R CL“ u ‘ LE» m xmn. ; “a: @231; in} :2 I!“ .35: C L . . gimfiam. VFLhuq W amaw 4 . . "ch ,.nhn¢::"tl. . hbbfléi‘ft . . .vvfrubwn. mnu . v ‘1.an i “PM", {HWWPM-ounuu . urn ‘ .9". iv“) .ia\! ~ . . Sup chummfiwumnWwfiWfiflm mm win . lWMA-OCIMI.WIW < A nil till“! \1 rt .- . Juuu Imt a www.mi. w awfimmmmm‘mw. ' ' Thisistocertifythatthe thesis entitled The Diagnosis and Remediation of a Severely Disabled Reader: A Case-Study. presented by Edmund Vincent Burke has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _Eh..D_._degree in mi and Special Education Major professor Date February 13 , 1981 0-7639 RETURNING MATERIALS: bVIESI_J Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from 4—3;— your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. THE DIAGNOSIS AND REMEDIATION OF A SEVERELY DISABLED READER: A CASE-STUDY By Edmund Vincent Burke A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education 1981 YOUR-33:13 A G/Mos 87‘ ABSTRACT THE DIAGNOSIS AND REMEDIATION OF A SEVERELY DISABLED READER: A CASE-STUDY By Edmund Vincent Burke This is a caserstudy of a severely disabled reader. The in- dividual in the study is an eleven year old caucasian boy who had not progressed beyond an equivalence of grade one in reading des- pite five years of audio-visual reading instruction at school and three years of similar instruction at a reading center. Psychol- ogists had diagnosed the individual as having a central nervous system impairment which handicapped numerous phases of his intel- lectual functioning. Their prognosis was that it was doubtful that he would ever read significantly above his present level. The case-report describes in detail the procedures that the investigator used in the diagnosis and remediation of the indi- vidual. Etiological data was gathered from several sources: inter- views with his parents; teachers and others who knew him; his file at the Reading Center; school reports; and from the individual him— self. As the data was gathered it was organized under four head- ings for later analysis: physical, sociological, educational and psychological factors. Therapeutic data about the individual‘s strengths, weaknesses and behavior in reading were obtained from the administration of standardized tests and informal procedures. These data were grouped under the four signs of the Sherman Model of Reading and Learning: -n.f 9d? Ashen beHBaiu'vre'x-svaa s it. {bud ---;.-.-' - a. e‘ nt-a'T 21511 s "V \IJ': 'inl'ébul'i " I. - "EF._ ':-.-""' ' " _"- J Edmund Vincent Burke sight vocabulary, decoding performance, fluent texting and compre- hension. When sufficient pertinent etiological and therapeutic data had been gathered, recorded in a daily diary, and analyzed, the investi- gator selected ten learning principles which were incorporated into the remedial instruction. It was also decided to use a language experience approach combined with a multi-sensory approach to quickly develop the individual's reading skills, particularly his sight vocab- ulary. During the sixteen weeks of remediation, the individual learned three hundred sight words through a method somewhat similar to Stages 1 and 2 of the Fernald technique. Words were obtained from language experience stories or from a basic sight word list. Each word was written in large cursive letters onto a flashcard and was learned by tracing and saying and by writing and saying the word until it could be reproduced and recognized when it was flashed. / The investigator composed sentences and stories solely from known sight words to facilitate the development of fluent texting and compre- hension. Each reading passage was typed on a primary typewriter and the same format was used each time so as not to hamper either fluency or comprehension. By the end of the remedial period the individual had improved in three of the four signs on the Sherman Model of Reading and Learn- ing. His sight vocabulary, measured by the Slosson Oral Reading Test, had increased from a raw score of thirty-four to forty—five words. His fluency had improved and he showed that he was able to read spauensl s SZU o: “retainer. nan. cow :1 .- ' :H .-.__.-_ “:3 Haas-Warn. -- ..'- he-reau the passages aloud. a Gatedeaceinitie and his grade equivalence had null.5 to-2.4 at the end of the sixteen weeks of remed- To my wife, Joy, and my children, Kristen and Jaime They did without so that I could further my education ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to several people who helped and encouraged me while I was carrying out my research and when I was writing this case report. I would like to thank the four members of my doctoral com- mittee: —- Dr. James Snoddy, Chairman of the Committee, who always gave me his time despite his busy schedule. His sound advice gave direction to the project. -- Dr. George Sherman, who answered my questions, mon- itored my progress, and who encouraged me on through- out the period of diagnosis and remediation. —- Dr. Eileen Earhart and Dr. Byron Van Roekel, who as members of my committee, gave me the guidance and support I needed. I would also like to express my deepest appreciation to: —- Dr. Gene Blair, who as a good friend, led me foreward whenever there was any doubt in mind about my project. His professional and personal assistance can never be repaid or ever forgotten. -- Dr. Sage of the Sage Foundation, for granting me funds to have this dissertation typed, printed and bound. -- Jay and his family for their cooperation, and for making the case-study possible. Many other persons have contributed academic assistance and support too. Though they are not named here, I am no less grateful to them. ii m if- impure an new” a: s {It .1110 pnfvfl‘w: 25w I 5533i": :3"- l.;-:j-.":'.:n:'-'--'- ['fla ._ '. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . 1 The Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l The Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Questions To Be Investigated . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 II. SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Etiological Diagnoses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Physical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Visual Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Auditory Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Speech Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Neurological Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Cerebral Dominance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Directional Confusion . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Other Physical Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Educational Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 The School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 The Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The Methods and Materials . . . . . . . . . . 35 Sociological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 The Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 The Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Psychological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Mental Maturity And I. Q. . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Emotional Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Self-Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Short-term Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Modality Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 iii .9 TEECFJITH .-~ «1r... ' -- . Chapter Page Therapeutic Diagnoses .......... . . . . . 52 Diagnosis Must Be Pragmatic . . ......... 56 Diagnosis Must Be Pertinent and Thorough . . . 57 Diagnosis Must Include Subjective And Objective Information . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Diagnosis Must Be Efficient ....... . . . . 61 Diagnosis Must Be Ongoing ..... . . . . . . . 64 Remedial Approaches And Techniques . . . . . . . . 65 The Language Experience Approach . . . . . . . . 67 The VAKT Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 The Hegge- Kirk- Kirk Approach . . . . . . . 72 The Orton- -Gillingham- -Stillman Approach . . . . . 73 The Neuropsychological Technique . . . . . . . . 76 Basal Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 The Sherman Model of Reading and Learning . . . . . 79 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 III. -CASE-STUDY OF A SEVERELY DISABLED READER: DIAGNOSES 82 Essential Features Of A Case-Study . . . . . . . . 82 Rationale, Objectives And Anticipated Outcomes . 83 Data-gathering Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Parental Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 The Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Case-Study Report: Jay JAY . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Etiological Diagnoses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Physical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Visual Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Auditory Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Speech Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Neurological Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Directional Confusion . . . . . . . . . . 90 Reversals And Partial Reversals . . . . . . . 90 Similar Word Configurations . . . . . . . . . 91 Other Physical Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Educational Data . . . . . . . . 93 School And Reading Center Information . . . . . 93 The Teachers And Tutors . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Methods And Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 iv Chapter Page Sociological Data ............... . 96 Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 The Home . . . ................ 98 Psychological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Mental Maturity And I. Q. ........ . . . 99 Emotional Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Self-Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Short-term Memory ..... . . . . . . . . . . 101 Modality Learning . . . . . . . . ..... . . 102 Therapeutic Diagnoses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Sign #1: Sight Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Sign #2: Decoding Performance . . . . . . . . . 104 Sign #3: Fluent Texting . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Sign #4: Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Degree 0f Disability In Reading . . . . . . . . . . 108 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 IV. CASE-STUDY OF A SEVERELY DISABLED READER: REMEDIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 The Principles Of Remedial Instruction . . . . . . 112 Principle 1: Remedial Instruction Must Be Based On Diagnosis . . . 113 Principle 2: Rapport Must Be Developed Between Teacher And Learner . . . 114 Principle 3: Success Must Be Reinforced Through- Out the Program . . . . 115 Principle 4: Learning Must Be Cumulative With Frequent Review . . . 116 Principle 5: Learning Materials And Tasks Must Be Meaningful . . . 117 Principle 6: A Variety Of Remedial Techniques Must Be Used In The Program . . . . 118 Principle 7: Spaced Practice Must Be Included In The Program . . . . . 119 Principle 8: Achievable Goals Must Be Set . . . 120 Principle 9° Cooperation Must Be An Integral Part Of The Program . . . . . 120 HnncipleIO: Skills Development Must Be The Major Objective Of The Program . . 121 Chapter Page The Remedial Program . . . ............. 122 Sign #1: Sight Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Source of Sight Words . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Organization of Sight Words . . . . . . . . . . 123 Learning New Sight Words . . .......... 123 Reviewing Known Words ........... . . 124 Difficult Sight Words . . ........ . . 126 Final Assessment Of Sight Words . . . . . . . . 126 Sign #2: Decoding Performance . . . ..... . . 127 Source of Words For Decoding . . . . . . . . . . 127 Organization Of Words For Decoding . . . . . . . 128 Learning To Decode . . . . . . . 128 Final Assessment Of Decoding Performance . . . . 129 Sign #3: Fluent Texting . . . . . . . . 129 Source Of Passages For Fluent Texting . . . . . 130 Organization Of The Passages . . . . . . . . . . 131 Learning Fluent Texting . . . . . . . . . . 131 Difficulties With Fluent Texting . . . . . . . . 132 Final Assessment 0f Fluent Texting . . . . . . . 133 Sign #4: Comprehension . . . . . . . . . 133 Source of Passages For Comprehension . . . . . . 134 Organization Of The Passages . . . . . . . . . . 134 Learning To Read And Comprehend . . . . . . . . 134 Difficulties With Reading Comprehension . . . . 135 Final Assessment 0f Reading Comprehension . . . 135 Development Of The Affective Domain . . . . . . . . 135 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Summary Of The Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Etiological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Physical Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Educational Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Sociological Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Psychological Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Therapeutic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Sign #l: Sight Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Sign #2: Decoding Performance . . . . . . . . . 144 Sign #3: Fluent Texting . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Sign #4: Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 vi 331 ...... . 2:.;-.. Y"! - . *n'-.i'- .-:.' Chapter Remedial Instruction .............. . Sign #1: Sight Vocabulary ........... Sign #2: Decoding Performance ......... Sign #3: Fluent Texting ............ Sign #4: Comprehension ............ Response To The Research Questions ......... Conclusions . . . ................. Implications Of The Study . . ...... Appropriate Methods And Materials . . . . . . . . A Model For Case—Studies ............. Cooperative Efforts . . . . . . . . . . ..... APPENDICES . . . . . . . . SHERMAN MODEL . DRAWINGS . . . . FLASHCARD . . . WORD CARDS . . . SIGHT—WORDS . . ZFKLHIOmmUOw> ............. BIBILOGRAPHY ONE DAY'S DAILY DIARY ENTRIES .......... PARENTAL CONSENT FORM . ..... . . . . . . . . SCHOOL REPORTS . . . . READING CENTER REPORT . . . . . . ...... ............. SENTENCE COMPLETION TESTS ....... . . . . . TEST RESULTS: SAMPLES . . . . . ........ ....... REVISED A AND P SIGHT WORD LIST ............... ............. ................. vii Page 146 146 148 149 150 151 157 158 158 159 159 161 161 162 167 168 172 180 182 188 206 207 208 209 212 225 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The Need The first recorded systematic study of the reading process in an English-speaking country was carried out during the 1880s and was followed, some twenty years later, by the first published report of reading disability - the case of a young boy who could not read because of "congenital word blindness“ (Harris and Sipay, 1980, p. 10). Since that time, learning to read has maintained pride-of- place in research and has attracted the attention of researchers from many disciplines: education, medicine, psychology, neurology and linguistics. Rupley and Blair (1977) stated that the literature is more replete with research in the subject matter of reading such as the psychology of reading, methodological approaches to reading instruction, diagnosis and remediation of deficits in reading than in any other area in the curriculum. This writer was impressed by the quantity and quality of re- search in the diagnostic and remedial aspects of reading and the insights gained into each of these areas. However, it was discon- certing at the same time, to note that so much of this knowledge was fragmentary and somewhat indecisive. Concern was brought on by eminent scholars who issued admonitions such as these: name. 31-” to TWEHBTRT? a. No one fully understands the extremely complex process we call reading. . . . Most models of reading are partial in that they are concerned with specific aspects (e.g., perceptual or cog- nitive), stages (beginning or skilled reading), or modes (oral or silent reading) and do not attempt to account for all phases of the reading process. No model can be called the most accep- table; the search continues (Harris and Sipay, 1980, p. 6). b. Psychology is commonly regarded as the study of behavior. And because reading is one type of behavior . . . it might be assumed that psycho- logists have devoted considerable time and effort to studying it systematically. Unfortunately such is not the case . . . (and) there has not emerged and does not exist at present a system- atic and well- formulated psychology of reading . (Those with an interest in reading) have tended to select various psychological positions to support certain of their own practices and beliefs. These are fragmentary and piecemeal (Kingston, 1968, pp. 7, 15). c. Research has not been very helpful to teachers in this matter of comprehension. . . . We still know next to nothing about the process, even though we are continually devising new measures of whatever it is (Early, 1976, p. 145). d. Anyone who knows the literature on beginning reading is forced to conclude that much still needs to be learned about what it is and how it should be taught. Those who know the literature and are also aware of what goes on in classrooms must face up to another inevitable conclusion, namely, the failure of classroom practices to reflect what is known (Adams, Anderson, and Our- kin, 1978, p. 153). e. Despite over thirty years of research on specific reading and writing disabilities in children with normal intelligence, the results are contradictory as indicators of either causes of the disability or remedial programs that help persons overcome them (Valtin, 1979, p. 34). Statements like these, out of context as they are, tend to lead one to believe that there has been little real advancement in reading-related areas since the 18805, however, this could not be further from the truth. Although there may be no general consensus about the processes involved in learning to read, the etiology of reading disabilities, or how we may best diagnose or remediate dis- abled readers, never before have we been exposed to such a rich variety of theoretical processes, models of reading, instructional and remedial procedures, and diagnostic instruments. Why then does so much confusion and uncertainty exist in the pedagogical appli- cations of this knowledge, particularly in regard to the diagnosis and remediation of disabled readers? Perhaps part of the answer lies in theories we hold about the etiology of reading disability. If one were to support the causation theory of Samuel L. Blumenfeld (1974), the English-speaking world could soon be rid of reading disabilities: Dyslexia is a learning disorder caused by applying hieroglyphic instruction techniques in teaching children to read an alphabet writing system. I say it is a learning disorder because we know it can be unlearned . . the technique for curing dyslexia . . . (is) merely unlearning and relearning how one is taught to read . . . dyslexia is a learning disorder, not a dis- ability because children who get it are quite able to learn. . . . Their problem is that they learn too well and try too hard to assimilate what really cannot be assimilated. Dyslexia is a learning disorder because it is caused by a teaching disorder. When you impose hieroglyphic instruction method on an alphabetic writing system you create symbolic disorder - that is, disorder in the use, or I should say misuse, of symbols - which in turn creates a learning disability, which in turn can be straightened out by creating symbolic order (p. 2). In the view of the investigator, Harris and Sipay (1980) pro- vide a more credible view of the possible causes of most instances of reading disability. They cite several single—cause theorists who, 5n0I33U'Vla'li ."T‘Hl" 4” "l?" a‘ I -. - - I .Uy'l-l . ".312.