Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Attitudes of Ontario secondary school teachers towards teaching of reading in Ontario secondary schools Dahl, Thomas Clifford 1970

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

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1970_A8 D34.pdf [ 7.04MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0102075.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0102075-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0102075-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0102075-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0102075-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0102075-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0102075-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0102075-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0102075.ris

Full Text

ATTITUDES OP ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS TOWARDS TEACHING OF READING IN ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOLS by T H O M A S CLIFFORD DAHL B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of Western Ontario, 196^ A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of EDUCATION We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the req u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1970 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia , I a g ree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s tudy . I f u r t h e r agree tha p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . No part of the questionnaire on page 116, Appendix A of t h i s t hesis, may be used without my written consent.. Depa rtment The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date ABSTRACT ATTITUDES OF ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS TOWARDS TEACHING READING IN ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOLS I n the past decade, a growing i n t e r e s t i n h i g h school reading and readin g i n s t r u c t i o n has developed i n North America. I n the United S t a t e s , t h i s i n t e r e s t has been . r e f l e c t e d i n increased p u b l i c a t i o n of l i t e r a t u r e on reading, i n research, and i n the r e c o g n i t i o n among teachers of the need f o r high school reading programs. There i s a growing acceptance of the b a s i c p r i n c i p l e that a l l teachers should teach, reading to students at a l l l e v e l s of a b i l i t y . However, hi g h school reading programs s t i l l occur i n f r e q u e n t l y , and most teachers l a c k the t r a i n i n g and knowledge t o teach reading s k i l l s . The l a c k of Canadian l i t e r a t u r e on h i g h school reading reduces the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of a s s e s s i n g Canadian reading programs. I n Ontario, l i t e r a t u r e and research are almost non-existent, and l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e on the statu s of high school reading. The purpose of t h i s study was - to survey the a t t i t u d e s of Ontario secondary school teachers towards teaching reading i n Ontario high s c h o o l s . The survey sought information on whether or not teachers f e l t t hat t h e i r students needed x i i i r e a ding i n s t r u c t i o n , and t e s t e d teachers' knowledge of methods, r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and t h e o r i e s of h i g h school reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Information was a l s o sought on the i n f l u e n c e upon a t t i t u d e s of such v a r i a b l e s as sex of teachers, l e n g t h of teaching experience, experience teaching i n elementary-schools, subjects taught, and t e a c h i n g l o c a l e . A questionnaire was designed, t e s t e d i n a p i l o t study, and r e f i n e d . Questionnaire items, derived from current l i t e r a t u r e on reading i n s t r u c t i o n , were accompanied by L i k e r t - t y p e a t t i t u d e s c a l e s . Questionnaires were mailed to 2 , 5 0 0 randomly s e l e c t e d subjects i n Ontario. The r e t u r n of l , 6 6 l questionnaires provided a 5 per cent sample of Ontario secondary school teachers. Treatment of data i n c l u d e d the use of f a c t o r analyses, r e g r e s s i o n equations, u n i v a r i a t e analyses of variance of means, t - t e s t s f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of means, and u n i v a r i a t e frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s . More than 80 per cent of respondents to the question^ n a i r e agreed that t h e i r students needed reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Approximately h a l f of the respondents s a i d t h e i r schools o f f e r e d some form of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . However, l e s s than one-eighth of the respondents had r e c e i v e d t r a i n i n g i n t e a c h i n g reading. A hypothesis that Ontario high school teachers are x i v aware of the methods, t h e o r i e s , and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of reading i n s t r u c t i o n was r e j e c t e d i n nine of f i f t e e n t e s t s . Most respondents appeared t o he f a m i l i a r with, general t h e o r i e s of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . However, few recognized t h e i r r e s p o n s i -b i l i t y f o r t e a c h i n g reading, and few appeared t o know how t o teach reading s k i l l s . There appeared to be no r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s between male and female t e a c h e r s . Mo apparent d i f f e r e n c e of a t t i t u d e was found between teachers w i t h p r i o r elementary t e a c h i n g experience, and those w i t h secondary school exper-ience . Di f f e r e n c e s of te a c h i n g l o c a l e , subjects taught, or l e n g t h of tea c h i n g experience d i d not appear t o be in f l u e n c e s on general a t t i t u d e s towards reading. However, some d i f -ferences were noted where s p e c i f i c t o p i c s were discussed. There appeared to be a need f o r reading programs i n Ontario h i g h schools, but there was u n c e r t a i n t y about how t h i s need was. being met. An assessment of the status of reading i n Ontario h i g h schools seemed warranted. There appeared a l s o t o be an immediate need f o r programs by which t o prepare teachers f o r the te a c h i n g of reading s k i l l s . TABLE OP COME NT S CHAPTER 'PAGE I . THE PROBLEM AND' ITS SCOPE 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 The Problem ^ D e l i m i t a t i o n s 6 A t t i t u d e s 6 Secondary school 6 P u b l i c secondary school 6 Formal te a c h i n g of reading 6 Basic p r i n c i p l e s of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . . . . 7 Procedure 7 O r i g i n of the problem 8 I n d i c a t i o n s of the need f o r research. . . . . . 8 Development of a questionnaire 9 S e l e c t i o n of subjects 10 A n a l y s i s of data 10 Hypotheses Tested 10 Scope and L i m i t a t i o n . 11 Order of P r e s e n t a t i o n 12 I I . REVIEW OE THE LITERATURE 14 Recognition Among Educators of the Need f o r High School Reading Programs 15 Theory of High School Reading I n s t r u c t i o n . . . . 18 V CHAPTER PAGE Teacher r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 18 Program c r i t e r i a 19 Scope of reading programs 20 Types of reading programs 20 The Occurrence of High School Reading Programs . 2 1 . Current A t t i t u d e s Towards Teaching Reading i n High School 2 5 High School Reading i n Ontario 30 Chapter Summary 33 I I I . METHODS USED I N THE STUDY 35 S e l e c t i o n of Questionnaire Items 35 Design of the Questionnaire 37 A t t i t u d e s c ales 37 P i l o t Study 38 Refinement of the Questionnaire 38 Items r e l a t i n g to knowledge 38 Items r e l a t i n g to the need f o r reading i n s t r u c t i o n 40 Sampling Procedures 42 S e l e c t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n kZ C o n t r o l of the v a r i a b l e s 43 Data C o l l e c t i o n 43 Methods f o r Treatment of Data 45 Scoring procedures 45 v i CHAPTER PAGE Treatment of data 46 ' Chapter Summary 48 I V . ANALYSIS OP THE DATA 50 D e s c r i p t i o n of Respondents 50 R e l i a b i l i t y of the Instrument 54 I n t e r n a l S t r u c t u r e . o f the Questionnaire 57 Determination of sources of variance 57 S t a b i l i t y of the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e 59 Uses of sources of variance f o r f u r t h e r analyses 62 R e l i a b i l i t y of the sub-tests 62 A t t i t u d e s Towards the Need f o r Reading I n s t r u c t i o n i n High School 'Sl.63 F a m i l i a r i t y With the Basic P r i n c i p l e s of Reading I n s t r u c t i o n 65 D i f f e r e n c e s i n A t t i t u d e s Between Sexes 70 Number of Years' Teaching Experience as a F a c t o r c i n A t t i t u d e s 74 Elementary School Teaching Experience as an Influence on A t t i t u d e s of Secondary School Teachers Towards Teaching Reading 77 Influence of High School Teachers' Subject F i e l d s Upon Th e i r A t t i t u d e s Towards Teaching Reading i n High School 81 v i i CHAPTER . PAGE Influence of High School Teachers' Teaching Locale Upon A t t i t u d e s Towards Teaching Reading i n High. Schools 86 Findings and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s Relevant t o Hypothe-ses as they r e l a t e to one another 92 Awareness of the need f o r reading i n s t r u c t i o n . 92 Basic p r i n c i p l e s of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . . . . 94 Chapter Summary 97 V. SUMMARY AMD FINDINGS 99 Summary of the Fi n d i n g s 99 C onclus i ons 102 E d u c a t i o n a l I m p l i c a t i o n s 104 Suggestions f o r Fu r t h e r Research 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY 107 APPENDIX A 114 APPENDIX B 119 APPENDIX C . . 123 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I . D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents According t o . the Subjects Occupying the Greatest P r o p o r t i o n of Teaching Time 52 I I . D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents According t o the Number of Years' Teaching Experience 53 I I I . D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by County and D i s t r i c t s , Showing Rate of Return and Proportions of the T o t a l Sample 55 IV. Results of Factor A n a l y s i s of Responses t o Items i n Part B of the Questionnaire, Showing T i t l e s Assigned t o Sources of Variance '58 V. Re s u l t s of Factor A n a l y s i s of Responses to. Items i n Part 0 of the Questionnaire, Showing T i t l e s Assigned t o Sources of Variance 60 VI. Means of Raw Scores, And Standard Deviations f o r Each of Eight Items i n Part C of a Questionnaire Answered by l , 6 6 l High School Teachers 64 V I I . Percentages of Ontario High School Teachers S e l e c t i n g Each Category of Response t o Items R e l a t i n g t o the Need f o r Reading I n s t r u c t i o n . . 66 i x TABLE PAGE V I I I . Percentages of Ontario High School Teachers S e l e c t i n g Each Category of Response t o Items R e l a t i n g t o Knowledge of Basic P r i n c i p l e s of Reading I n s t r u c t i o n . . . . . . . 68 IX. Means of Raw Scores, and Standard Deviations f o r F i f t e e n Items of Part B of a Questionnaire Answered by l , 6 6 l High School Teachers 69 X. Means and Standard Deviations of Z-Scores of Males and Females f o r Each of Nine Sources of Variance 72 XI. R esults of T-Tests of D i f f e r e n c e s Between' Mean Z-Scores of Males and Females f o r Each of Nine Sources of Variance 73 X I I . C o r r e l a t i o n of Number of Years' Teaching Experience With A t t i t u d e Scores f o r Each of Nine Sources of Variance 75 X I I I . Means and Standard Deviations of Z-Scores of High School Teachers With Elementary Teaching Experience and Teachers With High School Teaching Experience, Showing S i x Sources of Variance . . 79 XIV. Results of T-Tests of D i f f e r e n c e s Between Mean Z-Scores f o r Each of S i x Sources of Variance f o r High School Teachers w i t h Elementary Teaching Experience and High School Teachers v/ith High School Teaching Experience 80 TABLE XV. XVI XVII XVIII XIX. x PAGE Means of Z-Sc.ores f o r Each of Nine Sources of Variance and f o r Each of S i x t e e n Groups of High School Teachers' . Categorized by-Subjects Occupying Major Proportions of Teaching Time 83 Results of Analyses of Variance f o r Nine Sources of Variance, Showing S i g n i f i c a n c e of D i f f e r e n c e s Among Means of Z-Scores f o r S i x t e e n Groups, of High School Teachers Categorized by Subjects Occupying Major Proportions of Teaching Time 84 S p e c i f i e d R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : Subject Groups Ranked According t o Means of Z-Scores. . . . 87 Means of Z-Scores f o r Each of Nine Sources of Variance and f o r F i f t y Groups of Secondary School Teachers Categorized According t o the D i s t r i c t or County i n Which They Taught. . . 89 Results of Analyses of Variance A p p l i e d f o r Nine Sources of Variance, Showing S i g n i f i c a n c e of D i f f e r e n c e s Among Means of Z-Scores f o r F i f t y Groups of High School Teachers Categorized According t o the D i s t r i c t or County i n Which They Taught 91 x i TABLE PAGE XX. Teacher P a r t i c i p a t i o n : Counties and D i s t r i c t s Ranked According t o Means of Z-Scores . . . 93 XXI. Item D i s t r i b u t i o n According t o Topics Pound i n Part B of the P i n a l Questionnaire . . . . 117 XXII. D i s t r i b u t i o n of-True and Palse Items i n Parts B and C of the P i n a l Questionnaire . . 118 X X I I I . Varimax R o t a t i o n A n a l y s i s f o r Pactor A n a l y s i s of Data f o r F i f t e e n Items i n Part B of the Questionnaire 124 XXIV. Varimax R o t a t i o n A n a l y s i s f o r Factor A n a l y s i s of Data f o r Eight Items of Part C of the Questionnaire 125 CHAPTER? I THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE I n t r o d u c t i o n * During the past decade, i n t e r e s t i n hi g h school reading has increased i n the United S t a t e s . This i n t e r e s t has been r e f l e c t e d i n the research and l i t e r a -t u r e of education. U n i v e r s i t i e s , government education agencies, and p r o f e s s i o n a l groups have sponsored and conducted research on many aspects of h i g h school reading education. I n recent years, leaders i n the f i e l d of secondary school reading have c o n t r i b u t e d an i n c r e a s i n g number of a r t i c l e s and books which deal w i t h the problems, t h e o r i e s , and methods of secondary school reading education. There are i n d i c a t i o n s that current l i t e r a t u r e i s becoming e f f e c t i v e : h i g h school teachers are becoming aware of the need f o r high school reading programs, and are expressing concern over t h e i r apparent l a c k of t r a i n i n g t o teach reading s k i l l s . Developments i n education i n Ontario are f r e q u e n t l y p a r a l l e l to developments i n other Canadian provinces, and to those of at l e a s t some American s t a t e s . However, i n the instance of h i g h school reading, there does not appear to be a s i m i l a r i t y . I n Ontario, there are few i n d i c a t i o n s that educators are i n t e r e s t e d i n high school reading. The author's experiences among Ontario teachers l e d him t o b e l i e v e that they are aware of the need f o r high school 2 r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . However, i t appears t h a t t h i s s t a t e o f awareness i s t h e predominant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e i n t e r e s t i n h i g h s c h o o l r e a d i n g i n O n t a r i o . L i t e r a t u r e and r e s e a r c h on h i g h s c h o o l r e a d i n g i n O n t a r i o a r e a l m o s t n o n - e x i s t e n t . There appear t o be few O n t a r i o h i g h s c h o o l s v / i t h r e a d i n g programs, and few h i g h s c h o o l t e a c h e r s w i t h t r a i n i n g i n t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g s k i l l s . One cause f o r t h i s a p p a r e n t l a c k o f i n t e r e s t i n h i g h s c h o o l r e a d i n g may be t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t e a c h e r -t r a i n i n g f o r s econdary s c h o o l s . O n t a r i o does not have u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t i e s o f e d u c a t i o n comparable t o t h o s e o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , O n t a r i o l a c k s many o f t h e f a c i l i t i e s f o r r e s e a r c h , t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g , and l i t e r a t u r e w h i c h have been i m p o r t a n t i n t h e development o f r e a d i n g i n th e U n i t e d S t a t e s and elsev/here. C a n d i d a t e s f o r h i g h s c h o o l t e a c h i n g f i r s t a t t a i n t h e i r b a c h e l o r ' s degrees i n t h e i r chosen f i e l d a t one o f f o u r t e e n O n t a r i o u n i v e r s i t i e s , and t h e n proceed t o one of t h r e e p r o v i n c i a l l y - o p e r a t e d t e a c h e r s ' c o l l e g e s f o r a y e a r ' s t r a i n i n g . Though t h i s system i s now b e i n g changed, an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e 1 9 6 9 - 7 0 c a l e n d a r s o f t h e s e f o u r t e e n u n i v e r s i t i e s r e v e a l e d t h a t l e s s t h a n a q u a r t e r o f them have an e d u c a t i o n f a c u l t y . Of t h e s e , o n l y t h e U n i v e r s i t i e s o f Ottawa and T o r o n t o o f f e r r e a d i n g courses a t a graduate l e v e l . The a u t h o r ' s c orrespondence w i t h p e r s o n n e l o f educational i n s t i t u t i o n s i n Ontario suggests the following about the status of secondary school reading i n that provinc 1. At the time of t h i s writing, the Ontario Ins t i t u t e f o r Studies i n Education i s not conducting research on secondary school reading."*" 2. Secondary school teacher-trainees have few opportun-i t i e s to l e a r n about the teaching of reading s k i l l s . In teacher-training i n s t i t u t i o n s where reading courses are offered, reading i s usually only an optional part of an English teacher's t r a i n i n g , or i t may constitute a segment of a course on Language Arts . In some cases, b r i e f reading courses are 2 , 3 , 4 offered to interested students. 3 . School boards do not commonly employ reading super-v i s o r s . E x i s t i n g supervisory personnel appear to Personal Correspondence of the Author, l e t t e r from Dr. John Mclnnes, Director, Language-Learning Project, Department of Curriculum, The Ontario I n s t i t u t e for Studies i n Education, September 23, 19&9. 2 Personal Correspondence of the Author, l e t t e r from Madeline Hardy, Associate Professor, Elementary Education, Althouse College of Education, The University of Western Ontario, September 16, 19^9. 3 Personal Correspondence of the Author, l e t t e r from A. J . Dando, Registrar, McArthur College of Education, Queen's University, September 16, 19&9• 4 Personal Correspondence of the Author, l e t t e r from Miss J . C. L a i r d , Assistant Professor of English, The Colle of Education, University of Toronto, October 10, 1969* be concerned mainly v/ith reading i n elementary 5 schools. k. The Ontario Department of Education does not c e r t i f y or otherv/ise recognize as s p e c i a l i s t anyone v/ho 6,7 holds a graduate degree i n reading education. 5 . Ontario u n i v e r s i t i e s , w i t h few exceptions, do not accept courses on reading i n s t r u c t i o n f o r c r e d i t 8 towards a degree. I . THE PROBLEM The purpose of t h i s study v/as to determine the a t t i t u d e s of Ontario secondary school teachers toward the teach i n g of reading i n Ontario secondary schools. This study was concerned s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h the f o l l o w i n g questions: 1. To what extent do Ontario h i g h school teachers f e e l 5 Personal Correspondence of the Author, l i s t of s i x t e e n boards and/or schools which have reading programs, enclosure v/ith l e t t e r from G. Cavanagh, Program Consultant, E n g l i s h , Ontario Department of Education, October 7, 1969• ^Personal Correspondence of the Author, l e t t e r from H. A. Sutton, Chief E v a l u a t i o n O f f i c e r , Ontario Department of Education, A p r i l 6, 1970. 7 Personal Correspondence of the Author, l e t t e r from J . S. C a r l i s l e , D i r e c t o r , Committee on Advanced Standing, Ontario College of Education, December 3? 1968. g Calendars f o r 1969-1970, fourteen Ontario u n i v e r s i t i e s . 5 there is a need for reading to "be taught in their schools? 2. To what extent do Ontario high school teachers appear to "be familiar with - reading theory and practices? 3. To what extent is there a difference "between the attitudes of males and females towards teaching reading in high school? k. To what extent is the number of years' teaching exper-ience a significant factor in the attitudes of Ontario high school teachers towards teaching reading in high school? 5. To v/hat extent do high school teachers with experience teaching in elementary school exhibit greater knowledge of the teaching of reading than do their colleagues who lack elementary experience? 6. To v/hat extent do teachers of some secondary school subjects tend to be more av/are of the need for reading instruction, and to have more knowledge of how to teach reading, than teachers of other secondary school subjects? 7. To what extent is there a difference in attitudes towards teaching reading in high school among high school teachers in different parts of Ontario? 6 I I . DELIMITATIONS Attitudes• Thurstone and Chave defined "attitude" as "the sum t o t a l of a man's i n c l i n a t i o n s and feelings, prejudice or "bias, pre-conceived notions, ideas, fears, 9 threats, and convictions about any s p e c i f i c topic." This i s the' concept employed on t h i s study. Secondary school. In Ontario, any public school system or i n s t i t u t i o n educating students at grade l e v e l s nine through t h i r t e e n i s described by the term "secondary school". A frequently used synonym i s "high school". Public secondary school. The p r e f i x "public" when i t i s used with the term "secondary school" i d e n t i f i e s secondary schools financed through public funds. This term, and the term "public high school",,are used to dis t i n g u i s h the majority of Ontario schools which are p u b l i c l y supported, from "private" or "separate" schools, which are usually maintained i n a separate school system. Formal teaching of reading. As i t i s used here, the term implies i n s t r u c t i o n which includes planned instruc-t i o n towards s p e c i f i c goals relevant to the teaching of reading s k i l l s ; t h i s planned direct teaching would be dif f e r e n t from inci d e n t a l teaching, where information on L. L. Thurstone and E. J . Chave, The Measurement of  Attitudes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929), pp. 6-7. 7 reading s k i l l s may be passed on i n c i d e n t a l l y during the course of lessons which have goals exclusively planned for other school subjects. Basic -principles of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . This study and the instrument which i t used was based upon the accept-ance of four p r i n c i p l e s paramount i n importance to secondary school reading education. These pri n c i p l e s are summarized below: 1. Reading s k i l l s should be taught by a l l teachers of a l l subjects. 2 . A l l high school students, i n a l l grades, and at a l l l e v e l s of reading a b i l i t y , require reading i n s t r u c t i o n . 