UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Investigation of the relationship between selected skills and first grade reading achievement Thomson, Doris Jeanne 1973

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A8 T46_6.pdf [ 6.19MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101624.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101624-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101624-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101624-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101624-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101624-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101624-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101624-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101624.ris

Full Text

c I AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECTED SKILLS AND FIRST GRADE READING ACHIEVEMENT by DORIS JEANNE THOMSON B.Ed., University of Calgary, 1967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i i i the Department of READING EDUCATION FACULTY OF EDUCATION We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1973 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission fo r extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Reading The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date October Zt 1Q73 i i ABSTRACT In a comparative study of successful and unsuccess-f u l readers near the end of f i r s t grade, reading achievement tests -were administered to one hundred nine subjects and those scoring i n the upper and lower quarters of the ordered standard scores were designated as good and poor readers re-spectively. A battery of seven tests was administered to the f i f t y - f o u r subjects thus selected. The battery was comg-posed of two tests of v i s u a l perception ( v i s u a l memory of symbols and reversal of symbols), three verbal coding tests ( l e t t e r s , transposition of consonant trigrams, and phonemes, blends, and phonograms), and two tests of meaningful associ-ation (vocabulary l i s t e n i n g and sentence l i s t e n i n g ) . I t was found that good and poor readers were s i g n i f -i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (.0001) on the s u b s k i l l s considered simul-taneously and beyond the .02 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e on each of the seven s u b s k i l l s considered separately. Di f f e r e n t patterns of c o r r e l a t i o n were evidenced with generally s i g n i f i c a n t c o rrelations within the c l u s t e r s for poor readers but not for good readers. Regression analysis indicated that the verbal coding and meaningful association clu s t e r s made s i g n i f i c a n t contributions to the prediction of reading category (success-f u l or unsuccessful). The contribution of the v i s u a l percep-iii t i on c l u s t e r was also s i g n i f i c a n t when i t was entered before the verbal coding c l u s t e r . The s u b s k i l l variables making the greatest c o n t r i -bution to the prediction of reading category were phonemes and vocabulary l i s t e n i n g . A l l s u b s k i l l s with the exception of reversals were s i g n i f i c a n t predictors i f they were entered early i n the regression analysis. Approximately 85 per cent of the variance i n read-ing achievement as designated by successful or unsuccessful category was accounted for by the s u b s k i l l s tested. i v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer i s much indebted to her advisor, Dr. Jane Catterson, for her valuable assistance. Sincere appreciation i s also extended to Dr. C. Pennock for h i s inter e s t and suggestions and to Dr. D. McKie and Dr. S. S. Lee for t h e i r advice on s t a t i s t i c a l procedures. The assistance i n s t a t i s t i c a l analysis provided by David Kaufman, M.A.Sc., and Murray Thomson i s g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged, as i s the cooperation of teachers and pupils who participated i n the preliminary and main studies. V TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER P A G E I. THE PROBLEM , 1 General Statement of the Problem 1 Background of the Problem 1 Research Questions . . . 3 De f i n i t i o n of Terms 4 Importance of the Study 5 Limitations of the Study 7 Organization of the Thesis . . . . 8 II.. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . 9 Visual Perception 9 Visual Discrimination (Non-verbal) as a Correlate of Reading 10 Visu a l Memory . . . . . . . . . . 13 v i s u a l Perception Training and Reading Achievement . 14 Summary of the E f f e c t s of Visu a l Perception Training . . . 19 Verbal Coding . 19 Coding by Letter Names 20 Significance of Sp a t i a l Order i n Coding: Letters and Symbols . 24 vi CHAPTER ' PAGE Coding by Phoneme: Letters and Letter Clusters 27 Summary of Research i n Verbal Coding 28 Meaningful Association . . . . . . 29 Summary of Research i n Meaningful Association . . . . . 35 III . DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . 36 Subjects 36 Materials 37 Names of Tests . . . . . . . . . 37 Standardized Tests 37 Informal Tests . . . . . . . . 38 Assignment of Tests to Clusters . 38 V a l i d i t y and R e l i a b i l i t y of Standardized Tests 39 Construction of the Visual Perception Tests 40 Visu a l Discrimination . . . . . 41 Visu a l Memory of Symbols . . . 43 Perception of Reversal of Symbols 43 Construction of Verbal Coding Tests 44 Identifying Letters Named . . . 4 4 vii CHAPTER PAGE Transpositions of Consonant Trigrams 45 Identifying Phonemes, Blends, and Phonograms . 45 V a l i d i t y of Informal Tests . . . 46 R e l i a b i l i t y of Informal Tests . . 47 Stage One 48 Stage Two 49 Stage Three 50 Procedures . . . . . 52 P i l o t Study 52 The Study 53 Test Correction and Scoring Procedures 53 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA 55 Comparison of Successful and Unsuccessful Readers on Clusters of S k i l l s and Su b s k i l l s 59 Correlations Between S u b s k i l l Scores 62 Prediction of Reading Category on the Basis of S u b s k i l l Scores . . . 66 V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY . . . . 78 Summary of Findings . . 80 vVii CHAPTER PAGE Comparison of Successful and Unsuccessful Readers on Clusters of S k i l l s and Su b s k i l l s 80 Correlation Between S u b s k i l l Scores . . 81 Prediction of Reading Category . 81 Conclusions . . . . . 85 Implications of the Study . . . . . 86 Suggestions f o r Further Study . . . 87 REFERENCES 89 APPENDICES 99 A. Vi s u a l Discrimination Test . . . 100 B. Vis u a l Memory Test 104 C. Perception of Reversals of Symbols Test 108 D. Identifying Letters Named Test . 1 1 2 E. Transpositions of Consonant Trigrams Test . 114 F. Identifying Phonemes, Blends and Phonograms Test . . . . 1 1 8 G. Raw Data on R e l i a b i l i t y Studies . 122 H. Results of Reading Achievement Tests 126 IX CHAPTER PAGE I. Results of Tests Administered to Successful and Unsuccessful Readers 131 X LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Barrett's Summary of Non-Verbal Vi s u a l Discrimination Investigations 11 I I . Observed Means on Standard Deviations . 60 I I I . Summary of Analysis of Multivariate C r i t e r i o n . . . . . . . . . 6 1 IV. Correlation Matrix of Variables for Combined Groups 63 V. Correlation Matrix of Variables for Good Readers , o . . 64 VI. Correlation Matrix of Variables for Poor Readers . . . . . 65 VII. F i r s t Stepwise Regression to Analyze the Contribution of Su b s k i l l s to Categor-i z a t i o n by Reading Achievement 67 VIII. Second Stepwise Regression to Analyze the Contribution of Su b s k i l l s to Cate-gorization by Reading Achievement . . . 69 IX. Third Stepwise Regression to Analyze the Contribution of Su b s k i l l s to Categor-i z a t i o n by Reading Achievement 71 X. Fourth Stepwise Regression to Analyze the Contribution of S u b s k i l l s to Cate-gorization by Reading Achievement . . . 72 XI TABLE XI, XII, XIII, XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. PAGE F i f t h Stepwise Regression to Analyze the Contribution of Su b s k i l l s to Categor-i z a t i o n by Reading Achievement 74 Sixth Stepwise Regression to Analyze the Contribution of Su b s k i l l s to Categor-i z a t i o n by Reading Achievement 76 Comparison of the Six Orders of Entering Variables i n the Stepwise Regression to Analyze the Contribution of Su b s k i l l s to Categorization by Reading Achievement . 83 Visu a l Memory Test Re-test 122 Perception of Reversal of Symbols . . .123 Transpositions of Consonant Trigrams . .124 Phonemes, Blends and Phonograms . . . .125 Reading Achievement Scores as Measured by Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test . . . . 127 Scores of Successful Readers on Test Battery . 132 Scores of Unsuccessful Readers on Test Battery 133 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Despite voluminous research, the prevention and correction of reading d i s a b i l i t i e s remains an educational problem of primary importance. In the in t e r e s t of providing new insight into the d i f f i c u l t i e s of disabled readers, t h i s study compared children experiencing d i f f i c u l t y i n the early stages of reading a c q u i s i t i o n with t h e i r successful counter-parts . Adopting the point of view that reading i s a t r i -p a r t i t e process involving v i s u a l perception, verbal coding, and meaningful association, the study compared the perform-ance of successful and unsuccessful readers i n grade one on tasks considered to require each type of a b i l i t y . The com-parison was made at a grade one l e v e l on the assumption that d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of a b i l i t y was already apparent at that stage but that the factors contributing to the divergence might be less complex than at higher l e v e l s . BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM The numerous statements that have been made about the s i g n i f i c a n t components of the beginning reading process range widely i n complexity. Some writers endeavour to 2 i s o l a t e a sin g l e major factor as c r u c i a l , while others suggest a m u l t i p l i c i t y of i n t e r a c t i n g factors. Since i t seems u n l i k e l y that a single factor can account for success i n reading and equally u n l i k e l y that the process i s too complex to permit analysis, expecially i n the e a r l i e r stages, there would seem to be value i n adopting a middle path and attempting to i d e n t i f y c l u s t e r s of s i g n i f i c a n t components. A statement by Mackworth suggests an approach to the problem of i d e n t i f y i n g c l u s t e r s . She states thats The primary task for the normal c h i l d i n learning to read i s to learn the rules necessary to transform the s p a t i a l signs into verbal equivalents, either as overt or as subvocal speech, followed by the l i n k i n g of the written material to meaning. (1972, p. 706) This statement implies a three part process of v i s u a l perception, verbal coding, and meaningful association and provides a useful frame of reference within which to examine the evidence and arguments put forward by the various researchers i n reading. There i s evidence i n the l i t e r a t u r e , i n f a c t , to support the idea that each strand of Mackworth's model i s indeed an important part of the reading process. There i s , however, no research directed at combining the strands i n a single study and assessing t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance for children at early stages of the reading process. This would seem to be a l o g i c a l approach both to v a l i d a t i n g the model 3 and to providing guidance for the teacher of reading i n grade one. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The study was designed to investigate the reading process as i t develops i n beginning readers. I t involved a comparison of the performance of successful and unsuccessful readers i n late grade one on tests of s u b s k i l l s considered to be aspects of the global s k i l l c a l l e d "reading a b i l i t y " . Seven s u b s k i l l tests grouped into three " s k i l l c l u s t e r s " , v i s u a l perception, verbal coding, and meaningful association, were administered to f i r s t grade children who had been c l a s s i f i e d as successful and unsuccessful readers. The data were analyzed to answer the following questionss 1. Are there s i g n i f i c a n t differences between successful and unsuccessful readers near the end of f i r s t grade i n the following reading s u b s k i l l s : v i s u a l memory, perception of reversal of symbols, l e t t e r knowledge, transposition of consonant trigrams, knowledge of phonemes, vocabulary l i s t e n i n g , and sentence l i s t e n i n g ? 2. What correlations e x i s t between the s u b s k i l l s measured for (a) successful readers (b) unsuccessful readers and (c) successful and unsuccessful readers combined? 3. Considering the successful and unsuccessful readers together: (a) which cl u s t e r s of s k i l l s (visual perception, verbal coding, and meaningful association) contribute s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the prediction of reading category (successful and unsuccessful readers)? (b) which s u b s k i l l s contribute s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the prediction of reading category (successful and unsuccessful readers)? 4. Can the Mackworth model be validated i n the sense that evidence can be obtained i n d i c a t i n g that v i s u a l perception, verbal coding, and meaningful association do, i n f a c t , contribute s i g n i f i c a n t l y to reading achievement of f i r s t grade children? 5. Does the Mackworth model imply a developmental sequence? That i s , i s there evidence that v i s u a l perception, verbal coding, and meaningful association are developed and used i n that sequence? DEFINITION OF TERMS For the purpose of the study a number of d e f i n i t i o n s were developed. Reading i s defined i n terms of (a) vocabulary and (b) comprehension as measured i n standard scores by the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Primary A - Grade 1 (1965). 5 Successful readers, also referred to for con-venience as good readers, are those children who score i n the top quarter of the ranked t o t a l standard scores obtained on vocabulary and comprehension t e s t s . Unsuccessful readers, also referred to fo r con-venience as poor readers, are those children who score i n the bottom quarter of the ranked t o t a l standard scores obtained on vocabulary and comprehension te s t s . The term c l u s t e r of s k i l l s i s used to designate a group of tasks considered on a p r i o r i grounds to be related to each general area being examined i n the study ( v i s u a l per-ception, verbal coding, and meaningful association). V i s u a l perception i s defined as the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y on tasks of (a) v i s u a l memory of symbols and (b) perception of reversals of symbols. Verbal coding i s defined as the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y on tasks involving (a) knowledge of l e t t e r names, (b) trans-position of l e t t e r s i n consonant trigrams and (c) association of l e t t e r symbols and l e t t e r sounds. Meaningful association i s defined as the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y on tasks of (a) vocabulary l i s t e n i n g and (b) sentence l i s t e n i n g as measured by standardized l i s t e n i n g t e s t s . IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY Many educators f e e l that unnecessarily large numbers of normal elementary pupils experience reading d i f f i c u l t y . 6 Yet the causes of the d i s a b i l i t y and d e f i n i t i v e means of prevention continue to elude them. Thus f a r , comparisons of teaching methods have yielded low returns i n the e f f o r t to diagnose contributing factors. The survey of teaching methods conducted by Maxwell and Temp led them to conclude that: A l l methods of reading i n s t r u c t i o n i n s t r u c t some children (probably the same ones) well and do not succeed with some small portion of others that have been studied. (1971, p. 136) Their statement suggests that the search for causes or cor-relates must be directed elsewhere. Much e f f o r t has been expended on studies of phys-i c a l , i n t e l l e c t u a l , psychological, and neurological factors which may contribute to reading d i s a b i l i t y . Generally speaking, however, the research has been of piecemeal nature. A s p e c i f i c aspect has been i s o l a t e d for examination and co r r e l a t i v e or treatment studies have been devised. The con-t r a d i c t o r y or inconclusive r e s u l t s may be accounted for by the wide divergence i n means of se l e c t i n g subjects, s t r i n -gency of controls, or c r i t e r i a f or i d e n t i f y i n g differences. I t may also be true that the nature of reading d i s a b i l i t y cannot be discovered by examining the factors separately. The present study takes the stance that the most p r o f i t a b l e approach to the problem i s through a study of the apparent components of the reading process i t s e l f . I t i s assumed that there i s value i n bringing together f o r study a number of these components to assess t h e i r r e l a t i v e impor-tance to the reading process. I f the s k i l l s or c l u s t e r s of s k i l l s i n which successful and unsuccessful readers i n f i r s t grade are most widely divergent can be determined, i t may be possible to form hypotheses about which kind of teaching i s l i k e l y to be most p r o f i t a b l e to beginning readers. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY It i s considered that there are certa i n l i m i t a t i o n s to the study. They are: 1. The study was limited to a comparison of selected com-ponents considered to be important to reading achievement. I t did not attempt to include measurement of a l l possible factors related to reading. 