l d ' s inner p o t e n t i a l and the e f f e c t s of environ-ment. That contradiction i s never f u l l y resolved i n the writings of the maturationists. There seems to be j u s t i f i -cation for Krogman's suggestion that the terms "maturity" 46 and "maturation" are a l l things to a l l people. Implications f o r c u r r i c u l a . S t r i c t l y speaking, the maturationist approach c a l l s for no imposition from teachers and only i n d i r e c t influence from the environment. In p r a c t i c e , however, c u r r i c u l a have evolved from the philosophies of the maturationists and the implementation of those ideas into actual classroom methodology and materials i s often i n apparent contradiction to the o r i g i n a l theories. Rousseau's influence was strongly f e l t by the men of 47 his time, and has since led to greater freedom and i n d i v i d u a l i t y i n schools. A. S. N e i l l ' s Summerhill was founded on the p r i n c i p l e s espoused by Rousseau. N e i l l 48 spoke of " s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n " which, he said, implies a b e l i e f i n the goodness of human nature. In remarkable contrast to Rousseau, P e s t a l o z z i was him-s e l f a teacher whose power came, not from his theories, but from his innermost s e l f and was manifested i n his tender 49 concern for the c h i l d r e n i n his care. His contention that formal education does not take i n t o consideration the c i r -50 cumstances of family l i f e i s r e f l e c t e d i n the number of 51 current programmes, e s p e c i a l l y compensatory ones, which stress parent involvement. Pestalozzi's emphasis on manual 5 labour and insistence on perfection i n the children's work, however, seem to have been eliminated e n t i r e l y from pre-school education. Froebel's system was characterized by the balance between the c h i l d ' s freedom to grow i n his own way and society's o b l i g a t i o n to impart s k i l l s , knowledge and values. Influenced i n large measure by Rousseau and P e s t a l o z z i , nonetheless Froebel struck out on his own to systematize education; c e n t r a l to his plan was play as the mode of in s t r u c t i o n for young ch i l d r e n and curriculum was seen as 53 representative of society. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the content of Froebel's kindergarten consisted of " g i f t s " and 54 "occupations" which were, respectively, highly structured teaching materials and a c t i v i t i e s . Froebel's method was s l a v i s h l y followed i n the nine-55 teenth century, though others saw greater meaning i n Froebel's general educational philosophy than i n the 5 6 s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s and methods derived from i t . The elements supported by those educators included the concept of development i n the c h i l d , education as s e l f - a c t i v i t y and 57 the educational value of play. The "occupations" were eliminated, large blocks replaced the " g i f t s " and play became f r e e r . Modern t r a d i t i o n a l kindergartens occur i n t h i s revised version. Gesell attempted to bring into harmony the natural growth c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the infant with c u l t u r a l pressures. 5^ Child Development^ 0, i n which Gesell lays out his ideas on the growth of c h i l d r e n i n a modern culture, encompasses the following t o p i c s : Growth and Culture, The Growing Ch i l d and The Guidance of Growth. Although Gesell c l e a r l y i s a m a t u r a t i o n i s t , ^ he emphasizes 6 2 the importance of the kindergarten and thoroughly describes methods, materials**"* and evaluation procedures. Piaget i s , by his own d e f i n i t i o n , not an educator but a 6 5 "genetic epistemologist." Thus his contributions have been intended, not for curriculum design, but for the study of knowledge. Pressed to make a statement about education, Piaget raised questions: What i s the aim of teaching? What 6 6 should we teach? How should we teach? Piaget suggests that these questions w i l l never be answered u n t i l experi-6 7 mental research provides decisive information. Many current programmes are based on inter p r e t a t i o n s of Piaget's teaching. They range from " ' s t o r e f r o n t 1 Piagetian 68 theory u t i l i z a t i o n , " as described i n The Cognitively Oriented Curriculum,^ to the Perry Preschool P r o j e c t , ^ 71 the New Nursery School i n the United States, the B r i t i s h 72 73 Infant School or open education , i n general. Each programme promotes the "active school" as opposed to the one 74 i n which childre n experience "cognitive p a s s i v i t y . " Maintaining that the c h i l d has within him the capacity 75 for his own development, Montessori planned a programme that would support the general development of the c h i l d . The 7 6 Montessori Method i s one of auto-education, the materials being, f o r the most part, s e l f - c o r r e c t i n g . Each area of the curriculum has a series of prescribed materials and a c t i v i t i e s . The teacher's r o l e i s non-intrusive. Modern versions of Montessori's methods vary from the 77 s t r i c t adherents to those which incorporate some aspects 7 8 of the o r i g i n a l method. C r i t i c i s m seems to centre on the 79 uselessness of some a c t i v i t i e s , but proponents of the Method explain that her methods are meant to be constantly 8 0 adapted to the culture i n which they are being used. Observation of the c h i l d , p r o v i s i o n of a supportive environment and non-interference by adults are hallmarks of the maturationist view. C u r r i c u l a , where provided, are child-centred and f l e x i b l e . The Continuous Progress Point of View The continuous progress or "readiness" approach re-fers to the view that the c h i l d w i l l learn best when he i s "ready," i f the environment i s so ordered as to allow the appropriate learning to take place. The maturationists and readiness proponents agree e s s e n t i a l l y on the basic maturation factors necessary before learning can take place; the difference l i e s mainly i n the degree of emphasis placed on the environment as a f f e c t i n g learning. The maturationists would say the environment i s supportive of learning; the continuous progress view holds t h a t the environment s t i m u l a t e s and promotes l e a r n i n g . There i s c o n s i d e r a b l e o v e r l a p o f educators i n t o the r e a d i n e s s area who appear to be o r p r o f e s s t o be matura-t i o n i s t s . T h i s i s sometimes due to t h e i r admission t h a t the environment, i f not d i r e c t l y a f f e c t i n g l e a r n i n g , can, i f d e f i c i e n t , r e t a r d l e a r n i n g , and sometimes due to t h e i r a c t u a l and open acceptance o f the environment as a s u p p o r t e r , a t l e a s t , o f l e a r n i n g . H i s t o r i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e . A b r i e f review o f the matura-t i o n i s t s p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d shows the degree to which they can be c l a s s i f i e d as i n agreement w i t h the "continuous p r o g r e s s " view. There are numerous examples i n Emile i n which Rousseau e i t h e r takes advantage o f s i t u a t i o n s o r c o n t r i v e s them i n 81 o r d e r t o t e a c h E m i l e . P r e s a g i n g the concept o f c r i t i c a l moment, he a l s o p o i n t s out t h a t t h e r e i s a time f o r every k i n d o f t e a c h i n g , which should not be begun too soon nor 82 postponed too l o n g . P e s t a l o z z i , i n a system he c a l l e d "so 8 3 simple and so n a t u r a l , " a c t i v e l y taught c h i l d r e n w h i l e 84 they engaged i n manual l a b o u r . F r o e b e l c l e a r l y o r d e r e d the environment w i t h h i s " g i f t s " and " o c c u p a t i o n s , " and s a i d t h a t development should proceed c o n t i n u o u s l y from one p o i n t , 8 5 and t h a t t h i s continuous p r o g r e s s should be guarded. G e s e l l p r o v i d e d s u g g e s t i o n s f o r m a t e r i a l s to be used a t each 8 6 stage o f development. P i a g e t b e l i e v e d s t r o n g l y i n the 87 i n t e r a c t i o n between the c h i l d and h i s e x p e r i e n c e s but s t i l l contended t h a t "development accounts f o r l e a r n i n g much more .sec 89 8 8 than the o t h e r way around." M o n t e s s o r i d e v i s e d a s u p p o r t i v e environment which i n c l u d e d l e s s o n s . Comenius acknowledged t h a t "the seeds of knowledge, o f 90 v i r t u e , and o f p i e t y a r e . . . n a t u r a l l y implanted i n us," but added t h a t "the a c t u a l knowledge, v i r t u e , and p i e t y are n o t so 91 g i v e n . " By thus p o i n t i n g out the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the c a p a c i t y f o r knowledge and i t s a c t u a l a c q u i s i t i o n , Comenius expressed the need f o r i n s t r u c t i o n based on n a t u r a l pro-22 p e n s i t i e s . Though Watson claimed to be an extreme environmentalist, he also believed that the basic response r e p e r t o i r e had to come v i a maturation before learning could take place and 91 warned against overstimulation of c h i l d r e n by parents. Currently, proponents of the readiness approach tend to f a l l into three sub groups: there are 1) those who advocate postponement or delay of teaching, 2) those who look f o r a f i t between the c h i l d and the material to be learned, and 3) those who would intervene and attempt to teach i n those areas found lacking. I t may be noted that the views of these groups f a l l somewhere between the maturationists and the proponents of s k i l l s development, while s t i l l basing t h e i r c u r r i c u l a on the c h i l d ' s readiness l e v e l . Members of the group who advocate waiting, the "Committee of Seven," l i s t e d two components of readiness: 93 mental age and knowledge of r e q u i s i t e s u b s k i l l s . These obviously r e f e r to readiness for s p e c i f i c tasks, rather than an o v e r a l l readiness l e v e l . Buswell disputed the findings of the "Committee of Seven" which proposed post-poning the teaching of c e r t a i n topics i n arithmetic, on the grounds that other methods and materials had not been 94 t r i e d . Using a s i m i l a r argument, Brownell points out that young ch i l d r e n i n English schools are learning a r i t h -metic that American educators know c h i l d r e n of that age are 95 unable to learn. Gesell's c l a s s i c study on the s t a i r - c l i m b i n g a b i l i t i e s of co-twins a t t e s t s to the necessity of the passage of time 96 for the development of c e r t a i n s k i l l s . I l g , Ames and Harris also maintain that the maturity required for c e r t a i n 97 tasks i s acquired only by waiting. These conclusions have been questionned, however, on the grounds that i n most cases physical a b i l i t i e s rather than mental a b i l i t i e s were being examined. Dolch and Bloomster proposed that a mental age of seven years was necessary before a c h i l d could be expected to use 9 8 phonics i n learning to read. Harris predicted that much f a i l u r e i n reading could be averted by postponing formal 99 reading i n s t r u c t i o n . On the other hand, one study on school readiness showed that delayed entrance of chi l d r e n termed "not ready" for school gave no advantage to those who waited over a compar-able group who entered kindergarten. Only on the copying t e s t did the Wait group perform as well as the Kindergarten group. The conclusion was drawn that psychomotor factors seem to be dependent on maturational processes, but other factors are amenable to teaching." 