- ". —————— — - ..——.—_——————— fi— , ~~v —— ————— -v-____.____ v _— ,
' v ‘. . 5"“.‘"‘m-"-§-mchQOOMWWMO‘QWV‘IW-«‘N‘QO~‘.--‘..---o-M\h- “.4“‘\\“0“<‘“-°‘“‘V“9°.W‘-nw—““"v—“.~ ‘thfii‘VvYV‘. . _ ‘ ‘

A

 

 

:3“.

.|
\

amInsuss'zrunfizzeténewI.w

TI

 

gizggIIIIIIItI

 

 

 

 

     
 
   

  

IMPROVEMENT 0F READING SKILLS IN ADOLESCENTS
Thesis for the Degree of M. A
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY .
MITCHELL FLEISCHER
1976

.._ .- _ «w ,.
“'t."-.'-'I ‘ ‘ - ‘_ > . -¢r.r"p,..-- .-
.3 .0".‘" "-'.“‘.\t\\\‘\ 0“ c‘ I ' 4--,(o-cs r '

-o-o--~-o--

   

" IIII'IIIIIIIIIIII‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

3 [293 10704 084

 

ABSTRACT

IMPROVEMENT OF READING SKILLS
IN ADOLESCENTS

BY

Mitchell Fleischer

A six week reading program utilizing individualized,
programmed instructional materials was combined with a
parental intervention in an attempt to improve the reading
skills of adolescent students from a poor, rural area of
Michigan. Students were randomly assigned to reading pro-
gram alone or parental involvement conditions. -A group of
non-volunteers for the reading program was used for a con-
trol group. The parental intervention consisted of a
series of letters sent to the parents during the course of
the program informing them of their child's progress and
detailing ways in which they could help. In addition the_
parents also received a visit from the experimenter about
midway through the program during which the material
covered in the letters was explained in greater detail.

'Students were tested both before and after the
reading program on reading achievement, academic locus of
control, and perceived parental expectations. Grades were

obtained for students in the non-control conditions. An

Mitchell Fleischer

analysis of covariance indicated that the reading program
had a significant effect on achievement. The parental
intervention had a marginal (non-significant) effect on
English grades. Significant correlations were found
between academic achievement and locus of control. When
the correlations were broken down by sex and experimental
condition the experimental groups were shown to have a dif—
ferent pattern of correlations than the control group. For
the control group males had a high positive correlation
between achievement and acceptance of responsibility for
success, while females had a high correlation between
achievement and acceptance of responsibility for failure.
In the experimental groups males had a positive correlation
between achievement and total locus of control, while
females had a negative correlation.

It was concluded that reading programs utilizing
individualized, programmed instruction could be effective
with disadvantaged adolescents. School systems that
adOpted these techniques would have a relatively high
probability of success if used with such students. Sugges-
tions were made for further research on parental'inter-

ventions with adolescents.

IMPROVEMENT OF READING SKILLS

IN ADOLESCENTS

BY

Mitchell Fleischer

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1976

To Carol

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank Dr. Charles
Johnson, the chairman of my committee, without whose
patience and guidance this thesis would not have been
written. Dr. Johnson allowed me to work with him on a
reading program he was starting and helped me get my own
research started. His guidance and commentary on the
written portion of this research was invaluable. Dr. Robert
Calsyn also provided much needed encouragement and assis-
tance without which I would have been hard pressed to
complete this. I would also like to thank the other member
of my committee, Dr. Louis Tornatzky.

This research could not have been done without the
c00peration of the teachers, students, parents, and school
districts that were involved. My special thanks go to Mrs.
Mary Kempton, who, in addition to teaching, helped in many
different ways to include finding transcripts, driving all
over the county to test some kids, and just being encour-
aging. The school districts that cooperated so well by
providing students and classrooms were Chippewa Hills, Big

Rapids, Reed City, and Morley-Stanwood.

iii

Last but not least my thanks go to my wife, Carol,
who helped in a thousand different ways and encouraged me
in more.

This research was supported by Grant No. 50572 from

the Office of Economic Opportunity to Dr. Charles Johnson.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Effect of Student's Background . . . . . 3

Locus of Control. , . . . . . . . . . 9

Methods of Instruction. . . . . . 12

Intervention with Older Students . . . . l4

Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . 17

II. MTHOD. O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 18

Subjects . . . . . . . . . . 18

Instructional Resources . . . . . . . 19

Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Instructors. . . . . . . . . . . 20

Materials . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Dependent Measures . . . . . . . . 22

Reading Program Procedure . . . . . . 23

Parental Intervention Procedure . . . . 24

Control Condition. . . . . . . . . 26

III. RESULTS I O O O O O O O O O O O O 27

Equivalence of Treatment Groups. . . . . 27

Effect of Experimental Conditions . . . . 28

Speed. . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Accuracy. . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . 31

English Grades. . . . . . . . . . 34

Personality. . . . . . . . . . . 36

Chapter Page

IV. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
APPENDICES
-Appendix

A. Perceived Parental Expectations Scale. . . 56

B. Intellectual Achievement Responsibility

scale. 0 O I O O O O O O O O 0 58
C. Letters to Parents . . . . . . . . . 63
D. Script for Visits with Parents . . . . . 70

vi

Table

l.

10.

11.

LIST OF TABLES

Summary of ANOVA of Pre-test Data for All
Groups. . . . . . . . z . . .

Analysis of Covariance--Post-test Speed
Score by Experimental Condition with
Pre-test Speed Score as Covariate. . .'

Post-test Mean Scores (with Standard
Deviation in Parentheses) . . . . .

Analysis of Covariance--Post-test Speed
Score by Experimental Condition (Pooled)
with Pre-test Speed Score as Covariate .

Analysis of Covariance-—Post-test Accuracy
Score by Experimental Condition with
Pre-test Accuracy Score as Covariate. .

Accuracy Post-test Mean Scores (with
Standard Deviations in Parentheses) . .

Analysis of Covariance--Post-test Accuracy
Score by Experimental Conditions (Pooled)
with Pre-test Accuracy as Covariate . .

Analysis of Covariance-—Post-test Compre-
hension Score by Experimental Condition
with Pre-test Comprehension as Covariate

Comprehension Post-test Mean Scores (with
Standard Deviations in Parentheses) . .

Analysis of Covariance--Post-test (Compre-
hension Score by Experimental Condition
~(Pooled) with Pre-test Comprehension as
Covariate. . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Covariance--Post-test English

Grades by Experimental Condition with
Pre-test English Grades as Covariate. .

vii

Page

28

3O

30

30

32

32

32

33

33

33

35

Table Page

12. Mean English Grades Post-test (with Standard
Deviation in Parentheses). . . . . . . . 35

13. Correlations Between IAR and Achievement
Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

14. Correlations Between IAR and Achievement
Measures for Males and Females . . . . . . 38

15. Correlations Between IAR and Achievement for
Males and Females (Reading Program
Subjects Only) . . . . . . . . . . . 40

16. Correlations Between IAR and Achievement for
Males and Females (Control Condition
Subjects Only) . . . . . . . . . . . 41

1?. Correlations Between IAR, GPA, and Parental
Expectations Scale . . . .- . . . . . . 42

18. Correlations Between Attendance and
Achievement Measures . . . . . . . . . 44

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

One of the major problems facing our educational
institutions today is the fact that a large number of stu-
dents cannot read at a skill level commensurate with their
grade. Precise figures are not available, but there are
estimates claiming that from 10 percent to 20 percent of
American adults are disabled readers (Peterson, 1972). The
estimates cover such a range because the definition of
"disabled" varies. In some cases it may mean someone who is
simply not reading up to his or her grade level, while in
others it may only include those who are three or more
years behind. Suffice it to say that there is clearly a
problem no matter what definitions are employed. Reading
difficulties pose problems for both the individual who
possesses them and for the society in which he lives. The
ability to read is the key to success in our present educa-
tional system, and success in the educational system is
closely related to success later in life. Obviously the
inability to read a want-ad or job application form will
severely hinder a person in his pursuit of employment.

Data from the 1970 census clearly point this out. For the

male population over twenty—five, 87 percent of those with a
twelfth grade education were employed, but only 65 percent
of those with an eighth grade education were. The figures
look even worse for those with less schooling. There is
also a clear correlation between years of education and
income, and between income and children's reading levels
(Title I, 1968).

While the effects of inadequate reading ability on
the individual is clear there is also a considerable effect
on the society as a whole. Levin (1972) showed that there
are billions of dollars lost to the economy each year due
to lack of education. He estimates that 5-10 percent of the
economic loss due to crime and welfare can be directly
attributed to inadequate education. This means a dollar
loss of from four to eight billion dollars per year. The
problems cover a much wider area than just economic losses.
Levin showed that there was a correlation between voting
activity and years of schooling. For whites over twenty-
five, only 64 percent of those with eight years of school
voted in the 1968 presidential election, while 76 percent
of those with twelve years of school voted. Certainly the
problem goes beyond mere participation in the voting booth.
For the democratic system to remain (or become) effective
it requires an educated, informed citizenry. Citizens who
cannot read can be neither educated nor informed.

The problem addressed in the current study is the

question of what can be done about these reading problems.

A considerable body of work (Coleman, 1966; Dave, 1963;
Wolf, 1964; Smith, 1972; and Mayeske, 1973) indicates that
student personality and background factors are the key
elements in determining achievement. In spite of this
work, the typical response to reading difficulties has been
to implement a reading program utilizing materials and
instruction of some sort within the school setting exclu-
sively. While few would argue that improved instructional
techniques are necessary, it seems clear that most investi-
gators have ignored the personality and environmental
determinants that are the keys to achievement. The present
investigator takes the position that it is possible to make
changes in one or both of these individual factors, and to
thereby bring about an improvement in a student's achieve-
ment level. In the present study three classes of variables
were either manipulated or measured in order to determine
their effect on achievement. These were personality
variables (notably Locus of Control), home environment

variables, and reading program variables.

Effect of Student's Background

 

The Title I report (1968) indicates that reading
difficulties seem to be concentrated among people from
lower economic groups. One possible reason for this con-
centration might be that poor peoPle are less intelligent
and consequently cannot learn to read at expected levels.