3. The goals and design of any high school reading program should r e s u l t from the co-operative decision of the entire school s t a f f . k. D i s t i n c t i o n should be made between remedial and developmental aspects of reading programs. These are summaries of pr i n c i p l e s commonly ci t e d i n the current l i t e r a t u r e of reading education. Further explanation and elaboration upon these p r i n c i p l e s appear i n Chapter Two of thi s study. I l l . PROCEDURE Suggestions of the need f o r t h i s study arose out of the investigator's teaching experience, and examination of 8 current l i t e r a t u r e on reading. Correspondence with educa-t i o n a l personnel i n Ontario provided supportive evidence of t h i s need, and suggested guidelines f o r the study. The following steps thus constitute the procedures of t h i s study: ( l ) o r i g i n of the problem, (2) indications of the need for research, (3) development of a questionnaire, (4) s e l e c t i o n of subjects, and (5) analysis of data. Origin of the problem. The necessity for research into attitudes of Ontario secondary school teachers towards teaching reading i n high schools was suggested by the investigator's personal experiences as a high school teacher i n Ontario. Teachers, though apparently aware of the need for reading i n s t r u c t i o n i n high schools, seemed to lack an understanding of reading theory and methods of teaching reading. The following conclusions of Carter and McGinnis further stimulated interest i n the subject: In general, teachers recognize the need of develop-mental reading at the secondary l e v e l . The majority, however, are not required to assume the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of providing reading i n s t r u c t i o n , nor are they, prepared to do so. 0 Indications of the need for research. An attempt was Homer L. J . Carter and Dorothy J . McGinnis, "Some Suggestions Growing Out of an Evaluation of Reading Instruc-t i o n by Secondary Teachers and Their Students," New  Concepts i n College-Adult Reading, Thirteenth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, E r i c L. Thurston and Lawrence E. Hafner, editors (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: National Reading Conference Inc., 1964) , pp. 4 3 - 5 0 . 9 made to ascertain the need for research into secondary school reading i n Ontario. General calendars of a l l Ontario u n i v e r s i t i e s f o r the academic year 1969-1970 were surveyed to determine the occurrence of teacher-training programs. Written inq u i r i e s into the status of secondary school reading i n Ontario were directed to personnel of the Ontario Depart-ment of Education, Ontario I n s t i t u t e f o r Studies i n Education, teacher-training i n s t i t u t i o n s , and teachers' federations. Development of a questionnaire. A questionnaire was designed to gather data on the attitudes of Ontario secondary school teachers towards teaching reading i n high schools. The questionnaire employed a LiKert-type format of statements accompanied by attitude scales. Eorty-two statements were derived from the current l i t e r a t u r e of secondary school reading education. The questionnaire was designed to e l i c i t s p e c i f i c information concerning: 1. The demographic and biographic d e t a i l s on each respondent. 2. The respondent's expressed attitude toward theory and practices of secondary school reading education. 3. The respondent's expression of f e l t needs i n r e l a t i o n to reading i n his p a r t i c u l a r teaching "situation. A p i l o t study was conducted as a means of r e f i n i n g the instrument and determining e f f e c t i v e administrative procedures. The refined instrument consisted of twenty-three items. 10 S e l e c t i o n of s u b j e c t s . The subjects f o r t h i s study-were l , 6 6 l randomly s e l e c t e d secondary school teachers i n Ontario. Every p u b l i c secondary school i n Ontario was canvassed. A n a l y s i s of data. Item responses from a l l returned questionnaires were analysed by means of f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , and g r a p h i c a l i n s p e c t i o n of item d i s t r i b u t i o n . Selected s c a l i n g and item a n a l y s i s were a l s o a p p l i e d . Complete d e t a i l s of these analyses are reported i n Chapter Three and Chapter Pour. IV. HYPOTHESES TESTED The f o l l o w i n g hypotheses were t e s t e d : 1 . Ontario secondary school teachers f e e l there i s a need f o r reading t o be taught i n Ontario high schools. 2. Ontario secondary school teachers are f a m i l i a r with the b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . 3 . There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between a t t i t u d e s of male and female secondary school teachers i n Ontario towards t e a c h i n g reading i n Ontario secondary sch o o l s . 4. The number of years' teaching experience has no s i g n i f i -cant c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the a t t i t u d e s of Ontario second-ary school teachers towards te a c h i n g reading i n Ontario high schools. 11 5. I n respect t o a knowledge of the teaching of reading, there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the a t t i t u d e s of high school teachers who have had e l e -mentary t e a c h i n g experience and high school teachers who l a c k elementary t e a c h i n g experience. 6. There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of a t t i t u d e s towards t e a c h i n g reading i n Ontario high schools among teachers of the various h i g h school subjects i n Ontario. 7. There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s towards t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g i n Ontario high schools among high school teachers i n d i f f e r e n t parts of Ontario. V. SCOPE AND LIMITATION This study sampled the a t t i t u d e s of randomly s e l e c t e d Ontario secondary school teachers towards t e a c h i n g reading i n Ontario p u b l i c secondary schools, i n order t o make s t a t i s t i c a l inferences about the a t t i t u d e s of a l l Ontario secondary school teachers towards the te a c h i n g of reading i n Ontario p u b l i c secondary schools. A 5 per cent systematic sampling of a l l secondary school teachers i n Ontario was attempted. V a r i a b l e s such as age, experience, subject area, and sex of respondents were not c o n t r o l l e d . An attempt was made t o o b t a i n responses from each p u b l i c secondary school i n f o r t y counties and ten d i s t r i c t s of Ontario. The use of a mailed questionnaire as main instrument of t h i s study might "be considered a l i m i t a t i o n . The assumption was made that respondents followed instructions, and that responses were t h e i r s , and not those of persons consulted. Best i d e n t i f i e s factors which encourage v a l i d responses to mailed questionnaires. He refers to "genuine interest i n the problem under investigation" and to "some common "bond of l o y a l t y to a sponsoring i n s t i t u t i o n or 11 organization". The sender of t h i s questionnaire assumed that his stated membership i n the professional body being canvassed, and the relevance of the topic to respondents* d a i l y teaching s i t u a t i o n were conducive to sincere effo r t s on the part of the respondents. VI. ORDER OP PRESENTATION B r i e f l y , the context and organization of the chapters i n t h i s study are as follows: Chapter I provides a description of the problem. It presents delimitations, summarizes procedures, states hypotheses tested, and describes the scope and l i m i t a t i o n of the study. John W. Best, Research i n Education (Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959), p. 1^3. 13 Chapter I I presents a review of the r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e and research. Chapter I I I d e t a i l s methods and m a t e r i a l s used i n t h i s study. Topics include design of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , p i l o t study, refinement of the instrument, s e l e c t i o n of s u b j e c t s , and the c o l l e c t i o n and treatment of data. Chapter IV includes the a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of data. Chapter V summarizes the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and presents f i n d i n g s , conclusions, and recommendations f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . Appendix A contains a sample of the questionnaire used i n the survey, a sample of the l e t t e r which accompanied the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and Tables XXI and XXII, which o u t l i n e the o r i g i n of questionnaire items. Appendix B contains examples of u n s o l i c i t e d comments of respondents. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE Among reading a u t h o r i t i e s i n the United S t a t e s , there i s general agreement that reading i n s t r u c t i o n i n h i g h schools i s necessary. Though the a c t u a l occurrence of high school reading programs i s a recent development, t h e o r i e s of h i g h school reading have, been promoted since 1925* I n recent years, increased p u b l i c a t i o n of p e r i o d i c a l l i t e r a t u r e and textbooks on h i g h school reading has helped to s t i m u l a t e i n t e r e s t i n t h i s t o p i c . Teachers have apparently become aware of the need f o r reading programs i n h i g h schools, though they l a c k the t r a i n i n g t o implement them. Recent l i t e r a t u r e on research i n h i g h school reading i n the United States suggests that t e a c h e r - t r a i n i n g agencies and govern-ment education agencies are attempting t o provide means by which hi g h school teachers may acquire knowledge of how to teach reading. The n e c e s s i t y of c e r t i f y i n g reading teachers appears to be g a i n i n g r e c o g n i t i o n among a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Assessment of the s t a t u s of reading i n s t r u c t i o n i n North American high schools i s d i f f i c u l t . While a r t i c l e s and books on reading theory and methodology are common, l i t e r a t u r e based upon e m p i r i c a l research i s extremely l i m i t e d . Most works deal w i t h observations, or w i t h t h e o r i e s a r i s i n g out of s t u d i e s which used l i m i t e d p o p u l a t i o n samples. Pew st u d i e s i n the United States have "been n a t i o n a l , or even state-wide i n scope. Canadian l i t e r a t u r e on secondary-school reading i s p a r t i c u l a r l y scarce. The pau c i t y of l i t e r a t u r e on high school reading i n Ontario suggests a need f o r research by which to assess the current status of high school reading i n that p r o v i n c e . This chapter w i l l discuss the l i t e r a t u r e on: ( l ) r e c o g n i t i o n among educators of the need f o r h i g h school reading programs, (2) theory of high school reading i n s t r u c -t i o n , (3) occurrence of h i g h school r e a d i n g programs, (4) current a t t i t u d e s of teachers towards teaching reading i n high s c h o o l , and (5) h i g h school reading i n Ontario. I . RECOGNITION AMONG EDUCATORS OP THE NEED POR HIGH SCHOOL READING PROGRAMS As e a r l y as 1925? the Na t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r the Study of Education advocated hi g h school reading programs i n the United S t a t e s . D u r i n g the p e r i o d from 1935 "to 1950? there was an increased tendency f o r l i t e r a t u r e on reading to focus on theory and methods r e l a t e d to high s c h o o l . I n r e l a t i n g h i g h school r e a d i n g t o s o c i a l , c i v i c and economic success, Bond and Bond s t r e s s e d the importance of a l l l e v e l s Guy Montrose Whipple, e d i t o r , The Twenty-Pourth Year-book of the Na t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r the Study of Education, P a r t I (Bloomington, I l l i n o i s : P u b l i c School P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1925). of education assuming r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r developing a p u b l i c which " . . . i s able to read e f f e c t i v e l y , i s independent i n reading, (and) has the d e s i r e t o read . . . 11 Gray reported i n 1948 that research r e p o r t s had created a general awareness that h i g h school reading programs were necessary, though there was l i t t l e evidence of d e f i n i t e , school-wide programs i n operation. Smith described a growing i n t e r e s t i n high school reading programs a f t e r 1957. She c i t e d f o u r examples of state-wide surveys which i n d i c a t e d general p a r t i c i p a t i o n 4 i n reading programs. However, widespread d e f i c i e n c i e s i n student reading achievement were a l s o found. Awareness of these d e f i c i e n c i e s was-the major f a c t o r i n the development 5 of reading programs. The years 1960-1970 c o n s t i t u t e d a decade of increased i n t e r e s t i n secondary school reading. One r e f l e c t i o n of t h i s i n t e r e s t was the amount of l i t e r a t u r e published by the Guy L. Bond and Eva Bond, Developing Reading i n High  School (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1941) pp. 1-2. 3 W. G. Gray, "Nature and Scope of a Sound Reading Program," Reading i n the High School and College. Yearbook of the N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r the Study of Education, N. B. Henry, e d i t o r , 47: 46-48, 1948. ^Further p a r t i c u l a r s on surveys are provided on pages 17-20 of t h i s t h e s i s . 5 N i l a Banton Smith, American Reading I n s t r u c t i o n (Newark, Delaware: I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading A s s o c i a t i o n , 1965), pp. 366-367. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading A s s o c i a t i o n (IRA). Numerous a r t i c l e s , pamphlets, textbooks, and conference proceedings published by IRA have had the purpose of promoting secondarjr school reading. I n 1967, IRA i n c l u d e d i n a c o m p i l a t i o n of conference proceedings a s e l e c t i o n of 180 a r t i c l e s from among the hundreds which had- dealt w i t h h i g h school reading during the years 196O-I967. Since i 9 6 0 , numerous textbooks by American reading a u t h o r i t i e s have f u r t h e r s t i m u l a t e d the i n t e r e s t i n high school reading, and have given d i r e c t i o n t o the planning of p r o g r a m s . 7 ' 8 ' 9 ' 1 0 ' 1 1 ' 1 2 ' ^ Edward G. Summers, e d i t o r , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading  A s s o c i a t i o n Conference Proceedings: Re-ports on Secondary  Reading, E r i c - C r i e r ' R e a d i n g Review S e r i e s , Volume 1, B i b l i o . 3 , September, 1967. 7 H. A. Bamman, U. Hogan, and C. Green, Reading  I n s t r u c t i o n i n the Secondary School (New York: Longman's Green, 1961) . 8 L. Hafner, Improving Reading i n Secondary School (New York: Macmillan, 1967) . 9 R. K a r l i n , " T e a c h i n g Reading i n High School (New York: B o b s - M e r r i l l , 1964) . 10 R. K a r l i n , e d i t o r , Teaching Reading i n High School: Se l e c t e d A r t i c l e s (New York: B o b s - M e r r i l l , 196*9) . -^N. D. M a r k s h e f f e l , B e t t e r Reading i n the Secondary  School (New York: The Ronald Press Co., I960T. 12 R. Strang, C. M. - McCullough, and A. E. T r a x l e r , The Improvement of Reading (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967). 13 J . M. Weiss, e d i t o r , Reading i n the Secondary School: A C o l l e c t i o n of Readings (New York: Oddyssey Press, 1961). 18 I I . THEORY OP HIGH SCHOOL READING INSTRUCTION L i t e r a t u r e on the theory of high school reading i n s t r u c t i o n d i f f e r e n t i a t e s among the f o l l o w i n g aspects of t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n : ( l ) teacher r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , (2) program c r i t e r i a , (3) scope of readin g programs, and (4) types of reading programs. Teacher r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Strang, i n 1938, prefaced her t e x t on secondary school and c o l l e g e reading w i t h these words: I f "every teacher, a reading teacher" i s a sound p r i n c i p l e , i t f o l l o w s that teachers i n high school and c o l l e g e should be prepared f o r t h i s phase of work. This textbook provided g u i d e l i n e s by which high school teachers of a l l subjects could develop the reading s k i l l s of students i n many subject areas. Strang's viewpoint of teacher r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s shared by modern reading experts. The f o l l o w i n g statement by Levine seems to summarize the a t t i t u d e s of to-day's reading educators: The numerous'facets of reading i n the subject areas should i n s p i r e sympathy f o r the m u l t i p l e reading tasks of the adolescent. And t h i s compassion should y i e l d a program i n which each subject teacher, r a t h e r than a reading expert, i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r subject r e a d i n g . 1 5 Strang, Problems i n the'Improvement of Reading i n High School and College (Lancaster, Pennsylvania: The Science Press P r i n t i n g Company, 19^0), p. 3-•^Isidore Levine, "The L i m i t s of I n d i v i d u a l Reading," J o u r n a l of Reading, 10: 56-61, December, 1966. Program c r i t e r i a . I n 1948, Gray advocated a number 16 of " c r i t e r i a u n d e r l y i n g sound reading programs". These c r i t e r i a a p p l i e d to elementary and secondary schools a l i k e . They enlarged upon t h e o r i e s h e l d by such reading experts 17 as Strang, and Bond and Bond, and s t i l l to-day c o n s t i t u t e the b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s of secondary school reading education. Presented below are summaries of these c r i t e r i a : 1. The two paramount purposes of h i g h school reading programs are the personal and s o c i a l developments of the student, and the development of understanding, a t t i t u d e s , and s k i l l s . 2. Reading must be recognized as only one of many aids to l e a r n i n g , and must r e l a t e to other forms of l e a r n -i n g experience. 3. Reading programs should be school or c o l l e g e wide, and should i n v o l v e the e f f o r t s of a l l s t a f f members, who must acquire an understanding of the reading process, and r e l a t e d t e a c h i n g methods. 4. Reading programs must be s e q u e n t i a l , or develop-mental, i n that they must s u i t the needs of the student as he progresses through school. 5. F l e x i b i l i t y i s e s s e n t i a l to reading programs. Gray, l o c . ext., p. 46. Supra. 20 Assignments, c u r r i c u l a , and teaching methods must be varied to suit i n d i v i d u a l needs. 6. Reading programs should provide f o r a wide range of reading materials, to enlarge students' experience. 7. An inte r e s t i n g , stimulating s e t t i n g should surround reading programs. 8. Continuous appraisal of the reading program i s a necessity, and should be shared i n by the whole s t a f f . Scope of reading programs. The following section t i t l e s , quoted from a recent text on secondary school read-ing, demonstrate the scope of modern high school reading programs: The Roles of Reading i n Modern L i f e Using Reading i n Research-Study Situations Reading, Learning, and Human Development Reading i n the Content Areas Encouraging Reading Interests and Tastes -j.8 Helping Disadvantaged and Reluctant Readers. Types of reading programs. To-day a d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between remedial and developmental aspects of reading programs. K a r l i n has described developmental reading as a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of reading i n s t r u c t i o n which stresses the concept of readiness for learning and treatment of reading s k i l l s sequentially. Students i n such a program are making s a t i s f a c t o r y progress i n reading, but can benefit from Hafner, op., c i t . , pp. IX-XIV. continuous i n s t r u c t i o n . ^ I n c o n t r a s t , students i n remedial read i n g programs are handicapped readers whose reading 20 achievement i s two or more years "below t h e i r c a p a c i t y . Modern reading theory includes both remedial and developmental programs as important i n a school-wide, secondary school reading program. Because remediation of reading weaknesses i s a . s p e c i a l i z e d f i e l d , current l i t e r a t u r e on reading has been supplemented by s e v e r a l recent t e x t s on reading r e m e d i a t i o n . 2 1 ' 2 2 ' 2 ^ ' 2 Z + ' 2 5 I I I . THE OCCURRENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL READING PROGRAMS The l i t e r a t u r e on the occurrence of high school reading programs suggests that they are developing s l o w l y . The N a t i o n a l Council of Teachers of E n g l i s h surveyed 19 K a r l i n , Teaching Reading i n High School. pp. 15-16. 2 0 I b i d . , p. 16. 21 G. Bond and M. T i n k e r , Reading D i f f i c u l t i e s — Th e i r Diagnosis and C o r r e c t i o n (New York: Appleton-Century-C r o f t s , 1967). 22 W. Kottmeyer, Teacher's Guide f o r Remedial Reading (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19597. 23 R. A. McNemeny, and W. Otto, C o r r e c t i v e and  Remedial Teaching (Boston: H o u g h t o n - M i f f l i n , 1966). 2 l +Ruth Strang, D i a g n o s t i c Teaching of Reading, Second E d i t i o n (New York: McGraw-Hill, I969T. 25 R. M. Wilson, D i a g n o s t i c and Remedial Reading (Columbus, Ohio: C. E. M e r r i l l Books, 1967). 22 l 6 8 schools i n f o r t y - f i v e American states during the period 1963-1965. Results indicated that 52.2 per cent of average time spent on teaching E n g l i s h v/as devoted to l i t e r a t u r e , while only 4 .5 per cent of the teaching time was spent on 7 6 the teaching of reading. Geake's questionnaire study provided information on the status of secondary school reading i n Michigan. When' results of t h i s study were compared with results of another study done f i v e years e a r l i e r , i t was found that the occurrence of planned secondary school reading programs had increased by about 10 per cent of the number of schools i n the state. However, larger schools had tended to discontinue 27 t h e i r programs. Cawleti interviewed personnel of forty-two high schools i n the mid-western United States during the period 1 9 6 I - I 9 6 2 . Twenty-seven of these schools had a reading 7 Pt program, though only twelve of these were developmental. Simmons surveyed 127 high schools i n the states of 2^Roger K. Applebee, "National Study of High School En g l i s h Programs: A Record of English Teaching To^Day," Engli s h Journal. 55:273-281, March, 1966. 27 'R. R. Geake, "Michigan High Schools Stress Special Reading Program," Michigan Educational Journal, 39:262-263, March, 1961. 28 Gordon L. Cawleti, "Reading Improvement Programs i n Selected Midwestern High Schools," The Reading Teacher, 17:36-37, September, 1963. Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. He found that two-thirds of these schools had reading programs. However, i n Simmons' opinion, the programs lacked depth and scope, were not available to a l l students, and were poorly administered. He c a l l e d the reading s i t u a t i o n i n secondary schools "a dreary picture". 7 In 196k, Schneyer, i n a review of the l i t e r a t u r e of reading research, expressed doubt that reading programs were being implemented. He stated: A review of the reading research at the secondary l e v e l did not reveal a single well-designed research in v e s t i g a t i o n concerned with a developmental reading program involving a l l members of a secondary f a c u l t y i n a co-operative effort. 3 0 By 1966, Burnett, having reviewed the l i t e r a t u r e , s t i l l doubted that reading had become a basic part of secondary school c u r r i c u l a i n the United S t a t e s . ^ A r t l e y , i n summarizing research on secondary school reading up. to 1968, indicated that the following conditions were apparently prevalent: 2 ? J . S. Simmons, "Who Is Responsible? The Heed for Qua l i f i e d Supervision of the Reading Program," English Journal. 5 2 : 8 6 - 8 8 , February, 1963. 30 J . W. Schneyer, "Si g n i f i c a n t Reading Research at the Secondary School Level," Reading Instruction i n Secondary  Schools, Perspectives i n Reading No. 2 (Newark '"New Jersey: International Reading Association, 1964) , p. l 4 6 . 31 R. W. Burnett, "Reading i n the Secondary School: Issues and Innovations," Journal of Reading. 9 :322-328, A p r i l , 1966. 