1" 0 0 Bruner's two books, The Process of Education 1 0"^ and 102 Towards a Theory of Instruction, urged that there i s a way of communicating ideas to chi l d r e n that i s appropriate to a p a r t i c u l a r age and that i t i s f u t i l e educationally simply to wait passively for the c h i l d to grow into readiness. More su c c i n c t l y , Bruner stated that "the foundations of any subject may be taught to anybody at any 103 age i n some form." Downing talked of the "gap" that ex i s t s between the state of the i n d i v i d u a l and the conditions of the task to be mastered. This gap can be narrowed, continued Downing, by changing the i n d i v i d u a l , by modifying 104 the task or by doing both of these things. Durkin agreed that readiness depends not only on the l e v e l of the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t i e s but also on the s k i l l s to be mastered and the kind and q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n offered.''"0"' She went on to say, however, that the best way to assess readiness i s to give the c h i l d ample and varied opportun-i t i e s to begin to read. 107 Hunt referre d to the "match" between the c h i l d and what i s to be learned; t h i s match maximizes learning "when the c h i l d encounters circumstances which so match his already assimilated schemata that he i s motivated by them 108 but can cope with them." Baldwin concurred: "Maturation i s stimulated when the c h i l d meets challenges that are not 109 too severe." Prescott, i n discussing preschool programmes, d e s c r i b e d t h i s t h e o r y as "goodness of f i t . " ' ' " ' ^ I n t e g r a l to the the o r y o f r e a d i n e s s i s the i d e a o f " c r i t i c a l p e r i o d s " which can be d e f i n e d as "a c e r t a i n stage of l i m i t e d d u r a t i o n d u r i n g which a p a r t i c u l a r i n f l u e n c e e i t h e r from another area o f the d e v e l o p i n g organism, o r from the environment, evokes a p a r t i c u l a r r e s p o n s e . F o r e -shadowing modern concepts o f r e a d i n e s s , P e s t a l o z z i urged t h a t s u b j e c t matter be "presented a t the p s y c h o l o g i c a l moment i n o r d e r , on the one hand, not to h o l d him back i f ready, and on the o t h e r , not to l o a d him and confuse him w i t h a n y t h i n g 112 f o r which he i s not ready." M o n t e s s o r i c a u t i o n e d t h a t " i t i s never p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n , i n i t s f u l n e s s , a development 113 which missed i t s proper moment." Exp e r i e n c e was fundamental t o Dewey's the o r y o f e d u c a t i o n . He p o i n t e d out t h a t i t i s both the means and g o a l o f e d u c a t i o n , but c a u t i o n e d t h a t not a l l e x p e r i e n c e 114 i s e d u c a t i v e . A c c o r d i n g to Dewey, the c r i t e r i o n f o r de t e r m i n i n g whether or not an exp e r i e n c e i s e d u c a t i v e o r mi s - e d u c a t i v e i s the degree t o which i t i n f l u e n c e s f u t u r e 115 a c t i v i t y . Dewey warned a g a i n s t continuous s t i m u l a t i o n which s t i r s up i n t e r e s t without d i r e c t i n g i t toward d e f i n i t e 116 achievement. A l i s t o f c r i t e r i a f o r a s s e s s i n g the q u a l i t y o f a c t i v i t i e s , based on Dewey's t e a c h i n g , i s p r o v i d e d i n 117 E a r l y C h i l d h o o d E d u c a t i o n by Ruby Minor. Dewey complained o f m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of h i s work and wrote e x t e n s i v e l y t o t r y t o c o r r e c t some o f the misunder-118 s t a n d i n g s t h a t a r o s e . One area i n which t h e r e was c o n t r o v e r s y concerned the r o l e o f the t e a c h e r . Dewey e x p l a i n e d t h a t the tea c h e r should not f e e l g u i l t f o r i n t r u d i n g upon the c h i l d r e n ; a s u g g e s t i o n from a person who has a l a r g e r e x p e r i e n c e should be as v a l i d as one from an 4- i 119 a c c i d e n t a l s ource. Almy and A r n o l d agreed w i t h Dewey i n d i s p u t i n g the theory t h a t c h i l d r e n need o n l y be l e f t a l one, unhindered by a d u l t s . F l o u n d e r i n g a i m l e s s l y b e f o r e making the d i s c o v e r y 120 does not make t h a t d i s c o v e r y more mea n i n g f u l . Rather, 25 the implication i s that materials should be so arranged as to organize information so that i t i s within the grasp of the c h i l d . In such a s i t u a t i o n the teacher, one can assume, may give d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n or supply organized information. William James suggested following nature by observing and acting upon the needs of the c h i l d . "Feed the growing human being, feed him with the sort of experience for which 121 from year to year he shows a natural craving." I t seems to follow that a series of experiences be provided to s a t i s f y the needs of the c h i l d . In speaking of reading readiness, Russell stated that "reading readiness does not suddenly appear i n f i r s t grade. I t i s based upon a number of factors associated with read-iness and i s an expansion of a b i l i t i e s acquired e a r l i e r 122 rather than an abrupt step upward." I t may be assumed that these a b i l i t i e s , i f lacking, can be taught d i r e c t l y or materials can be presented i n such a manner as to encourage i n t e r e s t and, consequently, learning. In several a r t i c l e s Fowler stressed the importance of optimizing stimulation using methods which minimize r i s k s from the wrong kind of pressure. He cautioned that, i f c h i l d r e n f a i l to learn e f f e c t i v e problem-solving s t y l e s at the beginning, they w i l l acquire non-productive modes of coping which are d i f f i c u l t to a l t e r . The need for 123 structuring knowledge cannot be eliminated. Head Start and other programmes point out the need fo r early intervention and i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p e c i f i c s k i l l s d e f i c i e n t i n the c h i l d r e n who generally come from under-124 125 p r i v i l e g e d homes. The uneven r e s u l t s of Head Start a t t e s t to the necessity of reevaluating those programs and the t e s t procedures used."*"^ Educators advocating the continuous progress approach deal quite adequately with the problem of r e c o n c i l i n g the influences of maturation and experience. The solutions include delay of i n s t r u c t i o n , searching for a match between the c h i l d and the material to be learned and d i r e c t i n t e r -26 vention. Influences on curriculum design. Because of the broad range of philosophies based on the general readiness approach, many diverse c u r r i c u l a would be expected and such i s , i n f a c t , the case. Though the educators seem to be i n general agree-ment about the v a l i d i t y of presenting material at the so-c a l l e d c r i t i c a l moment, they diverge i n t h e i r opinions regarding what to do i f the necessary readiness i s not present. Regardless of the s p e c i f i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of readiness, the actual learning environments i n which the chi l d r e n are placed are b a s i c a l l y uniform, and suggestions for c u r r i c u l a 127 are outlined i n numerous texts. The difference between the three approaches appears to involve teacher a t t i t u d e s and methods rather than the actual c u r r i c u l a , per se. Teachers who espouse the delay t a c t i c should, according to I l g and Ames, check con t i n u a l l y on the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t i e s 128 and adjust i n s t r u c t i o n to the c h i l d ' s developmental l e v e l . 129 . Johnson and McCandless agree. Gesell summarizes the l o g i c behind postponement of i n s t r u c t i o n : "Environmental factors support, i n f l e c t , and specify; but they do not engender the 130 basic forms and sequences of ontogenesis." I t would follow that teachers should organize the environment so as to support development, and when readiness occurs, they w i l l i n s t r u c t at the c h i l d ' s l e v e l . Proponents of the match or f i t theory would recommend constant evaluation of the c h i l d ' s l e v e l coupled with i n -131 s t r u c t i o n geared to that l e v e l . As Downing has pointed out, the problem of achieving a match can be a l l e v i a t e d by adjusting the task to f i t the c h i l d as well as by providing 132 a range of a c t i v i t i e s which help develop sub s k i l l s . Dewey discussed the nature of subject matter i n 133 Democracy and Education. I t was made cl e a r that teachers have d i s t i n c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n the process of learning because of t h e i r larger experience and a b i l i t y to com-134 municate relevant ideas and f a c t s . Educators who c a l l f or systematic attention to cognitive learning do not underestimate the value of play and learning by discovery. They do, however, consider that the r i s k s of understimulation are as great as the dangers of over-stimulation and recommend that a portion of time each day be 135 spent i n guided a c t i v i t y . The greatest undertaking i n the area of intervention i s , of course, Head Start which involves many experimental 136 projects. Follow up programmes current l y under way w i l l a t t e s t to the o v e r a l l e f f i c i e n c y of t h i s massive undertaking. The d i f f i c u l t y of c l e a r l y d e l i m i t i n g the proposed three areas of readiness i s best exemplified by a look at James Hymes, J r . who tended to v a c i l l a t e from one point of view to the other. He adopted the waiting approach to reading, i n 137 p a r t i c u l a r , saying that time, not pra c t i c e i s the answer. Later, however, Hymes maintained that readiness means that 138 the c h i l d i s always ready to learn, and the challenge i s to f i n d the content and methods of teaching that f i t the 139 young c h i l d . He then decried p a s s i v i t y and stated that the teacher should s e n s i t i v e l y know when to r e i n f o r c e sound learnings and to avert miseducative happenings. "^° Obviously the problem of de l i m i t i n g oneself i s a r e a l one. The educational implications of the p r i n c i p l e of readiness were n i c e l y summarized by Ausubel. He advised meticulous research i n a school s e t t i n g to answer questions concerning methods, to assess readiness and to 141 increase readiness wherever necessary and desirable. The readiness approach i s characterized by a close observation of the i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d , a stimulating environ-ment, and i n t e r a c t i o n between adults and c h i l d r e n . Care-f u l l y thought out, a c t i v i t y - c e n t r e d c u r r i c u l a provide for varying amounts of i n s t r u c t i o n , depending on the bias of the i n d i v i d u a l teacher. 28 S k i l l s A c q u i s i t i o n The s k i l l s a c q u i s i t i o n approach r e f e r s to the view t h a t t h e r e a r e c e r t a i n s k i l l s t h a t young c h i l d r e n should possess and t h a t those s k i l l s can be and should be taught d i r e c t l y . H i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . Locke, p r o b a b l y b e s t known f o r h i s " t a b u l a r a s a " approach to l e a r n i n g , suggested t h a t humans are born w i t h the c a p a c i t y f o r knowledge but w ithout p r a c t i c e they w i l l not a t t a i n p e r f e c t i o n . He c a u t i o n e d a g a i n s t engaging the mind i n t a s k s beyond i t s s t r e n g t h s 142 b e c a u s e . t h i s might promote an a v e r s i o n to such t a s k s , and added t h a t a l l i n s t r u c t i o n be tempered w i t h l o v e so t h a t the c h i l d w i l l enjoy h i s l e s s o n s . The i n f l u e n c e o f the m a t u r a t i o n i s t s p r e v a i l e d u n t i l the b e g i n n i n g o f the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y when p s y c h o l o g i s t s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y , began to q u e s t i o n the matura-t i o n i s t t h e o r i e s and to conduct experiments to i n v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t s o f environment on l e a r n i n g . Watson s p e c u l a t e d t h a t the most important t h i n g about man i s what he does and suggested t h a t he be s t u d i e d i n o r d e r to p r e d i c t how he would a c t i n a g i v e n s i t u a t i o n . The r e a l g o a l o f behaviourism i s t o p r o v i d e the b a s i s f o r the 144 p r e d i c t i o n and c o n t r o l o f human b e i n g s . I t has been suggested by Thorndike t h a t i n t e l l e c t , c h a r a c t e r and s k i l l a r e the p r o d u c t of o r i g i n a l t e n d e n c i e s 145 and t r a i n i n g . He f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t the o n l y f o r c e s t h a t account f o r a n y t h i n g i n man's work are r e p e t i t i o n and reward, and e x p l a i n e d the c o n n e c t i o n s between S, any s i t u a t i o n to which man c o u l d become s e n s i t i v e , and R, any thought, f e e l i n g or a c t . D e s i r a b l e c o n n e c t i o n s should be rewarded o r r e i n f o r c e d , but u n d e s i r a b l e c o n n e c t i o n s should , . , , 146 never be punished. Tolman r e j e c t e d both the c o n d i t i o n e d r e f l e x t h e o r i e s of P a v l o v and the c o n n e c t i o n i s t t h e o r i e s of Thorndike. He a s s e r t e d t h a t numerous experiments had suggested t h a t 29 learning i s not a matter of d i r e c t connections between st i m u l i and responses, but that there are intervening 147 variables to be considered. H u l l , Spence and Guthrie 148 c a r r i e d on the work begun by Tolman. Skinner agreed that the stimulus-response model was not convincing. He pointed out that what the environment does to an organism a f t e r i t responds to a stimulus must also be taken into account. Two r e s u l t s of t h i s thinking were the conclusions 1) that operant behaviour can be studied by arranging environments i n which s p e c i f i c consequences are contingent upon i t and 2) that the environment can be man-ipulated. Skinner went on to suggest that a technology of behaviour i s the only way to solve our problems, but that such a solution w i l l continue to be rejected u n t i l c e r t a i n 149 moral questions are adequately dealt with. A study by Skeels and Dye on the e f f e c t s of environment 150 on mentally retarded c h i l d r e n had considerable impact on educational psychology. On the grounds of American p r i n c i -ples of democracy, Bloom urged that optimum environmental conditions be provided for a l l c h i l d r e n . Bereiter stated quite c l e a r l y that c h i l d r e n must be educated. I t i s sheer romance, he went on to say, to imagine that they can grow into adequate adults without some influence from outside of themselves. Children must be encouraged to express, through t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s , the best that i s i n them, and i t i s the duty of those who care about 152 childr e n to impose that value. In France Binet studied i n d i v i d u a l differences and developed an i n t e l l i g e n c e scale. He postulated that i n t e l l i g e n c e shows change i n r e l a t i o n to s h i f t s i n the environment and was surprised and concerned at the prejudice 153 against the concept of the m o d i f i a b i l i t y of i n t e l l i g e n c e . 