Their inability to read adequately therefore results in

their poverty. Another notion might be that students from
low socio-economic groups live in impoverished school
districts. As a consequence they have inadequate facili-
ties and less qualified teachers than better endowed school
districts. Until recently little research has been con-
ducted on these concepts. A series of studies have found
that factors within the student's background may be the
crucial determinants of academic success.

In a pair of related studies Dave (1963) and Wolf
(1964) found that certain environmental process variables
were strongly related to academic achievement and IQ. The
variables they examined were achievement press, language
models, academic guidance, activeness of the family, intel-
lectuality in the home, and work habits of the family.
Dave discovered that these environmental process variables
had a much stronger relationship with achievement than did
IQ or socio-economic variables such as parents' income or
education levels. The implication of Dave's study is that
poverty or a parent's lack of education do not automatically
determine a child's level of achievement. What happens in
the home is far more important than anything else. Working
with the same group of fifth graders as Dave, Wolf reported
that the same group of environmental process variables were
highly correlated with IQ. Since it would be unreasonable
to assume that a child's IQ has much influence on his home
environment, Wolf's study indicates that the environment in

some way determines what the child's IQ will be. Both

studies clearly highlight the importance of the home

environment as a determining factor in both achievement and

intelligence.

The Coleman Report (1966) provided further evidence
that background factors were the key variables when looking
at determinants of achievement. Coleman found that there
were two primary areas that accounted for the differences
in achievement levels within a school. These were student
background factors and student attitudes. Eight background
factors were of noticeable importance:

. Urbanism of background and migration

Parents' education

Structural integrity of the home

Smallness of the family

Items in the home (e.g., TV, refrigerator, auto,

etc.)

. Reading material in the home (e.g., encyclopedia,
books, newspapers)

. Parents' interest in the child

. Parents' educational desires for the child (p. 298)

ox LII-thI-J

ooq

These background factors accounted for about 25 percent of
the within school variance in achievement. The most impor-
tant student attitude factor was the extent to which the
student felt that he had some control over his own destiny
(Locus of control). Between 35 and 40 percent of the
within school variance is accounted for when the effects of
both background factors and locus of control are combined.
Smith (1972) by correcting some errors that Coleman made,
found that the effect of background factors had been under-
estimated; that is, background was even more important than

Coleman had thought. Mayeske et a1. (1973), in another

study using Coleman's data also confirmed the importance of
background in determining achievement levels.

Other research has focused on specific parent
behaviors as they relate to achievement. Working with pre-
schoolers in the Head Start program, Hess (1969) reported I;
that there was a number of parental behavior factors which
correlated with achievement. These included interest and
involvement with the child's activities, diffuse intellec-
tual stimulation, parents having high regard for the child,
and pressure for self-reliance. Gordon (1969) and Schein-
feld (1969) also reported that similar factors were related
to achievement.

The previous discussion has provided evidence to
show that a number of home and family background variables
are important and possibly causal factors in achievement.
Considering the importance of these factors, it is clear
that they must be considered whenever an attempt is made to
improve achievement. While a considerable amount of work
has been done on reading programs that focus on the child
as isolated within the school setting, they have shown very
limited success. Rarely does a program enable a child to
actually catch up to his peers (Office of Education, 1972;
Mich. Dept. of Education, 1971).

A few programs have attempted to help the child
both with a reading program and with home involvement that
has some effect on the variables described by Dave (1963)

and Coleman (1966). Hawkridge (1968), in his review of the

compensatory education literature, noted that parental
involvement was a component of a number of successful pro-
grams for pre-school and elementary children. A few of
these programs, notably the School and Home Program of
Flint, Michigan, and the Pre-School Program of Fresno seem
to have actually affected some of the background variables.
The Pre-School Program in Fresno attempted to have at least
one parent from each child's home participate once a week
as a parent volunteer in the classroom. There were also
parent-teacher meetings twice per month. Parents who could
not attend the meetings were kept informed by bulletins,
letters, and phone calls. The School and Home Program in
Flint specifically involved working with parents to help
improve a child's achievement. Parent were given a specific

-list of activities for the home:

H

Provide a quiet period at home each day for the

child to study

Read regularly to the child

Read regularly in the presence of the child

Show interest in the child's work

Prevent school aged child's work from being

destroyed by pre-schoolers

6. Have paper and pencils available in the home for
school work

7. Get the child enough food and sleep prior to school
days

8. Remind the child about school responsibilities

U'IubLQN
O 0

Teachers held regular monthly meetings with parents in order
to reinforce the activities on this list.

Most of the other proqrams described by Hawkridge
that involved parents involved them in a superficial manner,

as in advisory or administrative roles in which frequently

only a few parents were involved. While such a system
provides for parental input into the educational process
(certainly a positive move) it does nothing to change the
atmosphere in the child's home. A more recent example of
this situation is the Federal Title I compensatory educa-
tion programs (National Advisory Council, 1975), which
must, by law, include some provisions for "parent involve-
ment." This has been interpreted to mean that "parent
councils" must be created. These almost always turn out to
be simple advisory boards.

In a series of studies, Brookover and his students
(1965, 1967) used parent meetings in an attempt to improve
achievement. Brookover felt that self-concept of academic
ability was a key variable in determining a child's
achievement. He conceived of it as both an intervening and
threshold variable; that is, it is a necessary but not
sufficient condition for academic success. Brookover
attempted to manipulate self-concept by having group meet?
ings with parents at which he tried to change the parents'
expectations for the child and thereby to affect the child's
self-concept. While he was successful at changing the
children's self-concept ratings, he was not able to have a
significant effect on their grades. One reason for this
may have been that while he did provide an avenue for self-
concept enhancement, he made no attempt to change any of the
other conditions that had resulted in academic failure. To

summarize Brookover's study, he took children who were

behind their classes academically and raised their self-
concepts of academic ability. The children had still
gained no new knowledge that would enable them to catch up
with the rest of their classmates.

The present study attempted to involve parents in
a manner similar to the manner they were involved in the
School and Home Program in Flint. Parents were involved
in conjunction with a reading program that provided an

avenue for the children to improve their skills.

Locus of Control

 

One of the factors that Coleman (1966) reported as
highly related to achievement was Locus of Control. This
personality factor, first discussed by Rotter (1966) has
been studied by many investigators with a View toward its
effect on academic achievement. The main premise under-
lying the concept of Locus of Control is that some people
feel more personally responsible for the events that occur
around them. This is referred to as an internal locus of
control, since events are perceived as emanating from
within the individual. PeOple with an external locus feel
that outside forces rule their lives, that they have little
or no control over the events happening to them. In
general, most authors feel that being "internal" is the
preferable locus, the argument being that if a person feels
he has control over the events occurring in his life he will

be more likely to take direct personal action when he has a

10

problem. If an external person has a problem he is more
likely to wait for the controlling outside forces to solve
the problem. DeCette, Wolk, and Soucar (1972) argue that
the external orientation may actually be adaptive under
certain circumstances, such as when failure is inevitable.
Such circumstances could easily occur in a situation of a
child with many of the background factors that prognosti-
cate failure and who does poorly in school. Such a child
might learn to view school as a situation of inevitable
failure. The development of an external locus of control
in such a situation could help prevent the formation of a
dangerously low self-concept.

Evidence for DeCette, Wolk, and Soucar's point has
been reported by Battle and Rotter (1963) and by Crandall,
Katkovsky, and Crandall (1965). Both studies found that
there was a correlation between social class and locus of
control, with higher S.E.S. children being more internal.
Another study (Clifford & Cleary, 1972) showed that an
internal orientation was related to both achievement and
1.0. One possible explanation for this phenomenon may have
been found by Phares (1965) who concluded that internals
and externals differ in both their attentiveness to and
recall of material that is immediately present in the
environment. A later study (Davis & Phares, 1967) reported
a difference between internals and externals in the degree
to which they actively sought additional relevant information

in order to solve a problem. Both internals and externals

11

received the same amount of materials, but the internals
utilized more of it.

An interesting locus of control scale has been
developed by Crandall, Katkovsky, and Crandall (1965).
Their Intellectual Achievement Responsibility (IAR) scale
measures locus of control in two ways. It measures respon-
sibility for success (1+) and responsibility for failure
(I-) and it measures these for academic situations only.
Since the correlation between the two subscales is only
about .5 to .6 Crandall et al.'s distinction between
responsibility for successes and failures may be important.
Thus, there may be children who are internal with regard to
failure and external with regard to success. Similarly
there may be individuals who are internal with regard to
success and external in regard to failure. Messer (1972)
while confirming Clifford and Cleary's finding that internal
orientation correlates with grades and achievement, found
that males with high I+ (accepts responsibility for success)
and females with high I- (accepts responsibility for
failure) yielded the highest correlations with achievement.
In a study of academic cheating by Johnson and Gormly
(1972) females with high I- cheated more than other girls.
IAR.made no difference in cheating among the males in the
study. Clearly sex is an important factor to be considered
when discussing locus of control as measured by the IAR

scale.

12

To a great extent the above discussion has referred
to correlations, from which no causal relationships can
usually be inferred. However, Calsyn (1973) using the
technique of cross-lagged panal analysis has determined
what he calls "predominant causes" by reanalyzing the data
from several studies. He found that for males locus of
control was a predominant cause of academic achievement.
There was no such effect for females. Based upon these
findings it would seem that a profitable approach would be
to attempt to improve a child's locus of control (i.e.,

make it more internal) as a part of the overall program.

Methods of Instruction

 

An effective program to help children who have
reading difficulties should include both a component to
effect some changes on the home background variables of
the child and a component that will directly assist him in
improving his reading level. While not a great deal of
research has been done to discover what affects the home
background, a considerable amount has been done to deter-
mine the most effective methods of teaching reading. Two‘
techniques that have been considered to by highly effective
are programmed instruction and individualized instruction.
Programmed instruction is usually associated with teaching
machines or various forms of self-instruction manuals where
the student studies small instructional blocks of materials,

answers some questions and receives immediate reinforcement

13

for correct answers. As Lumsden (1974) has pointed, "pro-
grammed instruction is not, by itself, individualized.
Each individual may benefit from some particular combination
of programs and/or instructional method." (p. 146). The key
to programmed instruction, whether it be by the use of
teaching machines or a programmed book that the student
uses himself, is that it frees the teacher to float from
student to student, as help is needed (Cohen, 1965). This
results effectively in a one-to-one teacher to student
ratio, which can then result in truly individualized
instruction. Cohen feels that individualized instruction is
the most effective educational technique because (1) the
content of learning is adapted to the individual's needs;
(2) the level of content fits the individual's capability
and level of achievement; (3) the speed of teaching is
adjusted to the individual's own pace; and (4) the fre-
quency of the student's response to the teaching stimuli
is intensified.