- " ‘- ""- 1 ' ‘ - .. . _ ' I 3" T ' .5 .r-- . - . . . ._ . I ' l l 'Il'l ‘ ._ I ' I. .|-- during the 1950 to 1970 era, advocated that reading disability in an individual could be traced to a single cause. Their list of possible causes include: inheritance of the disability, brain damage, neurological dysfunction, maturational lag, deficiencies in body chemistry, verbal deficit, and, the one that is still cur— rently popular as a main cause, perceptual motor deficit. One reason that the single-factor theory appears more plausible than Blumenfeld's is that it ties in neatly with the notion that reading is mainly a two-fold process: There is the mechanical aspect, the physiological responses to the print, consisting of certain oculo- motor skills, the eye movements, through which sensa— tions are conveyed to the brain; and second, the mental process through which the meaning of the sense impres- sions is perceived and interpreted, involving thinking with shift inferences (Hildreth, 1958, p. 19). The multi-factor theory of reading disability is the most widely accepted among educators, psychologists, and other interested in reading disability (Roswell and Natchez, 1971; Harris and Sipay, 1980; Bond and Tinker, 1967). The multi—causaltheorists argue, The cause of reading disability can never be pinpointed accurately. They are complex, often obscure, and always interrelated. One cannot iso- late a single cause, diagnose it, treat it and then dismiss a child as ”cured" of his disability. Often the reading disability itself can be a symptom of some deep-seated emotional problem (Roswell and Nat- chez, 1971, p. 11). Robinson's study in 1946 undoubtedly popularized the multi- factor theory of reading disabilities, however,her findings did not preculde the rare possibility of a single cause accounting for reading disabilities in some children (Harris and Sipay, 1980). Otto and Smith (1980) interpret her data to suggest that ”in I. 1315'; 'c.3?_.'. i5'-._¢_.:'-::. - II. . IA" general, the more severe the reading problem, the more factors can be identified as possible causes . . ."(p. 98). Also cited is the Pressey, et al. (1959) report which has direct bearing on the investi- gation in this dissertation: " . . . diagnosing a learning problem is quite different from attempting to isolate a germ that is causing an illness. . . . They conclude that diagnostic and remedial efforts must be guided by recognition of the complex nature of the individual and of learning" (p. 98). Jules Abrams, in the Foreward to the book Disabled Readers: Insights, Assessment, Instruction, edited by Sawyer (1980), mentioned that during the past fifteen years there has been much interest in, and concern for, disabled readers and such children are still being referred to child psychiatric clinics and therapists. He concludes: Unfortunately, all too often the children are approached with a unitary orientation so that extremely important aspects of their unique reading disability are ignored . . . reading problems can be caused by any number of a multiplicity of factors, all of which may be highly interrelated. Many professionals are involved in working with children with reading dis- abilities. However, there is a tendency for each professional discipline to look at this serious problem through its own window of specialization. This tendency often obscures vital factors which may contribute to, or at least exacerbate, the basic difficulty (p. v). Rossman's (1980) argument seems logically to continue from that of Abrams and she very strongly advocates a case study approach for disabled readers: I must know as much as possible about the emotions, needs, desires, and problems of each disabled adolescent reader . . . if I must avoid assemply-line approaches and generalizations which never seem to apply to a specific case, then as I teach I must get acquainted with specific young persons . . . in dealing with pupils, schools and society must have clearer and more ahoiie lL-Z'bems: we ;".:.';mr..=' _- - _ - wig-L r ~- comprehensive views of them, at once particular and supportive and which recognizes individuals as persons who are trying to emerge with some self-esteem, some skills and some success in solving problems (p. 28). If we accept the statements: a. each reading disabled person has a pattern of differing etiologies (Ekwall, 1976) and b. each child brings a unique set of variables to any learning situation (Sherman, 1979) must we not therefore accept the conclusion that the most efficient means of assisting the disabled reader - knowing him as an indi— vidual, being aware of his learning strengths and weaknesses, offer— ing appropriate remediation - is through an extensive study of him — an indepth case study? Martin (1971), in Ekwall, writes in support: It seems most prudent to try to understand how the child can best learn rather than focus on the reasons he doesn't learn when taught by traditional methods. If educators and others can recognize the factors and the environment in which the child will best learn - including maturation, perceptual strengths, style of learning - individualization of that child's teaching to capitalize on those strengths presently holds our most promising assistance to the (reading) handicapped child (p. 471). (My parentheses) The Purpose This is a case study - an indepth investigation and detailed analysis of a child who is severely disabled in reading. The child in the study attends regular school where he receives small group instruction from the school's reading specialist, and he also attends a university reading center for reading remediation. In this study the investigator seeks to: a. gather personal information about the child from his school reports and his Reading Center file and through interviews and observations, b. identify the individual's reading strengths and weaknesses through the administration of standardized and informal tests, c. determine appropriate remediation based on (a) and (b), d. record the results of each intensive tutoring session on cassette tape and in a daily log, and e. monitor and evaluate progress. Though the etiology of the child's reading disability will be investigated and some statements made about the possible causes of his disability, this aspect will be given less attention than the identification of strengths and weaknesses and the subsequent reading remediation. This is not meant to suggest that causal factors are unimportant in recommending remediation; rather, ” . . . to determine which of these characteristics (causal factors) may have interfered with the child's learning to read, and their relative importance in this case, is a difficult detective job at best and often cannot be solved" (Harris and Sipay, 1980, p. 252). Chall (1978) quotes Black (1974): The placement of children with learning disabilities in programs for remediation should be based upon the presence and nature of the achievement problem, not upon the presence or absence of a concomitant factor such as a visual-perceptual dysfunction . . . emphasis for these children should be upon good teaching of reading. The most efficient way to remediate reading problems would seem to be the teaching of reading (p. 35). This quote provides the essence for this case study. The child's school reports and his file at the Reading Center show that traditional, well-tried methods — the auditory-visual noraasa whoa-.5: n-"znsirr ruse ‘-n rill-aw m" ' b:'..-: ,:.-."'i.'i'-.!' "' i. 'h -- methods that had worked with typical children - had not resulted in the development of measurable competence in reading or improved his ability to deal with any of the four basic reading skills: sight word acquisition, decoding, fluency and comprehension. Consequently, it became the task of the investigator to identify appropriate remedial approaches and determine which of these would be most effective, taking into account all of the information that was known about this child as an individual and as a learner. An additional purpose of this study lies mainly in the fact that there is a dearth of material of sufficient informative value, about disabled readers and the approaches and techniques used to assist them. Many of the reports that are available are neat succinct summaries of the research: bones without flesh. Harris (1970) strongly stresses the importance of detailed case studies: Printed materials can provide vivid examples of how diagnosis, planning, remediation and evaluation are carried out in leading centers. Published case reports, however, have not been numerous and most of them have been presented non—technically or in a brief and compressed way, due to limitations imposed by the professional journals in which they have appeared (p. xxi). Teachers in classrooms, reading specialists in schools, clin— icians in reading centers and college professors of reading need much more information about disabled readers and the approaches and tech- niques used in their remediation programs. An indepth and detailed case study of the kind undertaken here will assist in meeting this need, and it may lead to future research of a more controlled nature with a larger sample population. 1m outflow“ {Tisnsbi o: «lumping-mi 9d.” ”."- .1251 -..r: 9.2-: ‘.'.' gfl'h‘i.‘ .I.-m"J'.‘-‘-'i"l§ 3.20m r--'_i . :..-'w e. -n.‘ " re... --- Questions To Be Investigated Three questions were investigated during the period of research. The first two questions received the greatest portion of the investigator's time and attention. The last question re- ceived attention throughout the time of research and was answered by the end of the period. a. The investigator has access to the child's school and reading center files and is able to interview the child's parents, teachers and others who know him. How efficiently is the investigator able to diagnose the reading dis- ability and determine appropriate remediation? b. The VAKT technique enforces careful, systematic obser— vation of words; makes necessary a consistent left-to- right direction in reading; provides for learning through repetition; gives the learner a sense of progress and accomplishment; and reinforces visual impressions through the sensory impressions of tracing, writing, and saying the words (Harris and Sipay, 1980). If the individual's present audio-visual approach to reading was discontinued and a remedial approach such as the VAKT used instead, would the individual show higher gains in reading skills? c. Reading disability occurs among children in all parts of the world and that in many countries classroom teachers are solely responsible for the diagnosis and remediation of the disabled readers. How feasible would it be for teachers to replicate the remediation procedures of this 1219sz asw has #3159!!! '1-':- an“: ‘:I"..- =.:'v':j.--'--.'H .iirJ'n-rfr- tins-3 10 study or to incorporate the principles and methodology of this study into their classroom and remediation prac- tices? The Theory The theory for the research that was carried out had to meet several criteria since the subject in this study had failed to learn to read after five years of conventional/traditional approaches at school and three years of similar approaches in the reading center. The criteria below were obtained from various sources (Bond et al., 1979; Roswell and Natchez, 1971; Wilson, 1972; Otto and Smith, 1980; Harris, 1981) and were selected because some were pedagogic and others developed the learner's self-concept: a. Remedial instruction must be based on diagnosis. b. Rapport must be developed between the teacher and learner. c. Success must be reinforced throughout the program. d. Learning must be cumulative with frequent review. e. Learning materials and tasks must be meaningful. f. A variety of remedial techniques must be used. 9. Spaced practice must be included in the program. h. Achievable goals must be set. i. Cooperation must be an integral part of the program. j. Skills development must be the major goal of the program. The search for theories that might include these criteria resulted in the use of the Sherman Model of Reading and Learning (Sherman, 1979) and the subsequent selection of the Fernald technique. team a: bed .tuu os’nr-r: ._.-,. - --: 7' - '. w:- T --.-:.' r-v '--:'.- - l;._: - ' ' .I '. l-- I 11 The Fernald approach incorporates almost all of the criteria in that it is highly individualized — each teacher working on a one- to-one ratio with the child, using a language experience approach for gathering words for sight vocabulary development and reading. It is success-oriented and capitalizes on the interests and motiva- tions of the learner. Perhaps the two best features of the program are that it has been used successfully on occasions with severely disabled readers and that it is radically different from other techniques and approaches that have been used unsuccessfully. The VAKT approach uses multisensory ”bombardment“ to learn words (Otto and Smith, 1980). It is believed to be vital that visual, auditory, kinesthetic and tactile impressions be made of each new word until the learner is able to recognize and reproduce the word correctly. The Sherman Model of Reading and Learning also satisfies many of the criteria. The model primarily directs the clinician to a more reliable, efficient and valid diagnosis of the learner's needs if he is to become a proficient reader. According to this model, reading is a complex act comprised of subsystems or signs: Sign #1: A reader has a sight vocabulary adequate for his grade placement or material demands. Sign #2: A reader has decoding insight and application appropriate to grade placement or material demands. Sign #3: A reader fluently integrates language in meaningful semantic and syntactic units. Sign #4: A reader can comprehend, infer, and remember what is read. . 0'5. r..r-.-.-.r. . ' ’ ' mswgewr 5m, x. 9:21.329. 4...: . -.- _l’ .3111 ‘-"._- T'iC-i'.‘ -'-vi§-.I. 7‘... - r"'::; : . --- 12 Each sign has a subsystem of effecting factors: task variables (skills), learning variables (conditions) and unique child variables (basic givens). Sherman advocates that a child who is "healthy” in all four signs is a reader: the child who is deficient in any sign is a non-reader. The four signs can be observed to operate indepen- dently or they may interact. As a result, ”deficits in one (sign) can affect only that sign, or it can affect each of the other three“ (Sherman, 1979, p. 4). This model will simply identify the sign(s) in which the child is weak and may provide sufficient information to the diagnostician to explain why this is so. The Fernald VAKT and Sherman Model of Reading and Learning neatly complement one another in meeting the criteria used for this study. Definitions Several terms will be used regularly throughout this study and in order to avoid any confusion in meaning, definitions of how the terms are used are provided. The words in parentheses are synonyms. Whenever possible, the source of the definition has been recognized. Dyslexia (congenital word blindness): defective reading. The reading impairment is associated with cerebral dys- function (Kelly and Vergasou, 1975, p. 46). It may represent a developmental failure to profit from reading instruction (Harris and Sipay, 1980, p. 136). A situation in which a child is unable to read with proper facility despite normal intelligence, intact senses, proper instruction and normal motivation (Money, 1962, p. 211). Dyslexia has been qualified as ”specific” (meaning reading failure in contrast to general learning failure) or ”devel— opmental” (in contrast to acquired, or loss of previously acquired skill). amoeba? gas-veep a: bevwszdo ed as:- emit-.- 'nuo'i _..-. mates-aunt!" s at "nF:-.: e-i‘ ‘='-"'==:" '-.