2. Subjects were not randomly selected from the population of f i r s t grade students. Classrooms were selected on the basis of a v a i l a b i l i t y and an assumption of represen-tativeness was based on the heterogeneity of the c l a s s -rooms. For the i n i t i a l screening a l l f i r s t grade pupils of each school were included as subjects. 3. Standardized tests employed were published and stan-dardized i n the United States and no norms are available on Canadian populations. 4 . No attempt was made to control neurological, physical, psychological, s o c i a l , or environmental factors beyond 8 the bounds demanded by the tests and the test s i t u a t i o n . 5. No consideration was given to i n t e l l e c t u a l differences as measured by i n t e l l i g e n c e tests among the subjects or between the groups of successful and unsuccessful readers. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS The f i r s t chapter provides a general statement of the problem, the background of the problem, the s p e c i f i c research questions to be answered by the study, d e f i n i t i o n s of terms pertinent to the study, statements about the impor-tance and the l i m i t a t i o n s of the study, and the ou t l i n e of the organization of the study. The second chapter consists of a review of related l i t e r a t u r e considered under major headings consistent with the operationally defined c l u s t e r s of s k i l l s . The t h i r d chapter i s a description of the design of the study and includes the description of subjects, materials, and procedures. The fourth chapter presents the res u l t s of the study and the analysis of data. In the f i f t h and f i n a l chapter the summary of findings, conclusions and implications are presented. 9 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The review of l i t e r a t u r e i s presented under these topics: v i s u a l perception, verbal coding, and meaningful association. The review focuses s p e c i f i c a l l y on studies pertaining to children i n the early primary grades. VISUAL PERCEPTION Evidence i s available i n the l i t e r a t u r e to sub-stantiate the inclusion of v i s u a l perception as an important factor i n the reading process. Coins (1958) drew attention to the contribution of v i s u a l perception to reading achievement i n her statement: In s p i t e of the tremendous s t r i d e s that have been made during the l a s t f i f t y years in methods of teaching reading and i n diag-no s t i c and remedial procedures, a s u r p r i s -i n g l y large number of children s t i l l "make slow progress i n learning to read or are unable to read at a l l . Many of these c h i l -dren appear to have adequate sensory e f f i -ciency for reading, and t h e i r i n t e l l i g e n c e , language a b i l i t y , and experience back-grounds compare favorably with those of t h e i r classmates who are reading. The evidence suggests that i n many cases the d i f f i c u l t y may stem from i n e f f e c t i v e v i s u a l perception. (1958, p. 31) Although a further f i f t e e n years of research has been con-ducted since Goins' statement, educators are s t i l l endeav-ouring to discover the causes of reading d i s a b i l i t i e s and 10 v i s u a l perception continues to be considered as one of the possible contributory factors. Spache stated that "Obviously reading i s f i r s t of a l l a v i s u a l rather than a l i n g u i s t i c or a cognitive act". (1966, p. 183) Gibson (1969) devoted an entire book to the analysis of perceptual learning and much of t h i s s o p h i s t i -cated exposition dealt with types of v i s u a l perception. She drew attention to the developmental aspects of the discrimin-ation of l e t t e r - l i k e symbols and i n a l a t e r paper (1970) suggested that reading begins with the spoken language and that the s k i l l of decoding i s learning to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the graphic symbols and associate them with the sounds i n the language. The v i s u a l discrimination of the graphic symbols, then, would be one of the a b i l i t i e s necessary to the process of reading, according to Gibson's analysis. Visual Discrimination (Non-Verbal) as a Correlate of Reading One of the problems i n examining v i s u a l discrimin-ation as i t relates to reading achievement i s the d i f f i c u l t y of i s o l a t i n g purely v i s u a l factors from those with verbal components. Barrett (1965) dealt with t h i s problem i n h i s review of v i s u a l discrimination and reading achievement by separating the studies into verbal v i s u a l and non-verbal v i s u a l classes. He designated those using geometric shapes, 11 non-letter forms, and pattern designs as non-verbal v i s u a l . Barrett's chart of studies of non-verbal v i s u a l discrimination summarizes the research through mid 1964. TABLE I: BARRETT'S SUMMARY OF NON-VERBAL VISUAL DISCRIMINATION INVESTIGATIONS (Reprinted from Barrett, 1965) Non-Verbal Visual Study N Heading Achievement Test Discrimination Test Correlation Beck and Beck ( i 9 6 0 ) 214 American School Achievement Test, Reading House drawing Teacher score , Investigator score .15 .18 Monroe (1935) 85 Gray Oral Paragraphs and Iowa Word Test Visual tests .60 Robinson and Others (1958) 87 Word Discrimination Test Chicago Reading Test Children's visual achievement form .24 Keogh (1963) 149 Lee-Clark Reading Test Bender gestalt .53 Goins (1958) 120 Chicago Reading Test Pattern copying Reversals Figures Picture squares Pattern completion Identical pictures A Identical pictures B .519 .491 .390 .381 .339 .318 .318 The highest correlations reported by Barrett are those found on v i s u a l tests by Monroe, the Bender g e s t a l t by Keogh> and pattern copying and reversals subtests by Goins. The Monroe tests were large l y composed of geometric designs, and the Bender gest a l t test used by Keogh requires the c h i l d to re-produce geometric patterns. I t seems apparent, then, that t h i s type of task provides higher correlations with reading achievement than the other types of v i s u a l discrimination tasks summarized i n the above chart. 12 Evidence supportive of t h i s trend was supplied by Feldman (1961) whose study encompassed a greater age range than those Barrett was surveying. Feldman employed the Bender ges t a l t test with n i n e t y - f i v e subjects ranging from kindergarten to f i f t h grade. She also used author constructed tests of form sequence and orientation and found a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n of a l l tests given with reading achievement at a l l l e v e l s where reading was measured. A developmental trend was noted i n her examination of the scores on tests of per-ception, with the largest increments appearing i n the f i r s t three years and a l e v e l l i n g o f f occuring i n grades three to f i v e . Similar evidence of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of non-verbal v i s u a l discrimination tasks to reading achievement were reported by Kerfoot (1964) arid Buktenica (1967). Both studies employed the Goins subtests of Pattern Copying and Reversals with f i r s t grade subjects. In addition, Buktenica used the Beery-Buktenica Visual Motor Test. He suggested that, on the basis of the r e s u l t s of these tests, perceptual tests are better predictors of reading achievement than are i n t e l l i g e n c e tests and require much less time to administer. Gibson, Gibson, Pick and Osser (1962) devised a set of l e t t e r - l i k e forms i n an attempt to examine v i s u a l discrim-ination i n terms of a task resembling reading. The symbols were o r i g i n a l l y used i n a developmental study of v i s u a l 13 discrimination and have since been employed i n various studies r e l a t i n g to reading. The o r i g i n a l study of children aged four through eight years found a marked developmental trend i n discrimination of the forms. The accumulated evidence suggests that non-verbal v i s u a l discrimination i s a correlate of reading achievement. It also suggests that the a b i l i t y to discriminate v i s u a l l y increases with age during the pre-school and early school years. Visual Memory Yet discrimination alone may not account for the contribution of v i s u a l perception to reading achievement. Anderson and Samuels (1970) compared good and poor readers in grade two and found good readers scored higher than poor readers (.001 l e v e l of significance) on a v i s u a l recognition memory task using the Gibson-Pick symbols. While i t might be hypothesized that the poor readers were, i n fa c t , reading at a grade one l e v e l and that v i s u a l memory had developed only i n the grade two readers, i t seems possible that v i s u a l memory may have some impact on grade one reading achievement. A study of v i s u a l memory i n grade one children was conducted by A s t i l l (1970) and a pos i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with reading achievement was reported at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f -icance. She tested v i s u a l memory of discrete objects as well as discrete symbols by using the Visual-Motor Sequencing Test from the I l l i n o i s Test of Psycholinguistic A b i l i t y and two tests devised by the examiner. In the analysis of r e s u l t s she found that when the language factor was controlled, the cor r e l a t i o n was even higher than the .05 l e v e l , p a r t i c u l a r l y for memory of symbols, than i t was when the language factor was not controlled. These studies would seem to indicate that v i s u a l memory of symbols i s a factor contributing to v i s u a l percep-t i o n i n i t s association with reading. Visual Perception Training and Reading Achievement Although there i s widespread agreement that v i s u a l perception and reading achievement are associated, there i s a difference of opinion among researchers as to whether v i s u a l perception related to reading can be trained apart from reading and whether such t r a i n i n g , i f accomplishing a change i n perceptual a b i l i t y , can a f f e c t reading achievement. Fr o s t i g devised The Developmental Test of V i s u a l  Perception i n 1961 and followed i t with The Fr o s t i g Program  for the Development of Vis u a l Perception i n 1964. Although the F r o s t i g Test provides scores on f i v e s p e c i f i c areas of v i s u a l perception and the t r a i n i n g program i s organized to develop the areas of weakness so i d e n t i f i e d , l i t t l e evidence could be found of researchers who had employed the i n s t r u -15 merits on a s e l e c t i v e basis. There seems to have been a tendency to use them as a global measure and to t r a i n with the f u l l battery of exercises rather than i n the way they were designed to be used. A comparison of the studies r e l a t i n g to v i s u a l perception t r a i n i n g i s d i f f i c u l t because of the differences in methods of s e l e c t i n g subjects and i n the treatments. Perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t comparison can be made on the basis of how the subjects were selected for perceptual t r a i n i n g . Subjects selected on the basis of perceptual  d e f i c i t s . Mould (1965) used the F r o s t i g t r a i n i n g program with beginning readers exhibiting clear d e f i c i t s i n v i s u a l perception and reported gains i n perceptual scores (.02 l e v e l of significance) and i n o r a l reading scores (.01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e ) . While there was no s i g n i f i c a n t gain i n t o t a l reading achievement for either experimental or control groups during the period of the study, he noted that the amount of reading growth fo r the experimental group exceeded that for the control group. The Marianne F r o s t i g Center of Educational Therapy reported using tests and t r a i n i n g program devised by Marianne Fr o s t i g s e l e c t i v e l y (1968) diagnosing s p e c i f i c d e f i c i t s and t r a i n i n g only i n those areas. I t may be more than 16 coincidental that the value of these instruments i s more evident i n reports from the Center than i n r e s u l t s produced by other experimenters. Klein and Marsh's study (1969) although not on f i r s t grade children may have implications for beginning readers. They selected grade two subjects with indications of per-ceptual d e f i c i e n c i e s as well as low reading scores. They established three groups i n order to compare the e f f e c t s of perceptual t r a i n i n g with a remedial reading program admin-iste r e d during the same i n t e r v a l . The t h i r d group received no treatment and acted as a cont r o l . The groups were trained on the F r o s t i g program supplemented by teacher produced exer-cises for periods of twenty-five minutes twice a week. Post te s t indicated that the remedial reading group had made s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater increases i n reading a b i l i t y than the other groups and that the perceptual t r a i n i n g group showed no s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n perception. The authors suggested that because these children were i n second grade i t might be possible that they were too old to benefit from perceptual t r a i n i n g . This seems to imply that they might consider t r a i n i n g at the f i r s t grade l e v e l as having a p o t e n t i a l l y good e f f e c t . Subjects selected on the basis of reading achieve-ment or reading readiness but without tests of perception. McClanahan (1968) randomly selected ninety-two f i r s t grade 17 subjects from those scoring below the median on reading readiness tests i n kindergarten. A f t e r providing t r a i n i n g i n perception for f i f t y minutes a day for. t h i r t y - f i v e days she reported the experimental group scoring s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the control group on both the F r o s t i q Develop-mental Test of V i s u a l Perception and C a l i f o r n i a Achievement  Test - Reading. Buckland (1969) also selected subjects scoring low on readiness tests and employed the F r o s t i g t r a i n i n g program as had McClanahan. She found no s i g n i f i c a n t differences on either perception or reading scores. She pointed out that means were used i n the comparison and that i n d i v i d u a l gains therefore went unnoticed. She suggested that the F r o s t i g program may be highly b e n e f i c i a l for individuals but i s not applicable to a l l children evidencing d i f f i c u l t y i n f i r s t grade reading. Randomly selected subjects. An adaptation of the Fr o s t i g t r a i n i n g program was employed by Rosen (1965) fo r twenty-nine days with a group of f i r s t grade children s e l -ected randomly. The control group received t h i r t y minutes of additional reading i n s t r u c t i o n during the f o r t y - f i v e minute periods i n which the experimental group was involved i n perceptual t r a i n i n g . He found the experimental group scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on post-training tests of per-ception and that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences 18 between the groups on three of the four post-training tests of reading achievement. The control group scored s i g n i f i -cantly higher on the fourth reading test. He noted that a sub-group of boys tes t i n g low on a pre-training t e s t of per-ception indicated a trend i n t h e i r reading differences on post-training t e s t s . Although the difference was not s i g -n i f i c a n t at the usual lev e l s between those assigned to the experimental and control groups, i t was observed that those who had received perceptual t r a i n i n g scored consistently higher on reading achievement tests than those who had been i n the control group. Examining a random selection of f i r s t grade sub-jects from a low socio-economic area, Cohen (1969) found 40 percent were at least two and one h a l f years retarded i n perceptual development as measured by the F r o s t i g t e s t . A l -though s t a t i s t i c a l evidence was not provided he indicated that subsequent t r a i n i n g i n perception did not r e s u l t i n increased reading achievement. Fortenberry (1970) provided perceptual t r a i n i n g for an experimental group of c u l t u r a l l y disadvantaged f i r s t grade subjects. The F r o s t i g program was employed for the experi-mental group and both groups received the same basal reading program. Testing at i n t e r v a l s of s i x weeks, he found no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n reading achievement a f t e r twelve and twenty-four weeks of t r a i n i n g . The experimental group 19 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y superior at only one point, a f t e r eighteen weeks of t r a i n i n g . His evidence suggests that while some benefit may be derived from perceptual t r a i n i n g i t may be of f l e e t i n g value. Summary of the E f f e c t s of v i s u a l Perception  Training. The results of studies on the value for reading of s p e c i f i c perceptual t r a i n i n g seem to provide c o n f l i c t i n g evidence. I t would seem that when such t r a i n i n g i s admin-ist e r e d to f i r s t grade children exhibiting perceptual d e f i c i t s there i s more evidence of p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s on reading a b i l i t y than when the t r a i n i n g i s given to a random selection of subjects. There i s no evidence to indicate the value of such t r a i n i n g for children beyond a f i r s t grade l e v e l . VERBAL CODING Both l o g i c a l and empirical evidence indicate that v i s u a l perception of some kind i s a basic factor underlying the reading process. Crosby and Liston (1968) have suggested however, that true reading begins with the t r a n s l a t i o n of the graphic symbols to a system of verbal coding and Mackworth has stated that " . . . the actual process of reading i s the coding of v i s u a l symbols into words according to a f i x e d system". (1972, p. 703) M i l l e r (1956) discussed verbal coding for reading 20 and suggested a hierarchy of verbal coding with the lowest l e v e l that of l e t t e r names and progressing through phonemes, words, phrases, and sentences. The a b i l i t y to process i n -creasingly large "chunks", he f e l t , i s dependent upon the frequency of presentation. If one can assume that reading i t s e l f begins with words, M i l l e r ' s statement seems to suggest that the lev e l s below reading include coding by l e t t e r names and coding by phonemes. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e shows that both of these l e v e l s have been investigated and that, i n addition, some researchers have studied the s i g n i f i c a n c e of order i n coding. Coding by Letter Names High correlations between knowledge of l e t t e r name at the beginning of f i r s t grade and l a t e r reading achieve-ment have been reported by a number of researchers over a number of years. Ch a l l (1967) has pointed out that studies by Wilson and 'Fleming as early as 1938 and by Gates i n 1939 found correlations ranging from .3 to .9 for the lev e l s of l e t t e r knowledge increasing i n d i f f i c u l t y from matching through i d e n t i f y i n g , naming, and writing of both upper and lower case l e t t e r s . She also pointed out that the i n t e r e s t i n sight methods was so strong at that time that the evidence o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f k n o w l e d g e o f l e t t e r names was i g n o r e d b y d e s i g n e r s o f r e a d i n g p r o g r a m s d u r i n g t h e 194 0 * s a n d 1 9 5 0 * s . D u r r e l l , i t seems, c a n be c r e d i t e d w i t h t h e r e -d i s c o v e r y o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n k n o w l e d g e o f l e t t e r names a n d r e a d i n g a c h i e v e m e n t . F i n d i n g s b y N i c h o l s o n , O l s o n a n d G a v e l i n 1957 i n a n e x t e n s i v e s t u d y o f f i r s t g r a d e r e a d i n g c a u s e d h i m t o c o n c l u d e " T e s t s o f k n o w l e d g e o f l e t t e r names a t s c h o o l e n t r a n c e a r e t h e b e s t p r e d i c t o r s o f F e b r u a r y a n d J u n e r e a d i n g a c h i e v e m e n t " . ( 1 9 5 8 , p. 5) F u r t h e r e v i d e n c e o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f l e t t e r names i n e a r l y w o r d r e c o g n i t i o n was f o u n d i n M a r c h b a n k s a n d L e v i n ( 1 9 6 5 ) . They f o u n d t h a t c h i l d r e n i n k i n d e r g a r t e n a n d f i r s t g r a d e u s e d l e t t e r c u e s more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n w o r d s h a p e i n m a t c h i n g w o r d s . I n i t i a l l e t t e r s w e r e u s e d b y t h e g r e a t e s t number o f c h i l d r e n . F i n a l l e t t e r s w e r e e m p l o y e d a s c u e s b y t h e n e x t l a r g e s t g r o u p a n d m i d d l e l e t t e r s w e r e u s e d l e a s t b u t w e r e s t i l l more f r e q u e n t l y u s e d t h a n w o r d s h a p e . T h e y c o n -c l u d e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n knew t h e names o f t h e l e t t e r s w e l l e n o u g h t o u s e them a s v e r b a l m e d i a t o r s i n r e m e m b e r i n g t h e t a r g e t w o r d . A m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s o f n i n e r e a d i n g r e a d i n e s s f a c t o r s f o u n d r e a d i n g l e t t e r s a n d numbers r a n k e d f i r s t i n t h e s i x s t a b l e r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s . ( B a r r e t t , 1 9 6 5 ) . 22 Muehl and King (1967) stressed s p e c i f i c l e t t e r differences between words as the v i t a l cue necessary to word recognition. Training i n l e t t e r s alone, they found, i n -creased reading achievement as much as t r a i n i n g i n l e t t e r s embedded i n words. They concluded that l e t t e r naming i s highly related to reading achievement. Bond and Dykstra (1967), reporting on the F i r s t Grade Studies, also c i t e d l e t t e r knowledge as the sing l e best predictor of reading achievement i n f i r s t grade and Dykstra (1968) found that l e t t e r knowledge i n kindergarten retained i t s p r edictive value for success i n reading to the end of second grade. Although the research c i t e d seems cle a r , some writers arigue that the correlations obtained do not imply a casual r e l a t i o n s h i p and that one should not conclude that t r a i n i n g i n l e t t e r names should form a part of the reading programme. A study by Ohnmacht (1969) found that t r a i n i n g i n l e t t e r names increased reading achievement i n grade one for children who scored low on readiness t e s t s . Children who achieved average or high scores on readiness tests, however, benefited more from t r a i n i n g i n the correspondence between names and sounds of l e t t e r s . She suggested, therefore, that the value of l e t t e r names to children with low readiness 23 scores may be only an i n d i c a t i o n of the increased l e v e l of attention r e s u l t i n g from the t r a i n i n g and that better ways of tr a i n i n g attention may be found. A d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n might suggest, of course, that l e t t e r naming i s a lower l e v e l task than grapheme-phoneme correspondence and i s , therefore, the l o g i c a l one for t r a i n i n g the weaker pupils i n the i n i t i a l stages of reading a c q u i s i t i o n . Samuels (1970), another c r i t i c of the idea that l e t t e r names are s i g n i f i c a n t f a c i l i t a t o r s of reading s k i l l , suggested that learning to attach a name to a symbol i s a paired associate task and that the c h i l d who learns l e t t e r names e a s i l y i s the one who w i l l learn other associations with ease and hence become a good reader. He implied, then, that a general i n t e l l e c t u a l factor i s functioning to increase word recognition rather than the s p e c i f i c cognitive factor of l e t t e r coding per se. Samuels (1971) provided evidence, i n f a c t , to support h i s argument that knowledge of l e t t e r names was not related to the task of learning to read. He trained one group of f i r s t grade children to discriminate t h r e e - l e t t e r clu s t e r s by naming the l e t t e r s and another group to discrim-inate the cl u s t e r s without l e t t e r names. Testing the two groups against two control groups on speed of learning to recognize four words by the look-say method, he found no s i g n i f i c a n t differences. Although the experiment employed 24 a r t i f i c i a l l e t t e r names and words, Samuels concluded that knowledge of l e t t e r names did not increase success i n learning words. I t may be pointed out that Samuels' con-structs bore some resemblance to r e a l l e t t e r names and i t i s possible that p r i o r knowledge was a f f e c t i n g scores for both groups to some degree. The r o l e that knowledge of l e t t e r names plays i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of reading s k i l l s i s not f u l l y understood but there i s extensive evidence that a substantial p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t s . Significance of S p a t i a l Order i n Coding: Letters and Symbols The studies c i t e d above indicate that coding by l e t t e r names has sign i f i c a n c e i n word recognition but they lay no s p e c i a l emphasis on the si g n i f i c a n c e of s p a t i a l order of the symbols i n the coding process. Some writers and re-searchers have, however, directed attention to the factor of order of symbols as s i g n i f i c a n t i n the reading process. I t was Vernon's contention that: The most common feature of reading d i s a b i l i t y i s the incapacity to perform the cognitive processes of analyzing accurately the v i s u a l and auditory structures of words. The back-ward reader guesses wrong l e t t e r s or the r i g h t l e t t e r s i n wrong order. (1957, p. 71) Vernon elaborated on the idea that disabled readers do not process the l e t t e r s or phonograms i n a l e f t to r i g h t order either because of i n e f f i c i e n t teaching or because 25 "severe cases of d i s a b i l i t y seem to have a deeply rooted i n -capacity to synthesize or blend phonetic units to form complete words". (1957, p. 71) Mason (1970) indicated that word confusions among beginning and poor readers r e s u l t from lack of i n s t r u c t i o n i n cue se l e c t i o n . He maintained that children are encouraged to discover cues for themselves but should, instead, be taught to use l e t t e r components and l e t t e r order. Calfee (1970) showed that i n matching l e t t e r bigrams 70 percent of the errors of kindergarten children were reversals of l e t t e r order. He drew attention to the bimodal d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores on t h i s t e s t but did not at-tempt to account for i t . He also raised questions about whether the errors were cognitive, that i s , memory or atten-t i o n , or were perceptual i n nature. Further research was necessary to answer these questions, he f e l t . Both Elam (1969) and Nodine and Hardt (1970) found l e t t e r reversals prevalent i n t h e i r subjects. Nodine and Hardt were te s t i n g a general kindergarten population and Elam's subjects were disabled readers from second to s i x t h grade, yet t h e i r findings were s i m i l a r . I t would seem that disabled readers at the upper l e v e l s were functioning no better than the children of kindergarten l e v e l i n d i s t i n -guishing l e t t e r order. 26 Although the experiments were conducted with children somewhat older than f i r s t grade, Blank and Bridger (1966), Bakker (1967), and L o v e l l and Gorton (1968) employed subjects whose retardation i n reading may j u s t i f y t h e i r i n c l u s i o n i n an examination of early stages i n the acquis-i t i o n of reading s k i l l s . Blank and Bridger compared nine year old retarded readers to average readers on tasks of matching displays of l i g h t s to printed dots. They found the retarded readers scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than normal readers and suggested that they had not employed a verbal coding to act as mediator. Bakker compared poor readers to good on tasks of temporal order of meaningless figures, meaningful figures, l e t t e r s , and d i g i t s . He found no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n t h e i r performance on tests of meaningless figures and d i g i t s but marked d e f i c i e n c i e s for poor readers on tests of meaning-f u l figures and l e t t e r s . He concluded that poor readers lacked verbal cues to a s s i s t i n retention of the order. L o v e l l and Gorton employed nine tests of perception i n t h e i r study of good and poor readers aged nine and ten years. They found s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n auditory-visual integration, sound-symbol association, s p a t i a l orientation, l e f t - r i g h t discrimination, and motor a b i l i t y . The studies c i t e d provide evidence that d i f f i -c u l t i e s i n orientation and sequential order may be associated 27 with retardation i n reading. Coding by Phoneme: Letters and Letter Clusters Certain researchers seem to stress verbal coding by sound using both l e t t e r s and c l u s t e r s . Glass (1965) stressed conditioning i n the process of t r a i n i n g symbol to sound associations. He f e l t that word analysis should not be taught with meaning attached but that sounds of l e t t e r s and l e t t e r c l u s t e r s should be emphasized. A l l t r a i n i n g , according to Glass should be directed by two questions: What l e t t e r ( s ) says ? What does say? He suggested that two ten-minute periods each day f o r three or four months devoted to t h i s type of t r a i n i n g would advance f i r s t grade children to the equivalent of t h i r d grade i n a n a l y t i c s k i l l s . Although Glass did not report experimental evidence to support h i s view, he stated that the method had been employed successfully by him and h i s associates. Gibson (1970) stated that reading i s based on spoken language and that a c h i l d learns to decode the graphic symbols into sounds which are meaningful i n terms of the o r a l language. Since 1962 she has advocated f a m i l i a r i t y with s p e l l i n g to sound as an aid to word recognition. She found i n study of f i r s t grade children (1963) that words or pro-nounceable trigrams were perceived more e a s i l y than 28 unpronounceable trigrams. A study by Gotts (1970) compared disabled to successful readers and found that the disabled took more t r i a l s to learn phoneme-grapheme correspondence. I t would seem that Gotts' finding may point to one of the s i g n i f i c a n t factors which distinguishes successful from unsuccessful readers. Samuels (1970) might interpret t h i s as simply weakness i n learning paired associates and i n d i c a t i v e of a more general i n t e l l e c t u a l weakness. Gibson (1962) on the other hand, might contend that i t supplies further evidence of the importance to reading of spelling-to-sound learning. Williams (1970) suggested that the t r a n s l a t i o n of v i s u a l cues to auditory units i s speeded by the employment of l e t t e r c l u s t e r s , and moves to the lower l e v e l of single correspondence, that i s , l e t t e r s , only when c l u s t e r s are not i d e n t i f i a b l e . Her statement indicates her b e l i e f i n the sign i f i c a n c e of coding whether by single phoneme or phoneme cl u s t e r . Summary of Research i n Verbal Coding Although d i f f e r i n g i n approach, the researchers c i t e d are i n agreement that the association of l e t t e r s and sounds i s an important contributing factor to the s k i l l of word recognition. I t may be true that the pred i c t i v e value of l e t t e r names to reading achievement i s i n d i c a t i v e only of success on a learning task. Learning the grapheme-phoneme correspondence may be translated as a s i m i l a r measure of learning rate. Yet evidence of reversals and transpositions of l e t t e r s seems to imply that disabled readers may be d e f i -cient i n a b i l i t i e s less c l e a r l y associated with i n t e l l e c t . In any case, d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of graphemes including orien-tation and order and the association of graphemes and phonemes seem to be the basic s k i l l s r e q u i s i t e to succes i n reading. MEANINGFUL ASSOCIATION Regardless of the intermediate steps, reading must f i n a l l y e n t a i l the interpretation of a v i s u a l display to a comprehensible unit. However, there i s a lack of agreement among researchers about the stage at which meaning enters the reading process and how i t does so. Some would suggest that meaning r e s u l t s from decoding, while others think that meaning must precede decoding. In a 1965 study Goodman compared recognition of words presented i n l i s t s with recognition of the same words presented i n s t o r i e s . Higher scores for words presented i n st o r i e s led him to conclude that contextual cues contribute greatly to the decoding of words. In 1970, pursuing the same l i n e of thinking, Good-man suggested that the reading process can be characterized 30 as a psycholinguistic guessing game. He described the pro-f i c i e n t reader as one who employs the least possible number of cues to provide the best possible f i r s t guesses or replace them i f they are unacceptable. According to his description there i s a blending of contextual and v i s u a l cues i n both the prediction and v a l i d a t i o n tasks. A reading model proposed by Brown (1970) suggested that syntactic and semantic knowledge i s employed by the reader i n the formulation of hypotheses about the material to be decoded. His flow chart indicates that v a l i d a t i o n of hypotheses occurs i n terms of comprehensibility. I t implies that i f the unit as decoded f a i l s the t e s t for meaning, new hypotheses are formulated either by re-working the cues or by se l e c t i n g a d d i t i o n a l cues through a more de-t a i l e d observation of the v i s u a l display. Weber (1970) analysed reading errors i n r e l a t i o n to grammatical context at a f i r s t grade l e v e l . She found that when a word was miscalled the good readers corrected them-selves i f the word was not grammatically correct but that poor readers ignored the error. She f e l t that good readers were able to u t i l i z e t h e i r knowledge of the grammatical structure of the language as one test of v e r i f i c a t i o n . Biemiller (1970) pointed out that contextual i n f o r -mation includes information the reader brings to the s i t u a t i o n as well as information acquired from preceding sentences. In a longitudinal study of f i r s t grade students, he f e l t that he had i d e n t i f i e d three stages i n reading development i n the grade one year. He suggested that early errors were contex-t u a l substitutions which resulted from weakness i n decoding s k i l l s . As children acquired s k i l l i n decoding graphic symbols, he said, they tended to r e l y l a r g e l y on the graphic information ava i l a b l e and gave no response when t h e i r de-coding s k i l l s were inadequate. In the t h i r d stage of the a c q u i s i t i o n of reading s k i l l s they made substitutions of both contextual and graphic nature. His study showed that the sooner the children employed graphic cues, the more s k i l l f u l they became i n reading by the end of the f i r s t year of school. The most retarded readers at the year end were those who had never moved into the "no response" stage that, to B i e m i l l e r , indicated r e l i a n c e on graphology. He concluded that over-reliance on contextual cues may, i n fact, be i n h i b i t i n g during the early stages of the a c q u i s i t i o n of reading s k i l l s . Counter evidence i s put forward by L e v i t t (1969) i n