Individualized instruction methods can be especially
suited for use by disadvantaged children. Riessman (1962)
has pointed out that "the deprived are more concerned with
what might be termed functional reSponsibility, rather than
symbolic training for the future" (p. 42). He also points
out that many so-called "slow learners" may actually be
just that, slow, rather than not having the capability to
learn, they just may be slower than the others in picking

it up. Programmed, individualized instruction should be the

14

appropriate technique for such a person, since it tends to
deal with specific, concrete skills and moves at whatever
pace the student is capable of attaining.

An example of a programmed instructional technique
that has been highly effective with "deprived" students is
the Reading Attainment System (Grolier, 1967). In a study
involving high school aged boys who were incarcerated in a
boys training school (Gormly & Nittoli, 1971), improvements
of over one year in reading level were attained from a
program using the Reading Attainment System (RAS) for only
six weeks. Johnson (1974), also using the Reading Attain-
ment System, achieved similar gains using a group of high

school aged boys from a Manpower training proqram.

Intervention with Older Students

 

The preceding discussion has emphasized the need to
make changes in the home environment as a necessary step
toward the improvement of academic skills. Some questions
that are related to this point have not yet been answered.
When is the best time to make these changes and when is it
too late to intervene? Probably there would be little
argument that the changes should be made prior to birth.

A 1arge_number of prenatal and early childhood programs
exist that are attempting to do juSt that. However, the
problem cannot be avoided that there presently exists and
will probably always exist large number of older children

(and adults for that matter) who lack adequate academic

15

skills. Thus, the question remains, when is it too late to
intervene?

As mentioned previously, Hawkridge (1968) said that
parental intervention could be an effective technique when
used with elementary and pre-school children. He could
make no reference about older students because none of the
studies included in his review had attempted to use parental
intervention with such a population. One possible reason
for this may be that most investigators feel that children
should start to "catch up" early in their school years, or
before it is too late. A study by the Stanford Research
Institute (1973) points out that while little work has been
done with older children in compensatory education it can
be very useful. The study indicated that many children may
not be ready to read at the usual age, but often are able to
make normal progress when started a few years later. Unfor-
tunately in the normal school setting such children simply
fall behind and are rarely able to catch up with their
peers. Brookover et al. (1965) showed that while peers
gain increasing importance with age, parents are still the
most significant academic others for high school age
students. For a group of tenth grade students Erickson
(1969) found that parental expectations were highly corre-
lated with achievement, although this was more important
for males than for females.

Since there have been few reported studies involving

the use of parental intervention with older children, the

16

present study attempted just that. Parents of junior and
senior high school students were involved in such a way
as to affect variables in the home environment.

The current study combined proqrammed reading
instruction with a parental intervention that was designed
to affect some of the home background variables described
by Dave and by the Coleman Report. The students involved
were junior and senior high school students from a poor,
rural area of Michigan.

The experiment consisted of three conditions. The
first was the Reading Program--Parental Involvement Condi-
tion. The students in this condition participated in a
summer reading program that included thirty hours of
instruction. The parents of these students received letters
and a visit from the experimenter in which a range of
tOpics was discussed. In the second condition, or Reading
Program Alone Condition, students participated in the same
summer reading program, but no parental involvement was
initiated. Their parents were not contacted by the experi-
menter during the course of the program. The third
condition was the No Treatment Control Group. This group
only participated in the pre- and post-testing. They did
not participate in the reading program, nor were their

parents contacted.

l7

Hypotheses

 

l. A reading program utilizing programmed, indi-
vidualized instruction (such as the Reading Attainment
System) will cause an improvement in Reading Achievement
and classroom grades.

2. Students involved in a reading program will
benefit from a parental intervention that affects home
background variables. This will be evident from achieve-
ment test scores, grades, and personality measures.

3. Students whose parents have high academic
expectations for them will show higher academic achievement.

4. As measured by the Intellectual Achievement
Responsibility scale, responsibility for success (1+) will
be of greater importance for males as a predictor of
academic success than for females. Responsibility for
failure (I-) will be of greater importance for females as

a predictor of academic success than for males.

CHAPTER I I
METHOD

Subjects

The subjects were 140 male and female students from
three school districts in central, rural Michigan. They
ranged in age from 10 to 17 years, and were drawn from the
fifth through eleventh grades. Two of the schools that the
subjects came from were in the lower quarter of schools in
the state in reading scores, while the third was in the
bottom half. All three were in the bottom half in socio-
economic status, teacher's salaries, and a number of other
indicators of school quality as measured by state assess-
ment criteria (Mich. Dept. of Ed., 1971).

Initially five schools in the area were asked to
participate in the summer reading program, at no cost to
the school. Of the five one refused to participate, one
agreed to participate but could not find students that were
willing to attend; thus three schools actually contributed
students to the program. In early spring the schools sub-
mitted a list of students they felt would benefit from a

summer reading program. These students were selected by

18

19

Cu.

the schools based on test scores or teacher recommenda-
tions. All students from these lists were pre-tested in
the.May preceding the Operation of the program. Approxi-
mately ten students were eliminated from the list because
their high test scores clearly indicated they had little
need for a reading program. Of the remaining students a
sample of eighty was chosen at random to be asked to par-
ticipate in the prOgram. A letter was then sent to the
parents of these students informing them about the program
and urging them to have their children participate.

When the program began in late June approximately
twenty students appeared. This was an unexpectedly small
number. As a consequence, letters were sent to the parents
of the remaining fifty students from the lists provided by
the schools, inviting them to have their children partici-
pate. In total thirty students agreed to participate in
the reading program. An additional forty—eight were post-

tested and constituted the no treatment control group.

 

Insfructional Resources
Centers

Two centers were set up in local schools for the six
week, thirty hour program. Twenty students attended at the
Mecosta center, while ten attended at Reed City.’ No trans-
portation was provided. At both centers regular classroom

facilities were available.

20

Instructors

 

Four teachers were used, two of whom were experi-
enced teachers from local schools. The other two teachers
were college students with no prior teaching experience who
were living locally with their parents for the summer. The
two experienced teachers taught at the Mecosta center,
while the two inexperienced teachers worked at the Reed
City center. At each center the teachers worked on alter-
nate days. All four teachers were trained in the use of
the reading materials during one four hour session prior to

the start of the reading program.

Materials'

 

The materials used were the Reading Attainment
System (Grolier, 1967). This system utilized high interest
materials (including stories about motorcycles, credit, moon
landings, etc.) but was written at varying degrees of diffi-
culty from third through seventh grades. It was intended
for use by students who were in junior and senior high
school and for older peOple who had not yet finished
school. The use of high interest materials solved the
problem of lack of apprOpriate reading materials for older
students. Through the use of this system it was no longer
necessary to give anyone reading at the third grade level
materials written for third graders. In this system the

students were able to choose the selections they wished to

21

read from twenty at each of twelve levels. At the begin-
ning of the program students were assigned to a specific
level based upon their reading test scores.

Each selection consisted of a three page story and
two tests. One test covered vocabulary, while the other
measured comprehension. The students had their own record
books in which they recorded the results of their tests
and kept track of their progress on a chart. When a stu-
dent scored 70 percent or better on the tests from five
selections within a level they then moved on to the next
level. By keeping track of their own progress in this
manner, students were reinforced each time they recorded
the completion of a selection. They were then able to
progress at their own speed, rather than the speed of the
median person in the class. The instructor was also able

to help each student as requested.

Procedure

 

The design consisted of a true experiment which
compared two experimental treatments, and a quasi-experiment
which compared the two experimental conditions with a non-
equivalent control group. The thirty students who volun-
teered for the reading program were randomly assigned to
One of two conditions: (1) Reading Program Alone (N=15) or
(2) Parental Involvement (N=15). The non-equivalent

control group consisted of forty-eight students who did not

22

volunteer for the summer program but who were pre- and post-

tested.

Dependent Measures

 

All subjects were tested five to six weeks prior to
the beginning of the reading program on the following
measures:

1. Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (1965), Form D.

 

This test provided four scores: (a) Speed--the raw score
for which was the number attempted on that part of the
test; (b) Accuracy--theraw score for this was the number
correct on the Speed subtest; (c) Vocabulary; and (d) Com-
prehension. Grade equivalents were provided for the raw
scores obtained. These grade equivalents were used to
assign students to their appr0priate grade level on the RAS.

2. Perceived Parental Expectations. This was the
same scale used by Brookover et a1. (1965). It measured
the student's perceptions of his parents' expectations for
him in academic matters. Brookover found a test-retest
reliability for this scale to be .41 for males and .70 for
females. This scale is included in Appendix A.

'3. Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale.
This was the scale developed by Crandall, Katkovsky, and
Crandall (1965). The IAR has two subscales which measure
responsibility for success (1+) and responsibility for

failure (I-). Crandall et al. found that the test-retest

23

reliability for the sum of the two subscales (I total) to
be .69. This scale is presented in Appendix B.

During the last day of the reading program in July
all participants were post-tested on the above measures.

In the case of the Gates-MacGinitie an alternate form was

 

used. For the other measures the same questions were asked.
Students who had not participated in the program were
retested during the first two weeks of school in September.
Transcripts of grades were obtained for students in both
reading program groups (but not for those in the control
group) approximately six months after the reading proqram

was completed.

Reading Program Procedure

 

Students in both reading program conditions parti-
cipated in the reading program equally. The instructors
were not told which students were in which conditions.
Students utilized the Reading Attainment System. The
teachers sat in front of the classroom and were available
to provide assistance whenever a student requested it. The
teachers also gave verbal reinforcement whenever a student
finished a story or moved on to a higher level.

_The program lasted for six weeks, although almost
half of the students finished the RAS (and consequently left
the program) before that period of time elapsed. Classes
were held one hour per day, five days per week, for a total

of thirty possible hours of instruction.