---'=' ." -- - "I; a Z; 13 Reading Disability: reading is significantly below expec- tancy for both age and intelligence and is disparate with the learner's cultural, linguistic, and educational experience (Harris and Sipay, 1980, p. 138). Reversal (strephosymbolia): changing positions of letters, syllables, or sound units within words; also used to refer to turning letters backwards (Jordan, 1977, p. 191). Rotation: turning around certain letter forms within words (Jordan, 1977, p. 191). Severely Disabled Reader (severe reading disability): refers to disabled readers whose general level of reading ability is extremely below expectancy (Harris and Sipay, 1980, p. 144). The symptoms that often appear in cases of severe reading disability are also often common to learning disability cases in general: Reversals of letters or words. Short or erratic memory for words. Oral rereading not improved after silent reading or after first oral reading. Inability to hold information in memory until needed. Difficulty in concentration. Inability to see whole realtionships or form a Gestalt. Emotional instability. Tendency towards impulsiveness. Poor eye—motor coordination. Difficulty in sequencing. Inability to work rapidly. Omissions of words and phrases. Directional confusion. Poor auditory discrimination. Hyperactivity. Poor syntax, stuttering or speaking haltingly. Achievement in arithmetic considerably higher than in reading and spelling (Ekwall, 1976, pp. 226-227). OUQJ DUO:E—-‘7T(.:...:.:(Q—hma m Reading is, without doubt, the most researched area in the school curriculum. Tomes exist that describe the reading process per se and reading disabilities, however, our knowledge of these areas has been described as piecemeal and fragmentary. Clearly, further research is zbm nids‘m ame- isise' .iissaea hfldll'lf :ri'v'u: roam-3: - I _. ." '. _ nth-ii} i . a. '|-'l r" 14 still needed. In this chapter, several controversial issues are raised: the disruptive nature of etiological factors; single-cause versus multiple- cause theories, and, the importance of a thorough understanding of the disabled reader. The writer puts forward that the best way to thoroughly understand a disabled reader and to gain an appreciation of his problems is through the case-study approach. This approach allows for the col- lection of all pertinent data - the possible causes of the reading dis- ability, from multi-disciplinary perspectives; the diagnosis of specific strengths and weaknesses in reading; and information about the learner as an individual and as a learner - so that the best treatment may be given to him. Case-studies can provide vivid examples of how diagnosis, planning, remediation and evaluation are carried out in leading centers (Harris, 1970) and, this writer contends that detailed studies of disabled readers are needed for reference by reading specialists in schools and by clin- icians in college reading centers. The case-study approach was used by this writer in his investi- gation of a disabled reader. The research questions, the theory, and the methods and techniques used in the diagnosis and remediation, have been presented in the chapter. Inland-ion: c! u": 329d fit"! 15d:- owsmn" an. '--."-.i M'- - "-5-" fielder-it! sine-Mom: I-ii' m; .‘r' ..".:.'»E 19: .'; =. .: ' '-- -' -- - CHAPTER II A SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE Research in reading disability, until the 19405, was very largely the domain of men in the medical sciences: physicians, opthamologists and neurologists, as it was popularly held that the cause of the disability was a basic constitutional condition (Harris and Sipay, 1980) within the individual, brought about by a neurological dysfunction or a congenital weakness. Since that time, reading ability has been seen as a societal problem mainly because of the statistics and information that are available about children who experienced reading difficulties: a. Brown and Satz both provide many more instances, however, just three Reading disorders have been reported as the major single cause of the 700,000 annual school drop— outs in the United States (Brown, 1978, p. v). Seventy-five percent of juvenile delinquents are significantly retarded in reading (Brown, 1978, p. v). The American Association of Junior Colleges esti- mates that from one—third to one-half of new stu- dents to their colleges have significant reading problems, and, in the most disadvantaged areas, about twenty percent of these students are unable to profit from programs in reading instruction and remediation (Satz, 1977, p. 43). examples will suffice here to show that reading disability is a societal problem. 15 16 There has been an acceleration of interest in reading dis- orders during the last four decades among professional from a wide range of disciplines: psychology, linguistics, sociology, special education, psychiatry, and education, many of whom have undertaken research in this area and published their findings. Medical pro- fessionals, too, have continued their investigations and these, com- bined with those from their multidisciplinary colleagues have in- creased our knowledge of the phenomenon and our understanding of the difficulties disabled readers experience. Despite these advan- cements, there is little information that is definitive about the incidence of reading disability nor is there consensus among research— ers as to the underlying causation or pathogensis. The therapeutic diagnosis and remediation of reading dis- ability have fallen within the realm of educators, including class- room teachers, with some input as to the etiological factors coming, in most cases, from professionals in other disciplines. The process of diagnosis, followed by appropriate remediation, is often made complicated by such cliches as: a. the child is constantly growing and changing (Ekwall, 1976, p. 1). b. the unique and complex nature of the disabled reader - as an individual and as a learner (Stauffer, 1980, p. 128). c. the complex skill of reading, involving a number of rather different components (Rutter, 1978, p. 6). d. the possibility that a multiplicity of causal factors contributed towards the disability (Otto and Smith, 1980, p. 98). .C‘ IEDTM I I I'a w - I w "T TBI‘I. "H:I" . . 3".- T'I ' Na ‘ 'fi '9 h . r. 551! ' I .. I. : n5 6" h l 'flC‘i '- _. .hd‘i'” I' . I. .II‘FI I. I ‘V f' 'IJé'" '. 'V ' . 'l‘: 1 " . I ' " _ . -:" . 5'95" II J! 17 e. the identification of the "best way" to form a match between pupil type and instruction type (Zigmond, 1978, p. 440). Here, as with the determining of causal factors of reading dis- ability, researchers have found few ready solutions and definitive answers to the problems of diagnosis and remediation. Research in these areas will be discussed at length in the latter part of this chapter. In this chapter, the writer will discuss research related to four areas of reading disability: a. Etiological Diagnoses. b. Therapeutic Diagnoses. c. Remedial Approaches and Techniques. d. The Sherman Model Etiological Diagnoses With present day understanding of the complex processes in- volved in reading, there is little wonder that the one—time popular notion of the single-factor theory is no longer acceptable and that, in lieu, the multi-causal theory is more widely accepted. Various advocates of the single-cause theory argued that all, or most cases, of reading disability could be ascribed to one cause and although this single cause could not always be proven, it was often hypothesized to be the causal factor by the researchers. There were, of course, many single factors, any one of which could be iden— tified as ”the cause.” Blumenfeld (1974), the most simplistic of the single-factor theorists, suggests that reading disability in English, results from applying hieroglyphic instructional techniques in learning 18 to read an alphabetic writing system. Others (Hallgren, 1950; Herman, 1964; Critchley, 1970) have been cited in Harris and Sipay (1980) as believing that reading disability is genetically linked and therefore passed from parents to one, some or all of their children. Various other single-factor theories have been proposed: neurological dysfunctions, verbal deficit, maturational lage, chemical excess or deficiency, and perceptual-motor difficulties, each of which will be discussed in greater detail in this subsection. According to Valtin (1980), dyslexia or reading disability was once thought to be an ”isolated” phenomenon: . . professionals held relatively clear opinions about the manifestations and causes of dyslexia. In general, the following hypotheses were proposed: 1) Dyslexia is related to disturbances in visual perception (for example, difficulties in the recognition and differentiation of figures); 2) a basic phenomenon of dyslexia is directional confusion, which was believed to show itself in reversal and rotation errors, especially while reading, and in rotation of figures and left/right confusion; 3) left- dominance (left-handedness, left—eyedness, and mixed hand-eye dominance) was postulated as a causative factor in dyslexia, in conjunction with disturbed spatial abil— ities; 4) dyslexia was thought to be congenital (inborn) weakness and therefore, relatively independent of the sociocultural milieu (pp. 34-35). Valtin does not subscribe to the single—factor theory and conducted several empirical studies to question the theory and to show metho— dological weaknesses in the research of the single-cause theorists. The supporters of the pluralistic viewpoint of reading dis— ability do not dispute the factors identified by the single-cause theorists, in fact, they accept all of these factors and have added many more. Adherents of the many-factor theory have had their view- points succinctly summarized by Ekwall (1978): 19 A student's ability or inability to read is affected by a number of factors . . . socioeconomic, psychological, educational, and physical . . . and many of these cannot be completely isolated since they often appear in conjunction with other factors that are believed to contribute to problems in reading. For example, because of the nature of the student's environment he is likely to possess combinations of physical, psychological, socioeconomic and educational problems all of which contribute to his reading dis- ability"(p. 19). Similar views have been expressed by Fernald (1943), Harris and Sipay (1980), Bond and Tinker (1967), and Roswell and Natchez (1971). In the ensuing review of research into the etiology of reading disabilities, the four headings: physical, educational, sociological and psychological, used by Ekwall (1978) and Carter and McGinnis (1970) will be used, and the main causes of reading disability will be dis— cussed under each of these. Physical Data There are very many factors under this heading that may affect a learner's achievement in reading, however, only the major ones - those that have attracted research - will be discussed. Visual Factors Reading is, to a very large part, a visual activity and it follows that if a child is experiencing reading difficulties, he should be examined for visual deficiencies. There have been many studies that have looked for a relationship between visual deficits and reading ability, yet, an exact statement of the relationships is not available (Ekwall, 1978; and Harris and Sipay, 1980) because people vary in their ability to compensate for visual handicaps: 20 One child might be greatly handicapped by a visual defect while another might perceive adequately on the basis of very poor retinal images. Statistically, it has been shown that defective visual acuity is not much more frequent among reading failures than among non-failures, although individual cases occur in which failure is definitely the result of impaired vision. The mere existence of low acuity is to be regarded as a possible but not invariable cause of poor reading (Eames, 1962, p. 427). Valtin (1980), who studied one hundred pairs of dyslexic and normal children, found that for most dyslexics, failure in reading could not be attributed to disturbances in visual perception. She reports findings that were contrary to what was commonly believed, ”Surprisingly, . . . the dyslexic children were actually faster than the nondyslexics (on Thurstone's test of Perceptual Speed“ (p. 35). She cites two other studies from Germany wherein similar findings were reported. Though it would be foolish to suggest that there is no tie at all between visual deficiencies and reading, researchers have been unable to determine the degree of causal relationships of visual defects such as the lack of clear—cut retinal images; the lack of precision in discrimination of complex visual patterns; and, the lack of precision in discrimination of the spatial orientation of patterns - defects identified by Monroe (1932) — and eye movements. Auditory Factors Bond and Tinker (1967) take the stance that the hard-of-hearing child is, as a rule, educationally retarded. For them, . reading achievement depends considerably upon language development and speech facility. In- struction in reading usually involves a large oral component. There the child needs to follow oral 21 activities of both the teacher and other pupils, associate oral speech with printed and written words, make rather fine auditory discriminations between certain words, and use auditory techniques in word analysis. The child who does not hear satisfactorily will be handicapped in these activities (p. 111). In Robinson's (1946) review of research between auditory acuity and reading disability, she cites a good number of studies that show hearing loss and reading achievement relationships. Her reference to Gates and Bond's research sums up her own view, as well as the more widely accepted view today: "Gates and Bond found a low correlation between hearing loss and final reading achievement . . . the pupils in the near-failing group showed a greater amount of hearing loss . ” (p. 51). Ekwall (1976), on the other hand, interprets Robinson's study as, ”her study reinforces the general opinion that insufficient audi— tory acuity is relatively unimportant as a cause of severe reading disability." Robinson (1972) reports the study of Dykstra in 1966 wherein he found that when "good” and ”poor” readers were tested on auditory discrimination, the latter were found to score lower as a group. Con— sequently, Dykstra was able to conclude there was a like between audi- tory deficits and lower reading discrimination test scores of young children. Strang supports Dykstra‘s findings and adds, ”children with auditory defects tend to learn better by visual methods than by audi- tory or phonic methods” (cited in Carter and McGinnis, 1970, p. 52). There have been many studies which have looked at the relation- ships of auditory discrimination and auditory memory and reading dis— ability. Ekwall (1976) reviewed several of these studies and concluded, walla Jo!!! dart-tn is ”220.11.” :r.:..' -:~ . -‘ -'--_. -7i -' ‘---' ' ' 5'" EH" |.:\'.u-- 1.1-"- . ;.| 22 ”It would again be difficult to determine the percentage of reading failures caused from difficulties with auditory discrimination since it is often just one of several or many causal factors likely to be contributors. . . . Little is known concerning the relationship between auditory memory and reading. Various studies indicate that a larger percentage of disabled readers have impaired auditory memory span or ability to sequence than do good readers” (pp. 6 and 7). Carter and McGinnis (1970) also reviewed the research in this area and they raise the point that children vary in the rate of devel— opment of both auditory discrimination and auditory memory. They con- cluded, ". . .(these) are not well developed in some children until the age of nine“ (p. 52) - some three or four years after formal reading instruction has been introduced. It is perhaps unfortunate that there have been few longitudinal investigations of auditory deficits and reading disabilities from which to draw conclusions about developmental lag or the usefulness of early intervention. As with the conclusion drawn about visual factors, the effect of auditory deficiencies on reading vary from one individual to another. Harris and Sipay (1980) provide a quote that sums up this point: ”the handicapping effect of partial hearing loss is much greater for some people than for others. Some people make up for their sensory weak- nesses by concentrating intently and getting the greatest possible meaning out of what they do hear . . .” (p. 304). It has been sug- gested that children who have inadequate auditory discrimination may be helped through intervention programs, however, training of auditory memory per se seldom has a beneficial effect on children's reading 10 n‘ - an; gnomem and 'r . . - .L-i bent-1"“ avsf = 'Iu' .IQ'I ' ..- .:afnanueo 23 ability (Ekwall, 1976). Speech Factors Bond and Tinker (1967) reviewed research of speech defects and reading disability and they suggest that there was a relationship between the two factors. They drew many of their conclusions from Monroe's study in 1932, wherein the relationship was suggested. Monroe found that a child with faulty speech was confused by the way words were pronounced since he heard them one way and produced them another. He was also confused when he transformed written or printed words into speech. Sometimes, the translation of print into speech resulted in a breakdown of comprehension. Bond and Tinker (1967) raised one other point that related defective speech to reading disability: . . . emotional involvement created by defective speech may contribute to reading disability. Real or fancied reactions of the teacher or classmates to errors of articulation during oral reading may cause the child embarrassment and accentuate his self—consciousness . (and make him) unwilling to engage in oral reading. This general emotional stress due to speech defects may, therefore, be responsible in some cases for difficulty in learning to read (p. 115). (My parentheses) Harris and Sipay (1980) concur with this viewpoint Although there were many kinds of speech defects, Harris and Sipay (1980) note that indistinctiveness and rapid, jerky, stumbling speech, called cluttering, occurred most frequently among poor readers. They summarized several studies in this area and stated that children who are slow ih speech development during the preschool years are likely to develop reading disabilities later. They cited the study mow‘i an oven“ ' .Jnc: 1.9M "-" W ' -'.-'..-'i -~-'_--' . . . :lrtjr nan-.3; .. .‘-d I I E’s" In": '- ..|--"'-'T 'II- . '..'