154 He termed the idea of f i x e d i n t e l l i g e n c e "brutal pessimism" and maintained that i t i s , indeed, possible to increase the 155 capacity to learn, to improve with i n s t r u c t i o n . The l i t e r a t u r e c l e a r l y r e f l e c t s the behaviourists' 30 i n t e r e s t i n research as opposed to the maturationists" r e l i a n c e on observation. Those who advocate the s k i l l s a c q u i s i t i o n approach appreciate the basic contribution of heredity, but emphasize the r o l e played by environmental s t i m u l i . They believe that the answer to the problems of education l i e s i n experimental research and technology. Influence on curriculum design. The e f f e c t s of behav-iourism can be seen i n three general approaches to learning i n the early years. They include 1: the well-defined ob-j e c t i v e s , 2) the e a r l i e r ages at which teaching takes place, and 3) the use of teaching machines. The Developmental Task I n s t r u c t i o n a l System was devised to provide the "tools necessary to help young c h i l d r e n devel-op and strengthen the s k i l l s they must possess to function succ e s s f u l l y i n a learning e n v i r o n m e n t . D e v e l o p m e n t a l objectives are c l e a r l y defined, i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s are described, and evaluation procedures are planned. Another program, Dista r, i s focused on the elimination of problem behaviour and the induction of s k i l l s that are needed for a f u l l l i f e i n our society. Teachers using Distar are trained to use methods which include the use of s i g n a l s , s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s and r e i n f o r c e r s . Other programs based on p r i n c i p l e s s i m i l a r to those d i s -cussed previously are Behaviour Analysis, DARCEE and TEEM, a l l 158 described i n Spodek's Early Childhood Education. Glenn Doman recommended the teaching of reading to c h i l -dren as young as one year o l d , the r a t i o n a l e being that these are the years of i n s a t i a b l e c u r i o s i t y . Doman suggested, furthermore, that c h i l d r e n who have not learned to read early at home tend to associate the unhappiness of being separated from t h e i r mother with education and thus w i l l be hampered 159 throughout t h e i r school years by psychological s t r e s s . F e l i c i t y Hughes, i n the same vein, c i t e d the gap between what a c h i l d understands and what he can read as 31 a cause of reading f a i l u r e and as a reason for teaching reading early when the gap i s narrow. An older c h i l d reading far below his comprehension a b i l i t i e s l e v e l , she reasoned, w i l l be bored with the material and consequently become frustrated with reading. On the other hand, Hughes suggested that understanding a new book can be taught a c h i l d before he 160 attempts to read that book. Skinner recommended teaching machines with appropriate r e i n f o r c e r s and adequate programming to make education more 161 e f f i c i e n t . In the preschool machines have been used to teach reading. The advantages of such machines include the one to one attention from the machine, the non-threatening impersonality of the machine, the immediate feedback and the 162 pleasure inherent i n learning to read. One such programme 163 used the computerized typewriter devised by 0. K. Moore. Experimental research, technology and structure imposed by the teacher are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s k i l l s a c q u i s i t i o n approach. C u r r i c u l a are standardized and include cl e a r statements on objectives, methods and evaluation c r i t e r i a -SUMMARY A review of the e f f e c t s of early group experience has indicated that cognitive development has not always been 164 enhanced by attendance at preschools. Goodlad found l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between professed goals for early education and the a c t u a l i t i e s of the preschool programmes, e s p e c i a l l y i n the areas of cognitive and motor develop-,.165 ment. History has provided us with models upon which to b u i l d v i a b l e and e f f e c t i v e c u r r i c u l a designed to meet the needs of c h i l d r e n , teachers and society. The growing recognition of the value of cognitive development i n the early years w i l l , i t may be assumed, accelerate the drive toward more research into a l l areas of early childhood education and toward better q u a l i t y teacher t r a i n i n g . Mauritz Johnson has pointed out: "No program i s as good as i t s proponents hope i t i s , nor as bad as i t s opponents fear i t i s . This applies to both the conventional program 166 and i t s innovative r i v a l . " The literature seems to lead one to the conclusion that an objective look at a l l programmes and their p o s s i b i l i t i e s would be in the best interests of everyone concerned with the education of young children. 33 NOTES TO CHAPTER II Jean Piaget, Six Psychological Studies (New York: Random House, 1967) p. 33; see also Jean Piaget, Les  re l a t i o n s entre 1 ' a f f e c t i v i t e et 1'intelligence dans l e  development mental de 1'enfant, trans. Theodore Mischel (Paris: Centre de Documentation Univ., 1954) p. 154. 2 M i l l i e Almy, Young Children's Thinking (Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press, 1966) pp. 138-139; see also John Dewey, "My Pedagogic Creed" i n Dewey on Education, Selections with an Introduction and  Notes by Martin S. Dworkin (Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press, 1959) p. 21-22. 3 Joe L. Frost, Early Childhood Education Rediscovered (New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc., 1968) p. v i i i . 4 Benjamin Bloom, Editor, Taxonomy of Educational  Objectives (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1956) p. 7. 5 William Fowler, "Cognitive Baselines i n Early C h i l d -hood: Developmental Learning and D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of Com-petence Rule Systems" i n Cognitive Studies 2: D e f i c i t s i n  Cognition, Jerome Hellmuth, ed. (New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1971) p. 239. g Ibid. , p. 236; see also Bloom, l o c . c i t . 7 Piaget, Six Psychological Studies, p. 120; see also Jean Piaget, The Origins of Intelligence i n Children (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1952) p. 42. o Gustave Mueller, "Heinrich P e s t a l o z z i - His L i f e and Work," Harvard Educational Review, XVI: 3: 154; 1946; see also Maria Montessori, The Absorbent Mind (New York: D e l l Publishing Company, Inc., 1967) p. 152. q Boehm/Slater, Cognitive S k i l l s Assessment Battery (Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press, 1974). ^Bloom, l o c . c i t . i : L I b i d . , p. 29. 12 Piaget, The Origins of Intelligence i n Children, pp. 418-419; see also Gardner Murphy, "motivation: the key to changing educational times," i n Motivation: the desire to learn (Theory into Practice, College of Education, The Ohio State University, 1970) p. 5; Melvin Manis, Cognitive Pro-cesses (Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1969) p. 105-112. 13 John Holt, How Children F a i l (New York: D e l l Pub-l i s h i n g Co., Inc., 1964) p. 205. 14 Northrup Frye, The Educational Imagination (Toronto: The Hunter Rose Company, 1963) p. 5. 15 . Margaret McMillan, Education Through the Imagination (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1924) pp. 9-15. "^Bloom, op. c i t . , p. 32. 17 I s r e a l S h e f f l e r , Conditions of Knowledge (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1965) p. 5. 18 Bloom, op. c i t . , p. 33. 1 9 I b i d . , p. 34. 20 G i l b e r t Ryle, The Concept of Mind (London: Hutchinson House, 1949) pp. 42-43; see also L.A. Cremin, "The progres-sive movement i n American education: a perspective," Harvard Educational Review, 27: 251, 1957. 21 Mary Ann Spencer Pulaski, Understanding Piaget (New York: Harper and Row, 1971) p. 194. 22 . Irving D. Harris, Emotional Blocks to Learning (Toronto: Collier-Macmillan, 1961) pp. 23-24. 2 3 I b i d . , p. 24. 2 4 A r n o l d Arnold, Teaching Your Ch i l d to Learn (Engle-wood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971) p. 12. 2 5 J o h n Holt, What Do I Do Monday? (New York: D e l l Pub-l i s h i n g Co., Inc., 1970) p. 45. 2 6 Jerome S. Bruner, "On Cognitive Growth," i n Studies i n  Cognitive Growth, Jerome S. Bruner et a l (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966) p. 4. 27 David P. Ausubel, Theory and Problems of C h i l d  Development (New York: Grune and Stratton, 1958) p. 574; see also Montessori, The Absorbent Mind, p. 8, pp. 274-275. 28 James L. Hymes, J r . , Teaching the Chi l d Under Six (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l Publishing Company, 1968) p. 17. 29 John Dewey, Experience and Education (London: C o l l i e r -Macmillan, 1938) p. 48. 3 0 Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile (London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1961). 35 31 Ausubel, op. ext., p. 27. 32 Rousseau, op. c i t . , p. 5. 33 Roger de Guimps, P e s t a l o z z i , His L i f e and Work (New York: Appleton, 1890) pp. 149-151. 34 William H. Herford, The Student's Froebel: Adapted  from Die Erziehung der Menscheit of F. Froebel, Part I, Theory of Education (Boston: D.C. Heath and Co., 1900) pp. 1-3. 35 Ausubel, l o c . c i t . 3 6 Ausubel, op. c i t . , p. 29. 37 Arnold Gesell and Frances L. I l g , Infant and Chi l d i n  the Culture of Today (New York: Harper and Row, 1943) p. 296. 38 Piaget, Six Psychological Studies, p. 119. 39 William Boyd, The Emile of Jean Jacques Rousseau (Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press, 1956) p. 46. 40 Piaget, op. c i t . , p. 120. 4 1 H a r r y B e i l i n , "The Development of Physical Concepts," i n Cognitive Development and Epistemology, Theodore Mischel, ed. (New York: Academic Press, 1971) p. 90. ^Montessori, op. c i t . , p. 6. 43 Maria Montessori, The Discovery of the Chi l d (New York: Ballantine Books, 1967) p. 325. 4 4Samuel J . Braun and Esther P. Edwards, History and  Theory of Early Childhood Education (Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1972) p. 111. 45 J . McVicker Hunt, " R e v i s i t i n g Montessori: Intro-duction," i n The Montessori Method (New York: Schocken Books, 1964) pp. x i i i - x i v . 4 6 Wilton Marion Krogman, "The Concept of Maturity from a Morphological Viewpoint," Ch i l d Development, XXI: 25, March, 1950. 47 Braun and Edwards, op. c i t . , p. 40. 4 8A.S. N e i l l , Summerhill (New York: Hart Publishing Co., Inc., 1960) p. 102. 36 49 Braun and Edwards, op. c i t . , p. 46. 50 de Guimps, op. c i t . , pp. 151-152. 51 P h y l l i s Levenstein, "Mothers as Early Cognitive Trainers," (Paper read at Biennial Meeting. Society for Research i n C h i l d Development, A p r i l , 1971, Minneapolis); see also Earladeen Badget, "Mothers' Training Program. Educational Intervention by the Mothers of Disadvantaged Infants" (Washington, D.C.: O f f i c e of Education, August 1968); Russell A. Dusewicz, "The Parent Involvement Pro-gram. A F i n a l Report." (West Chester State College, Pen-nsylvania: Pennsylvania Learning Resource Centre, Septem-ber, 1972); Marshall L. Hamilton, "Evaluation of a Parent and C h i l d Centre Program," C h i l d Welfare, 51:4: 248-258, A p r i l , 1972. 52 de Guimps, op. c i t . , p. 169-170. 53 Braun and Edwards, op. c i t . p. 67-68. 54 Hazel M. Lambert, Teaching the Kindergarten C h i l d (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1958) p. 8. 55 Bernard Bailyn, Education i n the Forming of American  Society: Needs and Opportunities for Study (New York: Vintage Books, 1960) pp. 29-30; see also Lawrence A. Cremin, ed., The Republic and the School: Horace Mann on the  Education of Free Men (New York: Teachers College Bureau of Publications, 1957) pp. 98-104. 5 6 Patty Smith H i l l , "Kindergarten," American Educators'  Encyclopedia (Lake B l u f f , 111.: The United Educators, Inc., 1941) pp. 486-492; see also Bernard Spodek, Teaching i n the  Early Years (Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1972) p. 19. 57 . . Spodek, i b i d . , p. 19-20. 5 8 I b i d . , p. 20. 59 Arnold Gesell and Frances L. I l g , C h i l d Development (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1949) p. 1. 60T, . , I b i d . 61 Arnold G e s e l l , "The ontogenesis of infant behaviour," i n Manual of C h i l d Psychology, L. Carmichael, ed. (New York: Wiley, 1954) pp. 335-373. 6 2 Arnold G e s e l l , The Pre-school C h i l d (Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1923) p. 57. 37 6 3 Gesell and I l g . op. c i t . , pp. 372-390. 64 Frances I l g and Louise Bates Ames, School Readiness (New York: Harper and Row, 1964) pp. 31-384. 