24

Parental Intervention
Procedure

 

 

At the end of each week in the program students in
the Parental Involvement Condition were sent a letter
telling them how much progress their child had made during
that week, and providing them with some suggestions that
they could use to help their child improve further. Parents
of children in the Reading Program Alone condition were not
contacted..

The main emphasis of these letters was to convince
the parents that their child could actually succeed in
school, contrary to all their past experiences. This was
done by telling them how well the reading prOgram in general
was working, and specifically, how much proqress their
child was making. In addition, various suggestions were
made for working with the child in the home. These sugges-
tions generally included reinforcing the child for reading
whenever that particular behavior occurred, having the
parents set a better example for the child by reading more
themselves, and having the parents take a greater interest
in the child's reading habits. COpies of these letters are
in Appendix C.

.At the end of the third week the parents were sent
a letter that suggested a meeting with the experimenter and
told them they would be receiving a telephone call to make
the arrangements. The parents were then called and appoint-

ments made to meet with them individually, either in the

25

home or at the school where the reading program was taking
place.

The parent meetings were scheduled during the
fourth and fifth weeks of the prOgram. At the meetings the
parents were again told about their child's progress. They
were shown a graph detailing the upward trend of their
child's achievements. This was done by providing them with
a cumulative graph of the number of selections he or she
had completed up to that point. Next, the reading program
itself was described in detail, including a display of the
materials used in the Reading Attainment System. The
various tests used in the system were described. The
experimenter then made a few suggestions for ways the
parents could encourage their child to read more. The ideas
suggested in the letters were repeated and more were
recommended. These included having a dictionary in the
house and having the child be in charge of looking up words
for the whole family. In general the emphasis was on
increasing the parent's involvement with the child as it
would relate to reading and to increase the use of positive
reinforcement for actual reading behavior. A copy of the
actual script used for the parent meetings will be found in
Appendix D. The areas covered above are included in it.
While the experimenter did memorize the speeches from the
script, parent reactions varied tremendously. Consequently

:much of the interaction at each meeting was improvised,

26

although all of the points in the script were covered at
each meeting.

After the meetings the parents continued to receive
the weekly letters until their child drOpped out of the
program or the proqram was completed, whichever came first.
When the final testing was completed the parents were told
how much progress had been made and were given further

encouragement to continue to help their child at home.

Control Condition

 

Students in this condition were non-volunteers for
the reading program. They were tested both before and
after the reading program, but received no additional
instruction or parent contact, other than the invitation
to participate in the program. Grades could not be

obtained for this group.

CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Equivalence of Treatment Groups

Considering the small size of the two treatment
groups the question certainly arises about whether the
randomization was successful in assuring that the two groups
were equivalent. Another problem is the question of
whether the No Treatment Control Group can be considered
to be an equivalent comparison group. This last question
arises because those who volunteered to be in the reading
program (i.e., those students who made up the two treatment
.groups) can be considered to be a self-selected group.

This can be considered a threat to internal validity as
described by Campbell and Stanley (1963). To help answer
these questions a one-way analysis of variance was done for
all of the pre-test data, plus age and grade in school
(Table 1). There were no significant differences between
the three groups on any of the variables. In the case of
the two treatment groups these tests show that the randomi-
zation was a success, since the two groups were drawn from
the same pOpulation of volunteers. In the case of the

control group there is clearly some basis for using it as a

27

comparison group, although there may be some motivational

differences due to self-selection present.

Table l.--Summary of ANOVA of Pre-test Data for All Groups.

 

 

Variable F (df) p
Age 0.93 (2,78) .40
Grade 1.31 (2,81) .28
Reading Speed 2.53 (2,81) .09
Reading Accuracy 1.82 (2,81) .19
Vocabulary 2.88 (2,81) .06
Comprehension 0.62 (2,81) .54
Perceived Parental
Expectations 1.50 (2,81) .23
I+ 1.19 (2,81) .31
I- 0.59 (2,81) .56
I total 0.05 (2,81) .95
English Grades 1.15 (1,28) .29
Math Grades 0.59 (1,27) .45

 

Effect of Experimental Conditions

In order to determine the effectiveness of the
treatment conditions, an Analysis of Covariance was done
for each of the achievement, personality, and grade measures,
using the pre-test scores for each measure as the covariate.
Analysis of Covariance was used, rather than the more usual
Analysis of Variance, in order to improve the effects of
randomization (Cochran, 1957). This technique is "a
statistical, rather than an experimental method . . . to
'control' or 'adjust for' the effects of one or more

uncontrolled variables, and permit, thereby, a valid

29

evaluation of the outcome of the experiment" (Ferguson,
1966). Although there were no significant differences
between the groups, there were some. Analysis of Covari-
ance should therefore result in a more valid test of the
hypotheses.

The specific technique used was to test for differ-
ences between the conditions on the post-test scores,
covarying ("holding constant") the pre-test score on that
particular variable. This "corrected" each analysis for
whatever differences there might have been between the
groups in the beginning.

The findings from the ANCOVA provided strong evi-
dence for the effectiveness of the reading program and some
tentative evidence for the effectiveness of the parental

intervention.
Speed

The Speed subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading

 

Test measures how fast students can read a short passage,
but does not take accuracy into account. The results of
this analysis (Table 2) show that there was a significant
effect (F=5.10; df=2,72; p<.01). Unfortunately the means
of the three groups (Table 3) do not provide clear evidence
for what the effect is. By pooling the two groups that
were in the reading program (the parental involvement group
and the reading program alone group) it is clear (Table 4)

that the reading program significantly (F=8.45; df=2,72;

30

Table 2.--Analysis of Covariance--Post-test Speed Score by
Experimental Condition with Pre-test Speed Score
as Covariate.

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Covariate (Pre-test Speed) 1 610.41 38.59**
Main Effects (Experimental Cond.) 2 80.73 5.10*
Residual 72 15.82
** = (p<.001)
* = (p<.01)

Table 3.--Post-test Mean Scores (with Standard Deviation in
Parentheses).

 

N Condition Unadjusted Means Means Adjusted
for Covariate

 

14 Parental 17.07 (2.95) 18.39
Intervention

14 Reading Program 19.07 (4.31) 20.34
Alone

48 Control 17.23 (5.91) 16.47

 

Table 4.--Analysis of Covariance--Post-test Speed Score by
Experimental Condition (Pooled) with Pre-test
Speed Score as Covariate.

 

 

Source df MS F
Covariate (Pre-test Speed) 1 610.41 38.23**
Main Effects (Experimental Cond.) 1 134.84 8.45*

Residual 73 15.97

 

** = (p<.001)
(p<.005)

:-
ll

31

p<.005) improved reading speed as compared to the control

group.

Accuracy

The Accuracy subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie con-

 

sists of the number of correct answers on the reading speed
subtest. An ANCOVA (Table 5) on the accuracy scores pro-
duced a significant effect (F=6.40; df-2,72; p<.01). Again
the means (Table 6) do not show what was having the effect.
Pooling the parental involvement and reading program alone

groups (Table 7) shows that the reading program signifi-

cantly improved reading accuracy (F=12.66; df-2,72; p<.001).

Comprehension

 

The comprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie

 

involves reading a short passage and then answering a few
questions about the content of the passage. This ANCOVA
produced a similar result to the speed and accuracy analyses.
There was a significant effect (Table 8; F=12.24; df=2,72;
p<.001) but the means (Table 9) do not show what the effect
was. By pooling the two reading program groups again it is
clear that the reading program improved comprehension
significantly (Table 10; f=24.81; df=l,73; p<.001).

Based on the results obtained from the reading test
there can be little question that the reading program used
in this study was effective in improving the reading skills

of the students involved. However, it would appear overall

32

Table 5.--Analysis of Covariance—-Post-test Accuracy Score
by Experimental Condition with Pre-test Accuracy

Score as Covariate.

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Covariate (Pre-test Accuracy) 1 756.31 80.93**
Main Effects (Exp. Cond.) 2 59.80 6.40*
Residual 72 9.35
** = (p<.001)
* = (p<.003)

Table 6.--Accuracy Post-test Mean Scores (with Standard

Deviations in Parentheses)

 

N Condition Unadjusted Means Means Adjusted
for Covariate

 

14 Parental 16.57 (3.08)
Intervention

14 Reading Program 16.14 (4.73)
Alone

48 Control 15.52 (5.31)

17.81

17.21

14.85

 

Table 7.--Analysis of Covariance--Post-test Accuracy Score
by Experimental Conditions (Pooled) with Pre-test

Accuracy as Covariate.

 

Source df MS F
Covariate (Pre-test Accuracy) 1 756.31 81.75**
Main Effects 1 117.13 12.66**
Residual 73 9.25

 

** = (p<.001)

33

Table 8.--Analysis of Covariance--Post-test Comprehension
Score by Experimental Condition with Pre-test

Comprehension as Covariate.

 

 

Source df MS F
Covariate (Pre-test Comprehension) 1 2233.15 34.56**
Main Effects 2 790.72 12.24**
64.62

Residual 72

 

** = (p<.001)

Table 9.--Comprehension Post-test Mean Scores (with Standard

Deviations in Parentheses)

 

 

N Condition Unadjusted Means Means Adjusted
for Covariate
14 Parental 37.79 (7.18) 38.14
Intervention
14 Reading Program 36.86 (8.99) 38.02
Alone
48 Control 29.02 (11.39) 28.58

Table lO.--Analysis of Covariance--Post-test Comprehension
Score by Experimental Condition (Pooled) with
Pre-test Comprehension as Covariate.

 

 

Source df MS F
Covariate (Pre-test Comprehension) 1 2233.15 35.04**
Main Effects 1 1581.34 24.81**
Residual 73 63.74

 

**

= (p<.001)

34

that the parental involvement manipulation had very little
effect. There was, however, some tenuous evidence from the
students' grades that parental involvement may have had

some influence.
English Grades

The English grades used were grades from the stu-
dents' transcripts for classes entitled "English,"
"reading," "literature," or some title that was clearly
related to language skills. The pre-test grades were the
mean of the fall and spring semester grades for the year
previous to the reading program. The post-test grades were
the fall semester grades for the term immediately following
the reading program. Grades could not be obtained for the
students in the Control condition. As a consequence the
analysis of English grades tested only for differences
between the two treatment conditions. Table 11 shows the
results of the Analysis of Covariance, while the means are
presented in Table 12. Although the results are not signi-
ficant (F=l.38; df=l,23; p<.25), the means do seem to
indicate that there has been a positive increase favoring
parental involvement.

