Open Collections

An investigation of reading and conceptual tempo measures

University of British Columbia

This study gathered empirical data concerning the requirements of tasks utilized to measure reading in relation to the requirements of tasks utilized to measure conceptual tempo. The administration of the Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFFT) indicates either a reflective or an impulsive conceptual tempo. In order to investigate the possible relationship between conceptual tempo and reading, all subjects, impulsives and reflectives, were presented with reading tasks that approximated the MFFT in problem solving demands, and with reading demands that did not, i.e. some tasks with similar distractors and some with dissimilar distractors. The influence of the difficulty of the material was also investigated. The study employed both word recognition and comprehension tasks. One hundred and sixty-eight grade two students in New Westminister, British Columbia were administered the MFFT and the eight reading tasks. Second language learners and special education students were not included in the data analysis. The sample was identified as having middle socio-economic status by teachers and principals. The data were analyzed in a one-way MANOVA with conceptual tempo constituting the single independent variable. Impulsives and reflectives were compared across all the reading tasks in order to identify significant differences between the two groups. An alternate analysis of the data, a 2x2x2 MANOVA with repeated measures, was also performed. The dependent variables were comprehension and word recognition. The multivariate analysis of variance for conceptual tempo was found to be significant F (8/88) = 2.976, p = .005. In the word recognition tasks, when the distractors were similar, an effect of conceptual tempo is apparent, F (1 ) = 5-384, p = .021, F (1 ) = 5.997, p = .016. When the distractors were dissimilar, no effect of conceptual tempo is apparent, F (1 ) = 2.523, p = .111, F (1) = .001, p = .930. In the comprehension tasks, impulsives made more errors on both the similar and dissimilar tasks. Overall, the impulsives made more errors than the reflectives in reading tasks having similar distractors and impulsives made as many as or more errors than reflectives in reading tasks having dissimilar distractors. The results of the 2x2x2 MANOVA were similar to the one-way MANOVA.

Text

2010-04-19

For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.

http://hdl.handle.net/2429/23849

Language and Literacy Education

University of British Columbia

Graduate