65 Jean Piaget, Introduction a 1'Epistemologie Genetique (Paris: Presses Universaires de France, 1950). 6 6 P u laski, op. c i t . , p. 193. 67 Jean Piaget, Science of Education and the Psychology  of the C h i l d (New York: Orion Press, 1970) p. 7. 68 David P. Weikart et a l , The Cognitively Oriented Cur- riculum (University of I l l i n o i s , Urbana, 111.: An ERIC-NAEYC Publ i c a t i o n i n E a r l y Childhood Education, 1971) p. i x . 6 9 I b i d . 70 C. Kamii and N. Radin,- "A framework for a preschool curriculum based on some Piagetian concepts," Journal of  Creative Behavior, 1:314-324, 1967. 71 Myron K. Nalbandian, "Analysis of Two C u r r i c u l a : Engelmann-Becker and New Nursery School. F i n a l Report" (Washington, D.C.: O f f i c e of Education, July 20, 1971). 72 J. Featherstone, Schools Where Children Learn (New York: L i v e r i g h t , 1971); see also L. Weber, The English  Infant School and Informal Education (Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1971). . " • 73 Herbert R. Kohl, The Open Classroom (New York: The New York Review, 1969). 74 Pulaski, op. c i t . , p. 199. 75 Montessori, The Discovery of the C h i l d , pp. 6-9. 76 Montessori, The Montessori Method. 77 J . Scott Anderson, "The Montessori Method of Teaching Hearing Children," Reprinted from The Volta Review, June, 1912 (Washington, D.C: American Association to Promote the Teaching of Speech to the Deaf) pp. 164-168. 7 8 Spodek, op. c i t . , pp. 25-26. 79 Frost, op. c i t . , pp. 69-196. 8 0 Henry W. Holmes, The Montessori Method (New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1912) pp. xix-xx; see also Mario Montessori and A.S. N e i l l , "Radical Private Schools," This Magazine i s About Schools, 1:1:10-23, A p r i l , 1966. 38 81 Rousseau, op. c i t . , pp. 193, 285, 300. 8 2 I b i d . , p. 293. 8 3 de Gruimps, op. c i t . , p. 170. 8 4 I b i d . , p. 171. 8 5 E. Heerwart, Froebel's Theory and Practice (London: Charles Dible, 1897), p. 16-18. 8 6 Gesell and I l g , loco. c i t . 8 7 Herbert Ginsberg and S y l v i a Opper, Piaget's theory of  i n t e l l e c t u a l development (Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969) p. 223. 8 8 Almy, op. c i t . , p. 5. 8 9 Montessori, The Discovery of the C h i l d , pp. 106-122. 90 John Amos Comenius, The Great Didactic (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1896) p. 204. 91_, . , Ibid. 92 J.B. Watson, Psychological Care of Infant and C h i l d (New York: Norton, 1928) p. 5. 93 Carlton W. Washburne, "The Grade Placement of Arithmetic Topics: A 'Committee of Seven' Investigation," Report of the Society's Committee on Arithmetic Twenty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930) p. 641. 94 G.T. Buswell, "Deferred Arithmetic," Mathematics Teacher, XXXI: 195-200, May, 1938. 95 William Brownell, "Observations of Instruction i n Lower-Grade Arithmetic i n English and Sco t t i s h Schools," Arithmetic Teacher, VII: 174, A p r i l , 1960. 96 A. Gesell and H. Thompson, "Learning and growth i n i d e n t i c a l infant twins," Genetic Psychological Monographs, 6:1-124, 1929. 97 Albert J . Harris, How to Increase Reading A b i l i t y (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., Inc., 1940) p. 6; see also Frances I l g and Louise B. Ames, "Developmental Trends i n Arithmetic," Journal of Genetic Psychology, LXXIX:24, September, 1951. 98 E.W. Dolch and Maurine Bloomster, "Phonic Readiness," Elementary School Journal, XXXVIII: 201-205, November, 1937. 99 A.J. Harrxs, loco. c i t . Janet M. Kulberg and Elaine S. Gershman, "School Readiness: Studies of Assessment Procedures and Comparison of Three Types of Programming for Immature 5-Year-Olds," Psychology i n the Schools, X:4:410-420, October, 1973. 1 0 1Jerome S. Bruner, The Process of Education (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960). 102 Jerome S. Bruner, Towards a Theory of Instruction (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966). 103 Bruner, The Process of Education, p. 12. 104 John Downing and D.V. Thackray, Reading Readiness (London: University of London Press, Ltd., 1971) p. 72. "^^Dolores Durkin, "What Does Research Say About the Time to Begin Reading?" Journal of Educational Research, 64:2:52-56. 106 Dolores Durkin, "Reading Readiness," Reading Teacher, 23:6:528-34. 107 J . McVicker Hunt, Int e l l i g e n c e and Experience (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1961), p. 269-273. 108 I b i d . , p. 280; see also Walter B. Waetjen, "the teacher and motivation," Theory Into Prac t i c e : Motivation (Ohio: Ohio State University, 1970) p. 12-13. 109 A.L. Baldwin, Behavior and Development i n Childhood (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1955) p. 293. ^ ^ E l i z a b e t h Prescott, "Approaches to Quality i n Early Childhood Programs," Childhood Education, 50:3:131, January, 1974. ^ ^ C h i l d r e n and Their Primary Schools. A Report of the  Central Advisory Council for Education (England) (London: Her Majesty's Stationery O f f i c e , 1967) p. 12. 112 J.H. P e s t a l o z z i , How Gertrude Teaches Her Children (London: S. Sonnenschein, 1898) p. 28. 113 Montessori, The Montessori Method, p. 358. 114 Dewey, op. c i t . , pp. 89-91. 40 115 •"•"ibid. , p. "37. ^ John Dewey, The Child and the Curriculum (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1902) p. 16. 117 Ruby Minor, Early Childhood Education (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., 1937) pp. 218-219. 118 Martin S. Dworkin, "John Dewey: A Centennial Review," i n Dewey on Education (Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press, 1959) p. 1-18. 119 John Dewey, Experience and Education, p. 71. 120 Almy, op. c i t . , p. 139; see also Arnold, op. c i t . , pp. 11-12. 121 William James, Talks to Teachers (New York: Norton and Company, Inc., 1958) p. 104. 122 David H. Russell, Children Learn to Read (New York: Ginn and Company, 1961) p. 91. 123 William Fowler, "On the Value of Both Play and Structure i n Early Education," Young Children: 27:1:24-36; see also, by the same author, "Cognitive Learning i n Infancy and Early Childhood," Psychological B u l l e t i n : 2:116-152, 1969; "Concept Learning i n Early Childhood," Young Children: 21:81-91, 1965; "Dimensions and Directions i n the Develop-ment of Affecto-cognitive Systems," Human Development: 9:18-29, 1966. 124 James L. Hymes, J r . , Early Childhood Education (Wash-ington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1969) pp. 7-15; see also Marshall S. Smith and Joan S. B i s s e l l , "Report Analysis: The Impact of Head Start," Harvard Educational Review, 40:96-97, 1970; Annie L. Butler, Headstart for Every C h i l d (New York: The Assoc-iated Press, 1972); Madeline Hunter, "Public Education for Four-year-olds: To Be or Not to Be," Childhood Education 49:8:403-407. 125 Max Wolff and Annie Stein, "Head Start Six Months Later," Phi Delta Kappan, XLVIII:7:349-350, March, 1967; see also William F. B r a z z i e l , "Two Years of Head Start," Phi Delta Kappan, XLVIII:7:344-348, March, 1967; Gotts, "Evaluating Head Start," Disadvantaged C h i l d : 3, 1970. Robert Mendelsohn, "Is Head Start a Success or F a i l u r e ? " Disadvantaged C h i l d : 3, 1970. 126 Richard J . Light and Paul V. Smith, "Choosing a Future: Strategies for Designing and Evaluating New Programs," Harvard Educational Review: 40:1:1-28, Winter, 1970. 41 127 Spodek, Teaching i n the Early Years; see also Sarah Lou Hammond et a l , Good Schools for Young Children (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1974); Robert D. Hess and Doreen J . Croft, Teachers of Young Children (Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company, 1972); Evelyn Goodenough Pitcher et a l , Helping  Young Children Learn (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l Publishing Company, 1974). 128 Frances I l g and Louise B. Ames, "Developmental Trends i n Arithmetic," Journal of Genetic Psychology: LXXIX:3, September, 1951. 129 D.M. Johnson, Psychology: A Problem Solving Approach (New York: Harper and Bros., 1961) p. 12; see also Boyd R. McCandless, Children and Adolescents (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961) p. 118. 130 Gessell, "The Ontogenesis of Infant Behavior," pp. 355-356. 131 Elizabeth S. Meyers et a l , The Kindergarten Teacher's Handbook (Los Angeles: Gramercy Press, 1973). 132 Downing and Thackery, op. c i t . , pp. 72-73. 13 3 John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916) pp. 180-206. 1 3 4 I b i d . 135 Fowler, "On the Value of Both Play and Structure i n Early Education," pp. 24-36. 136 Robert C. Dwyer et a l , "Evaluation of the E f f e c t i v e -ness of a Problem-Based Preschool Compensatory Program," The Journal of Educational Research: 66:4:153-156, December, 1972; see also Louise B. M i l l e r and Jean L. Dyer, "Four Preschool Programs. Their Dimensions and E f f e c t s , " (Wash-ington, D.C.: Public Health Service, 1972) pp. 1-33. 137 James L. Hymes, J r . , Before the C h i l d Reads (Evanston, I l l i n o i s : Row, Peterson and Company, 1958) p. 10. ^ 3 8 I b i d . , p. 81. 139 James L. Hymes, Teaching The Ch i l d Under Six (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l Publishing Company, 1968) p. 17. 1 4 0 I b i d . , pp. 20-21. 141 Ausubel, op. c i t . , pp. 86-88. 42 14 2 John Locke, Conduct of the Understanding (New York: Lenox H i l l Pub. and Di s t . Co., 1971) p. 13, pp. 62-63. 143 John Locke, Some Thoughts on Education (Boston, 1830) in Robert U l i c h , Three Thousand Years of Education (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954) p. 378. 144 John B. Watson, The Ways of Behaviorism (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1928) pp. 1-2. 145 Edward L. Thorndike, The Psychology of Learning (West-port, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1913) p. 1. 146 Edward L. Thorndike, Man and His Works (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1943)pp. 22-41, pp. 146-165. 147 Edward Chance Tolman, Collected Papers i n Psychology (Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1951) pp. x i - x i i i . 148 Clark L. H u l l , P r i n c i p l e s of Behavior (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1943); see also Kenneth W. Spence, Behavior Theory and Conditioning (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956); Winfred F. H i l l , "Contemporary Developments Within Stimulus-Response Learning Theory," Theories of  Learning and Instruction, The S i x t y - t h i r d Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964) pp. 35-36. 149 B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity (New York: A l f r e d A. Knoph, 1971) pp. 17-25. 1 5 0 H a r o l d M. Skeels and Harold B. Dye, "A Study of the Ef f e c t s of D i f f e r e n t i a l Stimulation on Mentally Retarded Children," Proceedings and Addresses of the American Assoc- i a t i o n on Mental Deficiency:44:l:114-136, 1939. ^"^Benjamin S. Bloom, S t a b i l i t y and Change i n Human  Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964) pp. 190-193. 152 Ca r l Bereiter, Must We Educate? (Rnglewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1973) p. 9, pp. 100-103. 153 Braun and Edwards, op. c i t . , p. 209. 154 A l f r e d Binet, Les Idees Modernes Pur Les Enfants (Paris: Ernest Flamarin, 1909) i n George D. Stoddard, "The I.Q.: Its Ups and Downs," Educational Record: 20:44-57, January supplement, 1939. 1 5 5 I b i d . 43 "^^David L. L i l l i e , Early Childhood Education (Toronto: Science Research Association, Inc., 1975) Preface. 157 Ibid., pp. 32-48; see also Wesley C. Becker et a l , Teaching 2: Cognitive Learning and Instruction (Toronto: Science Research Associates, 1975) p. V. 158 Bernard Spodek, Early Childhood Education (Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice H a l l , Inc., 1973) pp. 163-172, 187-198, 230-248. 159 Glenn Doman, How to Teach Your Baby to Read (New York: Random House, 1964) pp. 36-41. ' ' " ^ F e l i c i t y Hughes, Reading and Writing Before School (London: Pan Books Ltd., 1971) pp. 76-77. "*"^B.F. Skinner, The Technology of Teaching (New York: Meredith Corporation, 1968) pp. 29-91. 162 E i l e e n D r i b i n , "Reading With Joy," Education Digest:37 7:45-47. 163 O.K. Moore, "Orthographic Symbols and the Preschool Ch i l d - A New Approach," unpublished paper, Sociology De-partment, Yale University, 1959. 164 J.W. Swift, "Effects of early group experience: the nursery school and day nursery," i n Review of C h i l d Develop- ment Research. Vol. 2. M.L. Hoffman and L.W. Hoffman, ed. (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964). "''^^John I. Goodlad, Study of Early Childhood Schooling (New York: McGraw-Hill, i n press). 166 Mauritz Johnson, "A Skeptic's View," i n Open Education  Re-examined (Toronto: Lexington Books, 1973) p. 1. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY The purpose of the study was to measure the change i n the l e v e l s of cognitive s k i l l s of c h i l d r e n attending both kindergarten and day care centres on the University of B r i t i s h Columbia campus and i t s environs and to evaluate the t e s t used as a tool i n assessing l e v e l s and changes i n children's cognitive development. In t h i s chapter, the d e s c r i p t i o n of the nature of the sample, the materials used to c o l l e c t the data and the procedures followed are discussed under the headings: Subjects, Materials and Procedures. SUBJECTS The chil d r e n were drawn from ten day care centres on the University of B r i t i s h Columbia campus and i t s environs and attended kindergartens i n the same general areas during the 1974-75 school term. The t o t a l population of kindergarten c h i l d r e n attending day care was used, a number that amounted to 49 c h i l d r e n . Forty-nine c h i l d r e n , 31 boys and 18 g i r l s were tested i n February. Thirty-nine c h i l d r e n , 24 boys and 15 g i r l s , were av a i l a b l e for r e t e s t i n g i n June. Reasons for absences were moves or vacations at the time of r e t e s t i n g . The mean chronological age of the c h i l d r e n at the time of the February t e s t i n g was 67.08 months, with a range from 61.70 to 73.36 months. 44 45 MATERIALS Evaluation of the children's l e v e l of cognitive s k i l l s was based on the subtests of the Boehm/Slater: Cognitive  S k i l l s Assessment Battery and a subtest from the Murphy-Du r r e l l Reading Readiness Analysis. The subtests included i n the Boehm/Slater: Cognitive  S k i l l s Assessment Battery were: a) Basic Information b) Identifying Body Parts c) Color I d e n t i f i c a t i o n d) Shape I d e n t i f i c a t i o n e) Number Knowledge f) Information From Pictures g) Picture Comprehension h) Story Comprehension i) M u ltiple Directions j) Large Muscle Coordination k) Memory 1) Visual-Motor Coordination m) Vocabulary n) Symbol Discrimination o) Visual-Auditory Discrimination P) Auditory Discrimination Very l i t t l e data are a v a i l a b l e about tests of either v a l i d i t y or r e l i a b i l i t y i n the t e s t material provided. The t e s t manual makes the general statement that the "competen-cies included i n the battery are those deemed relevant to success at the kindergarten and grade one l e v e l s by teachers i n the field,"''' but c i t e s no s p e c i f i c bases for making such judgments. F i e l d t e s t i n g was c a r r i e d out on 383 pre-kindergarten and 515 kindergarten c h i l d r e n , a t o t a l of 898 c h i l d r e n , at the beginning (October to early November) and the end (May to early June) of the school year. According to the manual, "Classes were selected i n r u r a l , suburban, and urban locations across the United States. No attempt was made to be representative of a l l pre-kindergarten and kindergarten c h i l d r e n . Socio-economic l e v e l of the population served by 2 school areas was a further consideration." There i s no evidence to suggest that any attempt was made to develop r e l i a b i l i t y data. Since the study was considered exploratory, the tests were used despite the weakness i n the areas of v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y . I t was assumed that the study i t s e l f would y i e l d information that might lead to improvement i n the t e s t manual. The subtest selected from the Murphy-Durrell Reading  Readiness Analysis was the Letter Knowledge Test - Level One  (Identifying). Concerning the v a l i d i t y of the t e s t , Murphy and D u r r e l l state that a c o r r e l a t i o n between the t o t a l score on Murphy-D u r r e l l Reading Readiness Analysis and the t o t a l score on Metropolitan Readiness Test was found to be .80, and on Pintner-Cunningham Primary Test was found to be .64. The three tests were administered during the same t e s t i n g period, September 1964. The c o r r e l a t i o n s were based on a l l pupils i n the standardized sample, N=12,231. Further c o r r e l a t i o n s with a reading t e s t administered at the end of f i r s t grade supports 3 the v a l i d i t y of the t e s t . Odd-even r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t and standard errors of measurement for the tes t t o t a l and subtest scores are stated as .90. The r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the subtest scores, while lower than that of the t o t a l t e s t , are s u f f i c i e n t l y high to allow the tes t user to make r e l a t i v e l y c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n s 4 between d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s on the basis of subtest scores. 47 PROCEDURES A number of stages was involved i n carrying out the study, which was conducted between February and'June 1975. I n i t i a l contact In January each day care centre was v i s i t e d by the researcher and permission was asked to t e s t the c h i l d r e n who were attending both kindergarten and day care during the 1974-75 school year. Generally speaking, day care super-vi s o r s made the necessary arrangements. February t e s t i n g Each c h i l d was tested i n d i v i d u a l l y at the day care centre he attended. Testing was c a r r i e d out i n a separate room where there was a minimum of d i s t r a c t i o n and extraneous noise. Testing was conducted during the period from February 16 to February 27, 1975. The Boehm/Slater: Cognitive S k i l l s Assessment Battery was administered according to the d i r e c t i o n s set out i n the accompanying manual, followed by the Murphy-Durrell Letter  Knowledge - Level One (Identifying) subtest. Because the childre n seemed to enjoy the f i r s t t e s t given and did not become r e s t l e s s or appear t i r e d , the l e t t e r knowledge t e s t was administered immediately without a r e s t period. The t o t a l time involved per c h i l d was about twenty-five minutes. June t e s t i n g Conditions were the same as for the February t e s t i n g . Testing was conducted during the period from June 1 to June 11, 1975. The same procedures for administering the tests were used i n June as were used i n February. 48 Test correction"and scoring A l l of the tests were hand scored by the investigator at the time of t e s t i n g , according to d i r e c t i o n s set out i n the manuals. The scores for a l l tests were entered on master sheets presented i n Appendices A and B. NOTES TO CHAPTER I I I Ann E. Boehm and Barbara R. Slate r , Cognitive S k i l l s  Assessment Battery (Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press, 1974) Manual, p. 3. 2 Ibxd., p. 8. 3 Helen A. Murphy and Donald D. D u r r e l l , Murphy-Durrell Reading Readiness Analysis (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1965) Manual, p. 18. Ibid. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA In t h i s study o f the growth o f c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s o f k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n a t t e n d i n g day care c e n t r e s , a t t e n t i o n was f o c u s s e d on c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s as asse s s e d by the Boehm/ S l a t e r : C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s Assessment B a t t e r y and the L e t t e r  Knowledge - L e v e l One ( I d e n t i f y i n g ) s u b t e s t o f the Murphy-D u r r e l l Reading Readiness A n a l y s i s . I n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s was gathered from t e s t s a d m i n i s t e r e d by the i n v e s t i g a t o r . The s k i l l s t e s t e d were subsumed under the f o l l o w i n g t i l e s : B a s i c I n -f o r m a t i o n , I d e n t i f y i n g Body P a r t s , C o l o r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Shape I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Number Knowledge, I n f o r m a t i o n from P i c t u r e s , P i c t u r e Comprehension, S t o r y Comprehension, M u l t i p l e D i r e c t i o n s , Large Muscle C o o r d i n a t i o n , Memory, V i s u a l - M o t o r C o o r d i n a t i o n , V o c a b u l a r y , Symbol D i s c r i m i n a t i o n , V i s u a l - A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n , A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and L e t t e r Knowledge. These t e s t s made a t o t a l o f 76 items. To t e s t the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f d i f f e r e n c e between the s u b t e s t s c o r e s o b t a i n e d i n February and June, t - t e s t s were computed. RESULTS OF t-TEST ANALYSES The r e s u l t s o f the t e s t f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the d i f f e r e n c e i n means i n the Boehm/Slater t e s t are shown i n Tabl e I. 50 51 TABLE X RESULTS OF t-TESTS TO ANALYSE SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE OF MEANS ON SUBTESTS AND TEST TOTAL OF THE BOEHM/SLATER: COGNITIVE SKILLS ASSESSMENT BATTERY Sub t e s t Feb. X June X t B a s i c I n f o r m a t i o n 3.6 4.4 4.01** I d e n t i f y i n g Body P a r t s 7.7 8.0 2.69* C o l o r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 5.8 5.8 1.67 Shape I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 7.1 7.2 0.48 Number Knowledge 11.3 12.2 2.72** In f o r m a t i o n from P i c t u r e s 5.9 6.2 1. 45 P i c t u r e Comprehension 2.9 2.9 0.57 S t o r y Comprehension 3.3 3.7 2.02 M u l t i p l e D i r e c t i o n s 2.3 2.6 2.40* Large Muscle C o o r d i n a t i o n 5.4 5.6 1.10 Memory 4.5 5.6 2.82** V i s u a l - M o t o r C o o r d i n a t i o n 5.5 5.8 2.35* Vocabulary 7.6 8.1 1.56 Symbol D i s c r i m i n a t i o n 7.8 8.1 1.87 V i s u a l - A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n 3.6 3.6 0.93 A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n 3.9 4.3 1.51 T e s t T o t a l 88. 5 93.7 5.94** ** denotes s i g n i f i c a n t a t .01 l e v e l * denotes s i g n i f i c a n t a t .05 l e v e l 52 As Table I shows, the differences between means were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l , as computed by the t - t e s t , on the following subtests of the Boehm/Slater: Cognitive S k i l l s  Assessment Battery: Basic Information, Number Knowledge and Memory. Differences between means were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l , as computed by the t - t e s t , on the following subtests: Identifying Body Parts, Multiple Directions and Visual-Motor Coordination. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences between means were found on the following subtests: Color I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Shape Identi-f i c a t i o n , Information From Pictures, Picture Comprehension, Story Comprehension, Large Muscle Coordination, Vocabulary, Symbol Discrimination, Visual-Auditory Discrimination and Auditory Discrimination. The difference between means was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l on the Test T o t a l . Table II shows the r e s u l t s of the t e s t for s i g n i f i c a n c e of the difference between means i n the February and June t e s t i n g on the Letter Knowledge subtest of the Murphy-Durrell Reading Readiness Analysis. 53 TABLE I I RESULTS OF t-TEST TO COMPARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN SCORES ON THE LETTER KNOWLEDGE - LEVEL ONE (IDENTIFYING) SUBTEST OF THE MURPHY-DURRELL READING READINESS ANALYSIS Sub t e s t Feb. X June X t L e t t e r Knowledge - L e v e l One ( I d e n t i f y i n g ) 16.3 17.3 1.72 ** denotes s i g n i f i c a n t a t .01' l e v e l * denotes s i g n i f i c a n t a t .05 l e v e l I 54 As Table I I shows, t - t e s t s t a t i s t i c s on the L e t t e r  Knowledge - L e v e l One ( I d e n t i f y i n g ) s u b t e s t o f the Murphy-D u r r e l l Reading Readiness A n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between means. RESULTS OF TEST EVALUATION F o l l o w i n g i s an e v a l u a t i o n o f the s u b t e s t s o f the Boehm/ S l a t e r : C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s Assessment B a t t e r y . Range o f s c o r e s The Memory and S t o r y Comprehension s u b t e s t s p r o v i d e d f o r a range o f s c o r e s . No range o f s c o r e s was p r o v i d e d f o r on the B a s i c I n f o r -mation, I d e n t i f y i n g Body P a r t s , C o l o r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Shape I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Number Knowledge, I n f o r m a t i o n From P i c t u r e s , P i c t u r e Comprehension, M u l t i p l e D i r e c t i o n s , Large Muscle C o o r d i n a t i o n , V i s u a l - M o t o r C o o r d i n a t i o n , V ocabulary, Symbol D i s c r i m i n a t i o n , V i s u a l - A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n s u b t e s t s . V a l i d i t y F o urteen o f the s i x t e e n s u b t e s t s appeared t o measure the s k i l l s i m p l i e d by the s u b t e s t t i t l e . These were B a s i c I n f o r -mation, I d e n t i f y i n g Body P a r t s , C o l o r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Shape I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Number Knowledge, I n f o r m a t i o n From P i c t u r e s , S t o r y Comprehension, M u l t i p l e D i r e c t i o n s , Large Muscle C o o r d i n a t i o n , Memory, and Symbol D i s c r i m i n a t i o n . In the judgment o f the examiner, V i s u a l - A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m -i n a t i o n , V o cabulary, and A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n d i d not appear t o measure the s k i l l s i m p l i e d by the s u b t e s t t i t l e . C l a r i t y o f I n s t r u c t i o n s I n s t r u c t i o n s which seemed c l e a r f o r c h i l d r e n o f k i n d e r -g a r t e n age were p r o v i d e d f o r i n the f o l l o w i n g s u b t e s t s : B a s i c I n f o r m a t i o n , I d e n t i f y i n g Body P a r t s , C o l o r I d e n t i f i -55 c a t i o n , Shape I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Number Knowledge, P i c t u r e Comprehension, S t o r y Comprehension, M u l t i p l e D i r e c t i o n s , Large Muscle C o o r d i n a t i o n , A u d i t o r y Memory, V i s u a l - M o t o r C o o r d i n a t i o n , Symbol D i s c r i m i n a t i o n , V i s u a l - A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n . I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r I n f o r m a t i o n From P i c t u r e s , V o c a b u l a r y and V i s u a l Memory were judged inadequate f o r c h i l d r e n o f k i n d e r g a r t e n age. The judgments about the range of s c o r e s , v a l i d i t y o f the s u b t e s t s and c l a r i t y o f i n s t r u c t i o n s a re summarized i n Tabl e I I I . 