Two intereSting findings, which may help to account
for the differences in English grades, relate to attendance
and the number of stories read. Students in the parental
involvement condition attended an average of three more

reading program classes (F=l.06; df=l,26); p<.30) and read

35

Table ll.--Analysis of Covariance—-Post-test English Grades
by Experimental Condition with Pre-test English
Grades as Covariate.

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Covariate (Pre-test English Grades) 1 7.20 .09
Main Effects 1 108.24 1.38*
Residual 23 78.64
* = (p<.25)

Table 12.--Mean English Grades Post-test (with Standard
Deviation in Parentheses).

 

N Condition Unadjusted Means* Means Adjusted
for Covariate

 

12 Parental 1.71 (1.10) 1.71
Intervention

13 Reading Program 1.29 (0.75) 1.29
Alone

 

*Grades based on scale 4.0=A, 3.0=B, etc.

36

an average of nine more stories in the Reading Attainment
System (F=l.50; df=l,26; p<.25). While these results are
not significant at the usual probability levels they may
provide some indication of the process which may have
occurred as a result of the parental involvement manipula-
tion.

The Analyses of Covariance showed that the experi-
mental manipulations had no effect on overall grade point
average. There was also no effect on the measures of
Intellectual Achievement Responsibility or on Perceived
Parental Expectations. There were, however, a number of

findings of a correlational nature to report.

Personality

 

One readily apparant finding was the relatively
strong and highly significant correlations between both
subscales of the IAR and the achievement test measures
(Table 13). While this is interesting, a closer look at
the data reveals something of even greater interest. When
the correlations were broken down by sex (Table 14) it
became clear that the correlations in Table 13 were due for
the most part to the importance of IAR for males, and the
relative weight given to males due to their numerical
superiority in the sample (there were 61 males and 23
females). The data in Table 14 would appear to show that
the correlation between achievement and IAR(+) is much

higher for males, while the correlation between achievement

37

Aaoo.vmv

 

 

u «it

Aao.vmc u ..

Amo.vmv u a
emm.e.. som...« was... cos. mmo. oma. Aumonc :oamcmnmumsoo
mem..«« hem... mm~.«« om~.«: Hm~.. ma~.* Amuse coamcmnmumsoo
~m~.« emm.e«. «mo. mma.. mma.« mma. Aumomc sum~samoo>
me~.« mem..« GHH. mm~.« mma.w mks. Amuse mumasnmoo>
kmm..«« em~.« mm~.« ~mm.ee« H-.. mmm. umomc sensuous
Hom.«« sm~.«« Goa. msm.e« mmm.we «AH. Amuse somusooa
mmm..« mad. ms~.«« mmm..« sea. eHm. . Aumom. ommmm
mum. «mm. mso. «Hm. mmm. Add. Imam. ommmm

umom pouH umomIH umom+H mum uouH mHmIH mum+H

 

.mousmmmz usmEm>mw£o< was de

smo3pmm msoflumaouHOUII.MH GHQMB

38

.Hm>ma mo. may

UM UCMOflMHGGHm MH WOHMEOK Uflm mmflmz HOW mGOflHmHOHHOU Omwflu GOO3UOQ OOGOHOMMHQG

 

mmm.
mmm.
mmv.
va.
smmw.
wmm.
«Hum.
mhm.

vmm.
mnm.

Ham.
how.
med.
«mm.
mac.
CNN.

 

h

 

umOQIH

S

umomlH

«mew. .umomv sowmsoawumeou

«5mm. Amway gownsmnoumfiou

«Hem. Aumomv mamasamoo>

.mom. Amuse mumasnmoo>

have. «umomv momusood
Hmw. Amway >0musoo<
Ham. Aumoav comma
and. Amway pmmmm
2

NH...

 

.mmamfiom pom moan: “0m mmusmmmz usmEm>mfin04 new maH cmmzumm msowumamuuooln.va manna

39

and IAR(-) is higher for females. However, when separate
correlations were computed for the experimental group
(Table 15) and the control group (Table 16) it became clear
that this was only the case for the controls. For the
experimental group (those subjects in both the Parental
Involvement and Reading Proqram Alone conditions), the
males' IAR (both positive and negative) had a positive
correlation with achievement while the females had a nega-
tive correlation between achievement and IAR. This seems
to only be the case for the vocabulary and comprehension
achievement measures however. There do not appear to be
any consistent differences on either the speed or accuracy
measures. Thus, while the control groups' correlations
would seem to support the findings in the rest of the
literature (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965; Clifford
& Cleary, 1972; Johnson & Gormly, 1972), the experimental
group is clearly different. The difference in the pattern
of correlations also holds up when comparing the pre-test
correlations (i.e., when both IAR and achievement were
measured at the pre-test), thereby indicating that the
control and experimental groups were drawn from somewhat
different populations.

”A very interesting finding was the rather strong
positive correlation found between Perceived Parental Expec-
tations and IAR (Table 17). This shows that the child's
perceptions of his parents expectations of himself is

closely related to the child's own expectations for himself.

40

.AH.vmv HCMUAMHsmwm mmosmummmwog

 

 

 

 

 

mam. ,mhe. mmN.I New. mma.| mee. cmm.n «mmw. Aumomv soflwswnmumfiou
moo.u ome. wuo.n Hme. HmH.I ham. oam.u Hoe. Amway scamsmnmumfioo
mod. mom. mm~.I emm. mm~.I mmo.u mme.n .mae. Aumomc mumasnmoo>
mma. omm. mmm.| «mme. hm~.I mmo. mme.| «mme. Amumv mwmasnmoo>
own. ome. chm. moe. hmm. mad. men. mam. Aumomv momusood
mmm. mmm. Huh. mmm. mom. mno.l hme. hem. Amway aomusoofl
mom. nae. wee. eme. new. mma. cum. mmm. Aumomv omomm
mem. mme. use. see. ems. -~.I nae. has. Amway emmmm
umomIH umomIH mHmIH mHmIH umom+H umom+H oum+H mum+H
.1 z ImIIwI e z Iellml

 

.Ahaso muomnnsm Emumoum

msficmmmv mmamfimh can mean: wow unm8m>mwno¢ Usm m<H :mm3umm mGOfiumamHHOUII.mH manna

41

 

 

ssm. eon. oes. mmo.u mes. ems. som.I mmo. Aumonc cosmamamumsoo
mwm. mes. mum. mom. msm. can. mee.u mom. Amuse cosmcmnmsmsoo
mew. mes. com. ems. ems. mos. mme.I mas. Aumomv suessamoo>
nee. sms. mmm. hes. ssm. ees. mmm.I mes. Amuse sumssnmoo>
«me. seo.I mam. mms. mmm. mmm. mm~.I men. .umomv somusooe
oem. Ass. Nee. mms. sso. Gem. msm.u mss. Amuse sensuous
sse. mos.I koo.I mos. mmo.u smm. mom.n smm. lumomc emmmm
eke. «ms. men. mms. hos.I pom. mem.n mmo. Amuse emmmm
umomIH umomIH mumIH mHmIH umom+H umom+H mum+H mum+H
ImIImlImIImIIHIIwIIIMIIMI

 

.Amaso muomnnsm sowuflosou .
Houusouv mmamfimm new mean: How unmEm>msno< can msH :mm3uom wsowumHmHHOUIl.oH manna

42

That is, if the child thinks that his parents believe he
can do something, he believes that he can too. This con-
firms Brookover's conclusion that parental attitudes toward
the child are related to the child's attitudes toward
himself.

Table l7.--Correlations Between IAR, GPA, and Parental
Expectations Scale.

 

 

 

PE (pretest) PE (post-test)

I+ (pre) .392*** .292***
I+ (post) .515*** .228***
I- (pre) .341*** .249***
I- (post) .317** .234**
I total (pre) .440*** .325***
I total (post) .551*** .334***
GPA (pre) .288 .339*
GPA (post) .277 .494**

* = (p<.05)

** = (p<.01)

*** = (p<.001)

Table 17 also shows that Perceived Parental Expec-
tations at the post-test are related to overall grade point
average (GPA). This could indicate that participation in
the reading program heightened the parents' awareness of
their child's GPA and thereby made their expectations more
congruent with reality. This interpretation is possible
since the students in the Control condition were not
involved in any analysis involving grades. There was little

other evidence to support the third hypothesis, that"

43

students whose parents had high expectations for them would
show high achievement. No correlations were found between
Perceived Parental Expectations and any of the achievement
test scores.

One set of correlations was found that was totally
unexpected. This was the negative correlation between
attendance in the proqram and the achievement measures
(Table 18). The reason for this would seem to be related
to one of the limitations of this particular program, that
only one type of material was used. As noted previously,
the RAS had an upper limit of the seventh grade. Beyond
that a student would normally be expected to "graduate" to
some other set of materials. Unfortunately, in this six
week program there were no other materials. The expectation
had been that when a student reached the top level of
stories he or she would continue to read in the RAS at any
level desired. In practice however, this never happened.
Usually when a student completed the requisite five selec-
tions at the tOp level he or she was never seen again.

Thus, what happened was that the students with high initial
reading scores usually started higher and worked faster than
the less intelligent ones, and as a consequence, reached the
highest level more quickly. Naturally by the end of the
program, most of the students who scored high on the

reading tests were gone, leaving the rest with the best

attendance rankings. Probably, if provisions had been made

44

for other materials to be available, the Opposite results

would have been obtained for this correlation.

Table l8.--Correlations Between Attendance and Achievement

 

 

Measures.
Attendance
Speed (pre) - ' -.357*
Speed (post) -.290*
Accuracy (pre) -.328*
Accuracy (post) -.125
Vocabulary (pre) -.187
Vocabulary (post) -.225
Comprehension (pre) -.066
Comprehension (post) -.012

 

* = (p<.05)

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

There were two primary questions raised in the
introduction to this study. The first was whether a
remedial reading prOgram consisting of individualized,
programmed instruction could be successful with Older stu-
dents, that is, students in junior and senior high school.
The second major question was whether the background
factors described by the Coleman Report, Dave, and Wolf
as being the essential determinants of achievement could
be manipulated so as to improve a student's academic per-
formance.