1. Systematic reading i n s t r u c t i o n beyond grade s i x was uncommon. 2. There were more programs i n junior high schools than i n senior high schools. 3 . High school reading programs were extremely lim i t e d , i n that they lacked s p e c i f i c objectives and scope. 4. There was a marked s c a r c i t y of trained teachers and rea ding supervisors . T. L. Harris, i n 1969, reasserted t h i s disappointment i n the development of secondary school reading programs: There i s no substantial evidence, judging from that reviewed by Gray ( i960 — p. 1126) and that subsequently published, to indicate that the administrations and s t a f f s of the high school and the college, or special f i e l d teachers i n the elementary school, have caught the f u l l implication of the developmental concept for the organization of reading instruction.3 3 It appears that Harris' statement summarizes the status of secondary school reading programs i n the United States. Though the l i t e r a t u r e offers suggestions that programs are being developed i n somewhat isola t e d instances, there i s no proof of general implementation of high school reading programs. S t e r l Artley, Trends and Practices i n Secondary  Reading, A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e (Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 1968), pp. 107-108. 33 T. L. Harris, "The Teaching of Reading," Encyclo-pedia of Educational Research. Fourth E d i t i o n , R. L. Ebel, e d i t o r T N e w York: Macmillan Co., 1969), p. 1087. IV. CURRENT ATTITUDES TOWARDSTEACHING READING IN HIGH SCHOOL Current l i t e r a t u r e on high school reading supports 34 the conclusions of Carter and McGinnis, stated e a r l i e r . High school teachers f e e l that t h e i r students need reading i n s t r u c t i o n , hut few teachers have the t r a i n i n g to provide t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n . Not a l l subject teachers recognize the teaching of reading as t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; many consider t h i s teaching to be the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of a reading s p e c i a l i s t or of the Engl i s h department. A major factor i n teacher attitudes appears to be the lack of teacher t r a i n i n g i n reading. McGinnis demonstrated i n a Michigan survey of 570 secondary school teachers that 80 per cent of them were aware of the need to teach reading i n high school, but only 10 per cent had received t r a i n i n g 35 i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Further i n d i c a t i o n of a lack of teacher-training programs i s provided by the Braam and Roehm survey. A questionnaire was responded to by seventy teachers i n nine subject areas i n f i f t e e n American high schools. Data from the survey led the investigators to 3^Ca r t e r and McGinnis, p_£. cit.., pp. 43-50« 35 Dorothy J . McGinnis, "The Preparation and Responsib-i l i t y of Secondary Teachers i n the F i e l d of Reading," The  Reading Teacher. 15:. 92-97, November, 1961. conclude that the teachers lacked thorough knowledge of e f f e c t i v e means of teaching reading. Reading authorities had apparently been unsuccessful i n t h e i r communications ? 6 with these teachers. In the Simmons survey, mentioned above, i t was demonstrated that $6.6 per cent of those i n leadership roles i n teaching reading had no formal t r a i n i n g f o r t h e i r tasks. Of those who had received t r a i n i n g , only 10 per cent had studied reading i n r e l a t i o n to secondary school. Simmons also discovered a tendency among high school teachers to regard English teachers and pr i n c i p a l s as natural choices 37 f o r the assumption of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r teaching reading. At that time, however, The National Council of Teachers of E n g l i s h reported that 90 per cent of English teachers op did not consider themselves q u a l i f i e d to teach reading. Burnett claimed that a minority of secondary school teacher trainees elected reading courses. About 75 VeT cent 36 L, Braam, and A. Roehm, "Subject Area Teachers* F a m i l i a r i t y With Reading S k i l l s , " Journal of Developmental Reading, 7- 188-196, Spring, 1964. 37 Simmons, l o c . c i t . -^National Council of Teachers of English, The  National Interest and the Continuing Education of Teachers  of English (Champaign, I l l i n o i s : National Council of Teachers of English, 1963) . of those who did were preparing to teach English.3 9 However, Applebee, i n the same year, c i t e d survey results which showed that teachers of English devoted most of t h e i r 40 time to the teaching of l i t e r a t u r e . Current l i t e r a t u r e on reading research offers no evidence that teachers' attitudes have changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the past decade. In i 9 6 0 , Burton f e l t that the following descriptions summarized the attitudes of most high school teachers. He "believed they f e l t : 1. Only elementary schools should concern themselves with teaching reading. 2. Remedial programs could solve high school reading problems. 3 . Teaching reading was the sole r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the English teacher or the reading s p e c i a l i s t . 4. Reading and l i t e r a t u r e were synonymous; reading s k i l l s were taught through the teaching of l i t e r a t u r e Recently, Otto obtained a l i m i t e d sample of the attitudes of teachers i n junior and senior secondary schools. His questionnaire was answered by eighty-seven teachers ^ B u r n e t t , l o c . c i t . 40 A Applebee, l o c . c i t . in Dwight L. Burton, "Heads Out of the Sand: Secondary Schools Face the Challenge of Reading," The Educational  Forum. 24: 285-293, March, i 9 6 0 . 28 of unspecified subjects i n one small c i t y i n Wisconsin. Using a Likert-type attitude scale, the respondents indicated that they recognized the need f o r high school reading programs, and were w i l l i n g to teach the reading s k i l l s relevant to t h e i r subjects, but f e l t they required 42 more t r a i n i n g i n teaching reading. Following a questionnaire survey of a l l schools i n Indiana, Farr and others described reading conditions i n that state. Reading education was not a requirement f o r teacher trainees. The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r teaching reading i n high school was put on Engl i s h teachers, who lacked t r a i n i n g f o r t h i s task. The authors found i t noteworthy, however, that almost every high school i n the state had a reading 43 program of some type. There i s evidence that educational administrators i n state o f f i c e s have not f u l l y recognized the value of high school reading programs or of trained reading personnel. Kinder, i n 19^8, used a questionnaire to canvass state Wayne Otto, "Junior and Senior High School Teachers' Attitudes Toward Teaching Reading i n the Content Areas," The Psychology of Reading Behaviour, Eighteenth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, '"George B. Schick and M e r r i l l M. May, editors, 49-54, 1969. 43 ^Roger C. Farr, Larry A. Harris, James L. Laffey, and Carl B . Smith, "The Problem V/ith Reading — An Examination of Reading Programs i n Indiana Schools," Bullet i n of the School of Education, Indiana University, 4 5 : 5-92, March, 1969. 29 education agency c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f f i c e r s i n a l l f i f t y of the United States, and i n the D i s t r i c t of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Responses indicated that only twenty-three states require c e r t i f i c a t i o n of reading personnel. Twelve states which did not c e r t i f y reading personnel had a school population equal to one-third of the entire school population i n the United States. Kinder saw no evidence that states without c e r t i f i c a t i o n of reading personnel intended to 44 introduce c e r t i f i c a t i o n . A state-wide survey of teachers made by the Connecti-cut Association for Reading Research i d e n t i f i e d two major issues i n r e l a t i o n to secondary reading: there v/as a need for teacher t r a i n i n g i n teaching reading, and a need for c e r t i f i c a t i o n of.reading p e r s o n n e l . ^ Though educational administrators may not yet recognize the value and necessity of high school reading programs, i t i s possible that t h e i r attitudes may soon be influenced by current l i t e r a t u r e . In recent months, several extensive a r t i c l e s on reading have appeared i n periodicals which do not commonly contribute to the l i t e r a t u r e of reading education. __ R. P. Kinder, "State C e r t i f i c a t i o n of Reading Teachers and S p e c i a l i s t s , " Journal of Reading. 12: 9-12, 68-71, October, 1968. 4s -Nicholas P. Criscuolo, "Attacking the Reading Problem i n the Secondary School," Journal of Secondary  Education. 43: 307-308, November, 1968. Early, presenting a review of the l i t e r a t u r e i n Eng l i s h Journal, explained and examined such types of reading programs as developmental classes, t o t a l programs, developmental reading as part of the Engl i s h program, and remedial or corrective programs. Her bibliography of eighty-eight items may serve as a useful reference source 46 f o r teachers and administrators a l i k e . The report i n Journal of Secondary Education of survey results obtained by the Connecticut Association 47 f o r Reading Research, and the devotion of an entire issue of the B u l l e t i n to a r t i c l e s on reading and teaching 48 of reading are further examples of interest i n reading among educators i n general. V. HIGH SCHOOL READING IH ONTARIO A review of l i t e r a t u r e published i n the United States revealed that teachers agree upon the need f o r secondary school reading programs, and, i n fact, are demonstrating a willingness to i n i t i a t e such programs. However, reading programs occur sporadically, and those Margaret J . Early, "What Does Research i n Reading Reveal About Successful Reading Programs?" English Journal, 58: 534-547, A p r i l , 1969. 47 Criscuolo, l o c . c i t . 48 Parr, Harris, Laffey, and Smith, l o c . c i t . which exist are frequently administered "by teachers who lack s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g i n teaching reading. Though t r a i n i n g and c e r t i f i c a t i o n of reading s p e c i a l i s t s i s s t i l l uncommon i n the United States, recent' research projects and an increase i n widely-disseminated l i t e r a t u r e on secondary reading are indications that there may he a trend towards increased p a r t i c i p a t i o n by a l l l e v e l s of educators i n development of high school reading. Since Ontario's educational trends i n reading usually p a r a l l e l those of the United States, one might expect to f i n d l i t e r a t u r e of that province describing developments s i m i l a r to those outlined above. Such expectations appear to be unfounded. There i s a paucity of l i t e r a t u r e on a l l aspects of high school reading i n Ontario — programs, teacher t r a i n i n g , and research included. Investigation of the following l i t e r a t u r e revealed no reference to s p e c i f i c surveys or experiments i n high school reading i n Ontario: Canadian Bibliography of Reading and Literature  Instruction, 1760-^1959. Canadian Bibliography of Reading and Literature  Instruction, 1960-19^5. F i r s t Supplement. Doctoral Studies i n Reading, 1919-1960. Twenty-Year Index — The Reading Teacher, 19^9-1969. A survey of a r t i c l e s on research published i n Ontario Journal of Educational Research.during the period 1958-1968 revealed only one a r t i c l e related to secondary school reading. This comparison of two methods of teaching remedial reading related to grade nine students i n only non-academic classes. The sample was selected from one 49 school. The absence of l i t e r a t u r e on attitudes of secondary school teachers and administrators towards reading, prohibits any comparison with attitudes i n the United States or else-where. However, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that i n 1955, when teachers i n the United States were beginning to exhibit interest i n developing secondary school reading programs, a group of Ontario high school teachers, attending a reading conference, agreed that reading i n s t r u c t i o n belonged " i n the 50 elementary school". . Two recent a r t i c l e s i n educational journals r e f l e c t the lack of reading research and l i t e r a t u r e i n Ontario, and i n Canada. One report — prepared by the Canadian Education Association to describe recent developments i n Canadian education — s p e c i f i e d new developments i n c u r r i c u l a , use of audio-visual aids, and introduction 9Jean Patterson, "A Comparison of Science Research Associates Reading Laboratory Method and'the Regular English Course f o r Non-Academic Grade Nine Students Relative to Remedial Reading," Ontario Journal of Educational Research, 2: 191-198, Winter, 196"4-19oin ^°"Conferences on Reading," Educational Courier, 26: 30-31 , October, 1955-of speech, drama, and computer science courses, but made 51 no reference t o reading. More r e c e n t l y , nine p r o v i n c i a l Departments of Education and s e v e r a l Canadian educational bodies, i n c l u d i n g the Canadian Teachers' Federation, developed a summary of "Developments i n Canadian Education 1968-69", and again, no mention was made of high school reading i n any p r o v i n c e . ^ 2 Both a r t i c l e s r e f e r r e d to teacher t r a i n i n g ; n e i t h e r mentioned reading i n s t r u c t i o n as part of that t r a i n i n g . CHAPTER SUMMARY A review of l i t e r a t u r e on secondary school reading revealed that high school r e a d i n g programs were suggested as e a r l y as 1925, but implementation d i d not gain impetus •u n t i l a f t e r 1955• Among the p r i n c i p l e s which formed the b a s i s of reading theory were those of d i s t i n c t i o n between types of reading programs, p r o v i s i o n f o r reading i n s t r u c -t i o n f o r students at a l l grade l e v e l s , and p a r t i c i p a t i o n of a l l teachers i n tea c h i n g reading s k i l l s r e l a t e d to t h e i r s u b j e c t s . "Canada: Report on E d u c a t i o n a l Developments i n 1967-68," Canadian Education and Research Digest, 8: 175-185, June, 1968. 5 2"Developments i n Canadian Education: 1968-69," Education Canada. 9: 43-54, September, 1969. Since i 9 6 0 , numerous surveys and d e s c r i p t i v e r e p o r t s , as w e l l as t e x t s on methodology, have st i m u l a t e d i n t e r e s t i n h i g h school reading. Most surveys demonstrate that teachers recognize the need f o r reading'programs, and are w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g s k i l l s , hut l a c k of t e a c h e r - t r a i n i n g i n reading s t i l l handicaps or p r o h i b i t s reading programs i n most high schools. L i t e r a t u r e on high school reading i n Ontario i s almost non-existent. For t h i s reason, i t i s not p o s s i b l e t o assess the s t a t u s of reading or the a t t i t u d e s of teachers i n Ontario h i g h schools, n o r . i s i t p o s s i b l e to draw any comparisons w i t h developments i n other parts of Canada or i n the United S t a t e s . I t i s hoped that the i n f o r m a t i o n gained from the study described i n t h i s t h e s i s may help t o f i l l the need f o r data by which t o evaluate the s t a t u s of reading i n Ontario secondary sc h o o l s . Perhaps an awareness of reading c o n d i t i o n s as they e x i s t now i n Ontario secondary schools may l e a d educators t o take advantage of methods and t h e o r i e s r e c e n t l y researched i n the United States and elsewhere. CHAPTER III METHODS USED IN THE STUDY This chapter describes the methods used to investigate the seven questions basic to t h i s study. Data were collected by means of a mailed questionnaire f o r the purpose of deter-mining the attitudes of Ontario secondary school teachers towards teaching reading i n Ontario secondary schools. A complete l i s t of the questions relevant to t h i s study, and a presentation of hypotheses are to be found i n Chapter One of t h i s t h e s i s . The following descriptions are to be found i n t h i s chapter: ( l ) s e l e c t i o n of questionnaire items, (2) design of the o r i g i n a l questionnaire, (3) p i l o t study, (4) r e f i n e -ment of the questionnaire, (5) sampling procedures, (6) data c o l l e c t i o n , and (7) methods for treatment of data. I. SELECTION OP QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS A questionnaire was designed to test the hypothesis that Ontario high school teachers are aware of the theories and methods- of secondary school reading i n s t r u c t i o n . State-ments i n the questionnaire were derived from current text-books and pe r i o d i c a l l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g to high school reading and reading i n s t r u c t i o n . The l i t e r a t u r e mentioned i n Chapter Two of t h i s thesis was searched f o r statements. Five c r i t e r i a were adopted i n determining the type of statements selected from the l i t e r a t u r e . These c r i t e r i a were that: 1. The statements covered a broad scope of reading theory. 2. The statements selected were representative of a basic knowledge of secondary school reading, rather than representative of a s p e c i a l i s t ' s knowledge. 3 . Some statements referred to the methodology of secondary school reading i n s t r u c t i o n . 4. Some statements referred to the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of a l l teachers for reading i n s t r u c t i o n . 5 . Some statements contained s p e c i f i c terms which would test respondents' knowledge of the terminology of reading. A separate set of statements was created f o r the purpose of e l i c i t i n g responses indicative of whether or not secondary school teachers recognized the need for reading i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e i r schools. Here, the investigator's resources were the l i t e r a t u r e of secondary school reading education, and his personal experience as a teacher. Each statement referred either to observable conditions l i k e l y to be part of the respondents' immediate teaching environ-ment, or to personal feelings l i k e l y to ar i s e as a result of environmental conditions. I I . DESIGN CP THE QUESTIONNAIKE 37 Within the l i m i t a t i o n s just described, a questionnaire con s i s t i n g of forty-two items was devised. An introductory page acquainted respondents with the purpose and format of the questionnaire, and offered instruc-tions on answering. One part of the questionnaire consisted of thirty-two items designed to e l i c i t respondents' attitudes towards theory, methodology, and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of secondary school reading education. A second part, consisting of ten items, sought responses r e l a t i n g to teachers' f e l t need for high school reading i n s t r u c t i o n . A l l statements were worded p o s i t i v e l y , though half of the statements were f a l s e . True and f a l s e statements were randomly mixed to avoid response set. Attitude scales. Each statement was accompanied by a f i v e point attitude scale, as described by Likert.'*" The scale enabled respondents to select answers ranging from "strongly disagree" to strongly agree". For each item, scales were consistently arranged i n ascending order, l e f t - t o - r i g h t . Kens.is l i k e r t , "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes," Archives of Psychology, 140, 1932. 38 I I I . PILOT STUDY A p i l o t s t u d y was conducted f o r t h e purposes o f t e s t i n g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s . I n December, 19^9, "the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was answered by 104 s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l t e a c h e r s i n Vancouver. Response was v o l u n t a r y . V o l u n t e e r s came from s i x h i g h s c h o o l s i n Vancou-v e r , and from among a group o f t e a c h e r s a t t e n d i n g e x t e n s i o n c l a s s e s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. C r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i n g r e s p o n d e n t s were t h a t each must be a t e a c h e r i n a h i g h s c h o o l a t t h e time o f r e s p o n s e , and t h e grades t a u g h t must be grade n i n e o r h i g h e r . No attempt was made t o s e c u r e demographic o r b i o g r a p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n from r e s p o n d e n t s . Anonymity o f respondents was gu a r a n t e e d . Raw s c o r e s f o r i t e m r e s p o n s e s t o 10k q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were a n a l y s e d by means o f f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , and by c a l c u l a t i o n o f d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s e s . A l l c o m p u t a t i o n f o r a n a l y s e s v/as done on t h e IBM 360 computer a t t h e Computer Centre o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o lumbia. I V . REFINEMENT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE Onsthe b a s i s o f t h e f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s e s o f r e s u l t s from t h e p i l o t s t u d y , t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was r e f i n e d : Items r e l a t i n g t o knowledge. F a c t o r a n a l y s i s wa;s)applied t o t h e thir1y-two items r e l a t i n g t o t h e o r y , methods, and 39 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . The program for analysis, known as MK:OFACTOR, came from a private f i l e at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre. This program for analysis of p r i n c i p a l components provides an i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n analysis, a p r i n c i p a l axis analysis, and a varimax r o t a t i o n a n a l y s i s . P r i n c i p a l axis analysis revealed that 63.73 per cent of the variance i n responses to the thirty-tv/o items was accounted for by eleven roots. Six of these roots had ind i v i d u a l eigenvalues ranging from I . 5 8 to 3*69. Together, these s i x factors accounted for 45.^7 per cent of the t o t a l variance. Inspection of the factor loadings of the varimax ro t a t i o n analysis revealed that f i f t e e n items accounted for most of the variance within the six factors mentioned above. Univariate frequency tables f o r a l l thirty-two items were derived, using UBC MVTAB (Multivariate Contingency Tabulations). The d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses to each of the f i f t e e n items mentioned above indicated that these statements were useful i n discriminating between attitudes of agreement insofar: as the di s t r i b u t i o n s tended to be skewed. Susan Boyer, G i l l i a n Starkey, John Campbell, James H. Bjerring, UBC MVTAB (Multivariate Contingency Tabulations) (Vancouver: The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre, 1966) . A f i n a l reason f o r acceptance of these f i f t e e n . statements for the refined questionnaire was that t h e i r content covered the scope of topics o r i g i n a l l y intended f o r t h i s section of the questionnaire. Items r e l a t i n g to the need for reading i n s t r u c t i o n . The MK:OFACTOR and UBC MVTAB programs were used to analyse responses to the ten questionnaire items related to the need for reading i n s t r u c t i o n i n the respondents' schools. Four roots accounted for 60.85 per cent of the variance within the raw scores for the ten items. One factor had an eigenvalue of 2.1584, while the three others were greater than 1 . 