56 TABLE I I I RESULTS OF TEST EVALUATION OF SUBTESTS OF BOEHM/SLATER: COGNITIVE SKILLS ASSESSMENT BATTERY Sub t e s t Range o f Scores V a l i d i t y I n s t r u c t i o n s B a s i c I n f o r m a t i o n * * I d e n t i f y i n g Body P a r t s * * C o l o r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n * * Large Muscle C o o r d i n a t i o n * * Shape I d e n t i f i c a t i o n * Number Knowledge ~ * I n f o r m a t i o n From * P i c t u r e s P i c t u r e Comprehension * S t o r y Comprehension * M u l t i p l e D i r e c t i o n s * * * * * * * Memory * * V i s u a l - M o t o r * * C o o r d i n a t i o n V o cabulary Symbol D i s c r i m i n a t i o n * * V i s u a l - A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n * * denotes adequacy i n the ar e a CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of the study were 1) to assess the amount of growth of cognitive s k i l l s i n kindergarten c h i l d r e n attending day care centres, and 2) to evaluate the effectiveness of the Boehm/Slater: Cognitive S k i l l s Assessment Battery as an instrument of measurement. The data were analysed to determine whether there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the r e s u l t s of a f i r s t t e s t i n g i n February, 1975 and a second t e s t i n g i n June, 1975. Individual t e s t items of the Boehm/Slater: Cognitive  S k i l l s Assessment Battery were studied to assess 1) t h e i r a b i l i t y to provide a continuum upon which to place c h i l d r e n whose cognitive s k i l l s range from very weak to very well developed, 2) t h e i r usefulness as measures of c e r t a i n cognitive s k i l l s , and 3) the c l a r i t y of the in s t r u c t i o n s f o r kindergarten age c h i l d r e n . SUMMARY OF FINDINGS T-test analyses were c a r r i e d out to determine the amount of growth i n cognitive s k i l l s of the ch i l d r e n tested, and a c r i t i c a l evaluation of the te s t used was made by the i n v e s t i -gator. S t a t i s t i c a l analysis for cognitive s k i l l s In the analysis of r e s u l t s a s i g n i f i c a n t difference a t the .01 l e v e l was found between means of the Test T o t a l . In the analysis of the r e s u l t s from the Boehm/Slater: Cognitive S k i l l s Assessment Battery, s i g n i f i c a n t differences at the .01 l e v e l were found between means of the following subtests: Basic Information, Number Knowledge, and Memory. 57 58 S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a t the .05 l e v e l were found between means o f the f o l l o w i n g s u b t e s t s : I d e n t i f y i n g Body P a r t s , M u l t i p l e D i r e c t i o n s and V i s u a l - M o t o r C o o r d i n a t i o n . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between means o f the f o l l o w i n g s u b t e s t s : C o l o r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Shape I d e n t i -f i c a t i o n , I n f o r m a t i o n from P i c t u r e s , P i c t u r e Comprehension, S t o r y Comprehension, Large Muscle C o o r d i n a t i o n , V o c a b u l a r y , Symbol D i s c r i m i n a t i o n , V i s u a l - A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between means o f the L e t t e r Knowledge - L e v e l One ( I d e n t i f y i n g ) s u b t e s t o f the Murp h y - D u r r e l l Reading Readiness A n a l y s i s . C r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n o f the Boehm/Slater t e s t S u b t e s t s which p r o v i d e d f o r a range o f s c o r e s were the f o l l o w i n g : Memory and S t o r y Comprehension. S u b t e s t s which d i d not p r o v i d e f o r a range o f s c o r e s were the f o l l o w i n g : B a s i c I n f o r m a t i o n , I d e n t i f y i n g Body P a r t s , C o l o r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Shape I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Number Knowledge, I n f o r m a t i o n from P i c t u r e s , P i c t u r e Comprehension, M u l t i p l e D i r e c t i o n s , Large Muscle C o o r d i n a t i o n , V i s u a l - M o t o r C o o r d i n a t i o n , V o cabulary, Symbol D i s c r i m i n a t i o n , V i s u a l -A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n . S u b t e s t s t h a t seemed to measure the s k i l l s they pur-p o r t e d t o measure were the f o l l o w i n g : B a s i c I n f o r m a t i o n , I d e n t i f y i n g Body P a r t s , C o l o r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Shape I d e n t i -f i c a t i o n , Number Knowledge, I n f o r m a t i o n from P i c t u r e s , S t o r y Comprehension, M u l t i p l e D i r e c t i o n s , Large Muscle C o o r d i n a t i o n , Memory and Symbol D i s c r i m i n a t i o n . S u b t e s t s t h a t d i d not seem t o measure the s k i l l s they p u r p o r t e d to measure were the f o l l o w i n g : Vocabulary, V i s u a l -A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n . S u b t e s t s w i t h c l e a r i n s t r u c t i o n s were the f o l l o w i n g : B a s i c I n f o r m a t i o n , I d e n t i f y i n g Body P a r t s , C o l o r I d e n t i f i -c a t i o n , Shape I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Number Knowledge, P i c t u r e Comprehension, S t o r y Comprehension, M u l t i p l e D i r e c t i o n s , 59 Large Muscle C o o r d i n a t i o n , A u d i t o r y Memory, V i s u a l - M o t o r C o o r d i n a t i o n , Symbol D i s c r i m i n a t i o n , V i s u a l - A u d i t o r y D i s -c r i m i n a t i o n and A u d i t o r y D i s c r i m i n a t i o n . S u b t e s t s w i t h u n c l e a r or vague i n s t r u c t i o n s were the f o l l o w i n g : I n f o r m a t i o n from P i c t u r e s , Vocabulary and V i s u a l Memory. CONCLUSIONS From the f i n d i n g s o f the study some g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s may be drawn. 1) Over a p e r i o d o f approximately f o u r months t h e r e was s i g n i f i c a n t growth i n the c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s o f the c h i l d r e n used i n the study, as r e f l e c t e d i n the T e s t T o t a l o f the Boehm/Slater t e s t . The s c o r e s o f i n d i v i d u a l s u b t e s t s , how-ever, r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e r e was growth on o n l y seven o f the seventeen s k i l l s measured. E i t h e r growth was l i m i t e d t o o n l y seven o f the areas t e s t e d o r the t e s t s p r o v i d e d were not s u f f i c i e n t l y s e n s i t i v e t o growth t h a t might have o c c u r r e d . 2) There was no s i g n i f i c a n t growth on the L e t t e r  Knowledge - L e v e l One ( I d e n t i f y i n g ) s u b t e s t o f the Murphy-D u r r e l l Reading Readiness A n a l y s i s . A l t h o u g h i t might be argued t h a t the p r e - t e s t s c o r e on l e t t e r knowledge was adequate, i t can be seen t h a t t h e r e was, a t l e a s t i n some cases, the need f o r i n t e n s i v e t e a c h i n g o f l e t t e r s . I t can be concluded, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the t e a c h i n g o f l e t t e r s i s e i t h e r not c o n s i d e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e f o r c h i l d r e n o f t h i s age l e v e l , o r the methods o f t e a c h i n g a r e inadequate. 3) The e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the s u b t e s t s appeared t o be l i m i t e d by t h e i r l a c k o f range o f s c o r e s , t h e i r f a i l u r e t o measure the s k i l l s they were meant t o measure and/or the ambiguity o f the i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n . 60 SUBJECTIVE REACTIONS TO TEST AND ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT The f a c t t h a t there was evidence of s i g n i f i c a n t growth i n c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s among the c h i l d r e n used i n the study suggests t h a t attendance at ki n d e r g a r t e n and day care c e n t r e s may c o n t r i b u t e to t h a t growth. A l t e r n a t e e x p l a n a t i o n s would i n c l u d e p a r e n t a l i n f l u e n c e s and general maturation. The a c t u a l value of the Boehm/Slater t e s t as an appro-p r i a t e s et of subtests of p a r t i c u l a r c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s can be questioned i n the l i g h t of the d i f f e r e n c e between the t o t a l s and subtest scores. I t seems t h a t a d i s p r o p o r t i o n -a t e l y s m all number of subtest scores skewed the t - t e s t of the Test T o t a l . I t might, t h e r e f o r e , be more u s e f u l to examine the c o n t r i b u t i o n made by each subtest to the u s e f u l -ness of the t e s t as a whole. I t might be a d v i s a b l e to e v a l -uate each subte s t , omit some a l t o g e t h e r or make the t e s t a longer, more comprehensive one i n which c h i l d r e n have more opp o r t u n i t y to d i s p l a y the extent of t h e i r knowledge. Such a t e s t might have to be given i n two or more "sessions. The Boehm/Slater t e s t seemed aimed a t p o i n t i n g out extreme weakness. A more u s e f u l g o a l would be t o attempt to e s t a b l i s h a continuum along which t o place c h i l d r e n of wid e l y d i f f e r i n g a b i l i t i e s . IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY I t was f e l t by the i n v e s t i g a t o r t h a t a number of im-p l i c a t i o n s from the study could be u s e f u l to preschool educators. 1) I f preschool teachers f e e l t h a t the c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s measured should improve during a year i n ki n d e r g a r t e n and day c a r e , they may wish to consider c a r e f u l l y the i m p l i c a t i o n of the "no growth" f i n d i n g on many t e s t s . I t may be they w i l l wish to examine t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s and programmes more c l o s e l y . 61 2) C a r e f u l e v a l u a t i o n s of t e s t s should be made b e f o r e one i s s e l e c t e d f o r widespread use as a b a s i s f o r a s s e s s i n g c h i l d r e n ' s c o g n i t i v e l e v e l s and f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g programmes f o r those c h i l d r e n . 3) I f e v a l u a t i o n s are to become p r a c t i c e i n e a r l y c h i l d h o o d programmes, many more e v a l u a t i o n measures and pro-cedures w i l l be needed. FURTHER QUESTIONS TO BE INVESTIGATED From the p r e s e n t study c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the growth i n c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s o f k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n a t t e n d i n g day c a r e c e n t r e s have a r i s e n . 1) Was the e v i d e n t growth i n c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s due p r i -m a r i l y to p r e s c h o o l c u r r i c u l a , p a r e n t a l guidance or g e n e r a l maturation? 2) What would an assessment of t h r e e year o l d s , f o u r year o l d s and f i v e year o l d s on the Boehm/Slater t e s t show about the growth o f c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s o f young c h i l d r e n ? 3) What i n the p r e s c h o o l c u r r i c u l u m c o n t r i b u t e s most to c o g n i t i v e growth? 4) Are c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s seen by p r e s c h o o l e d u c a t o r s as an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f the c u r r i c u l u m ? I f so, are the s k i l l s c o n s i d e r e d d e s i r a b l e a c t u a l l y taught, e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or more i n d i r e c t l y by such methods as the " d i s c o v e r y " method? 5) What improvements i n the Boehm/Slater: C o g n i t i v e  S k i l l s Assessment B a t t e r y would make i t a u s e f u l t e s t f o r p r e s c h o o l t e a c h e r s i n a s s e s s i n g c o g n i t i v e growth? BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Almy, M i l l i e . Young Children's Thinking. Columbia Univer-s i t y , New York: Teachers College Press, 1966. Arnold, Arnold. Teaching Your Child to Learn. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Pr e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1971. Ausubel, David P. Theory and Problems of Ch i l d Development. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1958. Bailyn, Bernard. Education i n the Forming of American Society: Needs and Opportunities for Study. New York: Vintage Books, 1960. Baldwin, A.L. Behavior and Development i n Childhood. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1955. Becker, Wesley C., S i e g f r i e d Engelman and Ron R. Thomas. Teaching 2: Cognitive Learning and Instruction. Toronto: Science Research Associates, 1975. Bereiter, C a r l . Must We Educate? Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Pr e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1973. Bloom, Benjamin S. S t a b i l i t y and Change i n Human Character- i s t i c s . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. (ed.). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1956. Boyd, William. The Emile of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press, 1956. Braun, Samuel J . , and Esther P. Edwards. History and Theory  of Early Childhood Education. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1972. Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960. et a l . Studies i n Cognitive Growth. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. . Towards a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966. Butler, Annie L. Headstart for Every C h i l d . New York: The Associated Press, 1972. Carmichael, L. (ed.). Manual of Ch i l d Psychology. New York: Wiley, 1954. Comenius, John Amos. The Great Di d a c t i c . London: Adam and Charles Black, 1896. 63 64 Cremin, Lawrence A. (ed.). The Republic and the School: Horace Mann on the Education of Free Men. New York: Teachers College Bureau of Publications, 1957. de Guimps, Roger. P e s t a l o z z i , His L i f e and Work. New York: Appleton, 1890. Dewey, John. The Child and the Curriculum. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1902. . Democracy and Education. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916. . Experience and Education. London: Collier-Mac-m i l l a n , 1938. Doman, Glenn. How to Teach Your Baby to Read. New York: Random House, 1964. Downing, John, and D.V. Thackray. Reading Readiness. London: University of London Press, Ltd., 1971. Dworkin, Martin S. Dewey on Education. Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press, 1959. Featherstone, J . Schools Where Children Learn. New York: L i v e r i g h t , 1971. Frost, Joe L. (ed.). Early Childhood Education Rediscovered. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968. Frye, Northrup. The Educated Imagination. Toronto: The Hunter Rose Company, 1963. Gese l l , Arnold. The Pre-school C h i l d . Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1923. , and Frances L. I l g . C h i l d Development. New York: Harper and Row, 1949. . Infant and Chi l d i n the Culture of Today. New York: Harper and Row, 1943. Ginsberg, Herbert, and Sy l v i a Opper. Piaget's theory of i n t e l l e c t u a l development. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. Goodlad, John I. Study of Early Childhood Schooling. New York: McGraw-Hill, i n press. Hammond, Sarah Lou, Ruth J . Dales, Dora Sikes Skipper, and Ralph L. Witherspoon. Good Schools f o r Young Children. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1974. Harris, Albert J . How to Increase Reading A b i l i t y . New York: Longmans, Green and Co., Inc., 1940. Harris, Irving D. Emotional Blocks to Learning. Toronto: Collier-Macmillan, 1961. Heerwart, E. Froebel's Theory and Pr a c t i c e . London: Charles Dible, 1897. 65 Hellmuth, Jerome (ed.). Cognitive Studies 2: D e f i c i t s i n  Cognition. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1971. Herford, William H. The Student's Froebel: Adapted from Die  Erziehung der Menscheit of F. Froebel, Part I, Theory of  Education. Boston: D.C. Heath and Co., 1900. Hess, Robert D., and Doreen J . Croft. Teachers of Young  Children. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company, 1972. H i l l , Patty Smith. American Educators' Encyclopedia. Lake B l u f f , 111.: The United Educators, Inc., 1941. Holmes, Henry W. The Montessori Method. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1912. Holt, John. How Children F a i l . New York: D e l l Publishing Co., Inc., 1964. . What Do I Do Monday? New York: D e l l Publishing Co., Inc., 1970. Hughes, F e l i c i t y . Reading and Writing Before School. London: Pan Books Ltd., 1971. H u l l , Clark L. P r i n c i p l e s of Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1943. Hunt, J . McVicker. In t e l l i g e n c e and Experience. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1961. Hymes, James L., J r . Before the C h i l d Reads. Evanston, I l l i n o i s : Row, Peterson and Company, 1958. . Early Childhood Education. Washington, D.C: National Association f o r the Education of Young Children, 1969. . Teaching the Chi l d Under Six. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l Publishing Company, 1968. I l g , Frances L., and Louise Bates Ames. School Readiness. New York: Harper and Row, 1964. James, William. Talks to Teachers. New York: Norton and Company, Inc., 1958. Johnson, D.M. Psychology: A Problem Solving Approach. New York: Harper and Bros., 1961. Johnson, Mauritz. Open Education Re-examined. Toronto: Lexington Books, 1973. Kohl, Herbert R. The Open Classroom. New York: The New York Review, 1969. Lambert, Hazel M. Teaching the Kindergarten C h i l d . New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1958. L i l l i e , David L. Early Childhood Education. Toronto: Science Research Association, Inc., 1975. 66 Locke, John. Conduct of the Understanding. New York: Lenox H i l l Pub. and Di s t . Co., 1971. Manis, Melvin. Cognitive Processes. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1969. McCandless, Boyd R. Children and Adolescents. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. McMillan, Margaret. Education Through the Imagination. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1924. Meyers, El i z a b e t h S. et a l . The Kindergarten Teacher's Hand- book. Los Angeles: Gramercy Press, 1973. Minor, Ruby. Early Childhood Education. New York: D. Appleton-Cehtury Company, Inc., 1937. Mischel, Theodore (ed.). Cognitive Development and  Epistemology. New York: Academic Press, 1971. Montessori, Maria. The Absorbent Mind. New York: D e l l Publishing Company, Inc., 1967. . The Discovery of the C h i l d . New York: Ba l l a n t i n e Books, 1967. . The Montessori Method. New York: Schocken Books, 1964. Murphy, Gardner. Motivation: the desire to l e a r n . Ohio: Ohio State University, 1970. N e i l l , A.S. Summerhill. New York: Hart Publishing Co., Inc., 1960. P e s t a l o z z i , J.H. How Gertrude Teachers Her Children. London: S. Sonnenschein, 1898. Piaget, Jean. Introduction a 1'Epistemologie Genetique. P a r i s : Presses Universaires de France, 1950. . The Origins of Intelligence i n Children. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1952. . Les r e l a t i o n s entre 1 ' a f f e c t i v i t e et 1 ' i n t e l l i - gence dans l e development mental de 1'enfant. (trans. Theodore Mischel) P a r i s : Centre de Documentation Univ., 1954. . Science of Education and the Psychology of the C h i l d . New York: Orion Press, 1970. • . Six Psychological Studies. New York: Random House, 1967. Pitcher, Evelyn Goodenough, Miriam G. Lasher, S y l v i a G. Feinburg and Linda Abrams Braun. Helping Young Children  Learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l Publishing Company, 1974. Pulaski, Mary Ann Spencer. Understanding Piaget. New York: Harper and Row, 1971. 67 Rousseau, Jean Jacques. Emile. London: J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1961. Russell, David H. Children Learn to Read. New York: Ginn and Company, 1961. Ryle, G i l b e r t . The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson House, 1949. S h e f f l e r , I s r e a l . Conditions of Knowledge. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1965. Skinner, B.F. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: A l f r e d A. Knoph, 1971. . The Technology of Teaching. New York: Meredith Corporation, 1968. Spence, Kenneth W. Behavior Theory and Conditioning. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956. Spodek, Bernard. Early Childhood Education. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973. . Teaching i n the Early Years. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J. : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 197-2. Thorndike, Edward L. Man and His Works. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1943. . The Psychology of Learning. Westport, Connecti-cut: Greenwood Press, 1913. Tolman, Edward Chance. Collected Papers i n Psychology. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1951. U l i c h , Robert. Three Thousand Years of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954. Waetjen, Walter B. Theory Into Pra c t i c e : Motivation. Ohio: Ohio State University, 1970. Watson, John B. Psychological Care of Infant and C h i l d . New York: Norton, 1928. . The Ways of Behaviorism. New York: Harper and Prothers, 1928. Weber, L. The English Infant School and Informal Education. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Pr e n t i c e - H a l l , 1971. Weikart, David P., Linda Rogers, Carolyn Adcock, and Donna McClelland. The Cognitively Oriented Curriculum. University of I l l i n o i s , Urbana, 111.: An ERIC-NAEYC Publ i c a t i o n i n Early Childhood Education, 1971. 68 B. BOOKS: PARTS OF SERIES Skeels, Harold M., and Harold B. Dye. "A Study of the Ef f e c t s of D i f f e r e n t i a l Stimulation on Mentally Retarded Children," Proceedings and Addresses of the American  Association on Mental Deficiency: 44:1:114-136. Swift, J.W. "Ef f e c t s of early group experience: the nursery school and day nursery." Review of Chi l d Development Re- search. Vol. 2, edited by M.L. Hoffman and L.W. Hoffman. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964. C. PUBLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, LEARNED SOCIETIES, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS Badger, Earladeen. Mother's Training Program. Educational  Intervention by the Mothers of Disadvantaged Infants. Washington, D.C.: O f f i c e of Education, August, 1968. Children and Their Primary Schools. A Report of the Central  Advisory Council for Education (England). London: Her Majesty's Stationery O f f i c e , 1967. Dusewicz, Russell A. The Parent Involvement Program. A F i n a l  Report. West Chester State College, Pennsylvania: Penn-sylvania Learning Resource Centre, September, 1972. H i l l , Winfred F. "Contemporary Developments Within Stimulus-Response Learning Theory," Theories of Learning and In- st r u c t i o n . The S i x t y - t h i r d Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Levenstein, P h y l l i s . Mothers as Early Cognitive Trainers. Paper read at Biennial Meeting. Society for Research i n Chil d Development, Minneapolis, A p r i l , 1971. M i l l e r , Louise B., and Jean L. Dyer. Four Preschool Programs. Their Dimensions and E f f e c t s . Washington, D.C.: Public Health Service, 1972. Nalbandian, Myron K. Analysis of Two C u r r i c u l a : Englemann- Becker and New Nursery School. F i n a l Report. Washing-ton, D.C.: O f f i c e of Education, July 20, 1971. Washburne, Carlton W. "The Grade Placement of Arithmetic Topics: A 'Committee of Seven' Investigation." Report  of the Society's Committee on Arithmetic. Twenty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I I . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930. 69 D. PERIODICALS Anderson, J . Scott. "The Montessori Method of Teaching Hearing Children," Reprinted from The Volta Review, pp. 164-168, June, 1912. Binet, A l f r e d . Les Idees Modernes Sur Les Enfants, i n George D. Stoddard, "The I.G.: Its Ups and Downs," Educational Record: 20:44-57, January Supplement, 1939. Boehm, A.E. "Out of the Classroom," Exceptional Children, 37:523-527, March, 1971. B r a z z i e l , William F. "Two Years of Head Start," Phi Delta Kappan: XLVIII:7:344-48. Brownell, William. "Observations of Instruction i n Lower-Grade Arithmetic i n English and S c o t t i s h Schools," Arithmetic Teacher, VII:174, A p r i l , 1960. Buswell, G.T. "Deferred Arithmetic," Mathematics Teacher, XXXI:195-200, May, 1938. Cremin, L.A. "The progressive movement i n American education: a perspective," Harvard Educational Review, 27:251, 1957. Denison, J.W. "Perceptual Influences i n the Primary Grades," Journal of School Psychology, 27:263-66. Dolch, E.W., and Maurine Bloomster. "Phonic Readiness," Elementary School Journal, XXXVIII:201-205, November, 1937. Dribin, E i l e e n . "Reading with Joy," Education Digest, 37: 7:45-47. Durkin, Dolores. "What Does Research Say About the Time to Begin Reading?" Journal of Educational Research, 64:2: 52-56. "Reading Readiness," Reading Teacher, 23:6:528-34. Dwyer, Robert C. et a l . "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Problem-Based Preschool Compensatory Program," The  Journal of Educational Research, 66:4:153-56, December, 1972. Fowler, William, "Dimensions and Directions i n the Develop-ment of Affecto-cognitive Systems," Human Development, 9:18-29, 1966. . "Cognitive Learning i n Infancy and Early C h i l d -hood," Psychological B u l l e t i n , 2:116-52, 1965. "Concept Learning i n Early Childhood," Young Children, 21:81-91, 1965. . "On the Value of Both Play and Structure i n Early Education," Young Children, 27:1:24-36. 