The first question was answered in a very positive
fashion. Compared with the control group those students
that used the Reading Attainment System made greater
strides on three of the four achievement subtests. Clearly,
when given the pr0per materials older students are able to
make significant achievements in a remedial reading pro-
gram. There is therefore little reason to avoid placing
considerable emphasis on such programs for junior and

senior high school students who are deficient in reading.

45

46

The answer to the second question is considerably
less clear than the answer to the first. Since the question
about background factors has really only been raised in the
context of Older students, it brings up the problem that,
although the home environment has been shown to be a key
influence on achievement, is it a continuing influence
throughout school (or life), or does the environmental
influence of early life have an immutable effect? If there
is a continuing influence then it should be possible to
make changes in the home environment and as a consequence
affect achievement. If the effects of early childhood
cannot be reversed, then any attempts at compensatory
education are useless. This study has only provided some
limited answers to these questions.

The question of background factors was tested by
the comparison between the Parental Intervention group and
the Reading Program Alone group. Although there were no
significant differences between the two groups, there are a
number of explanations available that may explain this.

One possible explanation would naturally be that the
parental manipulation had no effect, that involving parents
is not a useful means of improving a student's academic
achievement. While this hypothesis cannot be entirely
rejected, there is some evidence to the contrary, namely

the difference between the two groups on English grades that
approaches significance. This leads to some other potential

explanations. First, the sample may have been too small.

47

A sample size of thirty (the total number in both the
parental involvement and Reading Program Alone conditions)
did not provide many degrees of freedom for an F test.
With a larger sample more significant results might have
been obtained. Second, the manipulation of parental
involvement may have been too weak. The relatively mild
intervention (six letters plus one meeting) may not have
been strong enough nor long enough (six weeks) to show up
effectively on the measures used in this study. In addi—
tion it is possible that there was an effect that could
be measured with the instruments used but that it was not
strong enough to show up with the small sample. It would
seem most likely that some combination of these was taking
effect, with the most important being the strength of the
manipulation. I

Assuming that there was an effect on English grades,
some explanation is in order to explain why there was effect
on grades, but not on achievement test scores. It may be
that, due to the parental intervention, the parents were
made more aware of their child's scholastic difficulties.
Their parents then placed more emphasis on schoolwork in
the home by taking more interest in the child's homework
and progress in school. Thus, there was no effect on test
scores taken immediately after the program ended, but there
may have been an effect on the child's performance in
school. There was no measure made of parental behavior, so

unfortunately there can be no test of this hypothesis.

48

These results have a number of implications for
future research. Since it would appear that the mild
parental intervention used in this study had some benefi-
cial effect, further work should determine the type and
strength of intervention necessary to obtain the Optimal
benefit. Since much of the parental contact in this study
was by mail it would seem likely that future studies
should concentrate more on personal contacts with the
parents. For the most part there is little reason why such
research could not be carried on by the local school dis-
tricts themselves. The amount of financial outlay would be
minimal and the potential benefits to students enormous.
Each school could have an outreach prOgram to attempt to
influence the student's home environment. This could be
done utilizing regular classroom teachers, or special
personnel from the school. Individual and group meetings
with parents should be held to explain what needs to be
done in the home to help their children improve academi-
cally.

A word of warning is in order at this point. There
are two ways the schools could accomplish the task of
working with parents. On the one hand, the schools could
use undercover agents and coercive techniques to discover
what the parents are doing and to force them to act the
way they are "supposed to." On the other hand, they can
be straight forward with the parents and explain exactly

what is going on and where the problems lie. Clearly the

49

latter method is the only one that would ever gain accep-
tance among the pOpulation at large. Most likely it would
also be the most successful. Based upon the experience

of this study it would seem that most parents are eager to
help their children if only someone would let them know
what needs to be done.

Of considerable importance and interest are the
findings concerning the personality measures. The most
prominent of these is the correlation between achievement
and the locus of control measure (IAR). While the corre-
lations for the control group support the findings Of other
investigators (Crandall et al., 1965; Clifford & Cleary,
1972; Johnson & Gormly, 1972), the correlations for the
experimental groups do not. Since the experimental groups
consisted entirely of volunteers it may be assumed that
they were somewhat more motivated than the control group.
It may also be that the parents of the children in this
group were more interested in education than the parents
of the children in the control group. To some extent this
may be supported by the correlations for males in the
experimental group since there was a positive correlation
between achievement and IAR for them. The negative corre-
lations for the females are much more difficult to explain.
One curious point about them is that the correlations are
rather strongly negative for the vocabulary and comprehen—
sion subtests, but strongly positive for the speed and

accuracy subtests. Since the accuracy subtest is highly ‘

50

dependent on the speed subtest (by the nature of how the
tests are constructed), and the comprehension subtest is
probably somewhat dependent on vocabulary skills, it makes
conceptual sense that the scores should be paired in that
manner. Clearly the two sets of subtests are measuring
different kinds of skills. Unfortunately the skills
measured by the vocabulary and comprehension subtests are
the ones most similar to the common notion of "Achievement."
For females (in this sample) then locus of control is
negatively correlated with "achievement," that is, females
who assume responsibility for their actions have lower
achievement levels than females who deny that responsibility.
This would seem to confirm DeDette, Wolk, and Soucar's
(1972) notion that an external orientation is adaptive
under certain circumstances. It may be that for these
females failure seems inevitable. That would appear not

to be the case for the males in the sample since they have
a positive correlation between achievement and locus of
control. The reasons for this difference may lie in the
particular social system in which these children live.
Perhaps in the small, poor, rural communities where these
children were brought up girls were not expected to achieve
highly or to Obtain a high level of education. More
emphasis may have been placed on achievement for boys.
Since these differences were not obtained for the control
group, such attitudes probably did not exist on a community

wide basis, but may have been Operating within certain

51

isolated family groups. Certainly further study into this
phenomenon is in order.

Clearly the most important result from this study
was the highly significant effect of the reading program
itself. Since the reading program consisted of indi-
vidualized, programmed instruction, such techniques can be
recommended to local schools as a highly effective tech-
nique of improving reading skills.

It should be stressed that this prOgram was effec-
tive with adolescents in junior and senior high school with
whom (based upon their reading skill levels) traditional
programs had little effect. It would seem then that an
effective (and inexpensive) technique is readily available
to teach remedial reading to this adolescent population.
Schools should begin adopting it immediately. A number of
schools, including one of the schools that participated
in this study are presently doing just that. If further
research sheds more light on the effectiveness of parental
involvement perhaps the two techniques combined will go a
long way toward alleviating the problems of reading dis—

abilities in adolescents.

REFERENCE S

REFERENCES

Battle, E. S., and Rotter, J; B. "Children's Feelings of
Personal Control as Related to Social Class and
Ethnic Group." Journal of Personality, 1963, 3;,
482-90.

 

Brookover, W. B.; LePere, J. M.; Hamachek, D. E.; Thomas,
S.; and Erickson, E. S. Self-Concept of Ability
and School Achievement II. East Lansing: Michigan
State University,'l965.

 

 

Brookover, W. B.; Erickson, E. S.; and Joiner, L. Self-
Concept of Ability and School Achievement III.
East LanSIng: Michigan State University, 1967.

 

Calsyn, R. J. "The Causal Relationship Between Self-Esteem,
Locus of Control, and Achievement: Cross-Lagged
Panel Analysis." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
1973, Northwestern University.

Census, U.S. Educational Attainment. U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1972.

 

Clifford, M. M., and Cleary, T. A. "The Relationship
Between Children's Academic Performance and
Achievement Accountability." Child DevelOpment,
1972, 43, 647-55.

 

Cochran, W. G. "Analysis of Covariance: Its Nature and
Uses." Biometrics, 1957, 261-81.

 

Cohen, A. S. "Reading: Large Issues, Specific Problems,
and Possible Solutions." In A. J. Reiss, Schools
in a Changing Society. New York: Free Press, I965.

 

Coleman, J. S.; Campbell, E. Q.; Hobson, C. J.; McPartland,
J.; Mood, A. M.; Weinfeld, F. D.; and York, R. L.
Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington:
Department of HEW, 1966.

 

52

I'lrllul‘l'flllllllllls.l .Ilulllllll-l-I‘III

 

53

Crandall, V. C.; Katkovsky, W.; and Crandall, V. J.
"Children's Beliefs in Their Own Control of Rein-
forcements in Intellectual-Academic Situations."
Child Development, 1965, 36, 91-110.

 

Dave, R. H. ”The Identification and Measurement of Educa-
tional Process Variables that Are Related to
Educational Achievement." Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, 1963, University of Chicago.

Davis, W. G., and Phares, E. J. "Internal-External Control
as a Determinant of Information78eeking in a Social
Influence Situation." Journal of Personality,
1967, 35, 547-61.

 

DeDette, J.; Wolk, S.; and Soucar, E. "Atypical Patterns
in Locus of Control and Non-Adaptive Behavior."
Journal of Personality, 1972, 42, 287-97.

 

Erickson, E. S. "Normative Influence Of Parents and Friends
on Academic Achievement." Unpublished Ed.D.
Dissertation, 1969, Michigan State University.

 

Ferguson, G. A. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and
Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, I966.

 

Gates, A. I., and MacGinitie, W. H. Gates-MacGinitie
Reading Tests. New York: Teachers College’Press,
Columbia University, 1965.

 

 

Gordon, I. J. "DevelOping Parent Power." In Hess, R. D.,
Parental Behavior and Children's School Achieve—
ment. Princeton: Educational Testing SerVice,

I969.

 

Gormly, J., and Nittoli, M. "Rapid Improvement of Reading
Skills in Juvenile Delinquents." Journal of
Experimental Education, 1971, 49, 45-48.

 

 

Grolier Educational Company. Reading Attainment Systems.
New York, 1967.

 

Hawkridge, D. G.; Chalupsky, A. B.; and Roberts, A. O. H.
"A Study of Selected Exemplary Programs for the
Education of Disadvantaged Children." Final Report
on Project NO. 0809013, U.S. Office of Education,
1968.

Hess, R. D. "Parental Behavior and Children's School
Achievement." Princeton: Educational Testing
Service, 1969.