0 . Eight questionnaire items accounted for most of the variance within f a c t o r s . The influence of these items was determined through inspection of factor loadings on the output of the varimax r o t a t i o n a n a l y s i s . It was decided to use these eight items when inspec-t i o n of output from the UBC MVTAB program revealed d i s t i n c t l y skewed d i s t r i b u t i o n s of responses. A sample of the refined instrument may be found i n Appendix A of t h i s t h e s i s . It consisted of twenty-three items, distributed over two parts. The f i f t e e n items i n Part B related to teachers' awareness of theory, methodology, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and terminology, while the eight items i n Part C e l i c i t e d responses i n d i c a t i n g teachers' f e l t need for reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Format for presentation of statements 41 and attitude scales remained the same as for the p i l o t instrument. In Part B, four items related to theory of reading i n s t r u c t i o n , f i v e to methodology of reading in s t r u c t i o n , and s i x to teacher r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for teaching reading. Of the f i f t e e n items just described, f i v e were worded i n such a manner that the respondents' comprehension of the contents would depend heavily upon t h e i r understanding of s p e c i f i c terms related to reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Table XZE i n Appendix A, describes the d i s t r i b u t i o n of items by to p i c s . In Part B, seven items were true, while eight were f a l s e . Part C contained f i v e true items and three false items. Por both parts, true and fal s e statements were randomly mixed to avoid response set. Part A of the refined instrument consisted of eight items designed to gather biographic and demographic informa-t i o n on respondents. Anonymity of respondents was maintained. Respondents were asked to write i n the names of counties or d i s t r i c t s i n which they taught. Other information requested included: (l) sex of respondents, (2) name of subject upon which most teaching time was spent, (3) grade l e v e l ( s ) taught during respondents' career, (4) grade l e v e l ( s ) taught i n 1969-1970 school year, (5) t o t a l number of years' teaching experience, (6) whether or not respondents had 42 ever taken courses i n reading education, and (7) whether or not reading i n s t r u c t i o n v/as offered i n respondents' schools. V. SAMPLING PROCEDURES Selection of the population. In order to obtain a sample of attitudes among a l l secondary school teachers i n Ontario, i t v/as decided to r e f e r to the annual publication of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF). This publication s p e c i f i e d names and schools of 32,600 3 statutory members for the school year, 1969-1970. It v/as f e l t that a 5 per cent sample of the statutory membership should be attempted. Responses from 1,633 secondary school teachers from a l l parts of the province seemed a sound basis for any conclusions a r i s i n g out of the survey. Names of potential respondents, were selected i n the following .way: The number seven v/as a r b i t r a r i l y selected as a basis upon which to begin random s e l e c t i o n . The seventh name appearing i n the f i r s t page of names i n the OSSTF publication v/as selected. Thereafter, every thirteenth name i n the l i s t was selected. In some cases, where schools had a very small OSSTF membership, an i n t e r v a l of t h i r t e e n was too large, and no sample was derived on the i n i t i a l -" 'Who's Where i n Our Secondary Schools?" The B u l l e t i n . Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Volume 49, No. 5, November, 1969. s e l e c t i o n . To compensate f o r such omissions, names were l a t e r drawn by chance from staffs, l i s t s of those schools which had f i r s t been overlooked. A t o t a l of twenty-five hundred names was selected. Control of the va r i a b l e s . In s e l e c t i n g names of teachers to be canvassed, no consideration was given to such variables as sex of respondents, teaching experience, or previous t r a i n i n g . L i m i t i n g the s e l e c t i o n of names to the l i s t of only statutory members was considered to be the most e f f e c t i v e means of assurance that a l l respondents would be teachers active i n the profession. Location of teachers' schools was determined by. the method of random-i z a t i o n , which provided for at least one respondent from each high school i n Ontario. VI. DATA COLLECTION The refined questionnaire was mailed to each of 2,500 secondary school teachers across Ontario. The number 2,500 was selected for the following reasons: Guilford has stated that a return of 60 per cent of c i r c u l a r i z e d questionnaires i s not a t y p i c a l , while Shannon's examination of published studies revealed that J . P. Guilford, Fundamental S t a t i s t i c s i n Psychology  and Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965), P. 139. 44 5 the average rate of return v/as about 75 per cent. These two sources seemed to indicate that a return of between 60 and 75 per cent of questionnaires used i n t h i s study-was a reasonable expectation. I f 66 per cent of the question-naires were returned, and 1 ,633 responses were required to give a 5 per cent sample of Ontario secondary school teachers, then 2,500 questionnaires v/ould have to be mailed. Questionnaires v/ere mailed d i r e c t l y to schools i n which subjects taught. Each subject received a hand-addressed envelope, with postage stamp a f f i x e d , rather than printed. No i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of sender appeared on the envelope. Con-tents of the envelope were arranged so that, upon removing them, each subject v/ould have his attention caught by the University of B r i t i s h Columbia's letterhead on the explana-tory l e t t e r . Other enclosures were the questionnaire, and a stamped, addressed return envelope. The explanatory l e t t e r sent to each subject i d e n t i f i e d the researcher, stated the.purpose of the study, described response procedures, and requested support. The appeal fo r response was based upon reference to professionalism and to the need for research. A copy of t h i s l e t t e r may be found i n Appendix A of t h i s t h e s i s . JJ. R. Shannon, "Percentages of Returns of Question-naires, i n Reputable Educational Research," Journal of  Educational Research. 42:138-141, No.2, 1948. A l l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were m a i l e d o n J a n u a r y 3 0 , 1 9 7 0 . C o m m e n c i n g F e b r u a r y 2 , 1 9 7 0 , r e s p o n d e n t s a n s w e r e d b y c h e c k i n g a p p r o p r i a t e b i o g r a p h i c a n d d e m o g r a p h i c i t e m s i n P a r t A o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a n d b y c i r c l i n g one o f f i v e i t e m s on a s c a l e a c c o m p a n y i n g e a c h s t a t e m e n t o f P a r t B a n d P a r t C . R e s p o n s e s were m a i l e d i n t h e r e t u r n e n v e l o p e s p r o v i d e d . V I I . METHODS FOR TREATMENT OF DATA T h e p r o c e d u r e s d e s c r i b e d b e l o w a p p l y t o t h e t r e a t m e n t o f d a t a c o l l e c t e d t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f a m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h i s s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s : ( l ) g e n e r a l p r o c e d u r e s f o r s c o r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a n d (2) d e s c r i p t i o n s o f s t a t i s t i c a l p r o c e d u r e s b y w h i c h d a t a w e r e a n a l y s e d . S c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e . S u b j e c t s s u p p l i e d ray/ d a t a i n t h e f o r m o f c i r c l e d n u m b e r s , o r c h e c k m a r k s o n r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . T e a c h i n g l o c a l e was i n d i c a t e d by t e a c h e r s who w r o t e i n t h e name o f t h e d i s t r i c t o r c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e y t a u g h t . E a c h r e s p o n s e f o r P a r t A o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was n u m e r i c a l l y c o d e d s o t h a t d a t a c o u l d be k e y - p u n c h e d o n t o IBM d a t a 1 c a r d s . The f o l l o w i n g . i n f o r m a t i o n was c o d e d a n d k e y - p u n c h e d o n t o d a t a c a r d s : s e x o f r e s p o n d e n t s , r e s p o n d e n t s ' s u b j e c t a r e a s , g r a d e l e v e l s t a u g h t a t t h e t i m e o f r e s p o n s e , t o t a l number o f y e a r s ' t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e , w h e t h e r o r n o t r e s p o n d e n t s h a d e v e r t a k e n a c o u r s e i n 46 reading, whether or not reading i n s t r u c t i o n was offered i n respondents' schools, and.names of counties or d i s t r i c t s i n which respondents taught. One data card per subject was punched. In addition to the above information, the card contained unweighted item responses for Parts B and C of the questionnaire, an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number fo r the respondent, and a number in d i c a t i n g the date the response was mailed. Treatment of data. Several types of analyses were applied to the data i n order to estimate the int e r n a l consistency of the instrument, to determine factor structure, to examine differences between group means, and to examine d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses. An estimate of the i n t e r n a l consistency of the i n s t r u -ment was obtained through the use of FORTAP (Factor Test Analysis Program)f a program computed on the CDC 1604 computer at the University of Wisconsin. This program yiel d s a Hoyt r e l i a b i l i t y estimate based upon response weights assigned by the investigator. It re-weights res-ponses to maximixe internal consistency, and uses these new weights to make subsequent r e l i a b i l i t y estimates. P. B. Baker, Test Analysis Package: A Program for  the CDC l6o4-360Q Computers(Madison. Wisconsin: Laboratory of Experimental Design, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin, 1966). 47 A l l further analyses were done using the IBM 360 computer at the Computing Centre of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The MK:0FACT0R program was used to examine the factor structure of-the questionnaire. Output from t h i s program includes an i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n matrix, p r i n c i p a l axis analysis of components, a varimax r o t a t i o n analysis, and v/eighted factor scores. Raw scores may also be used to compute z-scores, which can be punched on IBM cards, one set of scores per subject. Univariate frequency tables, showing percentages of respondents who used each response to each questionnaire item, were calculated using the UBC MVTAB (Multivariate Contingency Tabulations) program. T-tests were conducted i n two cases using the T-TEST Q ROUTINE of UBC TRIP (Triangular Regression Package). Output of t h i s program includes t-values, degrees of freedom, t - p r o b a b i l i t i e s , and P - p r o b a b i l i t i e s . Differences among means of several groups were analysed using univariate analysis of variance. The program Boyer et a l . , l o c . c i t . 8 James H. Bjerring, J . R. H. Dempster, Ronald H. H a l l , UBC TRIP (Triangular Regression Package) (Vancouver: The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre, 1968). 48 used was MFAV, Analysis of Variance.-^ Its output includes degrees of freedom, sums of squares, mean square, F - r a t i o and p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l s f o r each, source of v a r i a t i o n . A regression equation was also computed, using the SIMREG ROUTINE of UBC TRIP. 1 0 This routine produces a simple l i n e a r regression equation computed from an univerted c o r r e l a t i o n matrix. Output of t h i s program includes a c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n between dependent and independent variables, an P-ratio, an P-probability, a standard error, and a coefficient, of multiple determination. CHAPTER SUMMARY This chapter has described the methods by which data were collected and treated. A two-part questionnaire was constructed, using statements drawn from the current l i t e r a t u r e of secondary school reading i n s t r u c t i o n . The f i r s t part was designed to sample the attitudes of secondary school teachers towards theory of reading i n s t r u c t i o n , methodology of reading instruc-t i o n , and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for teaching reading i n high schools. The second part had the purpose of e l i c i t i n g responses 7 J . R. H. Dempster, G. E. Starkey, MFAV, Analysis of Variance (Vancouver: The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre, 1968). Bgerring et a l . , op_ c i t . , pp. 29-37. 49 i n d i c a t i v e of a need f o r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n i n the respond-ents' schools. The questionnaire was t e s t e d i n a p i l o t study i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, and, on the b a s i s of the r e s u l t s of t h i s study, a r e f i n e d instrument was constructed. Questionnaires were mailed to 2 , 5 0 0 randomly s e l e c t e d high school teachers across Ontario. V a r i a b l e s such as sex, subject s p e c i a l i t y , and experience were c o n t r o l l e d by unbiased v a r i a t i o n i n sample s e l e c t i o n . Raw data from the returned questionnaires were analysed to determine the i n t e r n a l consistency and the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e of the instrument, and t o derive u n i v a r i a t e t a b l e s of response frequency. Factor analyses were used to generate scores f o r each s u b j e c t . These scores were used i n s e v e r a l u n i v a r i a t e analyses of v a r i a n c e , i n t - t e s t s , and i n computation of a r e g r e s s i o n equation. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OP THE LATA The purpose of t h i s chapter i s t o present the f i n d i n g s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of data obtained from a questionnaire study of a sample of secondary school teachers i n Ontario. Teachers were asked t o respond t o statements r e l a t i n g t o the teac h i n g of reading i n Ontario secondary schools. The questionnaire v/as designed t o provide data by which seven s p e c i f i c questions might be answered. This chapter repeats the questions, describes analyses, and presents f i n d i n g s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i n r e l a t i o n t o the hypothesis being t e s t e d f o r each question. This chapter a l s o describes c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of respond-ents, as derived from the data, and repor t s on the r e l i a b i l i t y and i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of the que s t i o n n a i r e . I . DESCRIPTION OP RESPONDENTS Questionnaires were returned by ;1 ,675 teachers. The r a t e of r e t u r n v/as 67 per cent. Fourteen returns were incomplete, and could not be considered u s e f u l . Por that reason, a l l of the f o l l o w i n g r e p o r t s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s r e l a t e t o l , 6 6 l respondents and t h e i r completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . This response r e s u l t e d i n a sample c o n s i s t i n g of 5 per cent of a l l high school teachers 51 i n Ontario. Of the 1,661 respondents, 1,120 were male and 54l female. Major subject areas were identified in terms,of the subjects upon which most of respondents1 teaching timewas spent. Fifteen specific subject areas, and one area c lass i-fied as "others", were selected. The proportion of respond-ents concentrating on each of the areas is presented in Table I. Teachers v/ere asked to indicate the number of years they had taught, using a scale ranging from one year to "over fifteen years".. Responses were obtained for each of the sixteen categories. Table II describes the distribution of responses by number of years teaching experience. Mean experience of the sample was 7.217 years. Of the l,66l respondents, 1,317 indicated that they had never taught below the grade nine l eve l , while 344 teachers said they had had experience teaching elementary grades. The majority of respondents, 1,459 in number, claimed never to have taken a course in either of developmental reading or remedial reading. The remaining 202 indicated that they had taken a course or courses in reading. In answer to the question "Is, Reading Instruction offered in your school?" a "Yes" response came from 836 52 TABLE I DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO THE SUBJECTS OCCUPYING THE GREATEST PROPORTION OF TEACHING TIME Subject Number of Percentage of teachers the sample* 227 14 Math 188 11 117 7 183 11 92 6 121 7 165 10 Business and Commerce 190 11 41 2 33 2 19 1 Physical Education and Health , 143 9 79 5 24 1 12 1 27 1 *These proportions are rounded off vto the nearest whole per cent. 53 TABLE II DISTRIBUTION OP RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OP YEARS' TEACHING EXPERIENCE Number of years Number of Percentage of of experience teachers the sample* 1 138 8 2 192 12 3 160 10 4 142 9 5 127 8 6 122 7 7 108 7 8 103 6 9 88 6 10 71 4 11 47 3 12 35 2 13 35 2 14 40 2 15 31 2 over 15 222 13 •^Percentages are rounded off ' t o the''near e-st" v/hole per cent. 54 teachers, "No" was the r e p l y i n 663 cases, and "Don't know" was s e l e c t e d "by 162 respondents. Responses i n d i c a t e d that teachers of students i n every grade from seven through t h i r t e e n were sampled. As responsib-i l i t i e s of each teacher were u s u a l l y spread over s e v e r a l grade l e v e l s , i t was not p o s s i b l e t o cate g o r i z e teachers' experience i n terms of grade l e v e l s taught during the school year 1969-1970. Responses were r e c e i v e d from every county and each of ten d i s t r i c t s i n Ontario. Table I I I l i s t s the names of counties and d i s t r i c t s , presents the number of questionnaires mailed t o each area, and describes the returns from each area. I I . RELIABILITY OF THE INSTRUMENT The t e s t used t o assess the i n t e r n a l consistency of the questionnaire was the FORTAP program, which y i e l d s a Hoyt r e l i a b i l i t y estimate. Part B ( f i f t e e n items) and Part G (eigh t items) were analysed s e p a r a t e l y . The p r e d i c t e d r e l i a b i l i t y of each p a r t , based upon the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s weighting of responses, was as f o l l o w s : Part B r .465 Standard e r r o r of measurement = 4 .05 Part C: .519 Standard e r r o r of measurement = 2.68 F o l l o w i n g the process by which the program reweighted responses t o maximize i n t e r n a l consistency, these estimates of maximum r e l i a b i l i t y were given: 55 TABLE III DISTRIBUTION OP RESPONDENTS BY COUNTY AND DISTRICT, SHOWING RATE OP RETURN AND PROPORTIONS OP THE TOTAL SAMPLE No. of No. of Proportion Areas question- question- Rate of the naires naires of t o t a l sent out returned return* sample** Counties Brant 30 20 67 1 .2 Bruce 16 12 75 .7 Carleton 154 99 64 6 .0 Dufferin 8 4 50 .3 E l g i n 21 14 67 .9 Essex 88 55 63 3 .3 Frontenac 32 19 60 • T, .2 Grey- 24 13 54 .8 Hal dimand 14 7 50 .4 Haliburton 3 2 67 .1 Halton 62 44 71 2 .1 Hastings 36 28 88 1 .7 Huron 20 15 75 1 .0 Kent 37 22 59 1 .3 Lambton 4o 28 70 1 .7 Lanark 15 8 53 .5 Leeds and Grenville 27 15 55 1 .0 Lennox and Addington 10 8 80 • 5 Lincoln 62 42 68 2 .6 Middlesex 93 65 70 3 • 3 Muskoka 12 7 58 .4 Norfolk 18 7 40 .4 Northumberland and Durham 34 24 71 1 .5 Ontario 66 49 74 3 .0 Oxford 31 23 74 1 .4 Peel 76 58 76 3 • 5 Perth 21 12 57 .8 Peterborough 33 25 76 1 .5 *Expressed i n per cents, rounded off to the neare st whole per cent. **Expressed to the nearest tenth of a per cent. 56 TABLE III (Continued) No. of No. of Proportion Areas question- question- Rate of the naires naires of t o t a l sent out returned return sample** Counties Prescott and Russel 15 8 53 .5 Prince Edward 6 5 83 • 3 Renfrew 39 29 74 1 .8 Simcoe 59 47 80 2 .8 St ormont, Dunda s, 39 26 1 .6 and Glengarry V i c t o r i a 11 9 82 .6 Waterloo 70 55 79 3 • 3 Welland 68 . 47 69 2 .8 Wellington 34 25 74 1 • 5 V/ e nt w o r t h-Dunda s 120 80 67 4 .8 York 59 54 92 3 • 3 M e t r o - T o r ont o 6l4 346 56 20 .9 D i s t r i c t s Algoma 43 28 65 1 .7 Cochrane 32 19 60 1 .2 Kenora 17 12 70 .8 Manitouiin 3 3 100 .2 Nipissing 28 19 68 1 .2 Parry Sound 11 7 64 .4 Rainy River 11 11 100 .7 Sudbury 60 40 - 67 2 .4 Thunder Bay 60 49 82 3 .0 Timiskaming 18 17 94 1 .1 Totals 2500 1661 100 .0 *Expressed i n per cents, rounded o f f to the nearest whole per cent. **Expressed to the nearest tenth of a per cent. 57 Part B: .519 Standard e r r o r of measurement = 2.68 Part C: .631 Standard e r r o r of measurement• = 2.79 I I I . INTERNAL STRUCTURE OP THE QUESTIONNAIRE Determination of sources of v a r i a n c e . The MK:OFACTOR program was used.to determine p r i n c i p a l components of each of Part B ( f i f t e e n items) and Part C (eight items) of the qu e s t i o n n a i r e . I n Part B, 57-04 per cent of variance i n responses t o f i f t e e n items was - accounted f or'-hy-^six f a c t o r s . F a c t o r loadings f o r each of the f i f t e e n items were given "by varimax r o t a t i o n a n a l y s i s . These loadings were inspected t o determine the highest c o r r e l a t i o n s of items w i t h f a c t o r s . Por any given item, the highest of of i t s s i x f a c t o r loadings was considered t o be i n d i c a t i o n of that item's highest c o r r e l a t i o n t o a source of v a r i a n c e . T i t l e s were assigned t o f a c t o r s (sources of variance) on the basis of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of content common t o the items which accounted f o r most of the variance w i t h i n one f a c t o r . Table IV gives the r e s u l t s of the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , i d e n t i f i e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of items to f a c t o r s , and names each of the s i x sources of v a r i a n c e . The names assigned t o the s i x sources of variance are given below. The percentage of t o t a l variance accounted f o r by each source i s given as w e l l . Sources of variance are dependent v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s study. 58 TABLE IV RESULTS OF FACTOR ANALYSIS OF' RESPONSES TO ITEMS IN PART B OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE, SHOWING-TITLES ASSIGNED TO SOURCES OF VARIANCE -Percentage Correlation T i t l e of t o t a l Items* v/ith of each given Source variance high c o r r e l a t i o n item v/ith to each of accounted to the source the source source of Variance for of variance of variance variance I 14.182 4 .600 General 6 .699 methodology 7 .622 II 13.725 1 .742 Specified 5 .724 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 8 .675 I I I 8.142 14 .739 General 15 .714 theory IV 7.191 12 .716 Specified 13 . .725 theory V 7.292 10 .791 Specified 11 .864 methodology 6.513 2 .412 Implied 3 .778 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 9 .373 This table i s read as follov/s: The t i t l e "General Methodology" was assigned to source of variance I (or factor I) on the basis of the topic shared by items 4 , 6, and 7,_ for which the c o e f f i c i e n t s of c o r r e l a t i o n v/ith source of variance I are . 6 0 0 , . 