her study of mentally retarded and normal children i n f i r s t grade. She found both groups superior i n recognizing words presented i n context to those presented i n l i s t s but found no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the groups as to the degree of su p e r i o r i t y of word recognition i n context over l i s t s . This would suggest that while good readers are more e f f i c i e n t i n 32 the employment of both contextual and graphic cues, the de-f i c i e n c y of retarded readers i s no more marked i n one s k i l l than i n the other. Denner (1970) also appeared to d i f f e r with Bie-mil l e r * s f i n d i n g as his study showed disabled readers approached normal readers i n i d e n t i f y i n g symbols they were taught to associate with words. They were much less compe-tent, however, i n synthesizing sentences composed of the word symbols. Although they could c a l l the words they were less able to extract the meaning of the larger unit. This im-p l i e s that retarded readers decode words as single units rather than within a contextual framework. Venezky and Calfee (1970) suggested that two as-pects of processing operate concurrently, the s y n t a c t i c -semantic integration of information supplied by cues and a forward scanning to i d e n t i f y the "next largest manageable unit". They stated that these units may vary i n s i z e from a single l e t t e r to a phrase and are defined as the largest chunks which can be processed conveniently by the reader. Williams (1970) also considered v i s u a l cues as units of varying length; they may be s i n g l e l e t t e r s , l e t t e r c l u s t e r s , s y l l a b l e s , or words, according to her description. In discussing the current emphasis on context she states: Decoding i s necessary but not s u f f i c i e n t and other aspects of "reading" - notably, 33 of course, comprehension p have been a t t r a c t i n g attention. The emergence of such i n t e r e s t undoubtedly r e f l e c t s the very strong influence of cognitive psy-chology. Reading now tends to be t i e d to information-processing and other related concepts. D e f i n i t i o n s also seem to be growing more general and less focused on what i s unique i n reading. One can reasonably describe s k i l l e d reading, I believe, as a process i n which the reader samples the cues on the printed page. Using these p a r t i a l cues together with previous knowledge both about printed pages and about the world, the reader forms hypotheses (or expectations) which are confirmed or disconfirmed by subsequent samplings. (1970, p. 44) Various experiments were c i t e d by Hochberg (1970) from which he concluded that good readers form better hypo-theses than poor readers, that i s , they make better guesses from v i s u a l cues. For example, i n one experiment with beginning readers he found much less d e f i c i t for poor readers when the spaces between words were f i l l e d . He suggested that poor readers were less i n c l i n e d than good readers to r e l y on cues from peripheral v i s i o n and employed, instead, a l e t t e r by l e t t e r analysis. Smith and Holmes (1971) seemed to support the evidence c i t e d above of the importance of contextual cues and extended i t downward to include the l e t t e r l e v e l . They rejected the concept that l e t t e r s must be recognized before words are decoded or that word i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s prerequisite to comprehension. They suggested that l e t t e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , 34 word i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and extraction of meaning occur con-currently. According to t h e i r view h a l f of the uncertainty about a l e t t e r or s t r i n g of l e t t e r s i s removed by i t s place-ment i n a word and h a l f the uncertainty about a word i s removed by i t s placement i n a meaningful unit. Vernon (1971) also concluded that the p r o f i c i e n t reader i s one who can employ meaning both i n word recognition and i n the t r a n s l a t i o n of larger units. She found that severely retarded readers showed de f i c i e n c i e s i n both anal-y s i s and synthesis of complex patterns. In her study of per-ception she states that " . . . frequency and f a m i l i a r i t y of syntactic structure and comprehensibility of content are the most important factors, and these i n t e r a c t with each other". (1970, p. 68) The importance of knowledge of language meanings was also stressed by Mackworth (1972). She suggested that while reading i s a coding system i t i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p be-tween the code and p r i o r data which provides the meaning. She pointed out that words are coded v i s u a l l y and v e r b a l l y . She c i t e d experiments by MewMort, Kreuger, and others which indicated that the i n i t i a l match occurs at a whole word l e v e l . I f the "guessed" word does not match the context, she suggested, then i n d i v i d u a l l e t t e r s are examined. Less s k i l l -f u l readers, she concluded, are less p r o f i c i e n t at matching word to context. 35 Summary of Research i n Meaningful Association While Hochberg (1970) and Biemiller (1970) stress the importance of v i s u a l cues, at least i n the early stages of the a c q u i s i t i o n of reading s k i l l s , there i s general agree-ment among other researchers that words presented i n a mean-in g f u l context are more e a s i l y recognized than i n a meaning-less array. I t i s further noted that there i s a marked correspondence between reading achievement and a b i l i t y to employ contextual cues. 36 CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY The purpose of the study was to compare successful and unsuccessful readers i n f i r s t grade on cl u s t e r s of s k i l l s designated as v i s u a l perception, verbal coding, and meaning-f u l association. In t h i s chapter the nature of the sample, the materials used to c o l l e c t data, and the procedures followed are discussed under the headings: Subjects, Materials, and Procedures. The projected analysis of data completes the chapter. SUBJECTS The samples of good and poor readers were drawn from the grade one population of Vancouver and environs during the school term 1972-73. A t o t a l of 109 subjects was employed encompassing a l l members present on the f i r s t day of administration i n each of f i v e classrooms. From these 109 subjects 27 good and 27 poor readers were selected on the basis of reading achievement (upper and lower 25% of ordered t o t a l standard scores). A l l f i r s t grade pupils from two small Catholic schools i n Vancouver provided two classrooms i n which the pupil-teacher r a t i o averaged 10 pupils per teacher. 37 A l l f i r s t grade pupils i n a large public school i n the suburbs provided three classrooms i n which the r a t i o averaged 30 pupils per teacher. The subjects, then, were selected from urban and suburban communities, Catholic and public schools, and small and large classes. MATERIALS In c o l l e c t i n g data f o r t h i s study the materials consisted of eight t e s t s : three standardized group tests and f i v e informal group te s t s . These tests were chosen with the following considerations i n mind: statements by s p e c i a l -i s t s concerning the components of the beginning reading process; information obtained i n research studies of v i s u a l perception, v i s u a l - v e r b a l coding, and the importance of meaning; the questions of the t h e s i s ; and the time that might reasonably be requested from normal school a c t i v i t i e s . In consideration of these factors the tests l i s t e d below were chosen for use i n the study. Names of Tests A. Standardized Tests 1. Vocabulary Listening subtest of the Purre11 Listening  Reading Series, Primary Level, Form D E (1965) 2. The Sentence Listening subtest of the P u r r e l l 38 Listening-Reading Series, Primary Level, Form D E (1965) 3. Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Primary A, Form 2 (1964) B. Informal Tests 1. V i s u a l Memory of Symbols 2. Perception of Reversals of Symbols 3. Identifying Letters Names, Lower Case, subtest of the Boston University F i r s t Grade Success Study (1955) 4. Transposition of Consonant Trigrams 5. Identifying Phonemes, Blends and Phonograms Assignment of Tests to Clusters The tests were assigned to the cl u s t e r s of s k i l l s i n the following way: Visu a l Perception - Vis u a l Memory of Symbols - Perception of Reversals of Symbols Verbal Coding - Identifying Letters Named - Transposition of Consonant Trigrams - Identifying Phonemes, Blends and Phonograms Meaningful Association - Vocabulary Listening - Sentence Listening 39 V a l i d i t y and R e l i a b i l i t y of Standardized Tests The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests were stan-dardized i n the United States on a large sample of over 4,000 children i n 38 communities considered to be representative on the basis of si z e , location, average educational l e v e l of parents, and average family income. The al t e r n a t i v e form r e l i a b i l i t y was reported to be .86 for vocabulary and .83 for comprehension. S p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y was .91 and .94 respec-t i v e l y for the te s t s . Although the r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were not established with the Vancouver sample the assumption was made that the heterogeneity of the sample would insure s i m i l a r c o e f f i c i e n t s . The D u r r e l l Listening-Reading Series consists of reading and l i s t e n i n g t e s t s . The manual states: Its purposes are to i d e n t i f y children with reading d i s a b i l i t y , and to measure the de-gfcee of retardation i n reading as compared to l i s t e n i n g . Knowledge of discrepancies between a c h i l d ' s understanding of spoken language and of printed words i s basic to analysis of reading d i s a b i l i t i e s and diag-nosis of remedial needs. (1969, p. 3) D u r r e l l i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n for using l i s t e n i n g comprehension as a means of predicting the pot e n t i a l for reading achievement i s c l a r i f i e d i n h i s statement: Listening comprehension measures language ac q u i s i t i o n , the knowledge of the very same words and sentences which are to appear la t e r i n reading. In addition, l i s t e n i n g requires the perception of separate sounds i n spoken words, the very same sounds which are to be found i n the 40 ch i l d ' s phonics program. To learn to read, the c h i l d must e s t a b l i s h his "phoneme-grapheme relationships" the r e l a t i o n of speech sounds to t h e i r forms i n p r i n t . The closeness of speech to reading i n both meaning and sound elements makes l i s t e n i n g comprehension the most s i g n i f -icant single measure for estimating reading p o t e n t i a l . (1969, p. 12) An assumption of the v a l i d i t y of using l i s t e n i n g tests to assess meaningful association i s based on t h i s statement by Du r r e l l of the rationale for h i s te s t s . Standardization procedures employed 22,247 students representing eight regions of the United States. Consider-ation was given to factors of family income and education. Correlations between Vocabulary Listening and the Metropolitan Readiness Test and Sentence Listening and the same instrument were reported as .47 and .52 respectively. Some degree of construct v a l i d i t y was established by t h i s comparison with a sim i l a r instrument. R e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s of .94 and .89 were com-puted by means of the s p l i t - h a l f (odd-even) method for vocab-ulary and sentence l i s t e n i n g . The Kuder-Richardson Formula 21 evidenced c o e f f i c i e n t s of .84 and .86 respectively. While r e l i a b i l i t y has not been established for Vancouver popula-tions, i t was assumed that r e l i a b i l i t y would be adeguate. Construction of the Visual Perception Tests The informal tests of v i s u a l perception were con-structed by the investigator i n consultation with her ad-vi s o r a f t e r a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on the topic. Data regarding the v a l i d i t y of these tests appear following t h e i r presentation. An i n i t i a l important decision had to be made about the symbols to be used i n the v i s u a l perception t e s t s . I t seemed evident that no use could be made of l e t t e r s i n con-stru c t i n g the tests because the intention was to keep the s k i l l c l u s t e r s separate and the use of l e t t e r s i n the tests of the v i s u a l perception c l u s t e r would make them overlap with the tests of the verbal coding c l u s t e r . On the other hand, i t was considered desirable to use symbols that would not be t o t a l l y unlike those seen i n the normal reading s i t u a t i o n . I t was concluded, therefore, that the tests should be based on the l e t t e r - l i k e symbols o r i g i n a l l y devised for the Gibson, Gibson, Pick and Osser study i n 1962. The symbols have been employed i n subsequent research by Gibson, Pick, and other investigators. The o r i g i n a l symbols as d i s -played by Pick (1970) were adapted to the purpose of t h i s study. Vis u a l Discrimination. A t e s t of Vis u a l Discrim-ination i n which symbols were matched d i r e c t l y was devised and administered i n the f i r s t stage of the p r e - p i l o t study but was deleted from the battery i n view of the findings 42 (see page 48). The t e s t was constructed by employing the twelve standards and f i v e of the eight transformations from the Pick display and devising twelve new standards and f i v e transformations of each. The transformations omitted from the Pick display were: l e f t - r i g h t reversals, 180 degree rotations, and one other which was either i d e n t i c a l or highly s i m i l a r to another i n i t s set. The twelve new standards were devised with the intent of preserving the l e t t e r - l i k e q u a l i t y of the o r i g i n a l symbols. The transformations were devised to avoid l e f t -r i g h t reversals, 180 degree rotations, and highly s i m i l a r symbols. The twenty-four sets were arranged i n rows with the twelve Pick sets on one 8% x 11 inch sheet and the twelve new sets on another. In each row the standard was displayed on the l e f t and separated by a l i n e from the target and d i s -t r a c t e r s . The target and d i s t r a c t e r s were randomly ordered by informal means. The task was to c i r c l e the symbols which matched the standard displayed on the l e f t . Markers were provided to place under each set of symbols during the process of selecting the target. 4 3 A copy of the tes t and a sample target card are exhibited as Appendix A. Vis u a l Memory of Symbols. The Vis u a l Memory of Symbols t e s t was a v a r i a t i o n of the Vi s u a l Discrimination test. The standards were removed from the l e f t side of the display sheets leaving only the random arrangement of target and d i s t r a c t e r s . Targets d i f f e r e n t from those used i n the Visual Discrimination t e s t were selected and were drawn i n heavy black l i n e s i n approximately 3 x 4 inch s i z e on 5 x 8 inch cards. The task was to c i r c l e the symbol i n the set which matched the target displayed on the card. The target was displayed for three seconds during which period the subjects were required to look only at the target. A copy of the t e s t and a sample display card are exhibited as Appendix B. Perception of Reversal of Symbols. The Perception of Reversals of Symbols test was also based on the Pick symbols. One symbol of each set constructed for the Vis u a l Memory of Symbols te s t was selected on the basis that a l e f t -r i g h t reversal produced a symbol recognizably d i f f e r e n t . Thus twenty-four symbols and t h e i r reversals formed the tes t items. The twelve items from the Pick display were placed on one 8% x 11 inch sheet and the twelve new items on another. For each item one of the pair of symbols was chosen as target and drawn on 5 x 8 inch cards i n the manner described for targets for the Vi s u a l Memory te s t . The task was to c i r c l e the symbol on the page that matched the target, a f t e r a three second display, A copy of the test and a sample display card are included as Appendix C. Construction of Verbal Coding Tests A l l of the Verbal Coding tests were made up of le t t e r s and l e t t e r combinations. A l l l e t t e r s were presented in lower case form. Identifying Letters Named. This test was repro-duced from the Boston University F i r s t Grade Success Study (1955). Twenty-six items were displayed i n two columns on an 8ig x 11 inch sheet. Each item consisted of f i v e typewritten lower case l e t t e r s arranged with three spaces between the l e t t e r s . Markers were provided to place below each item during the selection of the target. The task was to c i r c l e the l e t t e r named by the examiner. In the course of the twenty-six items each l e t t e r of the alphabet served as a target i n the random order de-vised for the Boston Study. A copy of the tes t i s exhibited as Appendix D. 4 5 Transpositions of Consonant Trigrams. The Trans-position of Consonant Trigrams t e s t was devised by employing the Educational Basic non-mat compiler (Hewlitt-Packard 2 1 1 4 ) so that the following conditions were metj twenty-four random selections of consonant trigrams were created, repe-t i t i o n s of consonants within trigrams were excluded, and three permutations of each trigram were randomly selected. The trigrams and t h e i r permutations thus produced were displayed i n rows with each trigram and i t s permutations comprising one row on 8^ x 11 sheets. The twenty-four items were hand printed i n lower case l e t t e r s with twelve items on each sheet. One trigram i n each set was randomly selected by informal means to serve as target and was displayed on a 5 x 8 inch card i n