-' 24 of de Hirsch, Jansky and Langford - a longitudinal study to predict reading disability in grades one and two from language proficiency tests administered in kindergarten, and Lyle's study in 1970, in which it was found that retarded speech development and articulatory speech defects between the ages of two and one-half years and four years showed a clear-cut relationship to reading retardation. Rutter (1978), like Harris and Sipay, carried out a review of research and came to the conclusion: . . because reading is a highly complex activity which utilizes a great number of skills, it has not proved easy to determine the relative importance of each skill in either reading competences or reading difficulties . . . one way of examining this matter is to determine the frequency of reading difficulties in children with different sorts of specific handicaps (p. 7). He got support for this idea from a follow-up study in Edinburgh in which it was found that two years after starting school, one-third of the speech retarded pupils in the study were backward in reading and spelling, compared to about one—in-twenty in the control group. Reading disability was found to occur both in children with a true delay in spoken language and in those with articulation defects. Clearly, there is little doubt about the link between speech defects and reading retardation. However, with our current knowledge it can be hypothesized that the causal realtionship exists very much in the beginning stages of learning to read, when phoneme—grapheme concepts are being developed. sweet and on: “Sex (3 25 Neurological Factors Researchers have been attracted for many decades to finding the degree of relationship between neurological dysfunctions and reading disabilities. Some researchers have been engaged in rather esoteric studies of the relationship and their findings have been somewhat speculative and of dubious value to those who are concerned with the remediation of disabled readers: others have been more gainfully employed as far as the reading clinician or classroom teacher is concerned. It will be very largely the research of the latter group that will be discussed here. Cerebral Dominance It was believed, until recently, that the speech center and the center which was used for motor processes such as reading were located in the ”language center“ on the left side of the brain (Carter and McGinnis, 1970). This notion tied in well with the lateral domin- ance theory wherein right-handed individuals used the left hemisphere to process aural and written messages. Left-handed individuals were less fortunate, for they used the right hemisphere - the non-language center - to process these same messages and, as a result, were less efficient. This misconception was popluarly believed until the 19505 when neurologists were able to make more direct observations of the functions of the brain. Harris (1979) cites the research of neurologists Penfield and Roberts in the 19505 to waylay the notion that right-handed people used the left hemisphere for language and language-related tasks while left-handed people used the right hemisphere of the brain: ”Penfield's her-wanes :15 orlw sand: 0: guns» :ua'rdur. i: hm. ---.?Jr..'_-;ec;- 'erimoe ‘."“".3". i‘-.'.:'.'C 9151‘: F'TE-i.":- 2- ' ' .-'- : ‘3. 26 results agreed with those of the Wada test in showing that the left hemisphere is usually dominant for speech regardless of handedness of the individual, with the exception of those who have cerebral in- juries early in life in whom other brain centers may take control of speech” (p. 339). Harris also provides information from Sperry and others in the late 19605 when a new type of brain operation pro- vided new insights into hemispheric functions: A number of ingenious studies . . . revealed that each hemisphere is dominant for some functions and non- dominant for others. Receptive and expressive language, analytic reasoning, and sequential processing seem to be left hemisphere functions while simultaneous per- ception of visual forms such as faces and geometrical figures and perception of music and other non—linguistic sounds seem to be right hemisphere functions. The right hemisphere is not totally nonverbal; it is capable of limited understanding of language, mainly nouns, but cannot produce speech (p. 339). Another means that has been used to study cerebral activity is the electroencephalograph (EEG) - a device that can measure and record brain impulses through electrodes attached to the head. The usefulness of EEG as an index of diverse forms of brain pathology is well recog- nized and acclaimed (Benton, 1978), however, both Benton (1978) and Harris (1979) question how helpful EEG studies have been to gaining further insights into the etiology of reading disability. The whole issue of lateral dominance and its relationship with reading per se, or reading disability, is far from being settled. Carter and McGinnis provide a brief review of the research findings and they conclude, ”Obviously, there is a lack of agreement on the relationship between dominance and reading disability. Because so little agreement exists, it may be assumed that dominance is only ' ' ‘ "' "-"Et '1! r9090! to 11'1qu moi? no‘szmo'tm ash-wont. o.- r. r. . ‘ - '-' " "H3” 1‘;le "I' 7': 'h ', I '. '_ T -_ ' - ‘ “I; "(:1 TEE'Hn-T'.‘ 1 . . l 27 one of the possible factors to be considered in a study of reading disability” (p. 56). Ekwall (1976) concurs: "The research on the relationship . . . is voluminous . . . however, there are still no clear-cut answers as to what we should test for or what we can do about these problems when they are found to exist" (p. 8). Directional Confusion Directional confusion would, in most circumstances, be con- sidered within the main heading, “Neurological Factors.” However, because recent research has tended to disassociate reversals and rotations with neurological dysfunction, the writer has chosen to treat directional confusion as a separate entity. Directional confusion, or reversals, are recognized as normal in all young children - both weak and strong letter recognizers (Cohn and Stricker, 1979). However, when they do not cease by late second grade or early third grade, they become a source of concern because, then, reversals are thought to be indicative of perceptual disorders, resulting from either neurological dysfunction or developmental delay (Moyer and Newcomer, 1977). This notion developed very largely from Orton's study in the 19205. Harris and Sipay (1980) cite Orton's various studies and suggest that he ”postulated that reversals were the prime symptom of 'the reading disability,’ which he termed strep— hosymbolia' (twisted symbols) . . . reversals reflected the failure to develop a clear dominance of one cerebral hemisphere. When the less dominant hemisphere took over sporadically, reversals occurred” (p. 426). .(8 .0) "nine oi bout" a": ken-L: new. am:~-"dr.:-.-: 9291i: reeds 28 Orton's theories held sway for many years, however, today they have little credibility among neurologists (Moyer and Newcomer, 1977) except for his theory that young children must reach a certain level of maturity before they develop a dominant cerebral hemisphere. Until they reach this level of maturation they are thought to lack the per- ceptual organization necessary to recognize the correct orientation of letters (Moyer and Newcomer, 1977). Orton's theory makes good sense, however, it cannot be considered definitive since the exact function of cerebral dominance in reading ability is unresolved (Harris and Sipay, (1980). There have been several counter-proposals to Orton's theory on reversals but only two will be discussed here. The first was put forward by Moyer and Newcomer (1977) who, from an extensive review of research on this subject, concluded that reversals often result from nothing more than unfamiliarity with the concept of directionality as it relates to letter discrimination. The writers continue, ”the abil- ity to successfully discriminate between such letters can be learned easily by most children when they are instructed properly. Until children encounter those letters of the alphabet that have mirror image counterparts, they have no occasion to consider spatial orien— tation. . ." (p. 428). For Moyer and Newcomer, reversals are rela- tively trivial and easily corrected by the teacher who plans an in- structional program using their recommended procedures. These writers finish up on a rather skeptical note which defeats their whole argu— ment: ”Should a thorough training program of this type fail, the teacher might then be justified in considering the possibility of a l l u E- I 'h 29 perceptual or neurological problem and might refer the child to appropriate specialists for further evaluation and treatment" (p. 429). The second counter proposal was put forward by Laurita in 1976, cited in Cohn and Stricker (1979). These authors suggest that Laurita found an explanation for older children continuing with reversals, drawing on animal and human studies in laboratories. He found that when laboratory subjects become overloaded and frustrated they were unable to make simple visual discriminations that they had been able to make earlier. As a result, “they became fixated in this inability“ (p. 536). Laurita, in his report, outlines a method that he found successful - ”a method that does not assume fundamental per- ceptual or cognitive deficit” (p. 537). Other Physical Factors There are literally many dozens of other physical factors that researchers have indicated as possible causes of reading disability. However, limitations of time prohibit anything more than a mere listing of them: general health, poor definition, malnutrition, vitamin de- ficiencies, allergies, glandular disturbances, infected tonsils and adenoids (Ekwall, 1976). Carter and McGinnis (1970) mentioned many of these same factors, however, they conclude, “In these studies many variables have not been controlled. Consequently, we cannot infer that a causal relationship has been established between these physical conditions and ability to read” (p. 53). 30 Educational Data Educational factors have an important part to play in the causation of reading problems and disabilities since the school, the teacher, and the methods and materials - each in their own way - determine what, when, and how the individual child reads. According to Bond and Tinker (1967), "among all of the factors that are considered possible causes of reading disability, the group of conditions classed as educational stand out as tremendously important” (p. 138). The School Both Carter and McGinnis (1970) and Bond and Tinker (1967) comment that schools lack a unified educational philosophy and appear to be trapped in the controversy of 'Reading versus Pupil Development.‘ Some school administrators advocate ”the chief goal of the school should be the happy, well-balanced and socially com- petent individual, whereas, others stress the idea that learning to read is the major objective of education in the early grades” (Carter and McGinnis, 1970, p. 68). Those who adhere to the first philosophy - ”the happy, well- balanced and socially competent individual“ - tend also to support such viewpoints as ”putting pressure on the children to read sometimes produces personality maladjustments . . . (and) emphasis upon reading destroys interest in learning since . . . reading is an activity for- eign to the real interests of children in these grades” (Bond and Tinker, 1967, p. 138) and automatic promotion through the grades. 31 The other group — those who see reading as a primary goal of the school - tend to argue for individualization of instruction so that the student's strengths and weaknesses, and interests, are taken into account and thereby, reading is pleasurable. The second group would also oppose automatic promotion on the grounds that the cur- riculum requirements are not met by disabled readers and as they move through the grades, they get further behind their peers: This produces a wider and wider range in reading ability in successively higher grades. At the same time the curriculum requirements have remained fairly rigid. Consequently, much of the material assigned to pupils in the higher grades is too difficult for the reading ability possessed by many pupils. . . Too frequently we try to force the child to adjust to the curriculum . . . (and) as the poorer readers are promoted from grade to grade, they drop farther and farther behind, and eventually become disabled readers” (Bond and Tinker, 1967, p. 139). Carter and McGinnis (1970) concur with this last viewpoint. Obviously, rigid curriculum requirements and automatic pro- motions were both well—intended administrative decisions, however, it could be questioned whether they have had the intended results. Re- search studies tend to show that disabled readers have not really benefitted from these decisions. The Teacher The roles of the classroom teacher and the reading specialist have been examined critically in research studies with many different and interesting conclusions about their association with disabled readers. 32 The classroom teacher's effect on pupils' reading achievement is well documented (Rupley and Blair, 1978; Rupley, 1977; Drum and Calfee, 1979) and the general conclusion is that experienced, effec- tive teachers account for a great portion of their pupils' progress. Rupley and Blair strongly believe, ". . . (the teacher) is a primary factor in determining whether children will be successful in learning to read" (p. 970). Bond and Tinker (1967) agree that the teacher may have a strong positive or negative influence upon progress in reading: Pupils are fortunate indeed if their teacher is so able, well-trained, and sympathetic that he main- tains good pupil-teacher relationships and is able to achieve a proper balance in the orderly development of skills and abilities in a sequential reading pro- gram. . . . The teacher who is inept . . . will be unable to adjust reading instruction to the numerous and varied needs of pupils in her class. Under such conditions, certain pupils will be in difficulty (p. 143). What makes a teacher effective as a reading teacher in the classroom? Harris and Sipay (1980) cite several research studies that give answers to the question and, from their findings, they identified teacher-pupil rapport as the main factor. These authors answer the question in the negative, that is, they identify nine teacher charac- teristics which aggravate the learning problems of pupils: 1) failing to ensure that the child is ready for a specific new learning; 2) teaching a child with materials that are too difficult and frustrating; 3) instructing the child's group at a pace that is too fast: 4) not calling on a particular child as often as other children; 5) ignoring specific errors until they become well-learned habits; 6) often fail— ing to notice and give approval when the child does make a correct response; 7) expressing disapproval or even sarcasm when the child makes mistakes; 8) allowing or encouraging other children to express disdain or derision for the child's effort; 4;“!qu a at (sexism 9H3) " .9v-5H9e ._".i ‘.: mar? the game.“ "i" --.. 1 Ii-".'r.c-_i_'-.-::.- -'-'L|'I'r'.: ":" - - ' --.-'-='-.-'t 33 9) expecting a child to perform poorly because his or her older brother or sisters did 50“ (p. 310). Are classroom teachers adequately trained to teach reading, particularly to disabled readers? Howlett and Weintraub (1979) and Buike, Duffy and Burke (1980) express similar points of view: teachers are basal-bound. Buike, et al., report that teachers made relatively few decisions about the teaching of reading: ”(they) abdicated decisions concerning what was learned by students to the commercial materials” (p. 18). These authors saw sufficient evi- dence of basal-bound teaching to suggest that teacher preparation programs were at fault. Farr (1969), in a study some years earlier, reported that many teachers were unable to respond to a questionnaire survey in which they were asked to identify the areas, crucial to the teaching of reading, on which they lacked knowledge. He concluded, ”it appears that many teachers do not know what they do not know” (p. 23). The writer could go on quoting and citing other examples of the classroom teacher's poor preparation to teach reading, in particular to disabled readers, however, the two examples that have been given adequately answer the question. In many schools, reading specialists are responsible for diag- nosing and remediating reading problems, however, their effectiveness has been questioned. Cohen, et al. (1978) feel that classroom teachers are reluctant to work with the reading specialists because they fear they will be unfairly evaluated. Teachers feel that reading specialists, who work on a small teacher/pupil ratio, are unable to appreciate the logistics of working with thirty pupils in the one 34 classroom. The teachers also felt that the reading specialists failed to provide them with information about their students' progress and they resented this since they were primarily respon- sible for these students. Finkelstein (1978), a New York reading specialist, sums up the classroom teacher's attitude towards the specialist: Some teachers are threatened by an “expert“ who is going to tell them what to do in their classroom on the basis of seeing the child a few times on a one-to-one basis. Good teachers especially find it hard to acknowledge that an outsider (that is, some- one who is not on the day-to-day firing line of the classroom) can succeed with their more challenging pupils” (p. 291). She adds that teacher attitudes are changing and that they are more willing to refer disabled readers to the specialists and to work cooperatively in the diagnosis and remediation programs. Cohen, et al. (1978) report from their study that where there has been cooperation between the reading specialist and the classroom teachers there have been beneficial results. Teachers do not feel alienated from their pupils; they tend to use more sophisticated individualization techniques for the whole class; they learned to record