54

Johnson, C. D., and Gormly, J. ”Academic Cheating: The
Contribution of Sex, Personality, and Situational
Variables." Developmental Psychology, 1972, 6,
320-25. —

 

Levin, H. "The Costs to the Nation of Inadequate Educa-
tion." In U.S. Senate Publication, The Effects of
Dropping Out, 1972.

 

 

Lumsden, D. B. "Individualized Instruction Through the Use
of Programmed Instruction." Educational Forum,
1974, 38, 145-52. ‘

 

Mayeske, G. W.; Okada, T.; Beaton, A. G.; Cohen, W. M.;
and Wilser, C. E. A Study of the Achievement of
Our Nation's Students. Department OfVHEW Puinca-
tion No. TOET721131, 1973.

 

Messer, S. B. "The Relation of Internal-External Control
to Academic Performance." Child Development, 1972,
43, 1456-62.

 

Michigan Department of Education. Michigan Assessment of
Education, 1971.

 

 

National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged
Children. Annual Report, 1975.

 

Office of Education. Title I Annual Report. FY 1971,
Department of HEW, 19722

 

Peterson, J. Reading Failure. National Reading Center,

 

GPO, 1972.
Phares, E. J. "Differential Utilization of Information as
a Function of Internal-External Control." Journal

 

Riessman, F. The Culturally Deprived Child. New York:
Harper, I962.

 

Scheinfeld, D. R. "On Developing Developmental Families."
In R. D. Hess, Parental Behavior and Childrenl§_
School Achievement. Princeton: Educational Testing
,,SerVice, 1969.

 

 

Smith, M. S. "Equality of Educational Opportunity: The
Basic Findings Reconsidered." In Mosteller, F. and
Moynihan, D. P., On Equality of Educational Oppor-
tunity. New York: RandOm House, 1972. 91—

 

Stanford Research Institute. Report on Compensatory
Education, 1973.

 

 

55

Title I, Second Year Annual Report. Washington: Government
Printing Office,‘1968.

 

Wolf, R. M. "The Identification and Measurement of Environ-
mental Process Variables Related to Intelligence."
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Chicago, 1964.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

PERCEIVED PARENTAL EXPECTATIONS SCALE

PERCEIVED PARENTAL EXPECTATIONS SCALE*

Please answer the following questions as you think your
parents would answer them. Circle the number in front of
the statement that best answers each question.

1. How do you think your Parents would rate your school
ability compared with other students your age?

a. among the poorest
b. below average

c. average

d. above average

e. among the best

2. Where do you think your Parents would say you rank in
a high school class?

a. among the poorest
b. below average

c. average

d. above average

e. among the best

3. Do you think your parents would say you have the ability
to complete college

a. definitely not

b. probably not

c. not sure either way
d. yes, probably

e. yes, definitely

4. DO you think your Parents would say you have the ability
to complete professionaI training in law, medicine, or
dentistry?

a. definitely not

b. probably not

c. not sure either way
d. yes, probably

e. yes, definitely

56

57

5. What kind of grades do you think your Parents would say
you are capable of getting?

a. mostly F's
b. mostly D's
c. mostly C's
d. mostly B's
e. mostly A's

 

*Perceived Parental Expectations Questionnaire,
(Brookover et al., 1967)

APPENDIX B

INTELLECTUAL ACHIEVEMENT

RESPONSIBILITY SCALE

find out some of your opinions.

wrong

INTELLECTUAL ACHIEVEMENT

RESPONSIBILITY SCALE*

In this next series of questions we are trying to
There are no right or

answers. Please CHECK the statement that YOU feel

best completes each sentence.

1.

 

N

 

U)

 

b

 

U1
0

 

0‘
o

If a teacher passes you to the next grade, would it
probably be

a. because she liked you, or
b. because of the work you did?

When you do well on a test at school, is it more
likely to be

a. because you studied for it, or
b. because the test was especially easy?

When you have trouble understanding something at
school, is it ususally

a. because the teacher didn't explain it clearly, or
b. because you didn't listen carefully?

When you read a story and can't remember much of it,
is it usually

a. because the story wasn't well written, or
b. because you weren't interested in the story?

Suppose your parents say you are doing well in school.
Is this likely to happen

a. because your school work is good, or
by because they are in a good mood?

Suppose you did better than usual in a subject at
school. Would it probably happen

a. because you tried harder, or
b. because someone helped you?

58

 

G)

\D

 

H
O
O

I

 

'I—l
f—J
O

|'-‘
N
O

 

 

14.

59
When you lose at a game of cards or checkers, does it
usually happen

a. because the other player is good at the game, or
b. because you didn't play well?

Suppose a person doesn't think you are very bright or
clever.

a.
b.

can you make him change his mind if you try to, or
are there some peOple who will think you're not
very bright no matter what you do?

If you solve a puzzle quickly, is it

a.
b.

because it wasn't a very hard puzzle, or
because you worked on it very carefully?

If a boy or girl tells you that you are dumb, is it
more likely that they say that

a. because they are mad at you, or
b. because what you did really wasn't very bright?

Suppose you study to become a teacher,
doctor and you fail.

scientist, or
Do you think this would happen

a. because you
b. because you
didn't give

didn't work hard enough, or
needed some help, and other people
it to you?

When you learn
usually

something quickly in school, is it

paid close attention, or
teacher explained it clearly?

because you
because the

a.
b.
If

a teacher says to you, "Your work is fine," is it

a. something teachers usually say to encourage
pupils, or

b. because you did a good job?
When you find it hard to work arithmetic or math
problems at school, is it

a. because you didn't study well enough before you
tried them, or

b. because the teacher gave problems that were too
hard?

 

 

16.

17.

 

I-‘
oo

 

19.

 

20.

 

N
H
o

 

22.

 

23.

60

When you forget something you heard in class, is it

a. because the teacher didn't explain it very well, or
b. because you didn't try very hard to remember?

Suppose you weren't sure about the answer to a ques-
tion your teacher asked you, but your answer turned‘
out to be right. Is it likely to happen

a. because she wasn't as particular as usual, or

b. because you gave the best answer you could think
of?

When you read a story and remember most of it, is it
usually

a. because you were interested in the story, or
b. because the story was well written?

If your parents tell you you're acting silly and not
thinking clearly, is it more likely to be

a. because of something you did, or
b. because they happen to be feeling cranky?

When you don't do well on a test at school, is it

a. because the test was especially hard, or
b. because you didn't study for it?

When you win at a game of cards or checkers, does it
happen

a.
b.

because you play real well, or
because the other person doesn't play well?

If peOple think you're bright or clever, is it

a.
b.

because they happen to like you, or
because you usually act that way?

If
it

a teacher didn't pass you to the next grade, would
probably be

a.
b.

because she had "it in for you," or
because your school work wasn't good enough?

Suppose you don't do as well as usual in a subject at
school. Would this probably happen

a. because you weren't as careful as usual, or
b. because somebody bothered you and kept you from
working?

 

 

 

 

28.

 

61

If a boy or girl tells you that you are bright, is it
usually

a. because you thought up a good idea, or
b. because they like you?

Suppose you became a famous teacher, scientist, or
doctor. Do you think this would happen

a. because other people helped you when you needed it,
or

b. because you worked very hard?

Suppose your parents say you aren't doing well in your
school work. Is this likely to happen more

a. because your work isn't very good, or
b. because they are feeling cranky?

Suppose you are showing a friend how to play a game
and he has trouble with it. Would that happen

a. because he wasn't able to understand how to play,
or
b. because you couldn't explain it well.

When you find it easy to work arithmetic or math
problems at school, is it usually

a. because the teacher gave you especially easy
problems, or

b. because you studied your book well before you
tried them?

When you remember something you heard in class, is it
usually

a. because you tried hard to remember, or
b. because the teacher explained it well?

If you can't work a puzzle, is it more likely to
happen

a. because you are not especially good at working

..puzzles, or
b. because the instructions weren't written clearly
enough?

If your parents tell you that you are bright or
clever, is it more likely

a. becaus they are feeling good, or
b. because of something you did?

62

32. Suppose you are explaining how to play a game to a
friend and he learns quickly. Would that happen
more Often

a. because you explained it well, or
b. because he was able to understand it?

 

33. Suppose you're not sure about the answer to a ques-
tion your teacher asks you and the answer you give
turns out to be wrong. Is it likely to happen

a. she was more particular than usual, or'
b. because you answered too quickly?

 

34. If a teacher says to you, "Try to do better," would
it be

a. because this is something she might say to get
pupils to work harder, or
b. because your work wasn't as good as usual?

 

*Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Question-
naire (Crandall et al., 1965).

APPENDIX C

LETTERS TO PARENTS

May 11, 1974

Dear Parent:

Your child has been selected for a six-week summer reading

program. Eighty children from Mecosta and Osceola counties
will be included in the program. Children were selected on
the basis of difficulties in reading and high potential for
improvement. The program is one of demonstrated value and

we expect many of the children to show rapid improvement.

The program begins June 17 and ends July 29, with no meeting
on July 4. The two centers are Reed City High School and
the Mecosta Elementary School buildings. It will be neces-
sary for parents to arrange for transportation to whichever
center is closer. Sessions will run 50 minutes, beginning
on the hour, and each child should attend one session per
day. The sessions are 5 days per week, Monday through
Friday.

There are four different sessions each day for your conveni-
ence in bringing your child to the program. Times are: 10
and 11 a.m.; l and 2 p.m. at each location. After June 17,
please select the time which is most convenient. Once you
choose a time, always bring your child at the same time each
day. If you want to change the time of your child's lesson
please talk with the program teacher.

June 17 is the first day of class. On this first day there
will be an exception to our ordinary schedule. On the 17th
please bring your child to the center they will attend
according to the following schedule: Mecosta Elementary
Bldg.: 10 or 11 a.m., Reed City High School Bldg.: 1 or

2 p.m. That is, you may bring your child to Mecosta at
either of the morning times, or to Reed City at either of
the afternoon times. Starting on June 18 the regular
schedule of four times per day will begin.

If you wish to have your child participate in this program,

please sign the enclosed form. This form should be brought

to me on June 17. If there are any questions please contact
your local school district or myself.