hand printed l e t t e r s approximately three inches i n height. The task was to study the target during a three second exposure and then c i r c l e the trigram i n which the l e t t e r s appeared i n the same order. Markers were provided to place below the item during the se l e c t i o n . A copy of the tes t and a sample target card are included as Appendix E. Identifying Phonemes, Blends and Phonograms. The 46 test designated as Identifying Phonemes, Blends and Phono-grams was composed of eight items from the Identifying Phonemes subtest of the Boston University F i r s t Grade  Success Study (1955), eight items made up of blends selected and arranged by the investigator i n consultation with her advisor, and eight items from the Identifying Phonograms subtest of a study by Murphy (1965). Each item consisted of the target and three d i s t r a c t e r s for the phonograms and the target and four d i s t r a c t e r s for the phonemes and blends. The target was pronounced by the administrator i n the following way: Phonemes - " C i r c l e the l a s t sound you hear i n Blends - " C i r c l e the f i r s t sound you hear i n Phonograms " C i r c l e the l a s t sound you hear i n The t e s t and the cue words appear as Appendix F. V a l i d i t y of the Informal Tests An assumption of the v a l i d i t y of using symbols i n the tests of v i s u a l Memory and Reversals was based on the decision to employ the l e t t e r - l i k e symbols devised by Gibson et a l (1962) to evaluate the development of v i s u a l perception i n children aged four to eight years. The symbols have been employed by them and by other reading s p e c i a l i s t s i n 47 subsequent s t u d i e s and have been accepted as a v a l i d measure of the development o f v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n f o r k i n d e r g a r t e n and f i r s t grade s u b j e c t s . The v a l i d i t y o f r e l a t i n g the v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n of the symbols to f i r s t grade r e a d i n g achievement i s being e x p l o r e d as one purpose of t h i s study. Evidence about v a l i d i t y emerged i n t h i s study and i s presented i n Chapter V. The f a c t t h a t l e t t e r knowledge i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be a necessary p a r t of a c h i l d ' s r e a d i n g c u r r i c u l u m makes i t p o s s i b l e t o assume t h a t t e s t s o f l e t t e r knowledge may v a l i d l y be i n c l u d e d i n a study on b e g i n n i n g r e a d i n g . D e s p i t e t h i s s u r f a c e evidence o f content v a l i d i t y , however, t h e r e may be a need to seek evidence of the v a l i d i t y o f i n c l u d i n g i n a study on r e a d i n g a t e s t of l e t t e r c l u s t e r s presented i n a f l a s h e d s i t u a t i o n . T h i s evidence was found i n a study by Chapman, C a l f e e and Venezky (1970) i n which they employed two, t h r e e , and f o u r l e t t e r groups o f consonants. The t h r e e and f o u r l e t t e r groups were permutated t o produce d i s t r a c t e r s and t h i s technique was f o l l o w e d i n the p r e s e n t study. Chapman et a l found a bimodal d i s t r i b u t i o n of the s c o r e s on t h e i r t e s t . The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h a t f e a t u r e o f the d i s t r i b u t i o n i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e a d i n g achievement i s being e x p l o r e d i n t h i s study. R e l i a b i l i t y o f the Informal T e s t s The purpose of a p r e - p i l o t study was t o determine 48 the r e l i a b i l i t y of the informal tests used with the Vancouver sample, by means of a s p l i t - h a l f (odd-even) analysis. I t also served to determine the range of scores over the sample population and to provide information about the time required and suitable techniques for the administration of the t e s t i n g program. Twenty-four f i r s t grade students i n one of the Vancouver elementary schools comprised the sample for the f i r s t two stages of the r e l i a b i l i t y study early i n March. Twenty-nine f i r s t grade students i n a school were employed i n the t h i r d stages of the study i n early A p r i l . In each case the subjects were divided into two groups for administrative purposes. Stage One. The three tests of v i s u a l perception were administered i n the f i r s t stage of the p r e - p i l o t study. Each t e s t was preceded by explanation and i l l u s t r a t i o n em-ploying a sample item displayed on a 4 x 12 inch card and a target card 3 x 4 inches. The r e s u l t s of the V i s u a l Discrimination t e s t showed that the mean was i n excess of 80% and that more than 60% of the errors were accounted for by 20% of the items. These r e s u l t s suggested that the test was not appropriate for mid grade one subjects and, as a r e s u l t , the test was deleted from the battery. 49 The i n t e r n a l consistency of the remaining two per-ception tests was computed f o r t h i s sample by means of Gutt-man's formula (see Magnusson (1967)) applied to the odd-even items for each test. The figure of .40 thus obtained for the tes t of Visual Memory was deemed unacceptable and an item analysis was undertaken. As a r e s u l t the tes t was re-written by a l t e r i n g items on which almost a l l children scored or almost a l l erred. The items were alt e r e d by replacing or changing p a r t i c u l a r symbols that seemed to provide too great or too l i t t l e divergence from the target. A figure of .94 was obtained for t h i s sample on the te s t of Perception of Reversals. As a r e s u l t the tes t as developed was accepted for inc l u s i o n i n the battery. Scores are presented i n Appendix G. Stage Two. In the second stage of the r e l i a b i l i t y study the altered form of the V i s u a l Memory t e s t was admin-iste r e d together with the tes t of Transposition of Consonant Trigrams. The sample was the same as that used i n the f i r s t stage of the p r e - p i l o t study. Again explanation and demon-st r a t i o n preceded administration. Guttman r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the Vi s u a l Memory tes t had risen to .69 but was s t i l l deemed unacceptable. Again an item analysis showed p a r t i c u l a r items provided very high or very 50 low means. A further r e v i s i o n of the t e s t was undertaken i n the same manner as the e a r l i e r r e v i s i o n . The Transposition of Consonant Trigrams t e s t re-s u l t s provided a lower-bound r e l i a b i l i t y of .94 as computed by the Guttman formula and was therefore included i n the battery. Test scores appear i n Appendix G. Stage Three. A sample of twenty-nine subjects was drawn from a d i f f e r e n t school for the t h i r d stage of the pre-p i l o t study. The l a t e s t r e v i s i o n of the Vi s u a l Memory t e s t was administered together with the t e s t of Identifying Phonemes, Blends and Phonograms. R e l i a b i l i t y was computed to be .95 for the Iden-t i f y i n g Phonemes, Blends, and Phonograms. This t e s t was deemed acceptable for incl u s i o n i n the battery. The t e s t of Vi s u a l Memory was re-administered to the same sample three days l a t e r to study the t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y . R e l i a b i l i t y was established as .76 and the test was thereby accepted into the battery. Test scores for both tests are reported i n Appen-dix G. 51 PROCEDURES P i l o t Study A p i l o t study was administered early i n A p r i l to provide experience i n the administration of the tests on which to base decisions about the order, times, and tech-niques of administration of the tests i n the study. The subjects were s i x f i r s t grade students from a classroom d i f -ferent from those previously used. The students were s e l -ected by t h e i r teacher to provide a range of reading a b i l i t y i n order to assure administration techniques and times s u i t -able to good and poor readers a l i k e . The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests and the battery of seven tests selected or devised for the study were admin-iste r e d i n two s i t t i n g s on successive days. Each s i t t i n g was broken by a f i f t e e n minute period for relaxation. The tests were ordered i n the following ways: F i r s t S i t t i n g - Gates-MacGinitie Reading Vocabulary Test Vi s u a l Memory of Symbols Identifying Phonemes, Blends and Phonograms Vocabulary Listening Second S i t t i n g - Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Perception of Reversals of Symbols 52 Identifying Letters Named Transposition of Consonant Trigrams Sentence Listening In the r e l i a b i l i t y studies an exposure time of three seconds had been used for the Vis u a l Memory and Trans-position of Consonant Trigrams tests and a one second expo-sure of the target was used for the Perception of Reversals of Symbols test. I t had been noted that the mean of the Reversals t e s t (11.12) was considerably lower than the mean of the Vi s u a l Memory tes t (15.00) and the mean of the Trans-positions t e s t (14.33). I t was f e l t that f i r s t grade pupils did not f i n d one second an adequate time i n which to d i r e c t t h e i r attention or to orient themselves to the position of the symbol. In view of these p o s s i b i l i t i e s i t was decided to increase the exposure time for the Reversals t e s t to three seconds so that exposure times for a l l three tests were equal. In the p i l o t study three second exposures were used for the three tests and i t was noted that the mean of the Reversals te s t more c l o s e l y approximated the means of the other two tes t s . After explanations of the tasks, the same technique was used to administer the three tests employing v i s u a l t a r -gets. The instructions were: Place your marker under Row . Ready . . . Look . , . Mark . . . 53 Results of the p i l o t study showed that, apart from the reading achievement te s t s , approximately eighty minutes were reguired for each s i t t i n g to permit adequate time for explanation of each te s t and a b r i e f r e s t between te s t s . The Study The tests were administered i n late May to 109 subjects comprising f i v e f i r s t grade classrooms. Three s i t t i n g s were required for each c l a s s . In the f i r s t s i t t i n g the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, vocabulary and compre-hension, were administered with a b r i e f r e s t period between. The reading tests were scored according to d i r e c -tions i n the manual and the scores converted to standard scores. The standard scores were totaled for each c h i l d and the scores thus obtained were ordered for the 109 subjects. The upper and lower quarters were designated as good and poor readers respectively. These 54 subjects were employed i n subsequent s i t t i n g s . The battery tests were ordered for the second and t h i r d s i t t i n g s as they had been i n the p i l o t study. Test Correction and Scoring Procedures A l l tests were hand-scored by the investigator. Standardized tests were scored as directed i n the accom-panying manual of instructions. Informal tests were scored as the number of items correct except for the t e s t of 54 Reversals. As each item i n the Reversals t e s t was composed of only two choices, the score awarded was the number of items correct minus the number of items incorrect. 55 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA In t h i s study of successful and unsuccessful readers near the end of f i r s t grade, the subjects were s e l -ected on the basis of achievement on tests of reading vocab-ulary and reading comprehension. A f t e r tests of reading achievement had been administered to f i v e whole classes, the summed standard scores were ordered and the upper and lower guarters were designated as successful and unsuccessful readers, respectively. Twenty-seven subjects were assigned to each group i n t h i s manner, a t o t a l of f i f t y - f o u r subjects out of a sample of one hundred nine. I t was noted that the scores of the good readers were more homogeneous than the scores of poor readers. A battery of tests was administered to the f i f t y -four subjects to compare t h e i r performance on three c l u s t e r s of s k i l l s , v i s u a l perception, verbal coding, and meaningful association, a l l assumed to be components of reading a b i l i t y . The subtests of the f i r s t c l u s t e r , v i s u a l per-ception, were (1) v i s u a l memory and (2) perception of rever-s a l s . Both tests employed symbols which resemble l e t t e r s but, not being l e t t e r s , did not permit recognition by associ-ation with a name or sound. These tests were developed for the study. 56 The second c l u s t e r , verbal coding, was designed to evaluate the subjects' knowledge of phoneme-grapheme corres-pondences. I t included subtests of (1) knowledge of l e t t e r names (2) transpositions of consonant trigrams and sounds of single l e t t e r s and groups of l e t t e r s . The transpositions test was developed for the study. The other two had been developed for e a r l i e r studies. Meaningful association, the t h i r d c l u s t e r , evalu-ated the a b i l i t y to extract meaning from o r a l language by using tests of (1) vocabulary l i s t e n i n g and (2) sentence l i s t e n i n g . These tests were standardized t e s t s . The battery was designed to study the areas of d i f -ference between successful and unsuccessful readers apart from t h e i r global reading a b i l i t y . The research questions posed i n the study were the following; 1. Are there s i g n i f i c a n t differences between successful and unsuccessful readers near the end of f i r s t grade i n the following reading s u b s k i l l s ; v i s u a l memory, perception of reversal of symbols, l e t t e r knowledge, transposition of consonant trigrams, knowledge of phonemes, vocabulary l i s t e n i n g , and sentence listening? 2. What correlations e x i s t between the s u b s k i l l s measured 57 f o r (a) the combined group (b) s u c c e s s f u l and (c) unsuc-c e s s f u l r eaders? 3. C o n s i d e r i n g the s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s f u l r e a d e r s t o g e t h e r : (a) which c l u s t e r s of s k i l l s ( v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n , v e r b a l coding, and meaningful a s s o c i a t i o n ) c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o the p r e d i c t i o n o f r e a d i n g c a t e -gory ( s u c c e s s f u l or u n s u c c e s s f u l r e a d e r s ) ? (b) which s u b s k i l l s c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o the p r e -d i c t i o n of r e a d i n g c a t e g o r y ( s u c c e s s f u l or unsuccess-f u l r e a d e r s ) ? 4. Can the Mackworth model be v a l i d a t e d i n the sense t h a t evidence can be o b t a i n e d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t v i s u a l percep-t i o n , v e r b a l coding, and meaningful a s s o c i a t i o n do, i n f a c t , c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o r e a d i n g achievement o f f i r s t grade c h i l d r e n . 5. Does the Mackworth model imply a developmental sequence? That i s , i s t h e r e evidence t h a t v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n , v e r b a l c o d i n g and meaningful a s s o c i a t i o n are developed and used i n t h a t sequence? The comparison o f s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l readers as d e f i n e d i n the f i r s t q u e s t i o n of the study was 2 1 answered by the a p p l i c a t i o n o f H o t e l l i n g ' s T t e s t . As 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 the groups on the 58 s u b s k i l l s c o n s i d e r e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , the s u b s k i l l s c o r e s , 2 were compared s e p a r a t e l y by means o f t - t e s t s . To answer the second q u e s t i o n , c o r r e l a t i o n 3 ma t r i c e s were developed f o r the combined group and f o r the s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l readers c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y . C o r r e l a t i o n s were examined to observe both w i t h i n c l u s t e r and between c l u s t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s . .4 . . Regression a n a l y s i s determined the c o n t r i b u t i o n of each c l u s t e r o f s k i l l s and each s u b s k i l l t o the p r e d i c -t i o n o f r e a d i n g c a t e g o r y ( s u c c e s s f u l or u n s u c c e s s f u l r e a d e r s ) i n answer t o the t h i r d q u e s t i o n . The c l u s t e r s were entered i n s i x o r d e r s to study the e f f e c t o f o r d e r i n g . Questions f o u r and f i v e were answered from i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n o f the a n a l y s i s o f data. As t h i s study was e x p l o r a t o r y i n nature i t seemed a d v i s a b l e t o examine d i f f e r e n c e s down to the .10 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e on qu e s t i o n s t h r e e and f o u r . The data are presented and ana l y s e d under the f o l -lowing headings: comparison of s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l readers on c l u s t e r s o f s k i l l s and s u b s k i l l s , c o r r e l a t i o n s among s u b s k i l l s , and p r e d i c t i o n o f r e a d i n g c a t e g o r y from s u b s k i l l s s c o r e s . In the p r e p a r a t i o n o f the t a b l e s and accompanying 59 descriptive material, the terms good and successful and poor and unsuccessful have been used synonymously. COMPARISON OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL READERS ON CLUSTERS OF SKILLS AND SUBSKILLS A seven-variate multivariate analysis of variance was performed using as measures the scores of each group on the s u b s k i l l s . A multivariate F-ratio t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e was used to determine whether successful readers performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than unsuccessful readers on the seven variables considered simultaneously. The re s u l t s of t h i s analysis together with the mean vectors and standard devi-ations for the groups on the tests given are presented i n Table I I : 60 TABLE II OBSERVED CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Variable Good Readers Poor Readers (n=27) (n=27) Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Visual Memory- 15.41 2.56 11.70 3. 