70 Gessell, Arnold, and H. Thompson. "Learning and growth i n i d e n t i c a l infant twins," Genetic Psychological Mono- graphs, 6:1-124, 1929. Gotts. "Evaluating Head Start," Disadvantaged C h i l d , 3, 1970. Hamilton, Marshall L. "Evaluation of a Parent and C h i l d Centre Program," Ch i l d Welfare, 51:4:248-58, A p r i l , 1972. Hunter, Madeline. "Public Education for Four-year-olds: To Be or Not to Be," Childhood Education, 49:8:403-7. I l g , Frances, and Louise B. Ames. "Developmental Trends i n Arithmetic," Journal of Genetic Psychology, LXXIX: pp.3, 24, September, 1951. Kamii, C., and N. Radin. "A framework fo r a preschool curriculum based on some Piagetian concepts," Journal  of Creative Behavior, 1:314-24, 1967. Kulberg, Janet M., and Elaine S. Gershman. "School Readi-ness: Studies of Assessment Procedures and Comparison of Three Types of Programming for Immature 5-Year-Olds," Psychology i n the Schools, X:4:410-20, October, 1973. Krogman, Wilton Marion. "The Concept of Maturity from a Morphological Viewpoint," C h i l d Development, XXI:25, March, 1950. Light, Richard J . , and Paul V. Smith. "Choosing a Future: Strategies f o r Designing and Evaluating New Programs," Harvard Educational Review, 40:1:1-28, Winter, 1970. Mendelsohn, Robert. "Is Head Start a Success or F a i l u r e ? " Disadvantaged C h i l d , 3, 1970. Montessori, Mario, and A.S. N e i l l . "Radical Private Schools," This Magazine i s About Schools, 1:1:10-23, A p r i l , 1966. Mueller, Gustave. "Heinrich P e s t a l o z z i - His L i f e and Work," Harvard Educational Review, XVI:3:154, 1946. Prescott, Elizabeth. "Approaches to Quality i n Early C h i l d -hood Programs," Childhood Education, 50:3:131, January, 1974. S l a t e r , B.R. "Perceptual Development at the Kindergarten Level," Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 27:263-66, 1971. . "Achievement i n Grade 3 by Children Who P a r t i c i -pated i n Perceptual Training During Kindergarten," Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 36:763-6, 1973. Smith, Marshall, S., and Joan S. B i s s a l l . "Report Analysis: The Impact of Head Start," Harvard Educational Review, 40:96-7, 1970. Wolff, Max, and Annie Stein. "Head Start Six Months Later," Phi Delta Kappan, XLVIII:7:349-50, March, 1967. E. UNPUBLISHED PAPERS Moore, O.K. Orthographic Symbols and the Preschool C h i l d - A  New Approach. Sociology Department, Yale University, 1959. F. TEST MATERIALS Boehm, Ann E., and Barbara R. S l a t e r . Cognitive S k i l l s  Assessment Battery. Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press, 1974. Murphy, Helen A., and Donald D. D u r r e l l . Reading Readiness Analysis. Letter Knowledge Test - Level One (Identifying). New York: . Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1965. 72 APPENDICES APPENDIX A 73 APPENDIX A SCORES ON INDIVIDUAL TESTS OF THE BOEHM/SLATER: COGNITIVE SKILLS ASSESSMENT BATTERY AND THE LETTER KNOWLEDGE - LEVEL ONE (IDENTIFYING) SUBTEST OF THE MURPHY-DURRELL READING READINESS ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 1975 TESTING KEY TO APPENDIX A BASIC INFORMATION A - P r i n t Name B - Address C - B i r t h d a t e D - Telephone Number E - T o t a l IDENTIFYING BODY PARTS A - B o y - g i r l B - Arm C - Leg D - Neck E - T o t a l COLOR IDENTIFICATION A - Blue B - Brown C - Red D - T o t a l SHAPE IDENTIFICATION A - Rectangle B - Square C - T r i a n g l e D - C i r c l e E - T o t a l NUMBER KNOWLEDGE A - 3 B - 5 C - 7 D - 4 Rabbits E - 6 B a l l o o n s F - 8 Flowers 75 G - Symbols 3 H - 9 Apples 1 - 2 + 5 = 7 J - T o t a l INFORMATION FROM PICTURES A - S i t t i n g - b a l l B - P a i n t i n g C - Swinging D - B l o c k s E - T o t a l PICTURE COMPREHENSION A - Rains B - Ride i n C - Hold t o g e t h e r D - T o t a l STORY COMPREHENSION A - Dog d i d B - Jean put on l a s t C - Jean d i d n ' t wear D - J o e — e n d o f s t o r y E - Joe gave k i t t e n F - T o t a l MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS A - B a l l and d o l l B - T a l l and r e d f l o w e r s C - Dog, box and d o l l - c h a i r D - T o t a l LARGE MUSCLE COORDINATION A - Jump B - Hop C - Sk i p D - T o t a l MEMORY A - Cow-pie-bed B - The boy p l a y e d b a l l C - V i s u a l memory D - T o t a l VISUAL-MOTOR COORDINATION A - O B - D c - A D - N E - R F -G - T o t a l VOCABULARY A - Apple B - Rain C - Elbow D - Whisper E - Chase F - I n j u r e G - T o t a l SYMBOL DISCRIMINATION D - A E - W F - e G - d H - n A - <§ B " Q I - B J - g K - T o t a l VISUAL-AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION A - c o a t ( i n i t i a l ) B - sun ( i n i t i a l ) C - lamp (end) D - house (medial) E - T o t a l AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION A - Flower-Flower B - Hand-Sand C - wreath-wreath D - p e t - p i t E - Kart-Karp F - T o t a l TEST TOTAL LETTER KNOWLEDGE 78 BASIC INFORMATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 COLOR IDENT. BODY PARTS IDENTIFICATION \ B C D CHILD SEX BIRTHDATE A B C D E A B C D E r 1 M 30 /9 /69 2 1 1 1 5 2 2 2 2 8 — 2 M 4 / 2 / 6 9 2 2 2 1 7 2 2 2 2 8 :. 3 M 24 /5 /69 2 1 0 0 3 2 2 2 2 8 r ' 4 F 1 /11 /69 2 0 2 1 5 2 2 2 2 8 r — • 5 F 19 /10 /69 2 0 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 8 SHAPE IDENTIFICATION A B C E E A B NUMBER KNOWLEDGE C D E F G H I INFORMATION FROM PICTURES A B D E PICTURE COMPREHENSION A B C D STORY COMPREHENSION B D MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS s. B C E LARGE MUSCLE COORDINATION B E MEMORY A B C E VISUAL-MOTOR COORDINATION B C -D E I VOCABULARY B C D E F SYMBOL DISCRIMINATION A B C D H J K VISUAL-AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION A B C D E AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION A B C E F TEST TOTAL LETTER KNOWLEDGE _2_ 2 _2_ 2 2^ 2 _6_ 6 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 1 2_ 2 2 2 15 _6_ 5 14 M M M M M M M F M F M JL F F M F M" M M F M M M F F F M F M F M M 28 /6 /69 _2_ 2 12 0 10 13 30 /12 /69 22 /10 /69 1 7 / 5 / 6 9 1 0 / 1 / 6 9 14 /12 /69 _2_ 2 1 9 / 2 / 6 9 1 6 / 8 / 6 9 _1_ 2 _0_ 0 _0_ 0 _3_ 4 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _8_ 8 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 11 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 2 8 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 12 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 0 6 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 12 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 1 7 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 9 0 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _6_ 6 _2_ 2 _2_ 1 _2_ 2 1_ 2 0 13 0 11 25 /8 /69 5 /12 /69 24 /5 /69 1 6 / 8 / 6 9 _2_ 2 _0_ 0 _2_ 0 _0_ 1 _4_ 3 _2_ 2 1 _2_ 1 _2_ 2 _8_ 6 2_ 2 _1_ 2 _2_ 2 _5_ 6 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 11 _2_ 2 2 1 13 1 1 2 2 6 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 5 3 2 3 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 o 2 i 2 o 2 i 8 1 1 1 0 i 2 o 1 1 1 1 1 0 4 1 0 -1 1 • 2 2 2 2 6 0 1 3 4 1 i 1 i • 1 1 1 t 1 1 6 2 2 1 2 i 2 2 11 1 1 ' 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 0 0 1 1 0 8 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 1 JL 2 z 2 X 2 b 7 X 1 X 1 X 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6 1 0 2 0 2 3 5 3 X 1 X 1 1 1 1 ,1 1 0 X 0 6 4 2 2 2 2 1 X 0 2 0 XX 7 X 1 JL 0 X 1 X 1 X 1 _i_ 1 \j 1 1 JL 1 1 / 9 JL 1 JL 1 JL 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 0 3 2 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 5 3 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 0 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 7 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 0 1 1 4 1 2 2 2 7 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 0 4 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 5 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 6 2 1 0 1 1 2 7 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 v 5 1 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 6 1 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 0 1 0 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 2 6 1 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 6 3 2 1 6 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 6 2 2 2 2 2 0 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 9 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 6 3 0 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 2 1 1 0 2 0 6 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 0 4 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 6 2 1 2 1 1 0 7 A 1 1 1 i 1 i 1- 0 T 1 T 0 0 n 1 1 1 7 •7 0 i 1 T 0 1 1 1 2 A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o 1 o 5 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 6 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 4 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 6 3 1 0 2 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 3 6 0 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 7 X 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 u 1 u 1 X 1 u 1 10 X 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 *± 4 JL 1 JL 1 JL 1 0 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 5 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6 2 3 2 2 3 3 7 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 6 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 8 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 6 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 4 5 108 102 97 88 92 79 83 94 76 78 82 92 86 99 11 8 /5 /69 4 / 6 / 6 9 _1_ 3 _0_ 2 1_ 2 _0_ 1 _2_ 8 2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _0_ 2 _6_ 8 2_ 2 _2_ 2 2_ 2 _6_ 6 _2_ 2 _1_ 2 _0_ 2 1 1 1 0 11 11 /12 /69  2 /4 /69 _3_ 2 _2_ 0 _2_ 2 1_ 1 _0_ 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 _0_ 1 _1_ 1 1_ 1 _0_ 0 _3_ 4 1_ 1 _0_ 1 _p_ 1 1_ 3 _0_ 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 77 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 8_ 5 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 2_ 2 _8_ 8 _2_ 2 1_ 2 _2_ 2 J5_ 6 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 22 /7 /69 4 /11 /69 _2_ 1 _g_ o _2_ 2 1 15 1 1 1 4 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 89 58 1 1 0 10 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 _0_ 0 _0_ 0 _2_ 1 _2_ 2 2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _8_ 8 _2_ 2 11 /11 /69 27 /11 /69 2_ 2 _2_ 0 _Q_ 0 _1_ 0 J5_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _8_ 8 _2_ 2 1 5 / 2 / 6 9  10 /2 /69 _2_ 2 _0_ 1 _0_ 1 _0_ 0 _2_ 4 _2_ 2 2 2_ 2 _2_ 2 J7_ 8 _2_ 2 J 2_ J 2_ _2 2_ _2 2_ 2 _6_ 6 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _0_ 2 8 1 13 _6_ 6 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 0 1 0 0 0 11 _1 1^  _0 1_ 1 1 _0_ 0 _3_ 4 _1_ 1 _0_ 0 1_ 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 _1_ 1 _0_ 0 _5_ 4 109 97 2 3 1 1 11 1 1 0 1 1 13 1 1 _3_ 2 _0_ 1 _g_ o 1 o o l l o o o 1 JL_ 1 1_ 1 _4_ 5 84 100 1 1 1 1 10 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 _4_ 4 74 95 _2_ 2 1 9 / 9 / 6 9  1 8 / 4 / 6 9 _2_ 2 _0_ 1 _2_ 0 _0_ 1 _4_ 4 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _8_ 8 _2_ 2 2_ 2 _2_ 2 _6_ 6 _1_ 2 _2_ 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 13 1 1 7 /6 /69 2 8 / 6 / 6 9 _2_ 2 _0_ 0 _1_ 0 _0_ 0 _3_ 2 _2_ 2 _1_ 2 _2_ 2 JL_ 2 _6_ 8 _2_ 2 1_ 2 2_ 2 _6_ 6 2_ 2 11 _2_ 2 1 1 _0_ 1 1_ 1 _0_ 1 1 14 _1_ 0 4 _1^  1 _0_ 1 _0_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 _5_ 3 87 79 1 3 / 9 / 6 9 1 8 / 5 / 6 9 _2_ 2 1_ 1 0_ 1 _0_ 0 _3_ 4 2 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _8_ 8 _2_ 2 _1_ 2 2_ 2 _5_ 6 2 _2_ 2 13 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^ 1_ 1 _2_ 2 0 1 1 1 1 22 /8 /69  31 /10 /69 1_ 2 _2_ 1 _0_ 0 _0_ 0 _3_ 3 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 8 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 2 _5_ 6 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 14 _0_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 J. 1 1 _5_ 5 94 101 1 1 1 1 1 0 _2_ 2 1 . 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 14 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 _1_ 1 _1_ 1 _1_ 1 _1_ 1 _0_ 1 _5_ 4 93 78 1 7 / 8 / 6 9 2 8 / 9 / 6 9 _2_ 2 1 _0_ 0 _0_ 0 _2_ 3 _2_ 2 _2_ 1 2_ 2 2_ 2 8_ 7 2 1 _2_ 2 _6_ 6 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _0 1 1 _5_ 4 95 0 83 86 11 1 1 94 _5_ 5 _2_ 2 _2_ 2 0 12 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 85 5 /4 /69 3 / 5 / 6 9 _2_ 2 0 _1_ 2 14 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 72 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 . . . 1 0 10 1 1 0 100 1 1 1 1 12 3 1 2 12 1 1 1 1 92 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 0 _3_ 4 91 86 23 23 20 19 ; 20 21 21 J 18 15 : 22 13 18 13 4 25 14 16 24 2 23 5_ 8 17 22 22 19 18 15 7 15 16 17 17 18 18 24 71 \ 80 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B SCORES ON INDIVIDUAL TESTS OF THE BOEHM/SLATER: COGNITIVE SKILLS ASSESSMENT BATTERY AND: THE LETTER KNOWLEDGE - LEVEL ONE (IDENTIFYING) SUBTEST OF THE MURPHY-DURRELL READING READINESS ANALYSIS JUNE 1975 TESTING KEY TO APPENDIX B IS THE SAME AS KEY TO APPENDIX A 82 BASIC INFORMATION A B C D E COLOR IDENT. BODY PARTS IDENTIFICATION SHAPE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER KNOWLEDGE C D E F G H I INFORMATION FROM PICTURES A PICTURE COMPREHENSION A B C D STORY COMPREHENSION A B C D E F MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS LARGE MUSCLE COORDINATION MEMORY A B C D VISUAL-MOTOR COORDINATION VOCABULARY A B C D E F G SYMBOL DISCRIMINATION VISUAL-AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION %3 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093400/manifest

Comment

Related Items