and maintain pupil record files; and most important, they supplemented the programs of the reading specialists when the pupils were again under their care. Generally, it is felt that classroom teachers are materials- oriented in their reading programs and, in most cases, they are not especially well-trained to handle disabled readers. It will indeed be a step forward when teachers and reading specialists work ' en:- sham: ebuiisu. s'1-3nuer- "OWL-LP. err r-- emu: Jaileima 'L‘FCE 35 cooperatively. Teachers' attitudes are changing. They are more willingly referring disabled readers to the specialists, and comple— menting the work of the specialists with these pupils in their class- Y‘OOlllS . The Methods and Materials Classroom teachers and reading specialists are constantly on the lookout for methods and materials that they can use more effic- iently and that will result in more rapid, and permanent, acquisition of reading skills. Since the search is on-going, the lack of materials, that prescribe both teacher and student behaviors for each lesson, has been identified as a causal factor in why certain pupils fail to become good readers. Bond and Tinker (1967) provide a good summary of the literature about methods and materials for disabled readers. In the first in- stance, they suggest that the curriculum in the early elementary school is so demanding of the teacher's time that “she is unable to individ- ualize the program satisfactorily” (p. 140). Buike, et al. (1980), reached a similar conclusion, finding that ” . . . having students ready for the next year's teachers” (p. 18) was a prime concern of the teachers they observed. Progress, for the teachers in the study, was discribed in terms of how many books the students completed during the year. Duffy and McIntyre (1980), in a follow-up of their paper for the American Educational Research Association, found that most of the teachers whom they observed were basal-bound, either through school or district mandate, and that they ”appear to believe that 36 students learn by completing commercial materials . . . ‘teaching‘ (is) when he/she asks students to recite these materials” (p. 12). Duffy and McIntyre also found that assistance to the poorer readers was minimal: ”. . . an incorrect response is the signal for pro- viding help and that such assistance should take the form of impromptu cues . . . brief enough to avoid disrupting the pace of the activ— ity . . . if the student does not respond to such cues quickly enough, another student is typically asked to provide the answer” (p. 12). Bond and Tinker (1967) draw attention to the importance of materials that are both interesting and meaningful to disabled readers. It is no easy task to find materials that match the interests of the poor readers with the level at which they can read. This becomes increasingly difficult as the disabled readers get older and their interests become more sophisticated. 0n the question of meaningful materials, Bond and Tinker report that where there has been excessive use of meaningless materials or activities, the students ”develop unfortunate attitudes which harden into obstacles to learning to read” (p. 141). These authors recommend that one way to make reading meaningful is to integrate it with other school subjects and activities and not teach it apart, as something of little consequence in the classroom scene. If children can see a reason for reading, their interest may be aroused and they may be motivated to try harder. Bond and Tinker (1967) raise one last point that is well worthy of mention: excessive emphasis upon one or other of the reading skills. They provide the example of phonic drills: ”Sometimes . . . drills are separated so far from the real act of reading that the child is usm'mqm- ‘--: mat en: we: Hu-n'. e-n...’ was me -.-_. ' ms rm pnlbiv -.'5:.'5“<' . . _ '. .I .- .., .n Psi-J 37 not able to bridge the gap. Not only is he unable to transfer what is learned in the drill to actual reading, but also he does not see the reason for the drill. . . . Inappropriate emphasis upon the basic reading skills may prevent effective reading" (p. 141). These authors are not recommending that drill or recitation per se not be used, rather, that they be used in moderation and in meaningful ways. Many researchers and authors make mention of methods and mater- ials as a possible causal factor of reading disability, however, relatively few have included as comprehensive a survey of this area as Bond and Tinker. There is considerable scope for further research if we are to do more than speculate about the causal relationship between ineffective methods and materials and children's reading disabilities. Sociological Data Schools are, very largely, middle-class institutions and as such, they reflect middle-class values, aspirations and behaviors. This being the case, it is not surprising to find that between one— quarter and one—third of pupils in compensatory reading classes are from disadvantaged backgrounds (Sawyer, 1979). Hence, it is not unusual to find sociological factors being investigated as possible causes of reading disabilities. Parents Parental attitudes have an enormous effect on the learning potential of their children. Carter and McGinnis (1970) cite the study of Kurtz and Swenson who, through interviews of parents, 38 teachers, and children, found very marked differences in the attitudes and behaviors of parents of readers (overachievers) and nonreaders (underachievers). Parents of the former group had pride, confidence, affection and interest in their children. They read to their children, played with them and whenever pos- sible, attended school with them. The investigators found the parents of the underachievers did not demonstrate these behaviors nor did they espouse these attitudes. Carter and McGinnis also cite the studies of Shaw and Button, and Preston who found that parents of underachievers held significantly strong negative attitudes towards their children: ”A child who failed to read was considered by his parents to be 'abnormal, queer, not quite right'” (Carter and McGinnis, 1970, p. 62). Mothers were found to play a significant part in their child's reading achievement. Stewart, cited in Carter and McGinnis (1970), reported that mothers of retarded readers have strong ambivalent feelings toward their children: “The mothers were somewhat hostile to their children and experienced guilt feelings which made them generally overindulgent or overprotective” (Carter and McGinnis, 1970, p. 62). Entwisle (1977) agrees with the view expressed by Stewart and adds that research on child-rearing practices show that parents, particularly the mother, have a very real and deep influ- ence on their offspring. She contends that middle—class practices affect the development of particular cognitive skills which may help or hinder their children as they start to read; foster the kind of speech that relates steadily to reading materials; develop ~20: flawsnenw one was: "firm bfiwh'fl ; seblfdn 1:94" of beefi vsfiT -v : bnu.‘ ' :r:- - -.* L' '- . -" a ':u - - - :2 .- ric' 39 self—esteem, confidence and the desire to achieve; develop visual and auditory perception; and encourage the feeling of ability to control the environment - factors which are deemed important in learning to read. These factors were not found in the practices of lower-class or disadvantaged families. Consequently, children from these families have to acquire these skills and attributes when they come to school and it is the teacher's task to design developmental programs to assist them. MeHmm Ekwall (1976) put forward an interesting concept about the socio-economic status of the home and modality shifting of the children who live there: Several recent studies have indicated that socio- economic status does have an effect upon visual and auditory discrimination . . . noisy conditions preva- lent in large families, often from low economic levels, impair children's ability to discriminate between auditory and visual stimuli . . . many of these same children have difficulty in shifting from one modality to another and back again“ (p. 17). Ekwall bases his concept on the Katz and Deutsch study in 1963 wherein they found that disabled readers experienced significantly greater difficulty in modality shifting than did good readers. Deutsch is again cited by Ekwall (1976) for his 1967 study of the composition of the home, including broken homes. Apparently, Deutsch reached the conclusion that the membership of the home, in terms of who actually lived there, had a greater effect on the children than the actual number of occupants. efillahqjfli-nt 'hmlfl ion new tween 5.9m Juan 0: pntmuf nenblm: ,tiinsuprcnnb zeiI?.".r.I' i---.:.r.-:..ir.-z....:_":- -:. .:..-.r.2 «Jew-3i To _..:.. ,I - . . .. . . . . ..... -.I.' - '. -.' .-'.! ' .. - 2. " --.. '. 1.1? 40 Carter and McGinnis give examples of the types of home from which many disabled readers come. There is generally no reading material; there is a lack of interest in reading; the children have few experiences in looking at books or magazines or even having someone read to them or play word or letter games with them. Miller (1972) is in agreement with Carter and McGinnis' description. She adds that such homes are impoverished of physical stimuli for concept development and building; there is little parent-child interaction; and little, if any opportunity to engage in firsthand and vicarious experiences of the kind that are essential for being able to compre— hend the content of books in the elementary grades. The language of the home, be it a foreign language or a dialect of English, has been identified as a significant obstacle to reading achievement by several writers (Sawyer, 1979; Drum and Calfee, 1979; Carter and McGinnis, 1970; Miller, 1972). Ekwall (1976) raises the question of whether dialect differences in fact cause reading retar- dation. He cites the studies of Rystrom (1968) and Labov (1969) which found that dialectical differences of disadvantaged children did not hinder learning to read. Miller (1972), however, disagrees and strongly suggests that the use of non-standard language in the home does have a detrimental effect on reading and learning: Many parents of the disadvantaged typically employ a restricted language style which uses few complex sentences, few elaborated verb forms, few adjectives and adverbs, and an imprecise vocabulary. The style of language the disadvantaged child learns at home does not effectively enable him to interpret primary grade reading materials or to understand the elaborated language used by his teachers” (p. 293). 41 The writer is certainly convinced that home factors play a real and very vital part in the child's learning to read. The Community The community, as a possible causal factor of reading dis— ability, has not been widely researched, however, the evidence that has been accumulated is worthy of thought by those involved in reading remediation. Carter and McGinnis (1970) suggest each community reflects the characteristics of its predominant economic-social groups and con- sequently depressed areas produce disadvantaged children. They cite the report of Allen H. Barton, in 1963, in which it was pointed out that during the first six years of formal education, children from working-class homes generally read below their actual grade levels. Barton also found that children from the lower-skilled, lower-paid, working—class homes read even more poorly. Miller (1972) attributes the poor reading achievements of disadvantaged children to the restricted language code they learned in their homes and neighborhoods. These children were, therefore, unable to understand the middle-class, elaborate language style used by the public school system. ”As a result of this impoverished vocabulary and experi- ential background, culturally disadvantaged children usually have entered school with insufficient readiness for all school learning, and they have experienced more and more difficulty as they progressed through the elementary grades“ (p. 41). 42 Rutter (1978) draws a rather interesting comparison between the part of the country where children live and their reading attain- ments, however, he does not offer any convincing reasons for the occurrence of this phenomenon. He refers to studies in the United Kingdom where it was found that reading standards in Scotland were significantly higher than in England ”in spite of the fact that social disadvantages are more prevalent in the former area (Scotland)” (p. 11) and to a second study, where children in London were found to experience twice the number of specific reading difficulties as children who lived on the Isle of Wight, an area of small towns and countryside off the coast of England. Rutter believes that the differences in these two examples are due to two factors: the amount of interest parents take in their children's school work, and the emphasis schools in different areas place on reading. Children from impoverished backgrounds are disadvantaged when they come to school and are required to learn to read. Teaching methods must be adjusted to meet the needs of these students, other- wise, they are likely to begin poorly in reading and continue to experience difficulty. Psychological Data The importance of psychological factors in any kind of learning cannot be overstressed. To the same point, the importance of these factors as possible causes of learning disability, including reading disability, must not be overlooked. Many factors have been identified by educational psychologists as possible causes of reading disability. Some are thought to be new ant-Hone ni zbwshnsia prim-.9- :Iér“ -.«.,.-_.-. is... :‘r men» when” I. ' '- - 9'1 -‘-’1_ I " I. r ' .I I-. .1“. : '. "l'I‘ 43 single-cause factors: others are thought to work with other factors in causing poor achievement in reading. Mental Maturity and 1.0. Mental maturity implies a readiness within the individual to learn and to apply what has been learned (Carter and McGinnis, 1970). Once it was believed by many that the child of six years of age, or thereabouts, possessed adequate mental maturity to learn to read. The characteristics of mental maturity were: alertness, able to identify fine and gross differences; able to pay attention and to remember; able to comprehend the function of symbols; be facile in language usage; and, to generalize and infer. Tests were devised to determine the child's mental maturity, or mental age, and if it was above the six-plus cutoff point, the child was thought to be ready to learn to read. Today, research has shown that children, much younger than six-plus years of age, can be taught to read (Gould, 1976; MacKay and Sims, 1976; Price, 1976; Durkin, 1972). Gould discusses ”natural readers” in her handbook for parents of pre-school age children and she identifies these children as those who are fascinated by print and who want to learn to read well before they begin school. Gould, like others who have investigated early reading, talks of readiness for reading in a somewhat vague manner and refers to "critical per- iods” in the young child's development as the time to begin reading. She warns, ”trying to teach a skill before the critical period is wasteful and often frustrating for both teacher and student. On the 44 other hand, waiting beyond the critical period is unproductive because the child's natural aptitude for achievement and growth has subsided” (p. 38). During the 19405, 19505, and to some extent during the 19605, a number of research studies were done to determine whether there was a relationship between intelligence and reading achieve- ment (Bond and Tinker, 1967; Ekwall, 1976). The results seemed promising as the correlation between the verbal sections of tests and intelligence was low (Ekwall, 1976). This led Ekwall and others, (Spache and Spache, 1969; Ames and Walker, 1964; Strang, 1964) to conclude: We should not place a great deal of faith in 1.0. scores as predictors of potential reading abil- ity . . . the 1.0. is a fairly good predictor of reading ability for children with extremely high I.Q.'s or for children who are mentally retarded . children with very low I.Q.'s are at a considerable disadvantage in learning to read . . . a low 1.0. is often an important hindering factor. For this reason it is often helpful to administer an indivi- dual intelligence test as part of the normal diag- nostic procedure with a disabled reader” (p. 12). Today, mental maturity and I.Q. are not considered good in- dicators of reading potential. However, both do provide the diag— nostician with useful information about the verbal abilities of the disabled reader - information that may be helpful when planning remediation. Emotional Maturity Ekwall (1976) asks the question: Is reading disability caused by emotional problems or are emotional problems caused by 45 reading disability? This very same question has been asked by other researchers (Robinson, 1945; Fernald, 1943; Bond and Tinker, 1967; Harris, 1970) but the answer has managed to elude them. Researchers have, however, reached a general agreement on what emotional maturity means in an individual (Carter and McGinnis, 1967) and have identified some characteristics that are thought to be indica- tive of an emotionally mature child: a. Can easily make home—to-school adjustments, b. Can accept changes in routine quickly and calmly, c. Can accept opposition and defeat, d. Assumes responsibilities, e. Plans and works to schedule, f. Talks to others without shyness or undue boldness, and g. Cares for equipment and materials (Carter and McGinnis, 1967, p. 59). The emotionally insecure child would not have these. Irving 0. Harris (1961), cited in Harris and Sipay (1980), reported that many of the emotional difficulties of the child resulted from conflict with parents, particularly mothers, and in some cases, conditions within the family home heightened the child's anxiety and fears until it interfered with learning. McGinnis (1963), cited by Carter and McGinnis (1970), found that parents of inferior readers