67 Reversals 16.96 5.39 12.67 7. 42 Letters 25.89 .32 20.70 6. 04 Transpositions 19.56 3.14 12.81 4. 87 Phonemes 23.52 .80 12.67 4. 00 Vocabulary Listening 82.52 6.23 56.89 14. 35 Sentence Listening 36.70 2.93 25.89 6. 25 TABLE III SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF MULTIVARIATE CRITERION F-Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean Vectors F-Ratio = 37-5U Degrees of Freedom 7 and lj6 P<.0001 Variable Hypothesis Univariate Error Term Error Term Mean Square F Variance s .d. Visual Memory 185.19 18 .51** 10.00 3.16 Reversals 2U9.18 5.92* A2.06 6.1*9 Letters 3362.96 19 .86** 18.28 li.28 Transpositions 613.UO 3 6 . 5 5 * * 16.78 U.io Phonemes 1587.79 191.02** 8.32 2.88 Vocabulary Listening 8867.8k 72.^9** 122.3k 11.06 Sentence Listening 1578.96 6 6 . 3 0 * * 23.81 li.88 Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis 1 ** Significant at .01 level Degrees of Freedom for Error 52 # Significant at .05 level 62 With mean v e c t o r s as shown i n Table I I , the F-r a t i o f o r the m u l t i v a r i a t e t e s t o f e q u a l i t y o f mean v e c t o r s was 37.54 (df = 7,46). I f the p o p u l a t i o n mean v e c t o r s were equal the p r o b a b i l i t y of o b s e r v i n g an F - r a t i o of t h i s mag-n i t u d e or g r e a t e r would be l e s s than .0001. S u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l readers d i f f e r e d markedly i n performance on the s u b s k i l l s . S i n c e the good and poor readers d i f f e r e d s i g n i f -i c a n t l y on the seven v a r i a b l e s c o n s i d e r e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , a study o f the d i f f e r e n c e was c a r r i e d out i n r e l a t i o n t o each of the v a r i a b l e s by means of t - t e s t s ( e q u i v a l e n t to F w i t h one degree of freedom). R e s u l t s of these t e s t s are p r e -sented i n Table I I I . Table I I I shows t h a t a l l s u b s k i l l s were s i g n i f i -c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t beyond the .01 l e v e l w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f the t e s t o f r e v e r s a l s which was s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .02 l e v e l . CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SUBSKILLS SCORES The s u b s k i l l t e s t s were designed or s e l e c t e d to e x p l o r e t h r e e areas c o n s i d e r e d to be important t o the e a r l y stages of r e a d i n g achievement, v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n , v e r b a l coding, and meaningful a s s o c i a t i o n . The c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i c e s f o r the combined group and f o r s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l readers are presented i n the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e s . 63 Table IV shows the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix of s u b s k i l l variables for the combined group. TABLE IV CORRELATION MATRIX OF VARIABLES FOR COMBINED GROUP 1 Vi s . Mem. 2 Rev. 3 4 Let. Trans. 5 Phon. 6 7 Voc. Sent. Vis u a l Memory- 1.000 Reversals .389** 1.000 Letters -.075 -.100 1.000 Trans-positions .038 .305* .481** 1.000 Phonemes .252 .021 .359** .165 1.000 Vocabulary Listening .012 .238 .282* .221 .023 1.000 Sentence Listening .143 .271 .186 .429** -.031 .616** 1.000 df = 52 ** S i g n i f i c a n t * S i g n i f i c a n t at .01 at .05 l e v e l l e v e l Table IV shows that for the combined group the cor-re l a t i o n s of s u b s k i l l s within c l u s t e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l , with the exception of the c o r r e l a t i o n between phonemes and transpositions which was not s i g n i f i c a n t . 64 Table IV also shows that correlations of s u b s k i l l s between cl u s t e r s yielded three s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s . Correlations between transpositions and sentence l i s t e n i n g , between reversals and transpositions, and between l e t t e r s and vocabulary l i s t e n i n g were s i g n i f i c a n t . Table V presents the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix for good readers. TABLE V CORRELATION MATRIX OF VARIABLES FOR GOOD READERS 1 Vi s . Mem. 2 Rev. 3 Let. 4 Trans. 5 Phon. 6 Voc. 7 Sent. Visual Memory 1.000 Reversals .015 1.000 Letters .292 -.069 1.000 Trans-positions -.001 .572** .102 1.000 Phonemes .361 .165 -.216 .125 1.000 Vocabulary Listening .326 .374 .165 - . 207 .190 1.000 Sentence Listening -.081 -.084 .250 .215 -.210 .160 1.000 df = 25 ** S i g n i f i c a n t at .01 l e v e l 65 Table V shows that within c l u s t e r s no s i g n i f i c a n t correlations existed for scores on s u b s k i l l s for successful readers. Only one c o r r e l a t i o n of s u b s k i l l s between c l u s t e r s , reversals and transpositions, was s i g n i f i c a n t . Table VI shows the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix for unsuc-ce s s f u l readers. TABLE VI CORRELATION MATRIX OF VARIABLES FOR POOR READERS 1 Vi s . Mem. 2 Rev. 3 Let. 4 Trans. 5 Phon. 6 7 Voc. Sent. Vis u a l Memory 1.000 Reversals .579** 1.000 Letters -.101 -.121 1.000 Trans-positions .055 .180 .570** 1.000 Phonemes .263 .003 .368 .184 1.00.0 Vocabulary Listening -.083 .202 .304 .229 .009 1.000 Sentence Listening .218 .398* .199 .499** -.015 .709** 1.000 df = 25 ** S i g n i f i c a n t at .01 l e v e l * S i g n i f i c a n t at .05 l e v e l 66 Table VI shows that within c l u s t e r s s i g n i f i c a n c e was at the .01 l e v e l for three correlations of s u b s k i l l s , v i s u a l memory and reversals, l e t t e r s and transpositions, and vocabulary l i s t e n i n g and sentence l i s t e n i n g . Correlations of s u b s k i l l s between c l u s t e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t f or transpositions and sentence l i s t e n i n g and for reversals and sentence l i s t e n i n g . PREDICTION OF READING CATEGORY ON THE BASIS OF SUBSKILL SCORES Sequential multiple regression analysis was used to examine the contribution of each s u b s k i l l to the prediction of the reading category (successful or unsuccessful) to which the subjects belonged. As the res u l t s of stepwise regression are affected by the order i n which the independent variables are entered, i t was decided to conduct s i x analyses using a l l permutations of the c l u s t e r s . This would permit a comparison of the resu l t s under the s i x orders of entering the c l u s t e r variables and c l a r i f y the r e l a t i v e importance of the variables to the prediction of reading category. The r e s u l t s of the stepwise regression analyses appear i n Tables VII to XII i n c l u s i v e . Table VII shows the resu l t s of entering the variables i n the order proposed i n 67 the Mackworth model. The multiple c o r r e l a t i o n was .92 i n d i c a t i n g that approximately 85 per cent of the variance i n reading cate-gory was l i n e a r l y predictable from the s u b s k i l l s tested. TABLE VII FIRST STEPWISE REGRESSION TO ANALYZE THE CONTRIBUTION OF SUBSKILLS TO CATEGORIZATION BY READING ACHIEVEMENT Source of Variation Increment i n R df F % of C r i t e r i o n Variance Accounted for Visual Perception .2696 2 17.19*** 26.96 Visu a l Memory .2625 1 33.48*** 26.25 Reversals .0071 1 .91 .71 Verbal Coding .5337 3 22.68*** 55.37 Letters .1824 1 23.26*** 18.24 Transpositions .0765 1 9.76*** 7.65 Phonemes .2748 1 35.04*** 27.48 Meaningful Association .0478 2 3.05* 4.78 Vocabulary Listening .0430 1 5.48** 4.30 Sentence Listening .0048 1 .61 .48 *** ** * S i g n i f i c a n t at S i g n i f i c a n t at S i g n i f i c a n t at .01 l e v e l .05 l e v e l .10 l e v e l 68 A l l three c l u s t e r s , v i s u a l perception, verbal coding, and meaningful association, made s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i -butions to the prediction of reading category. Using t h i s order of entering the variables, verbal coding factors con-tributed 55.37 per cent, v i s u a l perception factors c o n t r i -buted 26.96 per cent, and meaningful association factors conr tributed 4.78 per cent of the t o t a l reading achievement var-iance, amounting to a t o t a l of 85 per cent. The contributions of f i v e variables, v i s u a l memory, l e t t e r s , transposition, phonemes, and vocabulary l i s t e n i n g were s i g n i f i c a n t . Two s u b s k i l l s , reversals and sentence l i s t e n i n g made no s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to the prediction of reading category. The phonemes variable accounted for 27.48 per cent, v i s u a l memory 26.25 per cent, and l e t t e r s 27.48 per cent of the t o t a l variance i n reading achievement. The j o i n t c o n t r i -bution of these three s u b s k i l l s was approximately 72 per cent out of the t o t a l variance. The r e s u l t s of the second order of entering the var-iables are presented i n Table VIII. The contributions of the three c l u s t e r variables, v i s u a l perception, verbal coding, and meaningful association, were s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .01 l e v e l of si g n i f i c a n c e . Mean-i n g f u l association factors contributed 39.27 per cent, v i s u a l 69 perception factors contributed 26.96 per cent, and verbal coding factors contributed 18.88 per cent of the t o t a l reading achievement variance, amounting to 85 per cent. TABLE VIII SECOND STEPWISE REGRESSION TO ANALYZE THE CONTRIBUTION OF SUBSKILLS TO CATEGORIZATION BY READING ACHIEVEMENT Source of Variation Increment in R 2 df F % of C r i t e r i o n Variance Accounted for Visu a l Perception .2696 2 17.19*** 26.96 Visu a l Memory- .2625 1 33.47*** 26.25 Reversals .0071 1 .91 .71 Meaningful Association .3927 2 25.04*** 39.27 Vocabulary Listening .3692 1 47.08*** 36.92 Sentence Listening .0235 1 3.00* 2.35 Verbal Coding . 1888 3 8.03*** 18.88 Letters .0099 1 1.26 .99 Transpositions .0188 1 2.40 1.88 Phonemes .1601 1 20.42*** 16.01 *** S i g n i f i c a n t at .01 l e v e l ** S i g n i f i c a n t at .05 l e v e l * S i g n i f i c a n t at .10 l e v e l Four s u b s k i l l variables, vocabulary l i s t e n i n g , v i s -70 ual memory, phonemes, and sentence l i s t e n i n g , made s i g n i f i -cant contributions to the prediction of reading category. Three s u b s k i l l s , reversals, l e t t e r s , and transpositions, made no s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to the prediction. The vocabulary l i s t e n i n g variable contributed 36.92 per cent, v i s u a l memory contributed 26.25 per cent, and phon-emes contributed 16.01 per cent of the t o t a l variance i n reading achievement. The t h i r d method of ordering the cl u s t e r variables i s presented i n Table IX. The verbal coding and meaningful association fac-tors were s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h i s ordering of the variables but the v i s u a l perception c l u s t e r was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Verbal coding factors contributed 80.31 per cent and meaningful association factors contributed 4.78 per cent of the t o t a l variance i n reading achievement which amounted to 85 per cent. The four s u b s k i l l variables making s i g n i f i c a n t con-tr i b u t i o n s to the prediction of reading category were l e t t e r s , transpositions, phonemes, and vocabulary l i s t e n i n g . Reversals, v i s u a l memory, and sentence l i s t e n i n g made no s i g n i f i c a n t con-t r i b u t i o n i n t h i s method of ordering the variables. The phonemes variable contributed 36.04 per cent, l e t t e r s 27.64 per cent, transpositions 15.63 per cent and vocabulary l i s t e n i n g 5.48 per cent of the t o t a l variance i n reading achievement. TABLE IX THIRD STEPWISE REGRESSION TO ANALYZE THE CONTRIBUTION OF SUBSKILLS TO CATEGORIZATION BY READING ACHIEVEMENT Source of Variation Increment i n R 2 df F % of C r i t e r i o n Variance Accounted for Verbal Coding .8031 3 34.14*** 80.31 Letters .2764 1 35.25*** 27.64 Transpositions .1563 1 19.93*** 15.63 Phonemes .3704 1 47.23*** 37.04 Visu a l Perception .0001 2 .01 .01 Vi s u a l Memory .0001 1 .01 .01 Reverslas .0000 1 .00 .00 Meaningful Association .0478 2 3.05* 4.78 Vocabulary Listening .0430 1 5.48** 4.30 Sentence Listening .0048 1 .61 .48 *** S i g n i f i c a n t at .01 l e v e l ** S i g n i f i c a n t at .05 l e v e l * S i g n i f i c a n t at .10 l e v e l The r e s u l t s of the fourth method of ordering the 72 cluste r s are presented i n Table X. TABLE X FOURTH STEPWISE REGRESSION TO ANALYZE THE CONTRIBUTION OF SUBSKILLS TO CATEGORIZATION BY READING ACHIEVEMENT Source of Variation Increment 2 i n R df F % of C r i t e r i o n Variance Accounted for Verbal Coding .8031 3 34.14*** 80.31 Letters .2764 1 35.25*** 27.64 Transpositions .1563 1 19.93*** 15.63 Phonemes ,3704 1 47.23*** 37.04 Meaningful Association .0460 2 5.87*** 4.60 Vocabulary-Listening .0409 1 5.22** 4.09 Sentence Listening .0051 1 .65 .51 Visu a l Perception .0018 2 .23 .18 Visu a l Memory .0002 1 .03 .02 Reversals .0016 1 .20 .16 *** ** * S i g n i f i c a n t at S i g n i f i c a n t at S i g n i f i c a n t at .01 l e v e l .05 l e v e l .10 l e v e l The verbal coding and meaningful association var-iables made a s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to the prediction of reading category under t h i s condition of entering the var-73 iabl e s . V i s u a l perception factors made no s i g n i f i c a n t con-t r i b u t i o n . Verbal coding factors contributed 80.31 per cent and meaningful association factors contributed 4.60 per cent of the t o t a l predictable variance i n reading achievement, amounting to a t o t a l of 85 per cent. Four s u b s k i l l factors made s i g n i f i c a n t contributions to the prediction of reading achievement, l e t t e r s , transpo-s i t i o n s , phonemes, and vocabulary l i s t e n i n g . The other sub-s k i l l factors did not contribute s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the pre-d i c t i o n of reading achievement. The phonemes variable contributed 36.04 per cent, l e t t e r s contributed 27.64 per cent, and transpositions con-tributed 15.63 per cent of the t o t a l reading achievement variance. The combined contributions of these s u b s k i l l s was 79 per cent of the t o t a l variance i n reading achievement. The f i f t h method of ordering the clus t e r variables resulted i n the data presented i n Table XI. A l l three c l u s t e r s of s k i l l s , v i s u a l perception, verbal coding, and meaningful association, made s i g n i f i c a n t contributions to the prediction of reading achievement under the f i f t h condition of entering the variables. The meaning-f u l association factors contributed 62.33 per cent, verbal coding factors contributed 18.88 per cent and v i s u a l percep-t i o n factors contributed 3.90 per cent of the t o t a l variance 74 in reading achievement. TABLE XI FIFTH STEPWISE REGRESSION TO ANALYZE THE CONTRIBUTION OF SUBSKILLS TO CATEGORIZATION BY READING ACHIEVEMENT Source of Varia t i o n Increment 2 i n R df F % of C r i t e r i o n Variance Accounted for Meaningful Association .6233 2 39.74*** 62.33 Vocabulary-Listening .5823 1 74.25*** 58.23 Sentence Listening .0410 1 5.23** 4.10 Visu a l Perception .0390 2 4.97** 3.90 Visu a l Memory .0327 1 4.17* 3.27 Reversals .0063 1 .80 .63 Verbal Coding . 1888 3 24.08*** 18.88 Letters .0099 1 1.26 .99 Transpositions .0188 1 2.40 1.88 Phonemes . 1601 1 20.42*** 16.01 *** S i g n i f i c a n t at .01 l e v e l ** S i g n i f i c a n t at .05 l e v e l * S i g n i f i c a n t at .10 l e v e l Four s u b s k i l l variables, vocabulary l i s t e n i n g , pho-nemes, sentence l i s t e n i n g , and v i s u a l memory contributed s i g -n i f i c a n t l y to the prediction of reading achievement. Three 75 variables, reversals, l e t t e r s , and transpositions, made no s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to the prediction. The vocabulary l i s t e n i n g s u b s k i l l contributed 58.23 per cent and the phonemes s u b s k i l l contributed 16.01 per cent of the t o t a l reading achievement variance. The j o i n t c o n t r i -bution of these two s u b s k i l l variables was 84 per cent of the t o t a l variance. The s i x t h method of ordering the c l u s t e r variables i s reported i n Table XII. Two cl u s t e r s , meaningful association and verbal coding made s i g n i f i c a n t contributions to the prediction of reading achievement. The v i s u a l perception c l u s t e r made no s i g n i f i c a n t contribution. The meaningful association c l u s t e r contributed 62.33 per cent and verbal coding contributed 22,59 per cent of the t o t a l variance i n reading achievement, a j o i n t contribution of 85 per cent of the t o t a l variance. Three s u b s k i l l variables, vocabulary l i s t e n i n g , phonemes, and sentence l i s t e n i n g , made s i g n i f i c a n t contribu-tions to the prediction of reading achievement i n t h i s order of entering the variables. No other s u b s k i l l s made s i g n i f i -cant contributions. The vocabulary l i s t e n i n g variable contributed 58.23 per cent and the phonemes variable contributed 20.02 per cent 76 of the t o t a l variance i n reading achievement, a j o i n t con-t r i b u t i o n of 78 per cent of the variance. TABLE XII SIXTH STEPWISE REGRESSION TO ANALYZE THE CONTRIBUTION OF SUBSKILLS TO CATEGORIZATION BY READING ACHIEVEMENT Source of Variation Increment i n R 2 df F % of C r i t e r i o n Variance Accounted for Meaningful Association .6233 2 39.74*** 62.33 Vocabulary Listening .5823 1 74.25*** 58.23 Sentence Listening .0410 1 5.23** 4.10 Verbal Coding .2259 3 9.60*** 22.59 Letters .0115 1 1.47 1.15 Transpositions .0142 1 1.81 1.42 Phonemes .2002 1 25.53*** 20.02 Visual Perception .0018 2 .11 .18 Visual Memory .0002 1 .03 .02 Reversals .0016 1 .20 .16 S i g n i f i c a n t at .01 l e v e l S i g n i f i c a n t at .05 l e v e l S i g n i f i c a n t at .10 l e v e l 77 FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER IV COMPUTER PROGRAMS USED IN THE STUDY Jeremy D. Finn, State University of New York at Buffalo, A p r i l , 1967. UBC STRIP, University of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre UBC STRIP, University of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre UBC BMD02R, Adapted by Jason Halm from UCLA BMD Documen-tatio n , November, 1972. 