6 9 9 , and .622 respectively. *Item numbers correspond to those on the questionnaire. They are not f a c t o r s as i n t r a d i t i o n a l experimental designs. General methodology 14.182. S p e c i f i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 13.725 General theory 8.142 S p e c i f i e d theory 7.191 S p e c i f i e d methodology 7.292-Implied r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 6.513 The process used t o i d e n t i f y the p r i n c i p a l components of Part C (eight items) was the same as f o r Part B. I n Part C, 54.17 per cent of the variance was accounted f o r by three f a c t o r s . F a c t o r loadings f o r each of eight items were inspected t o determine the highest c o r r e l a t i o n of an item w i t h a f a c t o r . T i t l e s were assigned t o sources of variance by the same means used f o r Part C, described above. Table V r e l a t e s t o the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e and names of sources of variance i n Part C of the que s t i o n n a i r e . T i t l e s l i s t e d below are those assigned to the three sources of variance f o r Part C of the que s t i o n n a i r e . Accom-panying f i g u r e s i d e n t i f y the percentage of variance accounted f o r by each source of v a r i a n c e . Needs of students 26.566 Influences of c u r r i c u l a and m a t e r i a l s 15.060 Teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n 12.537 S t a b i l i t y of the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e . As a check on the s t a b i l i t y of f a c t o r s w i t h i n each of Part B and Part C, f u r t h e r f a c t o r analyses were conducted. TABLE Y RESULTS OE FACTOR ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO ITEMS IN PART C OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE, SHOWING TITLES ASSIGNED TO SOURCES OF VARIANCE Percentage C o r r e l a t i o n T i t l e of t o t a l Items* v/ith of each given Source variance high c o r r e l a t i o n . item v/ith t o each of accounted to the source the source source of Variance f o r of variance of variance variance I 26.566 16 .688 Needs 18 • 552 of 20 • 795 students 21 .732 I I 15.060 17 • 795 Influence of 19 - .608 c u r r i c u l a and ma t e r i a l s I I I 12.537 22 .871 Teacher 23 .418 p a r t i c i p a t i o n This t a b l e i s read:.as follows:- The t i t l e "Needs of students" was assigned t o source .of variance" I (or f a c t o r I) on the basis of the t o p i c shared by items ,16, 18, 20 , and 21, f o r which the c o e f f i c i e n t s of c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h source of variance I are . 6 8 8 , .552, .795, and .732 r e s p e c t i v e l y . *Item numbers correspond t o those on the questionnaire. 61 Data cards f o r l , 6 6 l respondents were randomly sorted t o create two groups, one of 830 s u b j e c t s , and the other of 831 s u b j e c t s . F a c t o r analyses were conducted separately f o r each group, and the r e s u l t s were compared. Comparisons of r e s u l t s f o r Part B, i n v o l v i n g f i f t e e n items, revealed d i s t i n c t s i m i l a r i t i e s i n samples. Among responses of 830 s u b j e c t s , f i v e roots accounted f o r 51'08 per cent of the t r a c e . Por data from 831 s u b j e c t s , a n a l y s i s showed 51«l4 per cent of the t r a c e extracted by f i v e r o o t s . Patterns of c o r r e l a t i o n s between items and f a c t o r s were the same f o r both samples. The r e s u l t s of these analyses were a l s o s i m i l a r t o the o r i g i n a l a n a l y s i s , which used l , 6 6 l s u b j e c t s . The only noteworthy d i f f e r e n c e was that between the e x t r a c t i o n of s i x roots i n the l a r g e r sample, and e x t r a c t i o n of only f i v e roots i n the sm a l l e r samples. The apparent i n s t a b i l i t y of items numbered two and nine accounted f o r the weakness of the s i x t h f a c t o r . Analyses of p r i n c i p a l components of Part C, i n v o l v i n g eight items, a l s o compared favourably. The a n a l y s i s u s i n g data from 831 subjects e x t r a c t e d 55.01 per cent of the t r a c e by three r o o t s . Por data from the group of 830 s u b j e c t s , 53'99 per cent of the t r a c e v/as e x t r a c t e d by three r o o t s . P a t t e r n s of c o r r e l a t i o n s of items to f a c t o r s were i d e n t i c a l . When r e s u l t s of these two analyses of Part C were 62: compared w i t h r e s u l t s of analyses of Part C us i n g l , 6 6 l s u b j e c t s , the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s were found t o be i d e n t i c a l . Use of sources of variance f o r f u r t h e r analyses. I n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the low c o e f f i c i e n t s of r e l i a b i l i t y produced i n the Hoyt estimate of i n t e r n a l consistency, i t was decided not t o use sums of raw scores f o r f u r t h e r analyses of each of Part B and Part C. The s t a b i l i t y of i d e n t i f i a b l e sources of variance w i t h i n each part of the questionnaire i n d i c a t e d that the use of f a c t o r scores would provide a more reasonable bas i s f o r analyses. F a c t o r weights generated by the MK:OFACTOR program were used t o convert raw data t o z-scores. Data cards w i t h a z-score f o r each of the nine sources of variance ( f a c t o r s ) were punched f o r each of the 1,661 s u b j e c t s . Subsequent analyses, w i t h the exception of analyses r e l a t e d to the f i r s t two hypotheses, were conducted u s i n g z-scores, and are reported i n t h i s t h e s i s i n terms of nine sources of v a r i a n c e . R e l i a b i l i t y of the subscales. The f o l l o w i n g Spearman-Brown formula, taken from Guilford," 1" was used to estimate the i n t e r n a l consistancy of each of the nine subscales: ~2 n r c r = = __ 1 + (n - 1) r ^ J . P. G u i l f o r d , Fundamental S t a t i s t i c s in'Psychology  and Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965), p. 463. , 6 3 where r = the r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the whole s c a l e n = the number of items i n the s c a l e r = the mean c o r r e l a t i o n of items w i t h the s c a l e . The f o l l o w i n g estimates of r e l i a b i l i t y were obtained: General methodology r = .70 S p e c i f i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r = .76 General theory r = .70 S p e c i f i e d theory r - .70 S p e c i f i e d methodology r = .82 Implied r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r = .60 Needs of students r = .78 Influence of c u r r i c u l a and m a t e r i a l s r = .66 Teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n r = • 59 IV. ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE NEED POR READING INSTRUCTION IN HIGH SCHOOL The question being i n v e s t i g a t e d v/as as f o l l o w s : To what extent do Ontario h i g h school teachers f e e l there i s a need f o r reading t o be taught i n t h e i r schools? This was r e s t a t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g hypothesis: Ontario secondary school teachers f e e l there i s a need f o r reading t o be taught i n Ontario high s c h o o l s . Items i n Part C of the questionnaire were used t o gather the data by which t h i s hypothesis v/as t e s t e d . Table VI presents the means of raw scores, and the standard deviations 64 TABLE VI MEANS OP RAW SCORES, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS POR EACH OP EIGHT ITEMS IN PART C OP'A QUESTIONNAIRE ANSWERED BY 1,66l HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS Item Mean Standard numbers scores* Deviations 16 3.10 1.15 17 1.96 0.93 18 1.95 1.08 19 3 .44 1.24 20 1.82 0.86 21 1.77 0.94 22 3.19 1.11 23 2.16 1 .09 *Respondents s e l e c t e d one of f i v e numbers from a sca l e which, looked l i k e t h i s : 1 2 3 4 5 s t r o n g l y u n c e r t a i n s t r o n g l y agree disagree f o r each item i n Part C. Table VII shows the percentage of respondents who s e l e c t e d each of f i v e p o s s i b l e responses t o each questionnaire item. The c r i t e r i o n f o r acceptance of the hypothesis was that a p r o p o r t i o n of 70 per cent or more of respondents must agree w i t h the statement: " I t appears to me that students of my school have a need f o r reading, i n s t r u c t i o n " (item 2 0 ) . The s e l e c t i o n of t h i s c r i t e r i o n was based upon observance of response trends i n the p i l o t study. Since 81.2 per cent of the respondents agreed w i t h item 20 (mean score = 1 . 8 2 , standard d e v i a t i o n = 0.86) the hypothesis that Ontario secondary school teachers f e e l there i s a need f o r reading to be taught i n Ontario h i g h schools was accepted. I t can be observed i n Tables VI and VII that respondents tended to agree w i t h statements i n d i c a t i n g a need f o r reading i n s t r u c t i o n (items 17, 18, 2 0 , 21, 23) and t o disagree with statement 16 which i m p l i e d that reading need not be taught. Por items 19 and 22 , unusually l a r g e proportions of respondents s e l e c t e d "Uncertain". V. FAMILIARITY WITH THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OP REAPING INSTRUCTION A...second question b a s i c t o t h i s study was the f o l l o w i n g : . To what extent do Ontario high school teachers appear 66 TABLE VII. PERCENTAGES OP ONTARIO HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS SELECTING EACH CATEGORY OP RESPONSE TO ITEMS RELATING TO THE NEED POR READING INSTRUCTION Item 1 2 3 4 5 T o t a l s T o t a l s Strongly U n c e r t a i n S t r o n g l y 1+2 4+5 agree disagree 16 3.2 21.9 11.1 40.5 23.2 25.I 63.7 17 33.8 46 .9 9.2 7.5 2-5 80 . 7 10.0 18 41 .8 31.9 15.3 6.3 4 .6 73-7 10.9 19 8.0 18.0 21.1 28 . 8 24.1 26.0 52.9 20 40.9 40.3 12.8 5.0 0.9 81 .2 5.9 21 46 . 5 36 .7 7.2 8.0 1.7 83.2 9.7 22 6.9 19.2 37.9 21.7 14 . 3 26.1 36.0 23 31.3 36.0 20.8 7.8 4 .2 67.3 12.0 67 t o "be f a m i l i a r v/ith reading theory and p r a c t i c e s ? The f o l l o w i n g hypothesis v/as t e s t e d : Ontario secondary school teachers are f a m i l i a r w i t h the b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Items 1 through 15 i n Part B of the questionnaire r e l a t e d t o t h i s hypothesis. Table V I I I presents u n i v a r i a t e frequency t a b l e s , showing the percentages of respondents who s e l e c t e d each of f i v e p o s s i b l e responses t o each item. Table IX shows means and standard d e v i a t i o n s of the f i f t e e n items. The c r i t e r i o n imposed f o r acceptance of the hypothesis was that a p r o p o r t i o n equal t o 60 per cent of the t o t a l number of .respondents must agree t o each of the statements numbered 1, 3 , 5, 6, 9, 12, and 13, and that the same propor-t i o n , 60 per cent, must disagree w i t h each of the statements numbered 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15.. The c r i t e r i o n of 60 per cent was adopted as a r e s u l t of observations of response trends i n the p i l o t study. Por s i x of the f i f t e e n items, proportions reached or exceeded the 60 per cent c r i t e r i o n . The hypothesis that Ontario secondary school teachers are aware of the bas i c p r i n c i p l e s of reading i n s t r u c t i o n was th e r e f o r e r e j e c t e d . The f o l l o w i n g three categories of r e s u l t s were obtained: 1. Por items 12, 13, 14 , and 15, concerning t h e o r i e s of reading i n s t r u c t i o n , the c r i t e r i o n was met or exceeded i n f o u r of four cases. 68 • TABLE VIII PERCENTAGES OP ONTARIO HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS SELECTING EACH CATEGORY OP RESPONSE TO ITEMS RELATING TO KNOWLEDGE OP BASIC PRINCIPLES OP READING INSTRUCTION 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Uncertain Strongly Totals Totals Item agree disagree 1+2 4+5 1 28.3 35-5 10.2 15.5 10.4 63.8 25.7 2 70.3 22.7 4.5 1.1 1.4 93.0 .2.5 3 53.4 29.6 12.6 3.4 1 . 1 83.0 4.5 4 17.5 26.8 23.2 20.4 12.1 44.3 32.5 5 20.4 33.9 17.1 17.6 10.9 54.3 28.5 6 18.8 38.9 33.6 6.5 2.2 57.7 8.7 7 27.8 35.6 11.4 18.7 6.6 63.4 25.3 8 12.9 20.5 10.5 30.8 25.3 33.4 56.1 9 15.6 25-5 15.9 24.1 18.9 41.1 43.0 10 38.4 40.0 15.2 3.9 2.4 78.4 19.1 11 24.7 27.5 32.1 10.8 4.9 52.2 15.7 12 68.2 24.4 4.2 1.6 1.8 92.6 3.4 13 47.4 37.7 12.6 1.8 .5 85 . 1 2.3 14 3.3 6.9 14.5 31.5 43.8 10.2 75.3 15 3.1 10.1 22.0 27.6 37.2 13.2 64.8 69 TABLE IX MEANS OP RAW SCORES, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR. FIFTEEN ITEMS OF PART B OF A QUE STIONNAIRE ANSWERED BY l , 6 6 l HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS Item Mean Standard numbers scores* d e v i a t i o n s 1 2.44 1-32 2 1 .41 0.75 3 I . 6 9 0.89 4 2.83 1.28 5 2.65 1.28 ' 6 2.34 0.92 7 2 . 42 1.25 8 3-35 1.38 9 3.05 1-37 10 1.92 0.95 11 2 .44 1.12 12 1.44 0.80 13 1.70 0.80 1 4 4.05 1.08 15 3.86 1.12 ^Respondents s e l e c t e d one of f i v e numbers from a scale which looked l i k e t h i s : 1 2 3 4 5 s t r o n g l y u n c e r t a i n s t r o n g l y agree disagree 2 . The c r i t e r i o n was met or exceeded i n two of s i x cases where the t o p i c was the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r reading i n s t r u c t i o n (items 1, 2, 3? 5? 8? 9 ) • 3 . Por items 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11, r e l a t e d t o the methodol-ogy of reading i n s t r u c t i o n , the c r i t e r i o n was met i n none of the cases. Apparently, the only t o p i c w i t h which respondents were.: f a m i l i a r was that concerning t h e o r i e s of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Mean item scores ranged from 1 .44 t o 2.65 f o r true statements 1, 3? 5» 6, 12, and 13. For item 9, a l s o t r u e , the mean score was 3»05• Respondents apparently tended t o agree w i t h t r u e statements. Por the eight f a l s e statements, mean scores ranged from 1.4l t o 4 . 0 5 . Only f o r items 8 , 14, and 15, w i t h means of 3 • 3 5 5 4 . 0 5 , and 3*86, r e s p e c t i v e l y , was there a tendency towards disagreement." Respondents apparently tended t o agree w i t h f a l s e statements. VI. DIFFERENCE IN ATTITUDES BETWEEN SEXES The question being i n v e s t i g a t e d was: . To what extent i s there a d i f f e r e n c e between the a t t i t u d e s of males and females towards t e a c h i n g reading i n h i g h school? A n a l y s i s was conducted r e l a t i v e t o the f o l l o w i n g n u l l h y pothesis: There i s : no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e "between, a t t i t u d e s of male and female secondary school teachers i n Ontario, towards te a c h i n g reading i n Ontario secondary schools. Tests f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e s were a p p l i e d at the\.05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Comparisons were made usi n g means and standard d e v i a t i o n s of z-scores f o r 1,120 males and $kl females. T-tests we're a p p l i e d at each of the nine l e v e l s f o r which z-scores had "been generated. Table X gives the means and standard d e v i a t i o n s of z-scores of males and females f o r each of nine sources of variance". Table XI presents the r e s u l t s of t - t e s t s of d i f f e r e n c e s between means of z-scores of males and females f o r each of nine sources of v a r i a n c e . Where t = I . 9 6 0 , d i f f e r e n c e s of means s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e were found f o r each of the f o l l o w i n g f i v e sources of v a r i a n c e : s p e c i f i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (t = -2.447)", general theory ( t = - 2 . 5 9 2 ) , s p e c i f i e d theory (t = 3*252), s p e c i f i e d methodology (t = 2 . 8 2 2 ) , and im p l i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ( t = 4 . 2 7 6 ) . The hypothesis that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between a t t i t u d e s of male and female teachers was the r e f o r e r e j e c t e d . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of means f o r the f o l l o w i n g sources of variance (t = I . 9 6 0 ) : general methodology ( t = - I . 6 5 0 ) , needs of students (t = 0 . 8 7 0 ) , 72 TABLE X MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OE Z-SCORES OP MALES AND FEMALES FOR EACH OF NINE SOURCES OF VARIANCE MALES FEMALES Source of Source of v a r i a n c e * '. Mean' S.D. va r i a n c e * Mean S.D. 1 -0.0282. . 1.0140 1 0.0584 0.9808 2 -0.0420 0.9962 2 0.0870 1.0300 3 - 0 . 0 4 3 0 1 .0010 3 0.0890 0.9135 4 0.0562 I.O65O 4 -O . I I 6 3 0.8951 5 0.0474. 0.9907 5 -0 .0983 0.9783 6 0.0735 • 1.0140 6 -0.1524 0.9994 7 0.0150 0.9928 7 -0 .0305 1.0160 8 0.0278 1 .0200 8 -0.0573 0.9673 9 0.0293 1 .0090 9 -0.0589 0.9692 1120 Observation .s 9 4-1 Observations 1119 Degrees of freedom 51 40 Degrees of freedom Names of sources of v a r i a n c e : 1 General methodology 2 S p e c i f i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 3 General theory 4 S p e c i f i e d theory '5 S p e c i f i e d methodology 6 Implied r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 7 Needs of students 8 Influence of c u r r i c u l a and m a t e r i a l s 9 Teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n 73 TABLE XI RESULTS OP T-TESTS OP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN Z-SCORES OF MALES AND FEMALES POR EACH . OP NINE SOURCES OF VARIANCE Sources of variance being compared* t-values t - p r o b a b i l i t i e s 1 vs 1 -I . 6 5 0 0.095 2 vs 2 - 2 . 4 4 7 0.014 3 vs 3 - 2 . 5 9 2 0.009' 4 vs 4 3.252 0.001 5 vs 5 2.822 0.005 6 vs 6 " 4.276 0.000 7 vs 7 0.870 0.389 8 vs 8 1 .622 0.101 9 vs 9 1.691 0.087 D.F. = I659 t = 1.960 * Names of sources of v a r i a n c e : 1 General methodology 2 S p e c i f i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 3 General theory 4 S p e c i f i e d theory 5 S p e c i f i e d methodology 6 Implied r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 7 Needs of students 8 Influence of c u r r i c u l a and m a t e r i a l s 9 Teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n **A t - p r o b a b i l i t y of l e s s than .05 i n d i c a t e s t i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . 74 i n f l u e n c e of c u r r i c u l a and m a t e r i a l s (t = 1 . 6 2 2 ) , and teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n (t = I . 6 9 1 ) . I n a l l f i v e cases of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of means, the women had the higher means of z-scores. However, these scores i n d i c a t e a maximum d e v i a t i o n of only .22 standard d e v i a t i o n s across the raw score mean f o r a l l l , 6 6 l teachers. I t i s u n l i k e l y that there i s any r e a l d i f f e r e n c e i n propor-t i o n s of males and females s e l e c t i n g "agree" or "disagree". The s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the r e l a t i v e l y small d e v i a t i o n i s probahly a f u n c t i o n of the l a r g e sample. VII. NUMBER OP YEARS' TEACHING EXPERIENCE AS A PACT OR IN' ATTITUDES The question being i n v e s t i g a t e d was: To what extent i s the number of years' teaching experience a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n the a t t i t u d e s of Ontario h i g h school teachers towards te a c h i n g r e a d i n g i n high school? Analyses were conducted i n respect t o the f o l l o w i n g n u l l hypothesis: The number of years' t e a c h i n g experience has no s i g n i f i -cant c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the a t t i t u d e s of Ontario secondary school teachers towards teaching reading i n Ontario h i g h s c h o o l s . Table XII presents the r e s u l t s of computing nine r e g r e s s i o n equations by which the c o e f f i c i e n t s of c o r r e l a t i o n between z-scores and years' t e a c h i n g experience were determined. 75 TABLE XII CORRELATION OF NUMBER OP YEARS' TEACHING EXPERIENCE WITH ATTITUDE - SCORES POR EACH OP NINE SOURCES OP VARIANCE C o e f f i c i e n t s of Source c o r r e l a t i o n between of z-scores and F-prob-variance experience P - r a t i o s a b i l i t i e s * General methodology S p e c i f i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y General theory S p e c i f i e d theory S p e c i f i e d methodology Implied r e s p o n s i b i l i t y Needs of students Influence of c u r r i c u l a and m a t e r i a l s Teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n *An P - p r o b a b i l i t y of l e s s than .05 i n d i c a t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . 0.013 0.012 0.878 0.408 11.720 0.000 0.036 0.086 0.761 - 0 . 0 7 9 0.450 0.500 0.308 6.432 0.010 - 0 . 3 2 9 7.704 0.005 -0 .163 1.839 0.172 - 0 . 5 2 8 19.570 0.000 - 0 . 2 9 8 6.116 0.013 76 C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e were obtained f o r f i v e of the nine sources of v a r i a n c e . Where F = 2.010 f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e , the f o l l o w i n g sources of v a r i a t i o n had s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between . i i a t t i t u d e s and experience: s p e c i f i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (P = 1-1.720), s p e c i f i e d methodology (F = 6 . 4 3 2 ) , i m p l i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (P = 7*704), i n f l u e n c e of c u r r i c u l a and m a t e r i a l s (P = 19»570), and teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n (P = 6 . 116) . I n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of these f i v e s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s of a t t i t u d e scores and experience, the n u l l hypothesis was r e j e c t e d . Where P = 2.D10, no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were found f o r the f o l l o w i n g sources of v a r i a n c e : general method-ology (P = 0 . 0 1 2 ) , general theory (P = 0.086), s p e c i f i e d theory (P = 0 . 4 5 0 ) , and needs of students (P = 1 . 8 3 9 ) . Por three of the f i v e s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s , negative c o r r e l a t i o n s were found. Where r = .195 f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e , the f o l l o w i n g c o e f f i c i e n t s were s i g n i f i c a n t and negative: i m p l i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ( r = - 0 . 3 2 9 ) , i n f l u e n c e of c u r r i c u l a and m a t e r i a l s ( r = -O.528), and teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n ( r = - 0 . 2 9 8 ) . S i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s were found f o r s p e c i f i e d ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ( r = 0.408) and s p e c i f i e d method-ology ( r = 0 . 3 0 8 ) . This i n f o r m a t i o n , i n d i c a t e s that d e v i a t i o n s from means 77 decreased as experience increased where the f o l l o w i n g t o p i c s were being considered: i m p l i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , i n f l u e n c e of c u r r i c u l a and m a t e r i a l s , and teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Where s p e c i f i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and s p e c i f i e d methodology were considered, raw scores tended to deviate f u r t h e r from the means-as experience increased. These trends i n d i c a t e t h a t the less-experienced teach-ers accounted f o r a great deal of the variance i n responses t o items d e a l i n g w i t h i m p l i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , i n f l u e n c e of c u r r i c u l a and m a t e r i a l s , and teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n . However, f o r items r e l a t i n g t o s p e c i f i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and s p e c i f i e d methodology, responses of less-experienced teachers were much l e s s v a r i e d than those of more experienced teachers. There d i d not appear to have been a general c o r r e l a t i o n between experience and a t t i t u d e s towards reading. Whether or not a c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t s , and whether the c o r r e l a t i o n be p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e , are questions which apparently must be answered i n reference t o a s p e c i f i c t o p i c . V I I I . ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHING EXPERIENCE AS AN INFLUENCE ON ATTITUDES OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS TOWARDS TEACHING READING An answer to t h i s question was sought: To what extent do h i g h school teachers w i t h experience t e a c h i n g i n elementary school e x h i b i t greater knowledge of 78 the t e a c h i n g of reading than do t h e i r colleagues who l a c k elementary school experience? The f o l l o w i n g n u l l hypothesis was i n v e s t i g a t e d : I n respect t o a knowledge of the teaching of reading, there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the a t t i t u d e s of h i g h school teachers who have had elementary t e a c h i n g experience and high school teachers who l a c k elementary t e a c h i n g experience. To t e s t t h i s hypothesis, t - t e s t s were performed, u s i n g mean z-scores of 1,317 respondents who had never taught below the grade nine l e v e l , i n comparison v/ith mean z-scores of 344 respondents who claimed experience t e a c h i n g at grade l e v e l s one t o t h i r t e e n . Tests were conducted f o r the f o l l o w i n g s i x sources of v a r i a n c e : general methodology, s p e c i f i e d r e s p o n s i -b i l i t y , general theory, s p e c i f i e d theory, s p e c i f i e d method-ology, and i m p l i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . A l l t e s t s f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e s were a p p l i e d at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Table X I I I provides a comparison of mean z-scores and standard d e v i a t i o n s of the two groups. Table XIV gives the t-values and t - p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r the s i x t - t e s t s . D i f f e r e n c e s between means were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r three of the s i x sources of var i a n c e . V/ith t = I.96O f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i -cance, the f o l l o w i n g sources of variance had s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s : s p e c i f i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (t = -2.631), s p e c i f i e d theory ( t = 4.514), and i m p l i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (t = 3.322). No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of means v/ere found f o r 79 TABLE XIII . MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF Z-SCORES OP HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS WITH ELEMENTARY TEACHING EXPERIENCE AND TEACHERS WITH HIGH SCHOOL TEACHING EXPERIENCE, SHOWING SIX SOURCES OP VARIANCE TEACHERS WITH ELEMENTARY TEACHERS WITH HIGH AND HIGH' SCHOOL EXPERIENCE / SCHOOL EXPERIENCE Source of Mean •variance* z-score S.D. Source of Mean variance* z-score S.D. 1 0.093 1.109 1 -0.024 0.973 2 0.127 1.052 2 - 0 . 0 3 3 0.994 3 0.064 1.032 3 - 0 . 0 1 7 0.959 4 -0.219 0.927 4 0.057 1.031 5 0.005 1.019 5 - 0 . 0 0 1 0.981 6 - 0 . l 6 l 0.946 6 0.042 1.028 344 Observations 1317 Observations 343 Degrees of freedom 1316 Degrees of freedom * T i t l e s of sources of variance: 1 General methodology 2 Specified r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 3 General theory 4 Specified theory 5 Specified methodology 6 Implied r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 80 TABLE XIV RESULTS OE T-TESTS OE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN Z-SCORES FOR EACH OF SIX SOURCES OF VARIANCE FOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS V/ITH ELEMENTARY TEACHING EXPERIENCE' AND HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS V/ITH HIGH SCHOOL TEACHING EXPERIENCE Sources of variance being compared* t-values t - p r o b a b i l i t i e s * * 1 vs 1 -1.9^7 0.049 2 vs 2 - 2 . 6 3 1 0.008 3 vs 3 -I . 3 6 8 0.168 4 vs 4 4.514 0.000 5 vs 5 - 0 . 0 9 7 0.886 6 vs 6 ' 3 . 3 2 2 0.001 D.F. = 1659 t = 1.960 * T i t l e s of sources of variance: 1 General methodology 2 Specified r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 3 General theory 4 Specified theory 5 Specified methodology 6 Implied r e s p o n s i b i l i t y **A t - p r o b a b i l i t y of less than .05 indicates t i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . 81 general methodology (t = - 1 . 9 4 7 ) , general theory (t = - I . 3 6 8 ) , and s p e c i f i e d methodology (t = - 0 . 0 9 7 ) . Insofar as three of s i x sources of variance were found to have s i g n i f i c a n t differences of means, the hypothesis was rejected. Rejection of the hypothesis on the basis of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n ificance need not be interpreted as a reason for r e j e c t i n g the hypothesis on p r a c t i c a l grounds. It can be noted that the means compared i n Table XIII indicate only minor deviations from raw score means — the maximum being .276 standard devia-t i o n s . An examination of Table IX, p. 69 reveals that even the maximum difference between means of z-scores for teachers with elementary experience and those without such experience res u l t s i n l i t t l e r e a l difference i n terms of raw scores. It- appears that the large sample contributed most of the s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e to the differences. IX. INFLUENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS' SUBJECT FIELDS UPON THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARDS TEACHING READING IN HIGH SCHOOL The question regarding t h i s topic was: To v/hat extent do teachers of some secondary school subjects tend to be more aware of the need for reading instruc-t i o n , and to have more knowledge of how to teach reading, than teachers of other secondary school subjects? The following n u l l hypothesis was tested: 82 There are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of a t t i t u d e s towards t e a c h i n g reading i n Ontario h i g h schools among teachers of the various h i g h school subjects i n Ontario. Analyses c o n s i s t e d of u n i v a r i a t e analyses of variance of mean z-scores f o r s i x t e e n categories of subject teachers. Tests f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e s of z-scores were a p p l i e d at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Separate analyses and t e s t s f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e were a p p l i e d f o r each of nine sources of v a r i a n c e . Table XV l i s t s the mean z-score f o r each of nine sources of variance and f o r each of the s i x t e e n groups of teachers categorized according t o school subjects occupying major proportions of tea c h i n g time. •Table XVI provides i n f o r m a t i o n on the s i g n i f i c a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e s of means f o r each of the nine sources of v a r i a n c e . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of means were found t o e x i s t f o r s i x of the nine sources of v a r i a n c e . D i f f e r e n c e s were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among mean z-scores occurred f o r each of the f o l l o w i n g sources of v a r i a n c e : general methodology (F = 1.82), s p e c i f i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (F = 4 . 8 8 ) , s p e c i f i e d theory (F = I . 7 6 ) , needs of students (F = 7 . 0 7 ) , i n f l u e n c e s of c u r r i c u l a and m a t e r i a l s (F = 2 . 8 6 ) , and teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n (F = 2.22). An F of I . 6 7 i n d i c a t e d s i g n i f i c a n c e at. the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . TABLE XV MEANS OP Z-SCORES POR EACH OP NINE SOURCES OP VARIANCE AND POR EACH OP SIXTEEN GROUPS OP HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS CATEGORIZED BY SUBJECTS OCCUPYING MAJOR PROPORTIONS OP TEACHING TIME Name of Number of Means of z-scores f o r each source of variance* school teacher-subjects respondents 1 2 3 4 5 6." 7 8 9 Engli s h 2 2 7 0 . 0 7 7 0 . 2 2 2 0.048 - 0 . 1 7 7 0 . 0 3 9 - 0 . 1 1 8 - 0 . 3 2 9 - 0 . 1 8 1 0 . 1 1 9 Math 1 8 8 0 . 1 5 5 -O . 0 6 9 -O .055 0 . 0 3 1 0 . 0 5 3 - 0 . 0 7 7 0 . 2 6 8 O .033 0 . 0 0 6 History 1 1 7 -O .031 0 . 1 9 9 - 0 J 0 5 4 0 . 0 4 3 - 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 1 2 3 -0.119 -O .161 - 0 . 0 9 0 Science 1 8 3 0 . 0 9 7 - 0 . 2 1 9 O.O32 0 . l 6 l O .O67 0 . 0 8 3 0 . 0 7 8 - 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 1 0 3 Geography 92 - 0 . 0 6 6 0 . 0 9 4 - 0 . 0 9 9 O .O56 0 . 2 2 3 0 . 1 2 2 -O .O53 0 . 0 3 9 - 0 . 1 5 7 Languages 1 2 1 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 2 1 9 0 . 0 3 1 - 0 . 0 1 7 - 0 . 0 0 7 -0.080 0 . 4 0 7 - 0 . 0 9 4 0 . 0 2 7 I n d u s t r i a l Arts 1 6 5 - 0 . 2 0 7 - 0 . 1 3 4 - 0 . 0 4 5 - 0 . 0 1 9 - 0 . 1 5 9 0 . 0 9 0 - 0 . 1 2 4 0 . 1 6 2 - 0 . 2 7 9 Business and Commerce 1 9 0 - 0 . 0 9 3 -0.048 - O . O 3 2 0 . 0 2 0 - 0 . 0 7 2 -0.088 - 0 . 0 9 2 0 . 1 7 2 -O .O69 Home Economics 4 l 0 . 1 5 4 -0.346 - 0 . 1 3 5 - 0 . 2 7 7 - 0 . 1 0 0 0 . 1 1 7 - 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 1 2 1 -0.224 Art 3 3 - 0 . 1 7 1 0 . 0 0 5 -0.024 - 0 . 2 9 8 - 0 . 2 2 6 0 . 3 5 0 0 . 0 6 1 - 0 . 1 0 3 0 . 3 1 1 Music 1 9 - 0 . 0 3 5 0.424 0 . 1 1 6 0 . 1 2 7 - 0 . 1 3 3 - 0 . 2 0 9 0 . 2 6 0 - 0 . 2 5 8 0 . 0 9 8 Physical Ed. and Health 143 - 0 . 1 7 9 - 0 . 3 1 2 -0.048 0 . 1 7 8 -O .O56 0 . 1 1 0 O . 3 6 1 0 . 2 3 4 0 . 1 1 6 Guidance • 79 0 . 1 3 8 0 . 0 3 3 0 . 2 4 0 - 0 . 0 0 3 0 . l 4 l -O .O56 - 0 . 2 1 0 - 0 . 2 3 1 0 . 1 3 8 Library 2 4 O .267 O .698 O .265 - 0 . 1 6 4 - 0 . 1 2 6 -0.014 - 0 . 1 6 4 - 0 . 4 2 8 0.249 Administration 1 7 O . I 6 9 0 . 0 2 6 0 . 0 6 2 -0.346 0 . 1 9 4 -0.342 -0.647 0 . 2 1 2 - 0 . 0 1 5 Others 22 - 0 . 0 2 4 O .366 0 . 1 8 6 0 . 0 8 6 0 . 2 8 0 -0.244 - 0 . 3 2 4 - 0 . 2 3 7 - 0 . 0 8 5 Names of sources of variance: 1 General methodology 2 Specified r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 3 General theory 4 Specified theory 5 Specified methodology 6 Implied r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 7 Needs of students 8 Influences of curricula and materials 9 Teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n co 84 TABLE XVI RESULTS OR ANALYSES OE VARIANCE APPLIED POR NINE SOURCES OP VARIANCE, SHOWING SIGNIFICANCE OP DIFFERENCES AMONG MEANS OF Z-SCORES FOR SIXTEEN GROUPS OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS CATEGORIZED BY SUBJECTS OCCUPYING MAJOR PROPORTIONS OP TEACHING TIME Sources of Degrees " • , Values F variance of , Sum Mean of proba-freedom square;. squarev P b i l i t i e s - 5 General methodology 15 E r r o r 1645 T o t a l 1660 S p e c i f i e d respon- 15 s i b i l i t y E r r o r 1645 T o t a l 1660 General theory 15 E r r o r 1645 T o t a l 1660 S p e c i f i e d theory 15 E r r o r 1645 T o t a l 1660 S p e c i f i e d method- 15 ology E r r o r 1645 T o t a l 1660 Implied respon- 15 s i b i l i t y E r r o r 1645 T o t a l 1660 Needs of students 15 E r r o r 1645 T o t a l 1660 Influences of cur-r i c u l a & m a t e r i a l s 15 E r r o r 1645 T o t a l 1660 Teacher p a r t i c i p a - 15 t i o n E r r o r 1645 T o t a l 1660 0.27288D 02 0.16447D 04 0.16719D 04 0.71924D 02 0.16174D 04 0 . 1 6 8 9 3 d 04 0.11463D 02 O.15669B 04 0.15784D 04 0 . 2 7 0 8 6 D 02 0 .16865D 04 0.17136D 04 0.18857D 02 0.16041D 04 0 . 1 6 2 2 9 2 04 0.23308D 02 0.16849D 04 0.17082D 04 0.10057D 03 0.15608D o4 0.16614D 04 0.42470D 02 0 .16290D o4 O.16715D 04 O .32763D 02 0.16167D 04 0 . 1 6 4 9 5 D 04 0.18192D 01 1 . 8 2 0 . 0 2 7 3 0.99979:0 00 0.47949D 01 4.88 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 .98320D 00 0.76420D 00 0.80 O.6769 o . 9 5 2 5 3 D 00 0.18058D 01 1 .76 0.0348 0.10252D 01 0.12572D 01 1.29 0.1999 0.97512D 00 0.15539D 01 1.52 0.0906 0.10243D 01 0.67046D 01.. 7 .07 0 . 0 0 0 0 0.94881D 00 0.28313D 01 2 . 8 6 0 . 0 0 0 2 0 . 9 9 0 3 0 D 00 0.21842D 01 2.22 0.0046 0.98281D 00 *An P - p r b b a b i l i t y of l e s s than .05 i n d i c a t e s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of means at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . 85 The hypothesis that no differences exist among a t t i -tudes of teachers of diff e r e n t high school subjects v/as therefore rejected. Where an F of I . 6 7 v/as required, the differences of means for the following sources of variance were found to be i n s i g n i f i c a n t : general theory (F = 0.80), sp e c i f i e d methodology (F = 1 . 2 9 ) , and implied r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (F = I . 5 2 ) . While differences of mean z-scores have s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , for f i v e of the s i x sources of variance the differences have l i t t l e or no p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . Using information i n Tables XV, VI, and IX, i t i s possible to translate mean z-scores into estimates of mean raw scores for any given questionnaire items. I t can be demonstrated that, i n f i v e of s i x cases, differences of mean z-scores do not r e f l e c t r e a l differences i n mean attitude scores. In regard to questionnaire items 1, 5, 8, which rel a t e to s p e c i f i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , the differences of mean scores have p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . Estimates of mean raw scores, for statement 1, for example, show mean responses range from agreement on the part of teachers of Home Economics (estimated mean raw score = 2.00) to uncertainty on the part of school l i b r a r i a n s (estimated mean raw score = 3 . 0 6 ) . D i s t i n c t i o n s between choices of response categories can be found i n data related to questionnaire items 5 a n& 8, as wel l . 86 Table XVII ranks mean z-scores of sub-groups according to the extent of deviation from the raw score mean for the whole sample. It may be noted that the greatest deviations from sample means occurred for groups with only a small propor-t i o n of the t o t a l population of l , 6 6 l . Included i n t h i s group were teachers categorized under "Others", a number of . whom indicated that they spent at least part of t h e i r time teaching Reading or Special Education as special subjects. X. INFLUENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS' TEACHING LOCALE UPON ATTITUDES TOWARDS TEACHING READING IN HIGH SCHOOL The following question was posed: To what extent i s there a difference i n attitudes tov/ards teaching reading i n high school among high school teachers i n dif f e r e n t parts of Ontario? Data from the questionnaire study was used to test the following n u l l hypothesis: There are no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n attitudes towards teaching reading i n Ontario high schools among high school teachers i n diff e r e n t parts of Ontario. The data used were the z-scores for nine sources of variance among responses of l , 6 6 l high school teachers across Ontario. Teachers v/ere grouped according to the for t y counties and ten d i s t r i c t s i n v/hich they taught. Mean 87 TABLE XVII SPECIFIED RESPONSIBILITY: SUBJECT GROUPS RANKED ACCORDING TO MEANS OP Z-SCORES Deviations below Deviations above raw score, means raw score means (-) ( + ) Subject group z Subject group z Business and Commerce - . 048 A r t .005 Math - . 0 6 9 A d m i n i s t r a t o r s .026 I n d u s t r i a l A r t s - . 1 3 4 Guidance .033 Science - .219 Geography .094 P h y s i c a l Education - .312 H i s t o r y .199 and Health Languages .219 Home Economics -.346 E n g l i s h .222 Others* .366 Music .424 L i b r a r y .698 ^Included i n t h i s group were teachers of Reading and of S p e c i a l Education. 88 z-scores were determined f o r each of the f i f t y groups, and analyses of variance a p p l i e d f o r each of nine sources of va r i a n c e . Tests f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of means were made at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . • Table X V I I I l i s t s the names of f o r t y counties and ten d i s t r i c t s , i n d i c a t e s the number of respondents from each of the f i f t y areas, and gives the mean z-scores of teachers w i t h i n each county or d i s t r i c t f o r each of nine sources of va r i a n c e . Table XIX l i s t s sources of variance by name, and provides i n f o r m a t i o n on the r e s u l t s of analyses of variance and t e s t s of s i g n i f i c a n c e a p p l i e d f o r each source of va r i a n c e . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e of means f o r one of the nine sources of v a r i a n c e . Where an F of 1.35 w a s -re q u i r e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e , the F of 1.48 obtained f o r the source of variance call e d , "teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n " was s i g n i f i c a n t . The hypothesis that there are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s among teachers i n d i f f e r e n t parts of Ontario was r e j e c t e d . Io s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of means were found f o r the f o l l o w i n g sources of variance (F = 1.35 at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e ) : general methodology (F = 0.84), s p e c i f i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (F = 1 . 0 0 ) , general theory (F = 1 .00), s p e c i f i e d theory (F = 0.74), s p e c i f i e d methodology (F.= l . l l ) , i m p l i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (F = 1 . 2 3 ) , needs of students (F = 1.04), TABLE XVIII MEANS OP Z-SCORES POR EACH OP NINE SOURCES OP VARIANCE AND POR PIPTY GROUPS OP SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY IN WHICH THEY TAUGHT Names of coun- No. of t i e s and teacher-d i s t r i c t s respondents 1 Means of z-scores f o r each source of variance* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Counties Brant Bruce Carleton Duff e r i n E l g i n Essex Frontenac Grey Haldimand Haliburt on Ha It on Hastings Huron Kent Lambton Lanark Leeds & G r e n v i l l Lennox & A'ddingt Lin c o l n Middlesex Muskoka Norfolk Northumberland & Durham e on 20 12 99 4 14 55 19 13 7 2 44 28 15 22 28 8 15 8-42 65 7 7 24 0.1399 •0.1295 -0.0144 0.1573 •0.2311 -0.0901 0.4849 •0.2750 -0.0518 •0.3869 0.0172 -0.1590 •0.1246 -0.1534 -0.3898 0.5546 -0.1629 0.1520 -0.0215 -0.0244 0.4028 0.1580 0.2372 -0.1795 -0.3241 -0.1060 -0.2962 -0.1416 0.1508 O.O865 O.1365 -0.1809 -1.4803 -0.1000 - 0 . 0 2 0 4 0.2055 0.5093 0.1152 -0.1979 0.2043 0.2551 0.2813 0.0463 0.1240 -0 .0967 - O . O o l l -O.167I 0.0424 O.OI56 -0.3241 .0.0305 -0.1609 0.0391 -0.1681 -0.1455 0.3240 0.2426 -0.1873 0.0195 -0.2032 0.1273 -0.5078 -0.3264 -0.5816 0.1101 0.0412 -0.1105 0.7033 -0.2771 0.2079 -0.2486 -0.0017 0.4099 0.4903 -0.0800 -0.1507 -0.3310 - 0 . 0 8 0 5 -0 .7300 0.1923 -0.1822 0.2723 - 0 . 0 0 8 8 0,0381 -O .356I 0.0192 -0.2255 0.0385 0.1845 -0.3270 -0.4119 -0.1734 -0.2328 -0.3116 -0.2268 -0.1286 -0.1094 -0.2427 -0.1176 0.3535 0.2995 -1.0194 -0.2416 0.2894 0.0957 -0.2359 0.0636 O.1692 0.3457 0.2859 -0.0271 0.0607 0.5735 -0.1370 -0.2843 - 0 . 0 8 3 0 0.0807 0.0080 0.3220 0.2632 0.0831 0.3873 0.3885 0.0828 -0.8010 0.1777 0.1093 -0.1306 0.2728 0.1451 -0.3323 -0.0179 0.2076 -0.2991 0.0041 0.2226 -0.1252 -0.0545 0.0431 0.0349 0.0099 0.2233 0.5655 -0.1372 •0.0086 -0.1185 -0.5643 -O.6065 0.1535 -0.1069 0.1164 -0.2589 0.1746 0.0555 -0.1615 -0.3189 0.0248 0.0341 0.0003 -0.4356 -0.2493 0.0551 -0.1816 -0.1278 0.5943 -0.0392 0.2347 -O.1356 -0.4888 -O.1294 1.2359 -0.0039 -0.4352 -0.0857 0.1742 -0.1194 -0.1666 0.0777 -0.0850 0.0320 O.2636 -O.3496 -0.1231 -O.2967 0.0913 0.2832 -0.0458 -0.0702 0.3051 -0.2281 0.0244 -0.1998 0.6574 1.1111 0.0492 -0.4828 -O.1659 0.3525 -0.4723 -0.1834 0.0020 - 0 . 1 2 0 9 -0.2159 0.0732 0.0397 -0.0595 0.3211 * T i t l e s of sources of variance: 1 General methodology 4 Specified theory 7 2 Specified r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 5 Specified methodology 8 3 General theory 6 Implied r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 9 Needs of students Influences of cur r i c u l a & materials £g Teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n TABLE XYIII (continued) Names of coun- No. of " Means of z-scores f o r each source of variance* t i e s and teacher-d i s t r i c t s respondents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ontario Oxford Peel Perth Peterborough Prescott & Russel Prince Edward Renf rev/ Simcoe Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry V i c t o r i a Waterloo Wei land Wellington We nt v/ o r t h-Dun da s York Metro-Toronto D i s t r i c t s Algoma Cochrane Kenora Manitoulin Nipissing Parry Sound Rainy River Sudbury Thunder Bay Timiskaming i+9 23 58 12 25 8 5 29 47 26 8 25 80 54 346 28 19 12 3 19 7 11 40 49 17 0.2777 -0.0734 -0.2075 -0.3492 0.0715 -0.0268 -0.3653 0.1414 0.0935 -0.0621 -0.1804 -0.0742 -0.4019 -0.1703 0.0370 -0.0441 0.3464 0.1275 0.0123 - 0 . 0 8 1 4 O.1952 -0.7277 -0.0025 0.2229 0.1057 -0.1101 0.0550 -0.0082 0.0921 0.0479 -0.0738 0.0842 -0.0489 0.0291 0.1961 -0.2982 O.0665 -0.4470 0.1744 0.2546 0.1015 0.3407 •O.32II -0.0175 •0.2830 O.1370 -O.3749 -O.0694 •0.0357 0.0458 -0.4047 0.0616 -0.2696 0.2643 -0.0386 0.1501 0.2172 -0.1895 0.1270 0.0116 -0.1596 -0.4189 0.0750 -0 .0288 .0.6454 -0 .2982 0.1220 -0.4275 -0.0754 -0.2508 0.0785 -0.1081 0.1610 0.0743 0.4706 0.2439 0.0434 0.0229 -0.3460 -0.1926 0.1087 0.0598 -0.1958 -0.1877 0.0860 -0 .0583 0.0206 O.0503 0.2521 -0 .0970 -0.1087 0.0564 •0.3214 0.2418 • 0.1456 0.0138 0.1173 0.0469 0.2480 0.1428 0.0730 0.4919 0.008-5 0.3138 0.2624 0.0490 0.1376 0.1821 0.0834 -0.0543 0.0799 -0.3520 -0.0314 0.1585 0.2005 0.3989 0.0746 -0.0898 0.2321 0.0760 O.2327 0.2922 0.1517 0.0758 0.0033 0.0162 0.2577 -0.1601 -O.2650 -0.0193 0.1234 -0.1118 -0.1505 -0.3363 0.0580 0.2936 -0.2258 0.0265 0.5747 0.2916 0.8680 -0.0419 0.1400 -0.1916 0.1482 -0.4200 -O.2365 -0.2505 -0.0128 0.0895 -0.2756 -O.O669 -0.2683 0.1699 0.0449 0.8071 0.0030 -0.4188 0.3091 0.1965 -0.1123 0.1066 0.0409 -0.1053 0.1193 -0.1858 0.0048 O.0636 -O.1632 -0.1583 -0.1718 -0.2689 0.5473 -0.2723 -0.0589 -0.0966 0.1506 -0.0558 0.1355 -0.2276 -0.1335 O . I I69 -0.2784 -0.2020 0.5260 0.3991 -0.0593 -0.3004 O.3156 0.0876 -0.1273 -0.1242 - 0 . 0 3 3 3 0.0705 -0 .3700 -0.2416 0.3821 0.0183 -0.1759 - 0 . 0 2 6 7 -0.2869 0.2144 -0 .1679 -0.1745 0.2995 0.0071 0.2666 0.0518 -0.1151 0.0194 -0.4553 0.1854 -0.1775 -0.1022 0.2041 -0.0948 0.0045 0.0211 0.0518 0.0971 0.2277 0.1727 •0.0165 -0.2017 0.3215 0.2166. 0.2578 0.3167 -0 .2987 -0.1559 0.9567 -0.1279 0.1112 -0.0311 0.7056 -0.0966 -0 .0790 0.0393 - 0 . 4 1 2 9 0.0573 0.1704 -0.0384 -0.3825 * T i t l e s of sources of variance: 1 General methodology 4 Specified theory 7 2 Specified r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 5 Specified methodology 8 3 General theory 6 Implied r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 9 Needs of students Influences of curricula & m a t e r i a l s ^ Teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n o 91 TABLE XIX RESULTS OE ANALYSES OE VARIANCE APPLIED POR NINE SOURCES OP VARIANCE, SHOWING SIGNIFICANCE OP DIFFERENCES AMONG MEANS OF Z-SCORES POR FIFTY GROUPS OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY IN WHICH THEY TAUGHT S o u r c e s D e g r e e s • V a l u e s F o f o f Sum M e a n o f p r o b a -v a r i a n c e f r e e d o m s q u a r e . . s q u a r e . F b i l i t i e s ' G e n e r a l m e t h o d o l o g y 49 E r r o r l 6 4 l T o t a l 1660 S p e c i f i e d r e s p o n - 49 s i b i l i t y E r r o r l 6 4 l T o t a l 1660 G e n e r a l t h e o r y 49 E r r o r l 6 4 l T o t a l 1660 S p e c i f i e d t h e o r y 49 E r r o r l 6 4 l T o t a l 1660 S p e c i f i e d m e t h o d - 49 o l o g y E r r o r l 6 4 l T o t a l 1660 I m p l i e d r e s p o n - 49 s i b i l i t y E r r o r l 6 4 l T o t a l 1660 Needs o f s t u d e n t s 49 E r r o r l 6 4 l T o t a l 1 6 6 0 0 . 4 l 4 6 l D 02 O . 1 6 3 0 5 D 04 O . 16719D 04 0.50054D 02 O . 16392D 04 0.16893D 04 0.46663D 02 O . I 5 3 1 7 D 04 0 . 1 5 7 8 4 D 04 0.37664D 02 0.16759-D 04 0.17136D 04 O .53076D 02 O . 15699D 04 0 . 1 6 2 2 9 K 04 0 . 6 1 3 7 2 D 02 0 . 1 6 4 6 8 D 04 0 . 1 7 0 8 2 D 04 0.51106D 02 0.16103D 04 0 . l 6 6 l 4 D 04 0 . 8 4 6 1 5 D 00 0 . 8 4 0 . 7 8 3 6 0 . 1 0121D 01 0.10215D 01 1 . 0 0 0 . 4 668 0.10175D 01 0 .95230D 00 1 .00 0.4713 0.95079D 00 0.76865D 00 0 . 7 4 0 .9103 0.10403D 01 0 . 1 0 8 3 2 D 01 1 .11 0 . 2781 0 . 9 7 4 4 6 D 00 0.12$25D 01 1.23 0.1386 0.10222D 01 0.10430D 01 1 . 0 4 0 . 3 9 2 4 0.99954D 00 Influences of cur-r i c u l a & materials 49 Error l 6 4 l Total 1660 Teacher p a r t i c i p a - 49 t i o n E r r o r l 6 4 l Total 1660 0.44151D 02 0.16274D 04 O . 16715D 04 0 . 7 1 2 7 9 D 02 0 . 1 5 7 8 2 D 04 0 .16495D 04 0 .90105D 00 0.10102D 01 0.14547D 01 0.97664D 00 0 . 8 9 0 . 6 8 5 4 1 .48 0 . 0172 * A n F - p r o b a b i l i t y o f l e s s t h a n . 0 5 i n d i c a t e s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s o f means a t t h e . 0 5 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . 92 and influence of cur r i c u l a and materials (P = O . 