expressed attitudes that encouraged their children's dependence upon them. There is little doubt about the need for emotional maturity in being able to read. Similarly, there is little doubt that there is 46 a relationship between reading disability and emotional problems. The question for further investigation by researchers is: Are emotional problems the cause or the symptom of reading disability? Whichever, the remedial reading teacher would be well advised to consider the problem. Self-Concept Though relatively little is known about the incidence of self- concept being a cause of reading disability (Ekwall, 1976), research has shown a very positive relationship between reading achievement and the individual's self-concept (Harris and Sipay, 1980; Cohen and Kornelly, 1970; Stauffer, 1980). Therefore, it cannot be ignored as a possible causal factor, or at least a contributing factor, to reading disability. The feelings of worthlessness and, often times, hopelessness may convince the individual that he is ”dumb” or stupid (Harris and Sipay, 1980) and that he does not have the potential of his peers to learn to read. In turn, these feelings result in shame, hurt and a dislike for reading and bookish-things. According to Carter and McGinnis (1970), ”he fails to get satisfaction, security and recog- nition in a manner pleasing to himself and at the same time acceptable to his group (his parents, teachers and peers) . . . he may become agressive, put on a bold front. . . . On the other hand, he may become timid and withdrawn . . .” (p. 60). (My parenthesis) Parents, teachers and classmates have all been identified as influential forces in self-concept development. Parents are probably 47 the most influential of the three groups and when the child fails to achieve well in reading, "his parents are likely to show strong disappointment . . . may nag, threaten, or punish him" (Harris and Sipay, 1980, p. 321). Begab (1967), quoted by Harris and Sipay (1980) supports the notion of the influential role of parents in self-concept formation: ”Some parents are unable to face the facts . . . (they) project blame elsewhere for the child's short- comings . . . the obstetrician is blamed . . . the pediatrician is blamed . . . sometimes parents blame each other . . . the teacher is included as a target for blame . . . the child is the ultimate loser” (p. 323). The disabled reader is also very sensitive to attitudes and behaviors toward him at school. Teachers are particularly important people and disabled readers are sensitive to their attitudes and reactions (Ekwall, 1976). Metheny (1980) found teachers in classrooms to have very definite beliefs about the learning potentials of pupils from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds and that these expectations were reflected in their teaching. Metheny was referring specifically to the socio-economic background of pupils, however, this writer won- ders whether it is not also true that teachers have very different attitudes and levels of expectation for good and disabled readers, and, whether they do not betray these feelings to the pupils - another example of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Harris and Sipay (1980) make a point that teachers in classrooms would do well to think about, in relation to the disabled reader and his peers: ”Any child outdistanced by other children is apt to be 48 disturbed by lack of progress. At first he is likely to try harder. If his efforts are misdirected and fail to bring improvement, even- tually he develops a strong feeling of frustration" (p. 321). This feeling may become so exaggerated within the individual that he may feel alienated by his classmates and rationalize that he cannot learn to read because of brain dysfunction or some other improbable cause. There are many different ways that a low self-concept may mani- fest itself in a child's behavior and to describe even some of them would be a whole topic in itself. Teachers and clinicians, at best, should be aware of the importance of self-concept in learning of any kind and be au fait with its possible manifestations. Short-term Memory Jorm (1979), in reviewing research on dyslexia, advocates that there is now sufficient evidence to conclude that many disabled readers have an impairment of the visual and auditory-verbal short- term memory. He found there is no conclusive evidence to suggest long-term memory impairment. The idea of visual impairment among disabled readers is not new. The British ophthalmogist, Morgan, used the term “word blind- ness” in 1896 to refer to the inability to recode the written words into speech and Orton, an American neurologist, in 1937, coined the term ”strephosymbolia“ to describe much the same condition. More recently, Jordan (1972) referred to this inability as visual and auditory dyslexia. Jorm investigated this problem too, and advocated that to a large extent the inability to read is due to short-term 49 memory deficits. Jorm concludes that short-term memory deficit affects the reader at two levels. The first, visual short-term memory, affects the individual as he recodes the letters of a word into their phono- logical presentations as he has difficulty remembering which letters he has already analyzed. This confusion results in repeating letters, omitting others and most important, uncertainty about the word itself when it has been recoded. At the second level, the auditory-verbal short-term memory deficit follows from the first level but here, comprehension of the isolated word and the stringing together of isoe lated words is affected. Carr (1980) supports Jorm's theory. He writes, ”because of difficulty with reading operations, poor readers are inordinately slow and inefficient at recoding new items into short-term store. The inefficient encoding and forgetting . . . causes a back log or traffic jam in short-term store that interferes with comprehension” (p. 8). Carr, however, questions whether the storage capacity of short—term memory is to be blamed. He suggests that the trouble arises I'in getting codes for words into short-term store to begin with, and in forgetting them after their information has been inte- grated into a longer-term respresentation of the text of which they are a part” (p. 8). Carr's view, in the second instance, is some— what similar to that of Torgeson and Goldman (1977) cited by Jorm, who suggest that the disabled reader's problems stem from ”a lack of inclination or ability to use efficient task strategies” (Jorm, 1979, p. 24). 50 The issues are far from settled and, at this stage, the teacher of disabled readers can do little more than be aware that short-term memory and/or learning strategies may be a possible cause of reading disability. Modality Learning The question of whether to match the learner's perceptual modal- ity preference and the method of instruction has been raised in edu- cational literature for several decades (Tarver and Dawson, 1978) and to date, the issue is unsettled. Educators and reading clinicians have been arguing whether instruction should focus on a) the learner's modality preference — his strengths; b) the learner's perceptual defi- cits; or c) the multisensory approach. Wepman (1967) and Sabatino and Hayden (1970), both cited by Tarver and Dawson (1978), recommend that if remediation is made rele- vant to the individual's modality preference, the child will sense that he is progressing and thereby, develop a positive attitude toward reading. The results of studies that have concentrated on the learner's modality preference have provided certain insights, however, they have not resulted in general consensus of opinion. Spache (1976), for example, reviewed the research of Bruininks (1970), Robinson (1968) and Sabatino (1972) each of whom identified the more efficient modality of their subjects and then contrasted the effectiveness of a certain method or methods with disadvantaged, average and learning disabled children respectively. Spache (1976) concludes: While these three studies are not in complete agreement, there does appear to be some point in 51 relating method of approach to modality, particularly in the auditory channel. The results of these experi- ments seem to indicate that when a method is specific- ally related to the child's modality (as phonics to the auditory channel or word form to the visual), the results are clearer than when the method is mixed, as in a basal (p. 69). Tarver and Dawson (1978) also reviewed the research studies of Hallahan and Cruickshank (1973) and Wallace and Kauffman (1973) wherein the remediation programs were matched with the learner's perceptual deficit. The rationale for the deficit-oriented approach is "that it permits the development of a detailed individualized prescription” (Tarver and Dawson, 1978) and though this approach has appealed to teachers and reading clinicians, the results of such studies have not been convincing. Critics of the deficit-oriented approach and the modality- preference approach, to a large extent, have accused the advocates of these approaches of not taking all important factors into account in their research and, in some instances, of working from faulty assumptions. The critics list the following as the more important factors and faulty assumptions: a) the difficulty of reliably identifying perceptual strengths and weaknesses (Spache, 1976); b) the assumption that improved perceptual performance in one modality will generalize to other modalities and result in overall improved perceptual functioning (Tarver and Dawson, 1978); c) the role of intersensory integration in learning (Kirk and Kirk, 1971, cited in Tarver and Dawson, 1978); d) the modality-preferences of each child are unique and therefore, they are not generalizable to other children; e) the assumption that perceptual strengths and weaknesses 52 are stable and unchanging (Spache, 1976) and f) the assumption that the modality preferences of all children can be identified (Spache and Spache, 1978). Adherents of the multi-sensory approach to reading maintain the main advantage of this approach is that it caters to the individual's unique learning style. This approach provides oppor- tunities for the learner to capitalize on his perceptual strengths and, at the same time, train his perceptual weaknesses (Tarver and Dawson, 1978). The multi—sensory approach is still in vogue with disabled and severely disabled readers, however, Tarver and Dawson (1978) caution clinicians and others that: ”a multi-sensory approach should be used judiciously because indiscriminate bombard- ment of multi-sensory stimulation may result in overloading of the central nervous system“ (p. 7). Tarver and Dawson (1978) suggest that there is sufficient evi- dence from research to conclude that modality preference has not been demonstrated to interact significantly with methods of teaching reading. However, this view is not accepted by all who have reviewed research in this area. Teachers and reading clinicians may do best to follow the advice of Spache (1976) who suggests that research has not been conclusive and therefore, teachers and others should explore the area for themselves. Therapeutic Diagnoses Etiological diagnosis is concerned with finding the causes of the individual reading disability: therapeutic diagnosis, on the 53 other hand, is more concerned with the individual's performance in the reading act — identifying strengths and weaknesses in reading as well as determining other factors, within the individual or in his immediate environment that affect reading achievement. Since etio- logical factors have already been considered, they will not be dis— cussed again under ”Therapeutic Diagnosis" unless it is necessary or pertinent to do so. In some reading centers, clinicians use standardized tests almost exclusively to diagnose reading disabilities (Liu, 1980; Farr, 1969): in others, both standardized and informal procedures, such as informal inventories of reading skills and interest and attitude surveys, are used to gain a more thorough understanding of the indi- vidual and his ability (Bond and Tinker, 1967; Farr, 1969). The use of standardized tests in diagnosing reading disability has been strongly recommended (Bond and Tinker, 1967) and recommended with caution (Farr, 1969) by those who have reviewed research on therapeutic diagnosis. Bond and Tinker (1967) advocate that: Standardized measurements are the most valuable instruments for analyzing the child's strengths and weaknesses. They are also needed for collecting many of the related facts that enter into the formulation of a remedial program . . . standardized tests allow the diagnostician to compare a disabled reader with his more fortunate typical counterpart. In this way, strengths and weaknesses can be located with a mini- mum of clinical bias . . .” (p. 161). Farr (1969) questions the usefulness of much of the information gained from the administration of standardized tests, particularly in those instances where only one set of subtests is given to the -E}b 9C :92 “Flu 35f? .:9*9";=H‘ ‘e? ;L:e"s gush £1QJJ5‘ IIJVEOT .’ . . - a. . ' . a .. .- ' -'_ : tfii teats: 54 individual. He points out the limitations of drawing conclusions from one test: Performance on any one reading test is only a sample of an individual's behavior in one given situation under a single set of conditions. Sig- nificant differences in performance can occur when the time of day of test administration, the content of the reading material on the test, or the examiner administering the test are varied (p. 7). Farr (1969) recognizes that diagnosticians have to work with existing standardized tests but warns them to interpret the results of such tests cautiously for there is some doubt that reading sub- skills can be reliably measured: . . it is quite clear that the measurement of reading behavior is based on logical rather than empirical evidence. Research studies regarding the measurement of sub-skills of reading are very limit- ed . . . there is more negative evidence to support existing measures of the sub-skills of reading . . . many tests fail to measure validly what they purport to measure . . . no one seems to know whether sub- skills of reading can be measured . . . (p. 71). Harris and Sipay (1980), like Farr, recognize many of the positive aspects of using standardized tests in the diagnosis of reading disability and they, too, warn that ”subtests may not have sufficient reliability for diagnostic use with individuals” (p. 165). Bond and Tinker (1967) strongly recommend the use of standardized measures in therapeutic diagnosis, however, they also put forward an equal case for the use of informal procedures to complement the in- formation gained from standardized measures: The diagnostician should feel free to explore further, by informal means, any leads as to the nature of a particular reading disability that comes to light during the standardized procedures. Many times informal explorations supply more insights for planning a 55 remedial program than does the standardized diagnostic programs (pp. 160-161). Harris and Sipay (1980) also argue in favour of informal procedures since standardized test grade-equivalent scores tend to over—estimate the instructional level of disabled readers: Children whose reading skills are weak tend to guess more than good readers do, and their scores . . . may at times over-estimate the in- structional level by a year or more. . . . Stan- dardized tests are, then, less accurate for poor readers than good readers (p. 205). They conclude that when there is a discrepancy between the estimate given by a standardized test and an informal procedure, such as an Informal Reading Inventory, the latter is usually a more dependable guide. Farr (1969) arrives at a similar conclusion about the reli- ability of informal procedures. He suggests that since informal procedures use a wide variety of data gathering techniques, over a period of time, ”it is not surprising that they are more reliable and valid measures than standardized reading tests. After all, the more behavior which is sampled, the more likely the assessment is to be accurate“ (p. 98). The relative merits of the different standardized tests and informal procedures will not be discussed here. In lieu, this writer would recommend that Appendix I in Bond and Tinker (1967) and Appendix A in Harris and Sipay (1980), and Chapter 7 of Spache (1976) be read for succinct summaries of the more widely used tests. More detailed information could be obtained from Buros (1968, 1972, 1975, 1978). 56 In this section, five general principles of therapeutic diagnosis will be discussed: a. Diagnosis must be pragmatic. b. Diagnosis must be pertinent and thorough. c. Diagnosis must include subjective and objective information. d. Diagnosis must be efficient. e. Diagnosis must be on—going. These principles should serve as guidelines for those who are interested in, or about to carry out, therapeutic diagnosis. Diagnosis Must Be Pragmatic There seems to be no debate in the research literature about whether or not therapeutic diagnosis should be practical and applicable. Bond and Tinker (1967), for example, suggest that because reading is a complex act, requiring a number of skills, there are a large variety of factors which may interfere with achievement. Hence, in therapeutic diagnosis, the diagnostician collects all kinds of data about the indi- vidual so as to identify possible factors that may be interfering with progress. The diagnostician searches for the individual's strengths and weaknesses in reading and for other characteristics within his make-up and his environment that need to be corrected before remediation can be successful (Bond and Tinker, 1967). Spache (1976) agrees that diagnosis should be pragmatic. He quotes Peter Pumfrey who, at the Eighth Annual Study Conference of the United Kingdom Reading Association, said ”the heart of diagnosis is the interpretation of a series of observations coupled with the .Iio?.