78 CHAPTER V SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY The purpose of the study was to investigate the differences between successful and unsuccessful readers i n late grade one on tasks assumed to be part of the reading process. The research questions posed i n the study were: 1. Are there s i g n i f i c a n t differences between successful and unsuccessful readers near the end of f i r s t grade i n the following reading s u b s k i l l s : v i s u a l memory, perception of reversal of symbols, l e t t e r knowledge, transposition of consonant trigrams, knowledge of phonemes, vocabulary l i s t e n i n g , and sentence l i s t e n i n g ? 2. What correlations e x i s t between the s u b s k i l l s measured for (a) the combined group (b) successful and (c) unsuc-ce s s f u l readers? 3. Considering the successful and unsuccessful readers to-gether : (a) which clusters of s k i l l s (visual perception, verbal coding, and meaningful association) contribute s i g -n i f i c a n t l y to the prediction of reading category (successful or unsuccessful readers)? 79 (b) which s u b s k i l l s contribute s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the pre-d i c t i o n of reading category (successful or unsuc-ce s s f u l readers)? 4. Can the Mackworth model be validated i n the sense that evidence can be obtained i n d i c a t i n g that v i s u a l percep-t i o n , verbal coding, and meaningful association do, i n fact, contribute s i g n i f i c a n t l y to reading achievement of f i r s t grade children? 5. Does the Mackworth model imply a developmental sequence? That i s , i s there evidence that v i s u a l perception, verbal coding, and meaningful association are developed and used i n that sequence? Tests were devised or selected to evaluate three clusters of s k i l l s , v i s u a l perception, verbal coding, and meaningful association. The v i s u a l perception c l u s t e r was composed of two tests (1) v i s u a l memory of symbols and (2) perception of reversal of symbols. The verbal coding c l u s t e r was composed of three tests (1) l e t t e r knowledge (2) transposition of consonant trigrams and (3) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of phonemes, blends and pho-nograms . The meaningful association c l u s t e r was made up of 80 two tests (1) vocabulary l i s t e n i n g and (2) sentence l i s t e n i n g . The data were analyzed f i r s t to determine whether there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between successful and un-successful readers on the three clu s t e r s of s k i l l s and on the seven s u b s k i l l s that formed the c l u s t e r s . Correlation matrices were formulated for the com-bined group and for the successful and unsuccessful readers considered separately. The data were further analyzed to determine (a) which clus t e r s and (b) which s u b s k i l l variables contributed s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the prediction of reading category (success-f u l or^unsuccessful readers). The l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e set for a l l tests was .10. I t was considered that s e t t i n g the l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e reasonably low was warranted, given the exploratory nature of the study. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Comparison of Successful and Unsuccessful Readers on Clusters  of S k i l l s and Su b s k i l l s The seven s u b s k i l l s , considered as a set, markedly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the two groups of readers, successful and un-successful. Further, the groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on each of the seven variables considered separately. Correlation Between S u b s k i l l Scores 1. For the combined group the within c l u s t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t i n a l l cases except between the trans-positions and phonemes variables of the verbal coding c l u s t e r . Between clust e r s only c o r r e l a t i o n , transpo-s i t i o n s and sentence l i s t e n i n g , was s i g n i f i c a n t . This finding supports the c l u s t e r hypothesis. 2. i For successful readers there were no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l -ations df variables within c l u s t e r s . Between cl u s t e r correlations were s i g n i f i c a n t for reversals and transpo-s i t i o n s , v i s u a l memory and vocabulary l i s t e n i n g , and reversals and vocabulary l i s t e n i n g . 3. For unsuccessful readers only one within c l u s t e r c o r r e l -ation, transpositions and phonemes, f a i l e d to reach a s i g -n i f i c a n t l e v e l . There were s i g n i f i c a n t between c l u s t e r correlations for reversals and sentence l i s t e n i n g and transpositions and sentence l i s t e n i n g . Prediction of Reading Category The findings are summarized under two headings (1) findings on c l u s t e r variables and (2) findings on s u b s k i l l variables. Data for both are summarized i n Table XIII. When reference i s made to clu s t e r s c a p i t a l l e t t e r s are used. The v i s u a l perception c l u s t e r , then, becomes the VP cl u s t e r , the verbal coding cl u s t e r becomes the VC cl u s t e r , and the meaningful association c l u s t e r i s referred to as the MA 82 cl u s t e r . FINDINGS ON CLUSTERS 1. Approximately 85 per cent of the variance i n reading achievement was accounted for by the three c l u s t e r s of s k i l l s measured. 2. I t was only when the VP cl u s t e r was entered f i r s t i n the ordering that i t made a siz a b l e contribution (26.96%) to the prediction of reading achievement. When the VP clust e r was entered immediately a f t e r the MA cl u s t e r i t s contribution was small (3.90%) though s i g n i f i c a n t . When i t was entered aft e r the VC cl u s t e r or when i t was entered l a s t i t s contribution was n e g l i g i b l e . 3. When the VC cl u s t e r was entered f i r s t i t accounted for 80 per cent of the variance. In second position of ordering i t accounted for 55 per cent when entered a f t e r the VP clu s t e r and 23 per cent when entered a f t e r the MA cl u s t e r . When the VC cl u s t e r was entered l a s t i t accounted for 19 per cent of the variance. 4. When the MA cl u s t e r was entered f i r s t i t accounted for 62 per cent of the variance. In second po s i t i o n i t con-tributed 39 per cent when i t followed the VP cl u s t e r but only 5 per cent when i t followed the VC c l u s t e r . When the MA cl u s t e r was entered l a s t i t contributed approxi-mately 5 per cent of the variance i n the prediction of reading achievement. 83 TABLE XIII COMPARISON OF THE SIX ORDERS OF ENTERING VARIABLES IN THE STEPWISE REGRESSION TO ANALYZE THE CONTRIBUTION OF SUBSKILLS TO CATEGORIZATION BY READING ACHIEVEMENT Subsk i l l s Clusters Order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 VP VC MA VP VC MA 26 1 18 8 27 :A 0 27 55 5 VP MA VC 26 1 1 2 16 37 2 27 19 39 VC VP MA 0 0 28 15 37 4 0 0 80 5 VC MA VP 0 0 28 16 37 4 1 0 80 5 MA VP VC 3 .1 1 2 16 58 4 4 19 62 MA VC VP 0 0 1 1 20 58 4 0 23 62 Codes 1 - Vis u a l Memory 5 - Phonemes 2 - Reversals 6 - Vocabulary Listening 3 - Letters 7 - Sentence Listening 4 - Transpositions. VP - Visual Perception VC - Verbal Coding MA - Meaningful Association Data reported i n approximate per cent of variance accounted for. FINDINGS ON SUBSKILLS VARIABLES 1. Two s u b s k i l l variables, phonemes and vocabulary l i s t e n i n g , made s i g n i f i c a n t contributions to the prediction of reading achievement i n a l l s i x orders of entering the variab l e s . 84 Four s u b s k i l l s , l e t t e r s , transpositions, v i s u a l memory, and sentence l i s t e n i n g were s i g n i f i c a n t contributors i n three of the s i x orders of entering the variabl e s . One s u b s k i l l , reversals, made no s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to the prediction of reading achievement i n any of the orderings. 2. The v i s u a l memory s u b s k i l l appeared always to make the largest contribution to the prediction and the reversals s u b s k i l l to make almost no contribution. However, t h i s finding may have resulted from the f a c t that v i s u a l memory was always entered f i r s t i n the VP c l u s t e r . A d i f f e r e n t ordering might have produced a d i f f e r e n t re-s u l t . 3. In the MA cl u s t e r the vocabulary l i s t e n i n g s u b s k i l l con-s i s t e n t l y appeared to make the largest contribution and the sentence l i s t e n i n g s u b s k i l l to make l i t t l e c o n t r i -bution. This finding may have resulted from the fac t that vocabulary l i s t e n i n g was always entered f i r s t i n the MA cl u s t e r . A d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t might have been produced by a d i f f e r e n t ordering. 4. The l e t t e r s and transpositions s u b s k i l l s were s i g n i f i c a n t when the VC cl u s t e r was entered f i r s t and when i t was entered immediately a f t e r the VP cl u s t e r . When entered af t e r the MA cl u s t e r the sig n i f i c a n c e of these s u b s k i l l s was eliminated. 5. The phonemes s u b s k i l l consistently made a highly s i g n i f -85 icant contribution to the prediction no matter what the placement of the verbal coding c l u s t e r . This was true despite the fac t that the phonemes variable was always placed l a s t within the VC c l u s t e r . CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions were drawn from the findings of the study. 1. v i s u a l perception, verbal coding, and meaningful associ-ation, insofar as they do represent clu s t e r s of s k i l l s , appear to make an important contribution to reading achievement i n fjir s t grade. 2. Since s i g n i f i c a n t correlations were frequent between cluste r s for good readers and within c l u s t e r s for poor readers, i t was concluded that for good readers near the end of f i r s t grade the process of s k i l l s integration within c l u s t e r s had progressed further than i t had for poor readers. 3. The f a c t that the transpositions variable was most highly associated i n good readers with the reversals variable and i n poor readers with the l e t t e r s variable led to the conclusion that a task of the transpositions type may i n the early stages of learning require verbal coding s k i l l (naming the l e t t e r s ) but, when experience i s gained i n decoding l e t t e r clusters (words), i t becomes a task of v i s u a l perception. Again the homogeneity of scores of 86 good readers compared to the scores of poor readers may-have affected the finding. 4. V i s u a l perception as measured by the study probably con-s t i t u t e s an aspect of verbal coding, on which verbal coding p a r t i a l l y depends. 5. Meaningful association i s probably a factor that i n f l u -ences both v i s u a l perception and verbal coding and so cannot be said to occur as a la t e r stage i n a develop-mental model but as a factor i n each stage. 6. The Mackworth model can be said to be developmental only in the sense that v i s u a l perception may precede verbal coding i n the developmental stages. Meaningful associ-ation i s probably involved at a l l stages. 7. Of the s u b s k i l l variables, phonemes was the most powerful contributor to the prediction of reading category as defined by the study. 8. Vocabulary l i s t e n i n g was also a strong contributor, a l -though i t s placement i n the analysis may have distorted i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e . 9. Further analysis would be required before any conclusion could be drawn about the r e l a t i v e importance of the v i s u a l memory and reversals s u b s k i l l s . IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY 1. Teachers planning programmes for f i r s t grade children should be made aware that v i s u a l perception, verbal coding, 87 and meaningful association are a l l s i g n i f i c a n t s u b s k i l l s of reading achievement. Provision should probably be made for the development of each although t h i s study does not provide experimental evidence of the probable e f f e c t of t r a i n i n g . 2. Teachers planning programmes for f i r s t grade children should be made aware that attention directed to the de-velopment of the s p e c i f i c s k i l l of v i s u a l memory as a "p r i o r s k i l l " i n the eventual development of verbal coding may provide a useful point of departure early i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Experimental evidence would have to be sought, however, before confidence could be placed i n the implied importance of v i s u a l memory to verbal coding. 3. Teachers planning programmes for f i r s t grade children should take into account that knowledge of phonemes i s strongly associated with reading achievement i n f i r s t grade. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 1. The Mackworth model should be explored at several stages during the f i r s t grade to evaluate what, i f any, s h i f t s occur i n the r e l a t i v e importance of the s u b s k i l l factors within the model. 2. The study should be repeated and the f u l l range of reading achievement examined to determine the contribu-tions of the i n d i v i d u a l c l u s t e r s and s u b s k i l l s to the 88 prediction of reading achievement. 3. The study should be r e p l i c a t e d with a larger sample and the s u b s k i l l variables rotated with the c l u s t e r s i n order to examine the r e l a t i v e importance of the s u b s k i l l s i n the prediction of reading category. The s e l e c t i o n of the sample should be done i n such a way as to make pos-s i b l e the incl u s i o n of s i m i l a r ranges of scores for each group. 4. A treatment study should be i n i t i a t e d to discover whether s p e c i f i c weaknesses i d e n t i f i e d i n tests of s u b s k i l l s can be remediated through t r a i n i n g . While the findings of t h i s study indicate that the s u b s k i l l s tested are highly associated with reading achievement, experimental studies are needed to e s t a b l i s h what d i r e c t benefits may accrue from systematic t r a i n i n g i n the s u b s k i l l s . REFERENCES 90 REFERENCES Anderson, R.H. & Samuels, S.J. Vi s u a l Recognition Memory, Paired-Associate Learning, and Reading Achievement. 16 p. Paper read at American Educational Research Association Annual Convention, Minneapolis, 1970. ED 040 O i l , microfiche $ .25, hard copy $ .90. A s t i l l , Dolores E. Vis u a l Memory D e f i c i t s and Reading D i s a b i l i t i e s . 71 p. Diss. Ab., 30, 3310. Order No. 70-2283, microfilm $3.00, Xerography $4.00, from Univ. Microfilms. Bakker, D.J. Temporal Order, Meaningfulness and Reading A b i l i t y . Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1967, 24, 1027-1030. Barrett, T.C. Vis u a l Discrimination Tasks as Predictors of F i r s t Grade Reading Achievement. Reading Teacher, 1965, 18(4), 276-282. Barrett, T.C. The Relationship Between Measures of Pre-reading Visual Discrimination and. F i r s t Grade Reading Achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 1965, 1(1), 51-76. Biemiller, A.J. The Development of the Use of Graphic and Contextual Information as Children Learn to Read. Reading Research Quarterly, 1970, 6(1), 75-96. Blank, Marion & Bridger, W.H. Deficiencies i n Verbal Labeling i n Retarded Readers. American Journal of  Orthopsychiatry, 1966, 36(5), 840-847. Bond, G.L. & Dykstra, R. F i r s t Grade Studies. ( F i n a l report, HEW Project No. X 001. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1967). ED 013 714, microfiche $1.50, hard copy $15.76. Brown, E. The Bases of Reading Ac q u i s i t i o n . Reading Research  Quarterly, 1970, 6(1), 49-74. Buckland, Pearl R. The E f f e c t of Vis u a l Perception Training on Reading Achievement i n Low Readiness F i r s t Grade Pupils. 126 p. Diss. Ab.,31, 1613, microfilm $4.00, Xerography $6.00,f°from Univ. Microfilms. 91 Bukentica, N.A. Perceptual Mode Dominance: An Approach to Assessment of F i r s t Grade Reading and S p e l l i n g . 26 p. (University of Chicago, 1967). ED 026 132, microfiche $ .25, hard copy $1.40. Calfee, R.C., Chapman, R., & Venezky, R. How a Ch i l d Needs to Think to Learn to Read. 48 p. (HEW Contract No. OEC 5-10-154, Wisconsin University, Madison, 1970). ED 046  627, microfiche, :$ .65, hard copy $3.20. Chall , Jeanne S. Learning to Read: The Great Debate. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967. Chapman, R. Calfee, R. & Venezky, R. Basic Language and Cognitive S k i l l s i n Kindergartens. In W.K. Durr (Ed.) Reading D i f f i c u l t i e s : Diagnosis, Correction and Reme- dia t i o n . Newark: International Reading Association, 1970, 17-27. Cohen, S.A. Studies i n Visual Perception and Reading i n Disadvantaged Children. Paper delivered at College Reading Association, Boston, 1969. 12 p. ED 031 367, microfiche $ .25, hard copy $ .70. Compton, Mary E. A Study of the Relationship Between Oral Language F a c i l i t y and Reading Achievement of Selected F i r s t Grade Children. 