Sincerely,

Charles D. Johnson, Ph.D.
Phone: 517-353-5015

CDJ/lr

63

64

June 25, 1974
Dear

We would like to thank you for encouraging your
child to participate in the summer reading program being
conducted by your school.

Very often parents feel that they are uninformed
about what is going on in school and about what kind of
progress their child is making. In this summer reading pro-
gram we hOpe to keep you better informed. Each week you
will receive a report on your child's progress in addition
to some useful information about how you can help right at
home.

During the course of the reading prOgram your child
will read a series of stories about a number Of interesting
topics, including science, history, social studies and many
others. While he or she is reading the story your child
will be learning about English grammar, spelling, and vocab-
ulary. Thus reading skills will improve, while your child
is learning about subjects he or she is interested in. The
students get to choose which stories they read, based upon
their own interests; however they must choose stories at
their own reading level. They receive two tests on each
story. When they score 70% or better on the tests for five
stories, they get to move on to the next level. We will
describe more about the reading program next week when we
again report to you on your child's progress.

Hopefully we will be able to meet with and speak to
each of you personally, either at the school or in your
home, about the reading program and how it works.

If you should have any questions concerning the pro-
gram or your child's progress, please feel free to send us
a note, either with your child or to the above address.

Yours truly,

Charles Johnson
Reading PrOgram Director

Mitchell Fleischer
Assistant Director

During the past week your child , read stories.

65

July 2, 1974

Dear

we hope that by now your child has talked to you about the
summer reading program.and has let you know how~ho feels about it.
we've found that almost all of the children are taking a very strong
interest in the reading materials and are really enjoying the way
the system works.

In our last letter we said that we would tell you more about
how the reading program works. One of the most important parts
of this reading program.is how interesting the materials are. Very
often children with reading prOblems are unable to find books that
they are interested in reading and are written at their reading
level. For example, suppose a 14 year old child could only read
at the 4th grade level. Until.now he probably would only be able
to read 4th grade level books, written for 9 year old children.
Of course these would not be very interesting to him. The reading
program your child is in uses books that are written with the interests
of older children in mind, but at lower reading levels. There are
240 different stories, including stories about motorcycles, karate.
sharks, modeling, 16b hunting and many others.

The best part of this is that while each child is reading
a story he is also improving his reading skills. One way this
reading programIcan help even more is if you, as parents, take a
strong interest in it and how your child is doing. Let your child
know that you are interested in his progress. Ask him how he feels
about the program. If you find from these reports that he is doing
well, let him know how you feel about that.

Next week we'll talk about some more things you can do at
home to help your child inn-prove his reading skills.

Yours truly,

Charles JOhnson
Reading program Director

Mitchell Fleischer
Assistant Director

66

July 9, 1974

Dear

Since we have now passed the half-way point in the
summer reading program I would like to make arrangements
soon to meet with as many parents as possible before the
program ends. The purpose of these individual meetings
will be to discuss your child's prOgress in the reading
program. We will discuss how this program works and why
it is working so well and what can be done to continue
your child's progress after the prOgram ends.

I would like to meet with each of you personally
either in a conference room at the school while your child
is in the reading class, or in the privacy of your own
home. I'll be calling you up starting next Monday to find
out what is the most convenient for you.

Yours truly,

Mitchell Fleischer
Assistant Program
Director

67

July 24, 1974.

Dear

I would like to thank all of you for meeting with me
last week. I hope that your children will benefit from our
discussion. This week, in addition to the usual report on your
child's progress, I will review some of the points we discussed
last week. ‘

As you remember we went over some things that you could
do at home to help your child to continue to improve after the
reading program is over. The first was to make him feel good
about reading. One way to do this is to say something nice to
him whenever you see him reading, any nice compliment will work
wonders. The second suggestion I made was to give him somthing
you have already read and to discuss it with him after he's read
it. This will make him read the way he needs to in school.
The third point I mentioned was to make a game of using the
dictionary. Put your child in charge of looking up words for 11113
whole family. This will greatly increase his vocabulary Ski-1186
Remember, the most important thing is to get your child
to read as much as possible. Buy what books he or she wants if
you can, or use your local library. Whether you make use of my
suggestions or whether you think up new ways on your own, in“
try to get your child to read more. You' ll be glad you did.

Yours truly ,

Mitchell Fleischer
Assistant Program Director

68

July 30, 1974

Dear Parents,

Now that the Summer Reading Program is over I'm sure
that all of you are eagerly awaiting the news of how well
your child has done in it. One way of measuring this is to
give your child a reading test and to compare the scores
with the reading test he took last May.- Before the program
ended we told the children that they would be tested in
September after school started. Unfortunately due to some
problems that have come up we must try to test all of the
children who participated before the end of August. We did
test those children who attended the last day of class,
July 29 on that date. Quite a number, including your child
did not attend that day.

We are therefore going to set up another testing
date on Monday, August 5 for your child and the others who
were not tested. Even if your child participated in the
reading program for only a short time he or she may still
have made some gains. Thus we urge you to have your child
tested anyway. I'm sure you will be very interested to
find out how much your child gained from the reading program.

There will be TWO test times, on August 5. The
first will be at the Mecosta Elementary School at 10:30 AM.
The second will be at the Reed City High School at 2 PM. I
will try to contact all of you by phone to find out if your
child needs transportation. We only have a limited amount
of transportation so please try to arrange your own if this
is possible.

If you have any questions concerning this letter
please contact us at the above address or call us at 517-
355-5015. Naturally we will let you know the results of
the tests as soon as we have graded them. Thank you very
much for your help.

Yours truly,

Charles Johnson
Reading Program Director

Mitchell Fleischer
Assistant Director

69

DecembeerO 1974

Dear Parents,

we now have the results of the testing from the reading
program your child was in over the summer. Unfortunately there
was quite a bit of delay in grading the tests. That is the
reason this letter is being sent to you so many months after
the reading program ended.

we found that almost every child.who participated in
the program made some improvements. Even those who only
came to four or five classes improved a little.

we feel certain that these gains could not have been
made without the help of all the parents involved. A.child
must have the help and interest of his parents in order to
make improvements such as these. Therefore, we thank you
for your help.

If you have any questions about the results of these
tests orwwould like more information, please feel free to write
to us at the above address.

Yours truly,
My %M

Charles Johnson
Reading Program Director

witchell Fleischer
Assistant Director

APPENDIX D

SCRIPT FOR VISIT WITH PARENTS

SCRIPT FOR VISITS WITH PARENTS

The following is a script that was generally
followed during the visits with the parents. There was
ample opportunity for interaction with the parents especi-

ally at a number of junctures that invited discussion.

(after general introductions and small talk)

Before I explain about how the reading prOgram
works let me show you this chart that shows how well
(child's name) is doing. (Show graph). The bottom line is
the number of weeks has been in the program and the
line on the left shows improvement. Each of these numbers
corresponds to one of the color levels I'm sure _____ has
told you about.

We use a program called the Reading Attainment
System that was developed by the U.S. government for older
children with reading problems. These are some of the
materials we use (show materials). There are 12 levels in
the system. Those are the levels you see on the chart in
front of you. Each level is just a little bit harder than
the one before it. Let me show you these two stories that

are in levels right next to each other. (Show 2 booklets).

As you can see there is hardly any difference. These are

70

71

two of the easier levels. Now look at this one from the
most difficult level. (Show booklet.) As you can see the
words are much harder (point at skill card words) and the
print is much smaller. You can see that the t0pics are
ones that would be of interest to most kids. (Spread out
a number of stories on the table and point to the titles,
read some titles.) There are 20 stories at each level, so
there are plenty of t0pics for anyone's interests. They
also contain some good things to know, such as _____}read
title again) or _____. Other stories are designed just
to catch someone's interest and get them to read more.

First the child chooses a story he wants and reads
it. Then he is tested on it. First he takes the Reading
Check (point). This tests how well he understands what he
has read. We've found that there are two ways of reading
things. One way is the way you or I read most of the time,
quickly, skipping things and without depth. The other way
is for school. For this you have to read very carefully
since you will be tested. The Reading Check trains your
child to read for school. After he completes the Reading
Check he gets this skill card (show one). This is essen-
tially a vocabulary test.

“Now, these are not just tests, but learning tools
also. This is because each child checks his own tests.
That way they find out not only what they got right, but

they get to correct their own mistakes. As you know we all

72

learn best from our own mistakes. Well do you have any
questions so far about how all this works?

While this short program is very good and your
child is making a lot of progress, as you can see (point
to chart), it does only last six weeks. We've got to do
more to have a really lasting effect. We've found that one
of the most important places for emphasis on reading is the
home. There are quite a few things that you can do. I've
got just a few suggestions that I like to bring up with
parents, but I'm sure that you will be able to think of
many more.

The first suggestion that I like to make is what I
call the old "pat-on-the—back” approach. And I don't mean
with a stick either (haha). What I mean is that we are
often quick to punish a child when he does something wrong,
but sometimes we forget to reward him when he does things
right. I don't know why we do that, I do it myself too.
Now I don't mean you have to go out and buy presents when-
ever you catch _____ reading a book. Just saying that he's
doing fine, or any kind of compliment will probably make
him feel pretty good. If you can get him feeling good when
he's reading, he may start feeling good about reading_and
then will do it more. That's the best thing you could
possibly do.

Another thing you could do is play a little game.
If you're reading something you think ______might be

interested in, give it to him to read. When he's done with

73

it discuss it with him, ask a few questions. This will be
just like taking the Reading Check (point). It will force
him to read like he needs to for school.

There's another game I like to suggest to parents.
Do you have a dictionary around the house? What you can do
with a dictionary is to put _____ in charge of it. When-
ever someone in the family doesn't know a word, _____ is the
one to look it up. When he does this he'll not only be
learning the words he's looking up, but he'll get in the
habit of using the dictionary, and this can be one of the
best skills he'll ever learn.

Well, you can probably think up many more ways of
getting _____ to practice reading. That's what he mostly
needs, practice! do you have any questions about what we've
discussed this morning?

Well, just remember, do the best you can to encour-

age to read as much as possible. While he's certainly

 

made a lot of progress over the past few weeks, he can only
continue to improve with your help. I'll continue to be in
touch with you about '5 progress and I'll also let you

know the results after we test the kids again in September.

"Illfiflilfiflfljflll'lfflflwfillllITS