‘-a:.:i'n~‘ -'-- "'- -' " hi .. ..t‘:_« :-. -_-H‘"'- -":’I -'--"" " . ._ .5 . _-r neonpsm .3 57 ability to relate the interpretations to a plan for remedial teaching" (Spache, 1967, p. 9). Spache then continues, suggesting that diagnosis must be analytic, not descriptive, if it is to be pragmatic: ”the mere listing of the results of a whole group of tests is not a diagnosis . . . diagnosis would be the interpretation of the probable meaning, educationally speaking, of test scores” (p. 9). He warns the reading teacher away from using esoteric tests such as, eyedness, handedness, memory for designs, and the like, for such tests yield descriptive information about the individual which is not easily translated into treatments that may be carried out in the school or reading center. Otto and Smith (1980) also support the notion that therapeutic diagnosis be pragmatic: ”diagnosis in reading involves collecting and interpreting information about the student's strengths and weak- nesses as a reader. . . . This information is used to make informed and sensible decisions about what and how the student should learn next" (p. 98). Diagnosis Must Be Pertinent And Thorough Collecting pertinent data about a disabled reader, particularly someone thought to be a severely disabled reader, is both costly and time-consuming. Therefore, it is recommended that the diagnostician formulate a plan that he should follow. Such a plan should make men- tion of how data is to be collected: the techniques that are to be used; information about the tests - the reliability, validity, time needed for administration, number of subtests, administration details, noiiafeiei-‘esn‘r ens er. br'uow Hit-1:5“. . Wis-north a son at mu _-r..;-' :.e - - - .- . - e'rrrnn: 511.! ’H 58 scoring and interpretation of scores and the like. Bond and Tinker (1967) do not directly suggest that the diag- nostician draw up such a plan. Nevertheless, they do stress the need for familiarity with the measuring instruments as well as knowledge of the kinds of information to be obtained: The time, energy, and expense involved in getting the necessary information is so great that everyone making diagnoses should appraise the measuring instru- ments being used to make sure they are efficient and that they add to the understanding of the children's instructional needs. There should be grave concern lest unnecessary overlap in testing occur. The more reliable and valid measures should be used (p. 158). These authors emphasize the importance of developing a reading profile wherein all pertinent details of the individual such as reading meas- ures and other physical, psychological, emotional and educational information, be kept. They also stress that information pertinent to the optimal adjustment of the child be the only kind kept on the pro- file. Burke (1979), too, recommends the development of a comprehensive profile for each disabled reader but warns against making reports too elaborate for fear that they become unwieldly and too laborious and time-consuming to maintain. He feels that with only pertinent infor- mation available, ”the teacher is better able to understand the indi— vidual and to devise an organized scheme of work that will be both interesting and encouraging“ (p. 67). Spache (1976), like the other authors, advocates that diasnos- ticians develop a total picture of the disabled reader. He mentions, however, that it is not always possible to pinpoint the actual causes 59 of the disability during the exploratory phase of the diagnosis, no matter how thorough the collection of data has been: ”There are no nice, neat ways of proving that this or that area is the precise reason for the student's problem, in most cases. All we can derive from the facts that we have accumulated are clues as to probable causes, clues to be tested. . ." (p. 10). Diagnosis Must Include Subjective And Objective Information Bond and Tinker (1967) and Otto and Smith (1980) advocate that a thorough diagnosis of the disabled reader involved collecting and interpreting information. The first two authors speak to this point: ”in diagnosing the learning difficulty of a disabled reader, an analysis of his reading, his physical and sensory characteris— tics, and various personality and environmental factors must be made” (p. 159). They point out that often it is not within the reading diagnostician's professional competence to carry out such a thorough investigation into all of these areas and they may, there- fore, need to call for specialized help from other professionals such as social workers, physicians, psychologists, otologists, neurologists, and the like. These professionals, along with the diagnostician, may each administer standardized tests and informal measures to obtain objective data about the individual, and they may also gather subjective information about the individual through observations, surveys, conferences, and interviews with people who know the individual. 6O Standardized measures, and many informal procedures, provide objective information about the child's reading strengths and weak- nesses. The ways in which these tests have been normed may also allow the diagnostician to compare the individual being tested to age or grade peers or assign him to an approximate grade level. According to Bond and Tinker (1967), standardized tests are the diagnostician's most valuable and reliable instrument for many of the appraisals which must be made, and more importantly, “they give him typical basic facts upon which to make judgements as to what is best for the case of atypical learning he is trying to remedy” (p. 161). Farr (1969) acknowledges that many of the better stan— dardized tests describe reading behavior and provide objective data of how a student performs in relation to other students at one point in time, however, he believes, ”they rarely account for why the student performs as he does” (p. 80). Farr (1969), Bond and Tinker (1967) and others emphasize that a thorough diagnosis of a disabled reader must also entail the col- lection and analysis of subjective data, that is, data that may re— flect the biases of the diagnostician, observer, or informants. For Bond and Tinker (1969), . . . informal appraisals also have value in that they are, at times, the only or the most appropriate methods of gaining information. . . . Such information may be of real significance in formulating a remedial program and therefore should be collected, even though at times it may be of questionable validity (p. 163). Farr is a much stronger advocate for the collection and analysis of subjective information. He feels that information gathered 61 informally about the disabled reader is more reliable and valid than that obtained from standardized measures. This is so, because informal approaches use a wide variety of procedures to gather information over a period of time. Otto and Smith (1980) sum up the views of many authors who have written about the need for objective and subjective information in diagnosing reading disabilities. For them, ”good diagnosis builds not only on test results but also on experiences with the student during instruction. Good diagnosis involves heavy doses of testing, common sense, and intuition” (p. 128). Diagnosis Must Be Efficient Calfee, Drum and Arnold (1979) draw attention to the cost factors involved in testing, not just the cost in financial terms but also in terms of time. These authors were referring specifically to the pur- chasing, administering, scoring, and interpreting of tests, however, their remarks are equally true for gathering and analyzing information through informal procedures. Their remarks point out how essential it is that therapeutic diagnosis be efficiently carried out so as not to be wasteful. Many authors have written about therapeutic diagnosis for clin- icians and reading teachers in schools and all have in one way or another, emphasized the importance of efficiency in testing and gather— ing data about the disabled reader. Ekwall (1976), for example, ad- vises diagnosticians to be discriminatory in the types of tests they administer and the kinds of information they gather. He warns against 62 using the same tests, mindlessly, time again, regardless of the indi- vidual's apparent problems, simply because of personal biases or familiarity with the tests. Peters (1977) also speaks to the point of efficiency in data gathering, however, he is more concerned with the effects testing has on the individual. For him, testing is an ominous experience for many individuals and therefore, data must be gathered as efficiently as possible, with the individual's well-being in mind at all times. Otto and Smith (1980) and Bond and Tinker (1967) have addressed the qUestion of efficiency in testing and data gathering and they believe that efficiency is best maintained if levels of diagnosis are delineated and each disabled reader is examined in the light of one of three levels. For Otto and Smith (1980), this trichotomy is par— ticularly useful because it not only takes into account the severity of the reader's disability but classifies the individual to one of three levels of diagnosis. The first level of diagnosis, the survey—level, is intended to screen out those who appear to have reading problems. These students are identified by their poor day-to-day performance on reading tasks or through poor scores on achievement tests. According to Otto and Smith (1980), ”data gathered at the survey level provide general in— formation indicating that a student seems to be doing more poorly in reading than other students at the same grade level“ (p. 103). Infor- mation at this level is obtained from tests, the individual's cumula- tive record, and other sources. In some cases, those who are identi— fied through the screening process can be helped through additional 63 or individualized attention in reading; in other cases, further more detailed, diagnosis is indicated before they can be helped by remedi— ation. Those in the latter group are referred for further diagnosis at the next level. At the second level, the specific-level, the individual's spe- cific strengths and weaknesses in reading are systematically examined through standardized and informal measures, observations, surveys, and interviews. The data is recorded and analyzed and as a result of the analysis, it may be possible to devise instruction to assist the disabled reader. 0n the other hand, it may become evident that still further diagnosis is needed before remediation could begin. Individuals who pass through to the third level, the intensive- level, are generally severely disabled readers. Bond and Tinker (1967) suggest that individuals who arrive at level three: . . . will need careful case studies made of their reading skills and abilities. In addition, they may need appraisals made of their mental, physical, and sensory characteristics; their attitudes toward reading; their adjustment to the reading problem; and their en- vironmental surroundings (p. 157). These authors very strongly stress the importance of having all of this pertinent information before the remediation program is formulated. Peters (1977) supports the notion of the three levels of diagnosis and contends that at the third level, the problems tend to be more complex than at the other levels, and the diagnostician may need the assistance of professionals from other disciplines to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of the individual‘s reading disabilities. 64 Reading diagnosis is expensive in terms of cost and of time, consequently it should be efficient. Bond and Tinker (1967) advocate that efficiency is enhanced with the three-level screening system, ”which enables the diagnostician to go as far as and no further than is necessary to formulate a remedial program” (p. 158). Diagnosis Must Be Ongoing Remediation programs very often fail because diagnosis is not ongoing during the period of remediation. Sometimes, the diagnosis is done before the remediation programs begin; in other instances, diagnoses are made before and after remediation. Bond and Tinker (1967), Spache (1976), and Otto and Smith (1980) emphasize that if diagnosis is to be beneficial to the disabled reader, it must be on- going. Bond and Tinker (1967) neatly summarize the views of these au- thors when they say: When the remedial program is successful, reading disability is dynamic rather than static. The original diagnosis indicated the instructional needs of the dis- abled reader at the time remedial instruction was under— taken. The remedial program based on it was designed to alter the child's reading profile in ways that would encourage better overall growth in reading. As remed- ial work progresses, however, study of the child should be continued further. If the remedial instruction has been effective, the needs of the child will have changed and the remedial program may require modification. Diag— nosis must therefore be continuous (p. 165). Spache (1976) adds to this view by suggesting that diagnosis and remediation not be thought to be curative, ”but rather as steps we take to help the students' immediate problems in reading and in dealing with school demands“ (p. 12). He is of the opinion that if 65 diagnosis and remediation are to be supportive of the diabled reader, they must be ongoing during and after the period of remediation. Remedial Approaches And Technigues When all pertinent information has been collected about the dis- abled reader - his strengths and weaknesses in reading as well as in— formation about him as an individual and as a learner - ”we should look for the right 'match' between the pupil type and instruction type” (Zigmond, 1978, p. 441). Finding the right ”match" appears to be an easy task because of the number and variety of approaches and commercial programs available, however, the matching process is not quite so easy. Otto and Smith (1980) look briefly at the issue of matching a disabled reader with a particular methodology. They draw attention to the fact that diagnostic test results do not directly assist the clin- ician with information about which instructional approach is best able to meet the individual's needs. For these authors, “. . . the proof of the pudding is in the trying. No teacher knows how effective a program is going to be with a disabled reader until the program is tried" (p. 217). Zigmond (1978) is basically of the same opinion as Otto and Smith, however, he raises the question of uniqueness of each child and each child's learning environment. He suggests that teachers and clinicians have been asking the question: ”What is Egg optimum reading method?“ instead of “What is the optimum reading method for Eflii particular child?” He finds that the second question raises many more, very per- tinent, issues about the child and his environment than the first 66 question does: . . The choice of an instructional method depends upon many additional variables not now being considered in most studies: the charac— teristics of the child's classroom; the environ- ment in which the child lives; the availability of such supplementary aids as resource rooms, volunteers, and teaching machines; and, most important, the specific characteristics of the individual child (p. 441). Zigmond is careful to mention that there is no real answer to the issues the question raises, mainly because of uniqueness of the learner: There appears to be no guidelines to help the practitioner determine what student variables (motivation, self—concept, language, social, cog- nitive, or perceptual levels; rate or style of learning; attentiveness) are significant in learn- ing to read or to assist him to use knowledge about individual differences in such variables in select- ing a reading program" (p. 442). Because of the unique characteristics of each disabled reader and his learning environment, and because ”no single program has been found to be effective with all students who have reading prob- lems" (Otto and Smith, 1980, p. 217), clinicians and teachers should be familiar with several approaches to select from and try with poor readers. In this section, several different approaches and techniques will be discussed: a. The Language-Experience Approach. b. The VAKT Approach. c. The Hegge—Kirk—Kirk Approach. d. The Orton-Gillingham—Stillman Approach. 67 e. A Neuropsychological Technique. f. Basal Readers. The writer decided to select from these approaches and techniques and not from the many others that are available, for two main reasons: 1) These have been used with some success with disabled readers and are still in popular use in clinics and schools. 2) There exists a plethora of reports about the use of these approaches and techniques with individuals and groups of disabled readers. The Language-Experience Approach The essential characteristics of the language-experience approach is that the disabled reader sees a relationship between oral language and printed and written language. According to Otto and Smith (1980) this approach: . . . provided a perfect fit in regard to the student's experiential background, vocabulary develop- ment, and the materials he or she is using to develop reading skills. . . . We have known the language- experience approach to appeal to students who seem indifferent to learning to read or who have negative attitudes towards commercially developed reading materials. High school students with serious reading problems who reject commercial materials at their reading level as being too babyish sometimes respond positively to stories, essays, plays, commentaries, or whatever of their own creation (p. 219). The approach is based on several assumptions: a. The individual's oral language is better developed than his reading ability (Otto and Smith, 1980). b. The individual dictates or writes his own stories and is therefore familiar with the vocabulary, syntax and the content. nabs-u": t-z-Idszib 51.11.: 33531‘L2 a... 68 c. The individual sees reading as ”talking written down“ (Spache, 1972) — his own thoughts or experiences in writing. d. The individual can use memory cues to recall words he has dictated but cannot, as yet, read (Otto and Smith, 1980). e. The individual reacts positively to things that are relevant to him (State Board of Education). f. The individual is able to see an integration of all the language skills: speaking, listening, reading and writing (Fry, 1977). When using the language-experience approach, the individual either dictates or writes his own stories or messages. When he dic- tates the story, he watches as each word is written or typed so that he may recall the words from memory even if he is unable to recongize them in isolation. Once the story has been typed, the individual is encouraged to read it aloud to the teacher who assists with any dif— ficulties in the initial stages. As instruction proceeds, and as the individual develops a sight vocabulary, he may be introduced to words of greater currency - words that occur frequently in printed materials. In the early stage of this approach, the main emphasis is sight- word development. According to Otto and Smith (1980), ”phonics and other word-attack skills are taught incidently as instruction pro- ceeds and as the pupils indicate a readiness to derive generalizations from analyzing their own language in print” (p. 221). Transferences from the individual's own stories to other commercial materials is slow, occurring as the individual shows he is ready. -. .. install.