8 9 ) . The significance of differences of means for teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n appears to "be p r a c t i c a l as well as s t a t i s t i c a l . Por items 22 and 23, the differences are r e f l e c t i o n s of • actual differences i n choice of category from the five-point attitude scale. Por example, the estimated raw score mean for Hastings County responses to item 22 i s 2.66 (agreement) while the estimated raw score mean for Haliburton County responses i s 4.42 (disagreement). Table XX presents the mean z-score of each county and d i s t r i c t for the source of variance known as teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Scores are ranked i n order of size of devia-t i o n from the mean score of l , 6 6 l respondents. Though differences i n attitudes towards teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n do occur among respondents of different counties and d i s t r i c t s , there i s no evidence that these differences are a function of l o c a l e . Differences of attitude scores appear to occur throughout the province. XI. FINDINGS AMD INTERPRETATIONS RELEVANT TO HYPOTHESES AS THEY RELATE TO ONE ANOTHER. Five of the seven hypotheses of t h i s study required investigations of the variables influencing attitudes towards teaching reading i n Ontario high schools. Awareness of the need f o r reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Analyses 93 TABLE XX TEACHER PARTICIPATION: COUNTIES AND DISTRICTS RANKED ACCORDING TO MEANS OP Z-SCORES Deviations below Deviations above raw score means raw score means ( - ) ( + ) Counties and d i s t r i c t s z Counties and d i s t r i c t s z Met ro-T oront o - O . O I 6 5 Leeds & G r e n v i l l e 0 . 0 0 2 0 Ontario - 0 . 0 2 6 7 P r i n c e Edward 0.0071 Ca r l e t o n - 0 . 0 4 5 8 Frontenac 0.0244 No r f o l k - 0 . 0 5 9 5 Muskoka 0 . 0 3 9 7 D u f f e r i n -0.0702 HaIton 0.0492 Rainy R i v e r -0.0790 Simcoe 0 . 0 5 1 8 Stormont, Dundas, We Hand 0 . 0 5 1 8 & Glengarry - 0 . 1 1 5 1 M a n i t o u l i n O . O 5 6 7 Lennox & Addington - 0 . 1 2 09 Middlesex 0 . 0 7 3 2 Huron -O . I 6 5 9 Brant 0 . 0 9 1 3 P e r t h - 0 . 1 6 7 9 Wellington 0 . 0 9 7 1 Peterborough -0.1745 N i p i s s i n g 0 . 1 1 1 2 Waterloo - 0 . 1 7 7 5 Thunder Bay 0 . 1 7 0 4 Lanark - 0 . 1 8 3 4 York 0 . 1 7 2 7 Grey - 0 . 1 9 9 8 Peel 0.2144 L i n c o l n - 0 . 2 1 5 9 We nt w 0 r t h-Dunda s 0.2277 Essex - 0 . 2 2 8 1 Cochrane 0 . 2 5 7 8 Oxford - 0 . 2 8 6 9 Renfrew 0 . 2 6 6 6 Kenora - 0 . 2 9 8 7 Bruce 0 . 2 8 5 2 Timiskaming - 0 . 3 8 2 5 P r e s c o t t & Russel 0.2995 Sudbury - 0 . 4 1 2 9 E l g i n O . 3 0 5 I V i c t o r i a - 0 . 4 5 5 3 Northumberland Lambton - 0 . 4 7 2 3 & Durham 0 . 3 2 1 1 Hastings - 0 . 4 8 2 8 Algoma 0 . 3 2 1 5 Kent 0 . 3 5 2 5 Haldimand 0 . 6 5 7 4 Parry Sound O . 7 0 5 6 H a l i b u r t o n 1 . 1 1 1 1 9 4 a p p l i e d to data r e s u l t e d i n acceptance of the hypothesis t h a t Ontario h i g h school teachers are aware of the need f o r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e i r schools. Analyses p e r t a i n i n g t o other hypotheses of t h i s study provided the f o l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n : There were no r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s of choices of responses . between male and female respondents. Por items d i s c u s s i n g teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n and i n f l u e n c e s of c u r r i c u l a and mater-i a l s , there were s i g n i f i c a n t , negative c o r r e l a t i o n s between number of years' t e a c h i n g experience and adherence to the sample mean score. This i s ' i n t e r p r e t e d as meaning that experienced teachers were more i n c l i n e d t o agree that students r e q u i r e d i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d i n g than v/ere less-experienced t e a c h e r s . Respondents' i n t e r e s t i n p a r t i c u l a r school subjects which occupied most of t h e i r t e a c h i n g time had no r e a l ; i n f l u e n c e on d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores. Respondents' opinions of the value and extent of teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n reading education were v a r i e d according t o t e a c h i n g l o c a l e . However, variances were d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the province. Basic -principles of r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . The second major hypothesis of t h i s study stated that Ontario high school teachers v/ere aware of the b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . This hypothesis was r e j e c t e d at nine of the f i f t e e n l e v e l s of i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 95 Analyses i n r e l a t i o n to other hypotheses y i e l d e d i n f o r m a t i o n u s e f u l i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the variance i n responses t o items on methods, t h e o r i e s , and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . D i f f e r e n c e s i n sexes of respondents apparently d i d not i n f l u e n c e d i s t r i b u t i o n ' o f responses. A t t i t u d e scores were n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h l e n g t h of respondents' t e a c h i n g experience f o r items implying t h a t a l l teachers must teach reading. Item 9 suggested that every teacher teach at s e v e r a l l e v e l s of d i f f i c u l t y . The wide range of responses t o t h i s true statement may be the r e s u l t of u n c e r t a i n t y among less-experienced teachers; experienced teachers tended t o vary l e s s i n response. Where r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was specified,- as i n items 1 ,5 , and 8, a t t i t u d e scores and number of years' teaching experience of respondents were p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d . There appeared t o be greater accord among inexperienced teachers than among experienced t e a c h e r s . The wide d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores f o r items 5 a n d 8 may be r e f l e c t i o n s of u n c e r t a i n t y (among experienced respondents) as t o t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Respondents' agreement (63.8 per cent) w i t h item 1 may be an i n d i c a t i o n of w i l l i n g n e s s among the less - e x p e r i e n c e d respondents t o accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t e a c h i n g reading s k i l l s . A s i g n i f i c a n t , p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p a l s o e x i s t e d 96 "between length, of respondents' teaching experience and scores for items 1 0 and 1 1 , on spe c i f i e d methodology. Again the less-experienced respondents tended to agree among themselves, while scores of experienced respondents diverged as length of experience increased. Respondents generally erred i n i d e n t i f y i n g methods discussed i n items 1 0 and 1 1 . However, i t appears that the proportion of errors may have been greater for inexperienced respondents than for experienced respondents. There appeared to be no differences i n knowledge of basic p r i n c i p l e s of reading i n s t r u c t i o n between respondents with elementary experience, and respondents who had never taught elementary school. l o c a t i o n of respondents, i n terms of counties and d i s t r i c t s of Ontario, appeared to have no influence upon respondents' state of knowledge. There were s i g n i f i c a n t results i n three of s i x tests to indicate that respondents' knowledge of reading i n s t r u c t i o n varied according to the subjects they taught. Deviations from the mean for the entire sample were the most obvious for respondents from the following subject areas: Below the mean: Physical Education and Health Home Economics Above the mean: Music l i b r a r y Others (included teachers of Reading and Special Education). 97 CHAPTER SUMMARY This chapter described how data were gathered to test seven hypotheses related to the attitudes of Ontario secondary school teachers towards reading. Questionnaires were sent to 2,500 randomly selected high school teachers across Ontario. A t o t a l of l , 6 6 l returned questionnaires yielded the data upon which analyses were based. Analyses used included estimates of internal consis-tency, examination of factor structure, computation of a regression equation, univariate analyses of variance, t-tests f o r s i g n i f i c a n t differences of means, and tabulation of univariate frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s . The following results were obtained:. 1. A hypothesis that Ontario high school teachers are aware of the need for reading i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e i r schools was accepted. The imposed c r i t e r i o n was met by 81.2 per cent of respondents. 2. A hypothesis that Ontario high school teachers are aware of the basic p r i n c i p l e s of reading i n s t r u c t i o n was rejected i n nine: of fif t e e n , t e s t s . 3. The n u l l hypothesis that no s i g n i f i c a n t differences of attitudes exist between males and females was rejected i n f i v e of nine t e s t s . 4. The n u l l hypothesis that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between attitudes toward reading and 98 number o f y e a r s ' t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e was r e j e c t e d i n f i v e o f n i n e t e s t s . 5 . The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s o f a t t i t u d e towards r e a d i n g e x i s t s between h i g h s c h o o l t e a c h e r s w i t h e l e m e n t a r y e x p e r i e n c e and h i g h s c h o o l t e a c h e r s w i t h s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l e x p e r i e n c e was r e j e c t e d i n t h r e e o f s i x t e s t s . 6. The n u l l ' h y p o t h e s i s t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s o f a t t i t u d e s towards r e a d i n g e x i s t among t e a c h e r s o f d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s was r e j e c t e d i n s i x o f n i n e t e s t s . 7 . The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s o f a t t i t u d e s towards r e a d i n g e x i s t among t e a c h e r s i n d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of O n t a r i o v/as r e j e c t e d i n one o f n i n e t e s t s . CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND FINDINGS The preceding chapters of t h i s t h e s i s have described the purposes, design, and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a survey of a t t i t u d e s towards teaching reading i n high school among secondary school teachers i n Ontario. Through the use of a mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e , data v/ere obtained from 5 per cent of a l l high school teachers i n Ontario. Data v/ere gathered from every county and:. : from ten d i s t r i c t s of Ontario. Several types of analyses v/ere used t o t r e a t these data. The r e s u l t s of these analyses form the basis of conclusions about teacher a t t i t u d e s tov/ards reading i n Ontario. I t i s the purpose of t h i s chapter to summarize the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study, t o formulate any conclusions which may be warranted by the f i n d i n g s , to i d e n t i f y the educational i m p l i c a t i o n s of the f i n d i n g s , and to o f f e r suggestions f o r f u r t h e r research. I . SUMMARY OP THE FINDINGS This study had attempted t o determine the extent t o which Ontario secondary school teachers f e l t the need f o r reading t o be taught i n t h e i r schools. The m a j o r i t y of respondents t o a questionnaire on t h i s t o p i c agreed that t h e i r students r e q u i r e d reading i n s t r u c t i o n . 1 0 0 A second major purpose of t h i s study was to determine the extent to which Ontario secondary school teachers appeared to be f a m i l i a r with reading theory and practice. Respondents to the questionnaire achieved a c r i t e r i o n score on the part of the questionnaire related to the theory of reading and reading i n s t r u c t i o n . However, respondents did not a t t a i n an imposed c r i t e r i o n score f o r parts of the questionnaire r e l a t i n g to r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r teaching reading and method-ology of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Respondents did not appear to be aware of t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r teaching reading, or of the methods of teaching reading. Data from the questionnaire survey were analysed i n r e l a t i o n to a number of hypotheses regarding influences on the attitudes of secondary school teachers towards reading. It was found that sex differences among respondents to the questionnaire did not account for noticeable d i f f e r -ences i n response, though s t a t i s t i c a l significance was found for differences i n mean scores. It i s the investigator's opinion that the large sample size resulted i n s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n ificance of small differences i n mean scores. Analyses were conducted to determine the extent to which the number of years' teaching experience influenced attitudes towards reading i n s t r u c t i o n . I t was found that the c o r r e l a t i o n of length of teaching experience with attitude scores varied i n both magnitude and d i r e c t i o n according to 101 the t o p i c being discussed. A t e s t was conducted f o r each of nine t o p i c s r e l a t e d t o reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Three types of r e s u l t s v/ere obtained. • Instances occurred f o r each of no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n , s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n , and s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n . An attempt v/as made t o determine the extent to which high school teachers who had experience t e a c h i n g i n elementary school e x h i b i t e d greater knowledge of reading i n s t r u c t i o n than t h e i r colleagues who lacked t h i s experience. The r e s u l t s of s e v e r a l t e s t s i n d i c a t e d that s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of a t t i t u d e scores could be detected f o r some t o p i c s . However, i n no case was the s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n t e r p r e t a b l e i n terms of r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n categ o r i e s of responses t o questionnaire items. Teachers v/ith elementary experience d i d not appear t o have any b e t t e r scores f o r t e s t s of methods, t h e o r i e s , or r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of high school reading i n s t r u c t i o n than teachers who lacked t h i s experience. The occurrence of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e s of mean scores v/as a t t r i b u t e d by the i n v e s t i -gator t o the l a r g e sample s i z e . A s i x t h o b j e c t i v e of t h i s study v/as t o determine the extent of d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s tov/ards reading among teachers of d i f f e r e n t h i g h school subjects i n Ontario. D i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e scores v/ere detected. These were d i f f e r e n c e s of mean a t t i t u d e scores f o r teachers grouped 102 a c c o r d i n g t o the high school subjects they taught. D i f f e r -ences of scores were both observable and s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . However, d i f f e r e n c e s d i d not occur f o r a l l the t o p i c s discussed i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . There were no s i g n i f i -cant d i f f e r e n c e s i n scores f o r sub-tests d e a l i n g w i t h general theory, s p e c i f i e d methodology, or i m p l i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Information was sought i n r e l a t i o n to the d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s towards te a c h i n g reading i n h i g h school among high school teachers i n d i f f e r e n t parts of Ontario. D i f f e r -ences of a t t i t u d e scores were found f o r only one of nine t e s t s . There was a v a r i e t y of a t t i t u d e s towards the observed need f o r teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n reading programs. However, the d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e scores occurred among counties and d i s t r i c t s throughout the province. D i f f e r e n c e s were not p e c u l i a r to any one area of the pr o v i n c e . Thus, teaching l o c a l e was not found t o be an apparent i n f l u e n c e f o r most sub-tests of a t t i t u d e s . l e s s than one e i g h t h of the t o t a l number of respondents s a i d they had had t r a i n i n g i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n . Approxi-mately h a l f of the group i n d i c a t e d that some form of reading was being taught i n respondents' schools. I I . CONCLUSIONS The foregoing summary of f i n d i n g s seems to i n d i c a t e t h a t the f o l l o w i n g conclusions are v/arranted: 1. Most Ontario secondary school teachers who p a r t i c i -pated i n t h i s survey agreed that reading i n s t r u c t i o n i s needed i n Ontario h i g h schools. 2. Most respondents f o r t h i s survey were f a m i l i a r w i t h those t h e o r i e s of readi n g education which ;were mentioned i n the qu e s t i o n n a i r e . 3. Most Ontario secondary school teachers who answered the questionnaire were not f a m i l i a r w i t h those r e s p o n s i b i l i -t i e s f o r teaching reading which were e i t h e r d i r e c t l y s t a t e d or i m p l i e d i n the qu e s t i o n n a i r e . 4. Most Ontario secondary school teachers who v/ere sub-j e c t s of t h i s survey v/ere not f a m i l i a r with the methods of reading i n s t r u c t i o n which v/ere described i n the qu e s t i o n n a i r e . 5. Sex of respondents v/as not a f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g a t t i t u d e s of teachers tov/ards reading as they were determined i n t h i s survey. 6. There was no evidence t h a t respondents f o r t h i s survey v/ho had elementary school t e a c h i n g experience v/ere more knowledgable of t h e o r i e s or p r a c t i c e s of reading i n s t r u c t i o n than were respondents v/ho lacked t h i s experience. 7. Where d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s occurred among teachers who had d i f f e r e n t lengths of te a c h i n g experience, or among teachers of d i f f e r e n t school s u b j e c t s , or among 104 teachers from d i f f e r e n t parts of the province, those d i f f e r e n c e s r e l a t e d to p a r t i c u l a r t o p i c s , and not t o general a t t i t u d e s tov/ards reading i n s t r u c t i o n . 8. The questionnaire used i n t h i s survey was a u s e f u l device f o r determining the a t t i t u d e s of high school teachers tov/ards r e a d i n g . 9. The a t t i t u d e s determined i n t h i s survey are represent-a t i v e of general a t t i t u d e s towards reading i n s t r u c t i o n i n h i g h school among most hig h school teachers across Ontario. 10. No c o n c l u s i o n can be reached from t h i s survey as t o the frequency of reading programs i n Ontario high s c h o o l s . 11. Only a small p r o p o r t i o n of the high school teachers who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s survey had ever received t r a i n i n g i n reading i n s t r u c t i o n . I I I . EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS The m a j o r i t y of teachers convassed i n t h i s survey f e l t that the students they taught needed i n s t r u c t i o n i n reading, yet there was a great deal of expressed u n c e r t a i n t y about how t h i s need was being met. Pew teachers agreed that t h e i r f e l l o w teachers appeared t o be making an e f f o r t t o improve reading. The respondents themselves appeared t o l a c k the knowledge of how to teach reading. Less than 105 one-eighth of them had r e c e i v e d t r a i n i n g f o r t e a c h i n g reading. !?he m a j o r i t y f e l t that t h e i r students would b e n e f i t i f teachers knew more about t e a c h i n g reading s k i l l s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , i t was not w i t h i n the scope of t h i s study; t o determine the occurrence, nature, or scope of current reading programs i n Ontario h i g h schools. The a v a i l a b l e data suggested t h a t h a l f the teacher-respondents taught i n schools where reading i n s t r u c t i o n was o f f e r e d . The number of schools i n v o l v e d was not determined. One d i s t u r b i n g f a c t was that almost t e n per cent of the respon-dents s a i d they d i d not know whether t h e i r schools had a r e a d i n g program or not. I t may be i n f e r r e d from these observations that there i s an immediate need f o r f u r t h e r assessment of the status of reading i n Ontario secondary schools. The nature, scope, and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of current reading programs should be assessed. Where e f f e c t i v e programs do not already e x i s t , the observed need of students f o r reading i n s t r u c t i o n must be met by the i n s t i t u t i o n of appropriate programs. Responses to t h i s survey i n d i c a t e the immediate need to educate high school teachers i n regard t o reading, and to i n s t i l l i n them a sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r teaching r e a d i n g s k i l l s r e l e v a n t to t h e i r s u b j e c t s . I n s o f a r as there appears to be a l a c k of knowledge about reading i n s t r u c -t i o n among teachers at a l l l e v e l s of experience, the education 106 of teachers j u s t e n t e r i n g the p r o f e s s i o n and of those already-experienced i n teaching must he considered. IV. SUGGESTIONS POR FURTHER RESEARCH I t has al r e a d y "been suggested i n t h i s chapter that educators must undertake r e s e a r c h i n t o the nature, scope, and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of current reading programs i n Ontario high schools. Such research would perhaps best be conducted at l o c a l l e v e l s , but should provide i n f o r m a t i o n and recommendations of value t o school d i s t r i c t s and t o the province as a whole. Fur t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of the v a r i a b l e s which i n f l u e n c e a t t i t u d e s of teachers towards reading and reading i n s t r u c t i o n might be undertaken. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of i n f l u e n c e s and the degrees of i n f l u e n c e could provide u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r those who are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t r a i n i n g teachers. I n the f i e l d of teacher education, there appears t o be a need f o r research i n t o the nature and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of of t r a i n i n g i n readi n g education. F i n a l l y , the r e s u l t s of t h i s survey seem t o i n d i c a t e a need f o r researchers t o e x e r c i s e c a u t i o n i n sampling and i n t e r p r e t i n g the a t t i t u d e s of teachers tov/ards reading and reading i n s t r u c t i o n . There seems t o be reason t o doubt that a teacher's awareness of the theory of reading education may be taken as an i n d i c a t i o n that he i s aware of the methods of reading i n s t r u c t i o n or th a t he recognizes h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o h i s students f o r t e a c h i n g reading. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Artl e y , A. S t e r l . Trends and Practices i n Secondary Reading, A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e . Newark, Delaware: Inter-national Reading Association, 1968. Baumann, Henry A., U. Hogan, and C. Green. Reading Instruction  i n the Secondary School. Hew York: Longman's Green, 1961. Best, John W. Research.in Education. Englewood C l i f f s , Hew Jersey: Prentice-Hall Incorporated, 1959-Bond, Guy L., and Eva Bond. Developing Reading i n High  School. Hew York: The Macmillan Company, Bond, Guy L., and M. Tinker. Reading D i f f i c u l t i e s — Their  Diagnosis and Correction. Hew York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 19"6T7 Deverell, A. Frederick. Canadian Bjbliography of Reading  and Literature Instruction. 