148 p. Diss. Ab., 32, 6848, Order No. 72-17-211, microfilm $4.00, Xerography $10.00, from Univ. microfilms. Crosby, R.M.N. & Liston, R.A. The Waysiders: A New Approach  to Reading and the Dyslexic Child. New York: Delacorte Press, 1968. Denner, B. Representational and Syntactic Competence of Problem Readers. Child Development, 1970, 41, 881-887. D u r r e l l , D.D. F i r s t Grade Reading Success Study: A Summary. Boston University Journal of Education, 1958, 140(3), 2-6. D u r r e l l , D.D. & Brassard, Mary B. D u r r e l l Listening-Reading  Series, Primary Level, Form DE. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965. Dykstra, R. Summary of the Second-Grade Phase of the Cooperative Research Program i n Primary Reading In-struction. Reading Research Quarterly, 1968, 4(1), 49-70. 92 Elara, C.B. Temporal-Spatial Derangement as a Factor i n Reading D i f f i c u l t y . 22 p. (Texas C h r i s t i a n University Fort Worth, 1969, HEW Grant 7-8-000001-029-010). ED 032, 209, microfiche $ .25, hard copy $1.20. Feldman, S h i r l e y C, V i s u a l Perception S k i l l s of Children and Their Relation to Reading. 98 p. Diss. Ab., 22, 1048. Order No. 61-3878, microfilm $2.75, Xerography $5.00. Fortenberry, W.D. An Investigation of the Effectiveness of a Special Program Upon the Development of V i s u a l Per-ception for Word Recognition of C u l t u r a l l y Disadvantaged F i r s t Grade Students. Nineteenth Yearbook of the  National Reading Conference, 1970, 19(1), 141-145. Frostig, Marianne. Individual Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 43 p. Paper presented to Rocky Mountain Educational Laboratory Corp., Denver, 1968. ED 029 418, microfiche $ .25, hard copy $2.25. Frostig, Marianne. V i s u a l Modality-Research and Practice. In Helen K. Smith (Ed.) Perception and Reading. Pro- ceedings of the Twelfth Annual Convention, International  Reading Association, 1968, 12(4), 25-33. Fros t i g , Marianne & Home, D. The Marianne Fr o s t i g Program  for the Development of V i s u a l Perception. Chicago: F o l l e t t , 1964. Frostig, Marianne, Lefever, W. & Whittlesey, J.R.B. The Marianne Fr o s t i g Developmental Test of V i s u a l Perception, Third E d i t i o n . Palo A l t o , C a l i f o r n i a ; Consulting Psychologists Press, 1964. Fro s t i g , Marianne, Lefever, W., & Whittlesey, J.R.B. The Marianne Fr o s t i g Developmental Test of v i s u a l Percep-tion for Evaluating Normal and Neurologically Handi-capped Children. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1961, 12, 383-384. Gates, A.I. & MacGinitie, W.H. Gates MacGinitie Reading Tests Primary A, Vocabulary and Comprehension - Grade 1. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia U., 1965. Gibson, Eleanor J . P r i n c i p l e s of Perceptual Learning. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, Meredith Corp., 1969. 93 Gibson, Eleanor J. Learning to Read. In H. Singer & R..B. Ruddell (Eds.) Theoretical Models and Processes of  Reading. Newa r k l International Reading Association, 1970, 315-334. Gibson, Eleanor J . , Gibson, J.J., Pick, Anne D., & Osser, H. A Developmental Study of the Discrimination of Letter-l i k e Forms. Journal of Comparative Physiological Psych-ology, 1962, 55(6), 897-906. Gibson, Eleanor J . , Osser, H. & Pick, Anne D. A Study of the Development of Grapheme-Phoneme Correspondence. Journal  of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 1963, 2, 142-146. Glass, G.G. The Teaching of Word Analysis Through Perceptual Conditioning. Proceedings of International Reading  Conference, 1965, 10, 410-413. Goins, Jean T. Visual Perceptual A b i l i t i e s and Early Reading  Progress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. Goodman, K. A L i n g u i s t i c Study of Cues and Miscues i n Read-ing. Elementary English, 1965, 42(6), 639-643. Goodman, K. Comprehension Centered Reading. Claremont Read-ing Conference Proceedings, 1970. Thirty-fourth Yearbook. Gotts, E.A. Grapheme-Phoneme Correspondence Learning i n Children with Reading D i f f i c u l t i e s . 183 p. Diss. Ab., 31, 5886. Order No. 71-22, 542, microfilm $4.00, Xerography $6.00, from Univ. Microfilms. Hochberg, J . Components of Litera c y : Speculations and Exploratory Research. In H. Levin and Joanna P. Williams (Eds.) Basic Studies i n Reading. New York: Basic Books, 1970. Kerfoot, J.F. The Relationship of Selected Auditory and Visual Reading Readiness Measures to F i r s t Grade Reading Achievement and Second Grade Reading and Sp e l l i n g Achievement. 305 p. Diss. Ab., 25, 1747. Order No. 64-9492, microfilm $3.95, Xerography $14.75, from Univ. Microfilms. Klein, Isobel & Marsh, Helen R. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Remedia-tion of Perceptual Handicaps i n Learning to Read. Fi n a l Report. 17 p. (HEW Contract OEC 1-7-078015-2986). ED 029 773, microfiche $ .25, hard copy $ .95. 94 L e v i t t , Edith. E f f e c t of Context on the Reading of Mentally-Retarded and Normal Children at F i r s t Grade Level. 13 p. (HEW Report No. RR-5). ED 032 701, microfiche $ .25, hard copy $ .75. Lo v e l l , K. & Gorton, A. A Study of Some Differences Between Backward and Normal Readers of Average Intelligence. B r i t i s h Journal of Psychology, 1968, 37-38, 240-248. Mackworth, Jane F. Some Models of the Reading Process: Learners and S k i l l e d Readers. Reading Research  Quarterly, 1972, VIII (4), 701-733. Marchbanks, Gabrielle & Levin, H. Cues by which Children Recognize Words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1965, 56(2), 57-61. Maxwell, Martha J . & Temp, G. Survey of the Lit e r a t u r e on Methods and Materials i n Reading. In R. Corder (Ed.) The Information Base for Reading: A C r i t i c a l Review of the Information Base for Current Assumptions Regarding the Status of Instruction and Achievement i n Reading i n the United States. 392 p. (Contract OEC-0-70-4792-508). ED 054 922, microfiche $ .65, hard copy $13.16. McClanahan, L.J. The Effectiveness of Perceptual Training for Slow Learners. 129 p. Diss. Ab., 28, 2560. Order No. 67-17, 543, microfilm $3.00, Xerography $6.20, from Univ. Microfilms. M i l l e r , G. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity of Processing Information. Psychology Review, 1956, 63, 81-97. M i l l e r , G., Bruner, J.S., & Postman, L. F a m i l i a r i t y of Letter Sequences and Tachistoscopic I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Journal of General Psychology, 1954, 50, 129-139. Monroe, Marion. Children Who Cannot Read. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932. Mould, R.E. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Special Program for Retarded Readers Manifesting Disturbed V i s u a l Perception. 90 p. Diss.. Ab., 26, 228. Order No. 65-7706, microfilm $3.00, Xerography $4.80, from Univ. Microfilms. 95 Muehl, S. & King, Ethel M. Recent Research i n V i s u a l Discrimination: Significance for Beginning Readers. In J.A. Figurel (Ed.) Vistas i n Reading, Inter-national Reading Association Conference Proceedings, 1967, 11(1). Murphy, Helen A. Reading Research i n Relation to the Growth  i n Perception, of Word Elements i n Three Types of Begin-ning Reading Instruction. (Project No. 2675) Boston University, 1965. Nodine, C F . & Hardt, J.V. Role of Letter-Position Cues i n Learning to Read Words. Journal of Educational Psych-ology, 1970, 61(1), 10-15. Ohnmacht, Dorothy C. The E f f e c t s of Letter Knowledge on Achievement i n Reading i n the F i r s t Grade. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, 1969. ED 028 913, microfiche $ .25, hard copy $ .80. Pick, Anne D. Some Basic Perceptual Processes i n Reading. Young Children, 1970, XXV, (3), 162-181. Rosen, C.L. A Study of Vi s u a l Perception C a p a b i l i t i e s of F i r s t Grade Pupils and the Relationship Between V i s u a l Perception Training and Reading Achievement. 382 p. Diss. Ab., 26, 5247. Order No. 65-15, 287, microfilm $4,90, Xerography $17.35, from Univ. Microfilms. Samuels, S.J. Modes of Word Recognition. In H... Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.) Theoretical Models and Processes  of Reading. Newark: International Reading Association, 1970, 23-37. Samuels, S.J. Letter-name Versus Letter-sound knowledge i n Learning to Read. Reading Teacher, 1971, 24, 604-608. Smith, F. & Holmes, Deborah L. The Independence of Letter, Word, and Meaning I d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n Reading. Reading  Research Quarterly, 1971, 6(3), 394-415. Spache, G.D. The Perceptual Bases of Reading. F i r s t World  Congress on Reading, 1966. Vernon, M.D. Reading and Its D i f f i c u l t y . Cambridge: University Press, 1971, 96 Vernon, M.D. Backwardness i n Reading: A Study of the Nature and Origin. Cambridge: University Press, 1957. Vernon, M.D. Perception Through Experience. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1970. Venezky, R. & Calfee, R.C. The Reading Competency Model. In H. Singer and R.B. Ruddell (Eds.) Theoretical  Models and Processes of Reading. Newark: International Reading Association, 1970. Weber, Rose-Marie. A L i n g u i s t i c Analysis of F i r s t Grade Reading Errors. Reading Research Quarterly, 1970, 5(3), 427-451. Weber, Rose-Marie. First-Graders Use of Grammatical Context i n Reading. In H. Levin & Joanna P. Williams (Eds.), Basic Studies on Reading. New York: Basic Books, 1970. Williams, Joanna P. Reactions to Modes of Word Recognition. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. Newark: International Reading Association, 1970. REFERENCES FOR STATISTICAL PROCEDURES 98 REFERENCES FOR STATISTICAL PROCEDURES Finn, J.D. Multivariance. State University of New York at Buffalo, 1967. G r a y b i l l , F.A. An Introduction to Linear S t a t i s t i c a l Models. Volume 1. Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 206. Halm, J.A. UCLA BMD02R Stepwise Regression, adapted from UCLA BMD, Health Sciences Computing F a c i l i t y , UCLA, 1972. Magnusson, D. Test Theory. Don M i l l s : Addison-Wesley Company, 1967, 111. STRIP. University of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre. APPENDICES APPENDIX A VISUAL DISCRIMINATION TEST 101 & 9 > -> 6 V -0 - 0 -< > J > 7 7 U "VN ? T T > a A y V i s u a 1 D i s c r i t n i t i a t i on - b 102 i i T 0 1 r A T y y l i Z). r ) c y tj ^ PI y o c o c < -< X > X C c C C 0\ > \0 103 Sanplo Target f o r V i s u a l D i s c r i m i n a t i o n APPENDIX B SUAL MEMORY TEST 105 V i s u a l Memory of Symbol3 - a 1. 9 (!) V T V > 3. ^ - J 0 5. > > I > / > 7 7 ^ & 7. V i V \ Y \ \^ 2. $ T ^ T ? J* r £ A 0 ^ 0 Q> lo-ll fe) £ f # <? £ ^ V i s u a l Memory of Symbols - b H W <l W j» 2 >f. •< Is- T >-" -nm i T If. 19. * f cV y u ao. A o£ *c •' Jo -of. 24. \0 Sample Target f o r V i s u a l Memory APPENDIX C PERCEPTION OF REVERSAL OP SYMBOLS R e v e r s a l s - a V t » K l M. y hi 5. , 7. ^ ^ V /o. II la. Sample Target f o r Perception of Reversals APPENDIX D I D E N T I F Y I N G L E T T E R S NAMED LETTER KNOWLEDGE 113 1. 0 s 7 b in 14. d b g P q 2 . a f m e 15. g b a q P > • s m 0 X i 16. b d q p g g p q h J 17. q p d g b <-> k t f 1 h 18. r . ra n u o 6. k 1 h f t 19. o a e g c 7 . ra f s 2 e 20. h f 1 t k 8. 1 t b k h 21. t e J 1 i 9. o a e c g 22. g P .7 j i 10. a r e o c 23 . m n u d b 11 . n u w r ra 2k. u n V w ra 12. k i g t 7 2$. c d a e o 13. m V c h 26. w 7 V n u APPENDIX E TRANSPOSITIONS OP CONSONANT TRIGRAMS Trans p 0S l~l~tO» 0$ 115 .. 1. gp^ ZP<3 dg rn cf no ^ 3- d -p * x/l> .7 v / z r z r w. c m f c U f 10. y y l s s i w srv/l. g v/s 1Z. f m s 116 Q J ; IT! 6 n of-)3> m 1 x xl m i 15- bwJ c-Fg 17. xl*K h If. rhc crk rein \ her )cf. Dpr- brp prh rhp p wd dp w 2). Alrj CLb-h 23> T^pA p hn pn h 2A c £ z APPENDIX P *I DENT IEYING- PHONEIvlES, BLENDS AND PHONOGRAMS I d e n t i f y i n g Phonemes, Blends, and Phonograms 1 . p b t n a 2. e p c d t 3. d f g v h a. g k v 1 i 5. k r b d s n b t 7. y I d f g 8. f t j r b 9. b l sh t r cr th 10. ch f r wh sw gr 11.. st p i tw sk c l 12. br f l p i pr b l 120 13» t r tw th st sh I I 4 . sh c l cr s i ch 15. cr gr p i g l c l 16. wh th ch ph sh 17. eg ad i p up 1 8 . old ack ush i c h 19. i f f oes ade ess 2 0 . e l t i c e oft ars 21 . art ead i c k out 2 2 . earn ust ane oam 2 3 . ipe ept oze age 2I+. afe ine ock a l l 121 Cue Words f o r I d e n t i f y i n g Phonemes, Blends, and Phonograms 1. pan 2. ced 3. dig 4. h a l l . 5 . "bus -6. cab 7. c l i f f 8. OS^-o • track 10. church. 11. skate 12. "bleed 13. twist 14. crash-15. g l i d e 16. whisper 17 . cup 18. Jack 19. guess 20. b e l t 21. shout 22. cane 23. s t r i p e 24. clock 1 2 1 A P P E N D I X G RAW D A T A ON R E L I A B I L I T Y S T U D I E S 122 a T A B L E XIV VISUAL MEMORY TE3T-RST3ST .b.ject T e s t Raw S c o r e R e t e s t Rav/ S c o r e 1 11 16 2 16 19 3 13 16 4 6 "7 Z> 14 14 6 21 14 . 7. 16 17 8 17 13 •9 13 15 10 13 17 11 10 10 12 8 10 13 4 10 14 17 16 15 11 19 16 11 17. 17 8 10 18 13 19 19 11 11 20 14 18 21 18 18 22 11 15 23 16 18 24 13 14 25 12 15 26 16 17 • 27 12 12 12 3 TABLE XV P E K C E E D I O N - 0 ? R E V E R S A L OP SYMBOLS 3 lib j e c t Odd E v e n 1 • 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 8 3 • 1 0 1 0 4 4 4 5 6 4 6 4 6 7 0 4 8 6 4 9 6 b 1 0 2 0 1 1 4 6 1 2 0 0 1 3 4 4 1 4 8 ' .4 1 5 1 2 1 0 1 6 8 8 1 7 0 . 0 1 8 2 2 1 9 8 1 0 2 0 1 2 8 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 2 • 0 2 2 3 2 • 2 2 4 1 0 .' • 1 0 T A B L E XVI TRANSPOSITION 0 ? CONSONANT TRIiiKAMS O Li u , Odd jt/ven 1 o O 8 2 7 7 3 2 • 4 9 10 5 10 10 6 6 7 7 4 4 8 5 6 9 • 10 10 10 10 11 7 8 12 9 9 13 9 11 14 3 3 15 1 3 16 8 6 17 8 11 18 8 8 19 9 11 20 8 10 21 4 4 22 12 12 23 8 11 24 5 8 125 TABLE XVII PHONEMES, SLEJMDS AND PHONOGRAMS i b j e e t Odd . E v e n i _ 11 11 2 12 11 > ;4 3 4 3 3 5 12 12 6 12 12 7 12 12 8 12 . 11 9 12 11 10 12 12 11 11 7 12 12 11 13 9 10 14 12 12 15 12 12 16 4 4 17 12 11 18 12 11 19 12 11 20 12 12 21 12 11 22 9 6 23 10 12 24 8 7 25 10 11 26 12 12 27 12 11 'APPENDIX H RESULTS OF READING ACHIEVEMENT TESTS 127 TABLE X V I I I R E A D I N G ACHIEVEMENT SCORES A3 MEASURED BY G A I E S - L I A C G I N I I I Z R E A D I N G TEST S u b j e c t Raw V o c a b u l a r y S c o r e s Comprehension T o t a l S t a n d a r d S c o r e 1 .48 34 134* 2 48 34 134* y 4 8 33 131* 4 . 48 33 131* 5 • 48 32 129* 6 47 33 129* 7 48 ' 31 128* 8 48 30 127* 9 46 33 127* 10 47 32 127* 11 47 31 • 12 6* 12 46 32 125* 13 48 27 124* 14 46 31 124* 15 47 29 123* 16 47 27 122* 17 47 27 122* 18 46 29 121* 19 46 29 121* 20 45 32 121* 21 47 25 120* 22 45 31 120* . 23 . 44 32 120* 24 44 32 120* 25 45 30 119* • 26 . 45 30 119* 27 46 25 118* . 28 46 24 117 29 43 32 117 30 45 27 116 •Rav/ Scores T o t a l Subjects Youca.bulary Comprehension Standard Score 31 45 28 116 32 . 45 27 116 33 45 27 116-3- 45 26 115 55 44 28 115 36 42 30 114 37 41 31 114 38 A_ 1 31 .114 39 24 113 40 43. 27 112 41 40 29 111 ' 42 43 25 ' 110 43 41 27 11.0 44 42 25 109 45 45 21 109 46 42 24 109 47 44 21 108 48 44 21 108 49 44 20 108 50 42 22 107 51 44 17 106 52 40 21 104 53 56 24 103 54 43 18 103 55 39 21 102 56 20 102 57 37 22 102 58 • 35 24 102 42 17 100 60 40 18 100 129 T . f f 3 L E XVIII (continued) Raw Scores T o t a l 1 S u b j e c t s Vocabulary 6omprehen'sion Standard Score 61.: 39 18 99 62 37 20 99 63 32 • 22 98 64 37 19 98 65 33 20 96 66 29 22 95 67 36 17 95 68 33 17 93 69 33 16 92 70 30 19 92 71 34 l b 92 . 72 33 16 92 73 24 21 91 74 38 12 89 75 32 14 88 76 35 13 88 77 37 12 88 78 36 12 87 79 28 16 ' 87 80 27 15 85 81 36 10 84 82 29 16 83 83 32 10 81+ . 84 32 10 81+ 85 23 13 79+ 86 29 10 78+ 87 28 10 77+ 88 27 10 77+ 89 27 9 • 77+ 90 25 11 77+ +U'nsuccessi'ul readers 130 TABLE XVIII (continued) Raw Scores T o t a l S u b j e c t s Vocabulary Comprehension Standard Scores 91 23 ~ 9 74+ 92 23 7 71+ 93 28 6 71+ 94 7 68+ 95 16 9 68+ 96 14 10 67+ 97 18 7 67+ 98 16 7 65+ . 99 12 8 65+ 100 11 8 63+ 101 14 6 61+ 102 11 6 58+ 103 25 5 BN+ • 104 21 4 BN+ 105 12 5 BN+ 106 13 2 BN+ 107 11 0 BN+ 108 10 0 B1I+ 109 7 2 BN+ ; A P P E N D I X I R E S U L T S O F T E S T S A D M I N I S T E R E D TO S U C C E S S F U L A N D U N S U C C E S S F U L R E A D E R S 132 TABLE XIX SCORES OR SUCCESSFUL READERS ON TEST BATTERY Visua 1 V e r b a l Meaningful c zn • » Percept i o n Cod i Y)£T Ass o c i a t i o n 1 CO - p ti •p c:' r H 00 • H ti • H o 03 SH • CO CO CO CD CD ti :>i CO CD O S CD * -P O CD d h H "P ft O E ,-a ra ti -P r—. • H ,—! rf u CD - p GO - H CD rf - H CD CO '"3 Cc" 2 o > CD ti -P - H CO -P co £ o o ti HH" CD C ••—: CD J H c^j CD E H P H CO 134 •10 16 25 22 24 76 39 2 13^ 15 22 .26 21 24 87 37 3 151 17 16 26 17 24 . 89 38 131 16 14 25 13 24 84 38 129 1A 22 26 19 24 77 33 Q 129 17 18 26 24 24 93 39 7 128 17 22 26 23 24 86 36 127 i 7 22 26 21 24 84 39 • 9 127 10 16 25 22 24 76 39 127 19 10 26 18 24 81 35 1 1 126 15 12 26 23 24 78 38 12 125 24 25 21 24 79 27 13 124 ~ ,-t 8 26 17 23 64 37 14 124 20 26 24 24 88 39 15 123 1 p 18 26 24 23 87 37 16 122 20 26 19 23 84 40 17 122 16 12 26 21 23 80 . 36 • • 18 121 17 20 26 • 20 23 78 34 19 121 15 24 26 21 24 77 36 20 121 12 6 26 15 23 79 36 21 120 22 26 18 24 88 33 22 120 I c 14 26 19 24 77 40 23 120 IS- 16 26 20 24 91 . 38 24 120 IS : 8 26 15 22 76 37 25 119 27 22 26 22 24 88 39 26 119 14 22 26 22 21 86 40 27 U S 10 18 26 17 22 83 38 133 TABLE XX SCORES OR UNSUCCESSFUL KEADERS Oil TEST BATTERY V i s u a l 1 Verbal Me aningi'ul Pere ept i o n Coding A s s o c i a t i o o £ co 00 SH -p (3D C O 0 u S3 CO o rH O CQ CO o CD O 0 •H H O fH rH 1 -H £ S 0 •n • • a d o d o CD 0 CO -p CD rO P 0 p cd p co CO > -P S -H ccS co p> CO CD o —- . CD -p CTJ CO o O -H £ - H : ^ E H > CD SH O & o i-q 0 h3 1-3 E H P h P H 0 3 83 81 11 14 25 15 19 47 24 84 81 11 12 25 17 18 79 35 85 79 18 ' 24 23 19 18 63 73 86 78 10 10 25 17 17 55 24 87 77 18 20 23 7 14 59 22 ' 88 77 9 4 24 18 15 58 . 24 89 77 15 16 24 17 14 65 32 90 J 77 16 18 25 21 17 58 31 91 74 . 14 8 25 16 12 50 26 92 71 12 22 23 12 13 79 31 93 71 10 12 23 18 18 53 29 94 68 11 0 20 Q j 10 51 27 95 68 8 14 20 12 10 62 27 96 6Y 13 20 17 - 12 9 69 27 97 67 11 16 21 6 8 55" 29 98 65 12 2 20 12 12 62 32 99 63 11 22 19 16 7 58 28 100 61 16 20 22 14 12 43 21 101 58 7 0 22 9 14 33 9 102 Bl'-i 14 18 25 11 11 67 30 103 BN • 8 12 24 7 11 70 31 104 BN 14 6 20 8 15 68 24 105 BN 8 0 20 13 6 40 18 106 BN 17 l b 25 16 4 19 . 12 107 BN 12 20 19 18 5 37 29 108 BN 7 12 l b 13 7 81 27 BN - Below the worm 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101624/manifest

Comment

Related Items