1760-1959. Vancouver: Copp Clark Publishing Company, i 9 6 0 . Deverell, A. Frederick, and L. P. Buckley. Canadian B j b l i o -gra phy of Reading and Lite r a t u r e Instruction, F i r s t Supplement. Toronto: Copp Clark Publishing Company. 1968. Fay, Leo. C. Doctoral Studies i n Reading. 1919-1960. Bloomington, Indiana: Bureau of Educational Studies and Testing, School of Education, Indiana University, 1964. Guilford, J . P. Fundamental S t a t i s t i c s i n Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965. Hafner, L. Improving Reading i n Secondary School. New York: The Ma,cmilian Company, 1967. K a r l i n , Robert. Teaching Reading i n High School. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964. K a r l i n , Robert (ed.). Teaching Reading i n High School: Selected A r t i c l e s . New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969. 108 Kottmeyer, W. Teacher's Guide f o r Remedial Reading. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959. M a r k s h e f f e l , N. D. B e t t e r Reading i n the Secondary School. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1966. McNemeny, R. A., and V/. Otto. C o r r e c t i v e and Remedial  Teaching. Boston: H o u g h t o n - M i f f l i n , I96T. Smith, N i l a Bant on. American Reading I n s t r u c t i o n . ' Newark, Delaware: I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading A s s o c i a t i o n , 19^5-Strang, Ruth. Dia g n o s t i c Teaching of Reading. Second E d i t i o n . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969. Strang, Ruth, ,C. M. McCullough, and A . E . T r a x l e r . The Improvement of Reading. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. Strang, Ruth. Problems i n the Improvement of Reading i n -High School and Co l l e g e . Lancaster, Pennsylvania: The Science Press P r i n t i n g Company, 1940. Summers, Edward G. Twenty-Year Index — The Reading Teacher. 1949-1969. Newark, Delaware: I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading A s s o c i a t i o n , 1969. Thurstone, L. L., and E. J . Chave. .The Measurement of A t t i t u d e s . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1929« Weiss, J e r r y M. (ed.). Reading i n the Secondary School: A C o l l e c t i o n of Readings. New York: Odyssey Press, 1 9 6 l . Wilson, R. M. Diagn o s t i c and Remedial Reading. Columbus, Ohio: C. E. M e r r i l l Books, 1967. BOOKS: PARTS OP SERIES Schneyer, J . W. " S i g n i f i c a n t Reading Research at the Secondary School L e v e l , " Reading I n s t r u c t i o n i n Secondary Schools. 146-149. Perspectives i n Reading No. 2 . Newark, New Jersey: I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading A s s o c i a t i o n , 1964. Summers, Edward G. (ed.). I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading A s s o c i a t i o n  Conference Proceedings: Reports on Secondary Reading. E r i c - C r i e r Reading Review S e r i e s , Volume 1, B i b l i o . 3 , September, 1967.. 109 PUBLICATIONS OP LEARNED SOCIETIES Carter, Homer L. J . , and Dorothy J . McGinnis. "Some Sugges-tions Growing Out of an Evaluation of Reading Instruction by Secondary Teachers and Their Students," New Concents i n College-Adult Reading, pp. 4 3 - 5 0 . Thirteenth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: National Reading Conference Incorporated, 1964. Gray, W. G. "Nature and Scope .of a Sound Reading Program,11  Reading i n the High School and College, pp. 46-48. Porty-Sevehth Yearbook of the National Society f o r the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. National Council of Teachers of English. The National  Interest and the Continuing Education of Teachers of  English. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : National Council of Teachers of English, 1963. Otto, Wayne. "Junior and Senior High School Teachers' Attitudes Toward Teaching Reading i n the Content Areas," The Psychology of Reading Behaviour, pp. 49-54. Eighteenth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: The National Reading Conference Incorporated, 1969. Whipple, Guy Montrose (ed.). The Twenty-Pourth Yearbook of the National Society f o r the Study of Education. Part I. Bloomington, I l l i n o i s : Public School Publishing Company, 1925. PERIODICALS Applebee, Roger K. "National Study of High School English Programs: A Record of English Teaching To-Day," English  Journal. 55:273-281, March, 1966. Braam, A., and A. Roehm. "Subject Area Teachers' F a m i l i a r i t y With Reading S k i l l s , " - Journal of Developmental Reading, 7:188-196, Spring, l?6T. Burnett, R. ¥. "Reading i n the Secondary School: Issues and Innovations," Journal of Reading. 9 :322-328, A p r i l , 1966. 110 Burton, Dwight L. "Heads Out of the Sand: Secondary Schools Pace the Challenge of" Reading," The Educational Porum. 24 :285-293, March, i 9 6 0 . Canadian Education A s s o c i a t i o n . "Canada: Report on E d u c a t i o n a l Developments i n 1967-68," Canadian Education and Research  Di g e s t , 8:175-185, June, 1 9 6 ^ ' C a w l e t i , Gordon L. "Reading Improvement Programs i n Selected Midwestern High Schools," The Reading Teacher, 17:36-37, September, 1963. "Conferences on Reading," E d u c a t i o n a l C o u r i e r , 26:30-31 , October, 1955-C r i s c u o l o , Nicholas P. " A t t a c k i n g the Reading Problem i n the Secondary School," J o u r n a l of Secondary Education, 43:307-308, November, ±96~8~. "Developments i n Canadian Education: 1968-69," Education  Canada. 9 :43-54, September, 1969. E a r l y , Margaret J . "What Does Research i n Reading Reveal About S u c c e s s f u l Reading Programs?" E n g l i s h J o u r n a l . 58:534-547, A p r i l , 1969. P a r r , Roger C., L a r r y A. H a r r i s , James L. L a f f e y , and C a r l B. Smith. "The Problem V/ith Reading — An Examination of Reading Programs i n Indiana Schools," B u l l e t i n of the School of Education. Indiana U n i v e r s i t y 45:5-92, March, 1969. Geake, R. R. "Michigan High Schools Stress S p e c i a l Reading Program," Michigan E d u c a t i o n a l J o u r n a l . 39:262-263, March, 1961. Kinder, R. P. "State C e r t i f i c a t i o n of Reading Teachers and S p e c i a l i s t s , " J o u r n a l o f Reading, 12 :9-12 ,68-71 , October, 1968. Levine, I s i d o r e . "The" L i m i t s of I n d i v i d u a l Reading," Journa l of Reading, 10:56-61 , December, 1966. l i k e r t , Rensis. "A Technique f o r the Measurement of A t t i t u d e s , " A rchives of Psychology. 140, 1932. McGinnis, Dorothy J . "The P r e p a r a t i o n and R e s p o n s i b i l i t y of Secondary Teachers i n the P i e l d of Reading," The Reading  Teacher. 15 :92-97, November, 1961. I l l Ontario Secondary School Teachers' F e d e r a t i o n . "Who's Where i n Our Secondary Schools?" The B u l l e t i n , Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Volume 49, Bb. 5> November, 1969 P a t t e r s o n , Jean. "A Comparison of Science Research Associates Reading Laboratory Method and the Regular E n g l i s h Course f o r Non-Academic Grade Nine Students R e l a t i v e t o Remedial Reading," Ontario J o u r n a l of Ed u c a t i o n a l Research, 2:191-198, Winter, 1964-19^5. Shannon, J . R. "Percentage__ of Returned Questionnaires i n Reputable E d u c a t i o n a l Research," J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. 42M38-141, 1948. Simmons, J . S. "Who Is Responsible? The Need f o r Q u a l i f i e d S u p e r v i s i o n of the Reading Program," E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , 5 2 : 8 6 - 8 8 , February, ^ 9 6 3 . ENCYCLOPEDIA H a r r i s , T. L . "The Teacher and Reading," Encyclopedia of Edu c a t i o n a l Research. Fourth E d i t i o n , 1085-1087. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1969. MANUALS Baker, P. B. Test A n a l y s i s Package: A Program f o r the CDC l604-3600 Computers. Madison, Wisconsin: Laboratory of Experimental Design, Department of Educ a t i o n a l Psychology, U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, 1966. B j e r r i n g , James H., J . R. H. Dempster, and Ronald H. H a l l . UBC TRIP ( T r i a n g u l a r Regression Package). Vancouver: The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre, 1969. Boyer, Susan, G i l l i a n Starkey, John Campbell, and James H. B j e r r i n g . UBC MVTAB. Vancouver: The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre, 1966. Dempster, J . R. H., and G. E. Starkey. MFAV, A n a l y s i s of Variance. Vancouver': The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre, 1968. 112 UNIVERSITY CALENDARS Calendars of 1969-1970 f o r the f o l l o w i n g u n i v e r s i t i e s were consulted: Brock U n i v e r s i t y , S t. Catherines, Ontario. C a r l e t o n U n i v e r s i t y , Ottawa, Ontario. G-uelph U n i v e r s i t y , Guelph, Ontario. Lakehead U n i v e r s i t y , Thunder Bay, Ontario. L a u r e n t i a n U n i v e r s i t y , Sudbury, Ontario. McMaster U n i v e r s i t y , Hamilton, Ontario. Queen's U n i v e r s i t y , K i ngston, Ontario. Trent U n i v e r s i t y , Peterborough, Ontario. U n i v e r s i t y of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario. U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario. U n i v e r s i t y of Western Ontario, London, Ontario. U n i v e r s i t y of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario. Waterloo Lutheran U n i v e r s i t y , Waterloo, Ontario. York U n i v e r s i t y , Downsview, Ontario. OTHER SOURCES PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCE OP THE AUTHOR C a r l i s l e , J . S., D i r e c t o r , Committee on Advanced Standing, Ontario College of Education. December 3 , 1968. Cavanagh, G., Program Consultant, E n g l i s h , Ontario Department of Education. October 7, 1969. Dando, A. J . , R e g i s t r a r , McArthur College of Education, Queen's U n i v e r s i t y . September 16, 1969. Hardy, Madeline, A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r , Elementary E d L i c a t i o n , Althotise College of Education, The U n i v e r s i t y of Western Ontario. September 16, 1969. l a i r d , J . 0., A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r of E n g l i s h , The College of Education, The U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto. October 10, 1969. Mclnnes, John, D i r e c t o r , language-Learning P r o j e c t , Department of Curriculum, The Ontario I n s t i t u t e f o r Studies i n Education. September 23, 1969. Sutton, H. A., Chief E v a l u a t i o n O f f i c e r , Ontario Department of Education, A p r i l 6, 1970. APPENDIX A THE Q UESTIOMAIRE -USED I U THIS STUDY A SURVEY OF TEACHER ATTITUDES TOWARD TEACHING READING IN HIGH SCHOOLS Instructions to Respondents Part A of this questionnaire requests information on your teaching s ituation and experience, whi le P a r t B and P a r t C con s i s t o f 23 statements related to high school reading. Each statement is accompanied by a s ca le which looks l i ke this: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Uncertain Strongly agree disagree You are asked to respond to each statement by c i rc l i ng an appropriate number. In cases where you agree, c i r c l e either 1 or 2 - the cho ice w i l l depend upon the strength of your opin ion. Similar ly, for disagreement, c i r c l e 5 or 4. Should you f ind yourself unable to express agree-ment or disagreement, k indly c i r c l e 3. P l ea se c i r c l e one number for each statement. P l ea se read al l statements carefu l l y . P l ea se answer a l l statements. It is important that a response is given to a l l statements. It is your personal opinion that is va lued. For that reason, you are requested not to d i scus s this questionnaire with others before answering it. Where poss ib le, it would be appreciated if respondents could return th i s questionnaire on the day it is received. Answer ing requires only 10 minutes and a stamped return envelope is enc losed. i T H A N K YOU FOR YOUR C O - O P E R A T I O N ! THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED IH THIS STUDY 116 PART A Please supply the appropriate information by following the instructions for each statement. A . Check one. Male Q Female \^\ B. C i r c l e the name of the subject area in wh ich most of your teach ing time is spent th is year. 01 E n g l i s h 02 Math 03 H i s tory 04 . S c i ence 05 Geography 06 L a n g u a g e s 08 B u s i n e s s and Commerce 09 Home E c o n o m i c s 10 Art 11 M u s i c 12 P h y s i c a l E d . and Hea l th 13 G u i d a n c e 07 Industrial Arts 14 L i b r a r y 15 Other. Speci fy C . C i r c l e the grade level (s ) taught during your career. K 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 D. C i r c l e the grade level (s ) which you teach th is year. 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 E. Including this year, for how many years have you taught? C i r c l e one. Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 5 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 more than 15. F. Have you ever taken a course in e i ther or both of remedial reading or deve lopmenta l reading? Check one. Y e s • No • G. Is Read ing Instruction offered in your s choo l ? Check one. Y e s • No • Don't Know • H. P l e a s e print the name of the county or d i s t r i c t in which you teach . _ _ P R O C E E D T O P A R T B DO NOT WRITE BELOW A E . B F C G . D H . } PART B The following are statements of opinion. They are generalized statements. As representations of opinion, they do not necessarily represent facts. Your agreement or disagreement will be the result of your personal experience. Please circle the answer which first impresses you. Remember, be-cause we are dealing with opinions, these can be neither right nor wrong answers. What you think counts — answer according to what yoy believe, rather than according to what you think you should believe. Please circle one answer for each statement. U s i n g the fo l l owing Rat ing Sca le , c i r c l e the number which represents your c h o i c e . 1 2 Strongly agree Uncer ta in 1 v : Subject teachers should t e a c h the reading and study s k i l l s of their sub jec t s . 2. Weaknesses in student read ing should be remedied through -V deve lopmenta l reading programs. Strongly di sagree 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Any schoo l subject u t i l i z i n g print-ed symbols i nvo l ve s reading s k i l l s 1 2 3 4 5 Ideal ly, the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of s e l e c t i n g s p e c i f i c goa ls for a reading program l ies with the , -reading consu l tant and schodl. 1 * administrator. 1 2 3 4 5 6.fv '7. T e a c h e r s of all high schoo l sub-jects should take i n - se r v i ce tra in ing on how to teach reading s k i l l s re levant to their s ub jec t s . 1 2 3 4 5 A deve lopmenta l reading program can provide most h igh schoo l students with read ing ins t ruct ion adequate to their needs . 1 2 3 4 5 High s c h o o l s with s e r v i c e s of tra ined reading s p e c i a l i s t s shou ld rely upon them to teach n e c e s s a r y reading s k i l l s . 1 2 3 4 - 5 Us ing the fo l lowing Rat ing S c a l e , c i r c l e the number which represents your c h o i c e . 1 2 Strongly agree Uncer ta in 5 Strongly d i sagree T e a c h i n g reading s k i l l s in ter feres with the subject t e a c h e r ' s primary aim of deve lop ing s tuden t s ' know-ledge of content in each s choo l subject. 1 T o accommodate s tudents at different l eve l s of read ing a b i l i t y , all teachers should present le s sons and textual mater ia l s at several leve l s of d i f f i c u l t y . 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Standardized reading survey tes t s should be used in d i a g n o s i s of indiv idual student w e a k n e s s e s . 1 2 3 4 5 In d iagnos i s of ind iv idua l weak-nesses in reading, s t andard i zed tests are preferable to informal methods. 1 2 3 4 5 T h e soc io -economic env i ronment of a student i n f l uence s h is l ang -uage fac i l i ty in h igh s c h o o l . 1 2 . 3 4 5 Content of reading materia l and reading purpose are fac tors in-f luenc ing cho i ce of read ing rate. 1 2 3 4 5 L o w reading ach ievement ident i f ies low mental c a p a c i t y . 1 2 3 4 5 T h e students in s choo l s w i th in any community tend to have s imi lar leve l s of read ing a b i l i t y . 1 2 3 4 5 P L E A S E P R O C E E D T O P A R T C PART C The statements of this section provide stimuli for you to think about your own school and teaching situation. Again, these statements do not neces-sarily imply fact. What you think (or guess) is true, is important. Please circle one response for each statement. C O N T I N U E D O N R E V E R S E S IDE THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THIS STUDY Us ing the fo l lowing Rating Sca le , c i r c l e the number which represents your c h o i c e . 1 2 Strongly agree Uncer ta in 5 Strongly d i sagree 16. It appears to me that the majority of my students read e f f i c i en t l y . 1 2 3 4 5 17. T h e cur r i cu la of my school c o m -monly require students to read to gather information and ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 18- I be l ieve there are students in my school who exper ience fa i lure or drop out of school because of their low reading achievement l e v e l s . 1 2 3 4 5 19. Increased use of aud io -v i sua l a ids in my school has reduced the need for students to read. 1 2 3 4 5 20. It appears to me that students of my school have a need for reading instruct ion. 1 2 3 4 5 21. There appear to be wide d i f ferences among the leve l s of reading ab i l i ty of students in my c l a s s e s . 1 2 3 4 5 22. In my schoo l , teachers of subjects other than E n g l i s h (or Language Arts) make an effort to improve the reading achievement of their students. 1 2 3 4 5 23. If I knew more about teach ing reading s k i l l s , I could help my students to improve their learning in my subject area. 1 2 3 4 5 Please check to see if you have responded to all 23 statements. A stamped, addressed envelope is enclosed. THANK YOU 117 TABLE XXI ITEM DISTRIBUTION ACCORDING TO TOPICS POUND IN PART B OP THE PINAL QUESTIONNAIRE Topic Item numbers Theory of reading i n s t r u c t i o n 12,13*14,15 Methodology of reading i n s t r u c t i o n 4,6,7,10,11 Teacher r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t e a c h i n g reading 1,2,3,5,8,9 Terminology of reading i n s t r u c t i o n * 2,6,10,11,14 *This t o p i c overlaps the other three t o p i c s . Item 2, f o r example, r e l a t e s t o r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r reading i n s t r u c t i o n , but understanding t h i s item depends h e a v i l y upon knowledge of the terms used i n the statement. 118 TABLE XXII DISTRIBUTION OE TRUE AND FALSE ITEMS IN PARTS B Al© C OP THE PINAL QUESTIONNAIRE Part C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Item numbers B True statements. 1 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 1 2 , 1 3 B F a l s e statements ' 2,4,7 ,8,10,11,14 ,15 C True statements 17 , 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 1 , 2 3 C . Pa l s e statements 16,19,-22 APPENDIX B 120 SOME UNSOLICITED COMMENTS OF RESPONDENTS 1. Written i n response to questionnaire item 9: "Got too many other problems." "Too general to answer." "Ideally, yes — but p r a c t i c a l ? " "Yes, but i n 45 minutes?" " I f you.have 35-40 pupils?" "Streaming counteracts t h i s . " "Impossible I" "How do you do i t ? " "Many connotations to t h i s ? " "Makes the s i t u a t i o n too complex." 2 . Written i n response to questionnaire item 23: "I know a f a i r b i t about i t , but I have no time." "I know something about teaching reading s k i l l s and do." "I could, but I f e e l t h i s primarily i s the r e s p o n s i b i l -i t y of the English and Language Arts teachers." "I also need the time to be with them i n d i v i d u a l l y . " " I taught i t and i t doesn't make any difference." "But does extent of curriculum content permit?" "But why me? I've enough to do already, thank you very much." 3 . Some general comments: "Speaking of reading a b i l i t y — I found t h i s question-naire to be a b i t taxing a l l by i t s e l f . " 121 "We should spend our time and money at the primary not the secondary l e v e l of education." '»—I wish you were more i n t e r e s t e d i n some area of seri o u s study. Reading i s the most researched phase of education, I would guess. And to very l i t t l e purpose — " "Reading s k i l l s are learned before they get t o High s c h o o l . " " I f e e l that to do an e f f i c i e n t job one must be an expert i n the f i e l d . Otherwise don't meddle with what you don't know." "Detection and remedy of reading defects should be of primary concern at the elementary l e v e l '• '• " "You could have explored reading a b i l i t y e n t e r i n g Gra de 9 • • " "A p o o r l y w r i t t e n survey '. Author needs course on communication s k i l l s . " " I t would be i d e a l f o r a l l subject teachers t o teach reading s k i l l s but because of the pressures of covering courses and keeping the tempo of one's lessons f a i r l y l i v e l y t o hold student i n t e r e s t , the i d e a l i s simply u n r e a l i s t i c . While h e l p i n g a slower student w i t h reading s k i l l s i n c l a s s , the f a s t e r readers would 'tune out 1 " 122 "Elementary t e a c h i n g should be more e f f e c t i v e and l e s s experimental. Too many reach the secondary l e v e l w i t h a poor grasp of grammatical E n g l i s h . " "Stress or emphasis on te a c h i n g reading s k i l l s w i l l l o s e the m a j o r i t y of students who can be considered e f f e c t i v e readers." "A v i t a l area of weakness would appear to he that of i n f e r e n c e . Developing inference (or value judgement) s k i l l s r e q u i r e s the teacher t o make value judgments about the students' r e p l i e s . I t i s e a s i e r t o r e l y on 'information', ' f o l l o w i n g d i r e c t i o n ' s k i l l s which are o b j e c t i v e l y scored. This i s e i t h e r due t o ' l a z i n e s s ' , l a c k of know-ledge, or f e a r on the part of teachers." "This survey i s l o n g overdue, yet we have always acknowledged that many c h i l d r e n cannot read e f f e c t i v e l y . With a l l the l a t e s t equipment at our f i n g e r t i p s t o a s s i s t or overcome reading d i s a b i l i t i e s , changes i n a t t i t u d e s have not r e a l l y occurred. The t r e a d - m i l l of curriculum and t i m e - t a b l i n g do not a l l o w teachers t o stop f o r e v a l u a t i o n (accurate) and supportive teaching to those who have conceptual problems. This i s the crux of the problem. . ." APPENDIX C 124 TABLE XXIII VARIMAX ROTATION ANALYSIS EOR FACTOR ANALYSIS OF DATA-FOR FIFTEEN ITEMS IN PART B OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE Item Factors numbers I II III IV V VI 1 •0.1265 -0.7415 -0.0122 0.0102 - 0 . 0 2 5 0 "0.1171 2 0.5230 - 0 . 0 5 0 4 -0.0709 0.1866 - 0 . 0 5 9 4 0.4124 3 0.0030 -0.14H -0 .0135 0.1800 -0.0371 0.7788 4 0.6003 0.0719 0.0583 • -0.1054 -0.1193 -0.0118 5 0.0620 -0.7239 0.0464 0.0983 -0.0589 0.0782 6 O .6996 -0.1216 - 0 . 0 0 8 7 0.0506 -0 .0455 0.0175 7 •0.6223 0.3541 - 0 . 0 3 3 4 0.0330 -0.1601 -O . I 8 3 9 8 0.0159 0.6753 0.2189 O.O563 -0.0591 0.0610 9 0.1553 -0.4004 0.1341 0.3735 0.0538 -0.3731 10 0.1814 -0.0412 - 0 . 0 3 6 1 0.1579 -0 .7909 0.0832 11 0.0793 o.oo4i 0.0226 • -0.0276 -0.8642 -0 .0060 12 •0.0438 0.0231 0.0304 0.7162 -0.1741 0.0834 13 0.0579 - 0 . 0 3 5 4 -0.1343 0.7250 0.0453 0.1168 14 0.0217 0.0890 0.7397 • -O .2325 0.0049 0.1900 15 •0.0219 0.0234 0.7139 0.0955 0.0092 • -O .2623 Percentage of t o t a l variance acc ount e d f o r by each fact o r 14.1815 13.7252 8.1423 7.1910 7.2920 6.5130 125 TABLE XXIV VARIMAX ROTATION ANALYSIS FOR FACTOR ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR EIGHT ITEMS OF PART C OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE numbers I II JJJ 16 -0.6873 0.2928 0.1116 17 0.0593 0.7945 0.1681 18 0.5520 0.2947 0.0062 19 -O.OO35 -0 .6082 0.1757 20 0.7954 ^0.0120 0.0182 21 0.7319 O.O769 0.0292 22. -0.1122 -O.O968 0.8684 23 0.4048 • 0.1249 0.4195 Percentage of t o t a l variance accounted ' for by each factor 26.5660 15.0602 12.5371 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0102075/manifest

Comment

Related Items