“ 69 Critics of the language—experience approach have raised several points that are worthy of mention. They suggest that: a. high-utility vocabulary may not be introduced early enough, or, may not be repeated often enough in stories for the individual to become familiar with them, b. the individual may be exposed to incorrect grammar when his stories are written just as they are dictated,' c. the individual may not be able to read his own stories because of poor writing or poor spelling, d. the approach lacks sequential development. Spache (1972) reviewed several research studies which used language-experience and he concluded that his approach produced reading performances equal, if not superior, to other methods in many instances. He also mentioned that there were improvements in writing mechanics, spelling, vocabulary, and the quality of written work when this approach was used. The VAKT Approach This approach, sometimes referred to as the Fernald or the Kinesthetic approach, was first described by Grace Fernald and Helen Keller in the early 19205. This approach was used by them to assist disabled readers who had not learned to read through the traditional audio—visual approach which was used in schools. Fernald (1943) recognized that there were many possible causes of reading disabilities among children and that ”in most of these cases, individual work and correction of the faulty condition resulted 70 in normal learning. Many of these cases can be treated successfully in a schoolroom using accepted techniques . . .” (p. 31). Those children who failed to respond to in-classroom treatment were then treated on a one—to-one basis using the kinesthetic approach in a clinical setting. Ofman and Shaevitz (1963) describe the Fernald method as: . . a person is taught to read by responding to a felt need for a word in a story writing attempt. He asks the teacher for the word he needs but does not know how to write. The teacher writes the word on a slip of paper, pronouncing the word as it is written. The student is then asked to trace the word with his finger and pronounce it at the same time. The student traces the word as many times as he needs to before he can write and read it on his own. He uses the word in his story and may refer to it at any future time (p. 137). Meyers (1978), describes the Fernald technique much as it is described in the quote above, however, he adds, ”. . . the teacher types the story immediately. The child rereads the story. The child writes the word on a card and files it in a file box” (p. 615). Mey— ers also points out a very important factor in this technique: "Fer- nald's technique begins with a reconditioning of the child's attitude toward self and toward reading by avoiding stressful situations and by encouraging success“ (p. 615). Bond and Tinker (1967) describe the Fernald method as having the following important features: (a) The child learns effectively the left-to-right sequences of perception by his simultaneous tracing- sounding and writing-sounding of words. (b) The visual structure of the word is associated with appropriate sounding of the pronounceable units of the word. (c) Skill in phonics is learned without having been taught fir-ifs? Main! 3 ' 55'7”] 71 formally. . . . (d) The very nature of the program leads to skill in syllabication. (e) The Fernald method, therefore, teaches left-to-right direction of word perception, the visual form of words, skill in phonics . . . and use of context clues for iden- tification and recognition of words. Added to all this, the child is strongly motivated by working with materials in which he is much interested . . .” (p. 475). There have been testaments as to the success of the VAKT ap- proach with disabled and severely disabled readers (Witman and Riley, 1978; Berres and Eyer, 1970; Fernald, 1943). Witman and Riley mod- ified the technique slightly, using the chalkboard in lieu of paper for tracing and writing, and they found that the boys in the experi- ment were helped by the method, and that their attitudes toward reading improved. Berres and Eyer (1970) report the case-study of a severely disabled reader - a boy who attended the Fernald School at UCLA. This child was described as having minimal brain dysfunction; imma- ture, hyperactive, and unable to accept direction or responsibility; perceptual distortion and poor coordination; difficulties at home. After treatment at the Fernald School, over a number of years, ”dra- matic changes occurred in personality and self-concept as well as in the ability to function independently and to assume responsibility. In addition, John became an adequate, interested student” (p. 46). There are some who have been very critical of the Fernald technique with disabled readers and have not reported favorable results with thi5 approach (Ofman and Shaevitz, 1963; Myers, 1978; Ekwall, 1976; Johnson, 1978). Ekwall is skeptical of the effective- ness of the Fernald approach, saying that research has not shown 72 this approach to be any more effective than more commonly used approaches. He advocates that if this approach has been successful with severely disabled readers, it is probably due to the pupil/ teacher ratio that the approach demands. Ofman and Shaevitz (1963) cite the study of Roberts and Cole- man wherein it was found that retarded readers were significantly better able to learn new material if kinesthetic components were added. However, the authors question whether the essential variable of kinesthesis was adequately isolated and whether pertinent atten- tion cues were sufficiently controlled in the study to draw the con- _clusion. Johnson (1978) found that in her studies some pupils appeared overloaded by the multisensory stimulation required by the Fernald approach. She also reported that some disabled readers did not ac- quire or generalize phonic principles from the tracing-sounding activities they participated in. Myers (1978) cites the studies of Forster (1941), Harris (1962), and Shea (1956), in which Fernald's method was used and he writes: There is no conclusive evidence which totally supports or rejects Fernald's method. Recent de— velopments in the area of cognition and individual differences in learning suggest that Fernald's technique may very well work for some children but not all. Theories as to who can learn by this method should be researched more extensively (p. 618). The Hegge—Kirk-Kirk Approach The Hegge—Kirk-Kirk Approach was popular during the early 19405 when the book Remedial Reading Drills was first published. The 73 authors devised this phonic approach primarily for mentally retarded and dull-normal children (Bond and Tinker, 1967), using drills, multi- sensory techniques (visual, auditory, kinesthetic and tactile) and concrete associative aids for learning new sounds and for the reten- tion of these. According to Bond and Tinker (1967), reading of any kind is delayed until the individual has shown adequate progress in phonics: ”Sentence reading, story reading, and teaching words as wholes are introduced at the appropriate places as the child progresses” (p. 469). These authors emphatically recommend the approach: ”This method is successful” (p. 469), however, several pages later in their book, they qualify this statement by adding “Kirk's method works best for insti— tutional cases” (p. 471). Relatively little mention is made of the Hegge-Kirk-Kirk Approach in recent times, however, according to Professor Cyrus Blair (personal communication) the approach is still used in some reading centers. The main criticisms that have been levied at the Hegge—Kirk—Kirk Approach are that it relies heavily on drill, which can become meaning— less repetitions for the disabled reader, and that actual reading is delayed until the child shows adequate progress. Those who adhere to the view that reading is ”getting a message from print or writing“ would object to this approach. The Orton-Gillingham-Stillman Approach The Orton—Gillingham-Stillman approach was developed during the 19305 for individuals with normal to superior intelligence who .529“, to not: ,_ . ,, .. - .. roost 74 experienced difficulties in learning to read by the sight method (Johnson, 1978). The approach was based on neurologist Orton's explanation of the cause of reading disability. Ekwall (1976) interprets Orton's theory as: Orton believed that the two halves of the brain were alike in size and design and reversed in pat- tern. . . . Orton believed that it was, therefore, logical to conclude that records, or engrams as they were called, of one hemisphere would be mirrored copies of those of the other. He felt that if a student failed to establish a normal physiological habit of using exclusively those of one hemisphere, a confusion in orientation may result causing a student to be unable to recognize differences in pairs of words which would be spelled backward . . .” (p. 229) Orton was emphatic when he suggested that reading problems were neurological, not visual, in most cases: . . visual factors, particularly those of eye movements and those of minor visual errors do not loom so large when we appreciate that we are dealing with a malfunction of a memory area of the brain and not with a malfunction of the visual areas. . . . The same child who misreads "was” as ”saw” will copy it as ”was” consistently. He does not copy backwards, hence he does not see it backwards. . . . The mirroring process is in the mnemonic, or memory, centers and not in the visual centers, and the child sees things in exactly the same orientation as we do, but he misinterprets them because he misreads them. He sees it as ”was” but he interprets it as ”saw“ (p. 64). The Gillingham approach, as the Orton-Gillingham-Stillman ap- proach is known, was based on two main principles for remediation. The first was that multisensory associations - visual, auditory and kinesthetic - are established while tracing and sounding visually presented words or syllables. At all times, left-to—right direction is emphasized. The second principle involved the learning of 75 individual letters; the fusion of these into blends and syllables, and the eventual formation of small, then larger, words. There have been many reported successes with disabled readers when the Gillingham method has been used. Johnson (1978) cites the report of Childs in 1965 in which she reported the reading develop- ment of twins who were taught to read by different methods. Childs says that the twin who was taught by the Gillingham method progressed from a grade equivalency of 3.3 to 4.3 within a six month period whereas his twin, who was also severely dyslexic, only moved from 4.1 to 4.5 under normal public school during the same period. Johnson (1978) also cites the study of Kline and Kline (1975) who reported a ninety-six percent success rate for severely dyslexic children who followed the Orton-Gillingham approach. The Klines felt that most severely disabled readers need at least two years of remed— iation for good results, and in some cases, an even longer period is needed. Otto and Smith (1980) are strongly critical of the Orton-Gilling- ham-Stillman approach. They suggest that the approach has not been widely accepted by neurologists and educators and they write less than glowingly about the assumptions underlying the approach and the actual implementation of the program. They describe the approach as being too structured, too prescriptive, too drills oriented, and demanding ”a teacher with special training and exemplary personal characteristics“ (p. 226). In their judgment, the Gillingham method should be ”reserved for students for whom less painstaking approaches have been unproductive 76 and who, for one reason or another, are willing to spend consider- able time and energy to be able to read even a little” (p. 226). They mention that remedial sessions must be held daily in place of regular classroom instruction, for a minimum of two years to be effective and to avoid losing the gains made (Otto and Smith, 1980). A Neuropsychological Technique This neuropsychological technique is not as well-known as the other techniques and approaches nor has it been widely reported in research literature. The technique came to the attention of this writer in a journal article by van den Honert, published in 1977. van den Honert cites a number of studies examining the specialized functions of the left and right hemispheres of the brain. She says: It is now well established that language and com- munication are primarily left-brain tasks. Reading is, after all, the analysis of language sounds into phonetic elements, the transcription of those auditory elements into corresponding visual elements, and the assembling of the visual elements into a sequence that matches the auditory sequence in a word. Then the words are assembled into a larger sequence to make a sentence which corresponds to some spoken linguistic arrangement that makes sense (p. 22). She cites the animal studies of Gazzaniga in 1972 who theorized that a learning disability may be due to a malfunctioning of the brain - processing which normally requires the left brain, being done by the right hemisphere. She concludes, ”if this were the case and the right hemisphere were being used for a job it is poorly equipped to handle, the resulting confusion might produce the sort of symptoms that L0 Children show” (p. 16). 77 van den Honert was so impressed by the study of two scientists at the Neuropsychiatric Institute in San Francisco who were experi- menting with teaching normal adults to lateralize, using a biofeedback technique, that she decided to replicate their study. Not having access to equipment like that of the Institute, she used sunglasses, stereophonic tape recorders and headsets. She blackened the right lens and removed the left lens from the glasses and used the stereo- headphones to provide verbal input into the left hemisphere. With these, she ”began to train to lateralize a new class” (p. 18), pro— viding input into the left eye and left ear. The van den Honert experiment lasted approximately four months at the end of which she reported extraordinary progress among her students. These students showed improvements in phonics, decoding and fluency. By the end of the school year, ”the slowest one gained nearly three years and one ball of lightning picked up five years in sixty-five lessons“ (p. 18) on standardized reading tests. There are no published criticisms of the van den Honert tech— nique that this writer is aware of, however, there are many obvious shortcomings in this technique. Teachers and clinicians would be well- warned to wait for further research before they attempt to replicate the van den Honert study with their disabled readers. Basal Readers There are perhaps more disabled readers in classrooms who receive reading remediation through a basal series than any other remedial program. This view was confirmed in surveys by Howlett and Weintraub 78 (1979), Duffy and McIntyre (1980), and Buike, Burke and Duffy (1980). Hence, it was felt that the basal series should be investigated as a possible remediation program. The major basal series are readily available in schools and, because they all tend to reflect and eclectic view of reading, empha- sizing phonics, sight-words, fluency and comprehension, it is relatively easy to understand why teachers, reading specialists and some clinicians are attracted to these for their poorer readers. Otto and Smith (1980) are of the opinion that most of the major basal series are able to be adapted, or used as supplementary mater- ials, for students who read more poorly than those for whom the series was intended. They comment: When a typical basal series designed for average and above-average readers is used with poor readers, the pace of presentation must be slowed; teachers must explain what the students are expected to do more slowly, more precisely, and perhaps more repeti- tively than they would with more able students; more practice and closer supervision with exercises must be provided for mastery of skills . . .”(p. 237). These authors report that their own pupils showed good progress in reading once these adaptations were made. Investigations with the Michigan State University Institute for Research on Teaching, Conceptions of Reading Project, were told by the teachers they interviewed that they had adapted and/or supplemented the basal—series for the weaker readers in their classrooms. What they did with the basals was similar to that mentioned by Otto and Smith. Hawlett and Weintraub (1979), as mentioned, report very wide use of the basal series for compensatory reading classes. However, they 79 found that early elementary teachers tended nearly always to supple- ment the basals with language experience and additional phonics. The Sherman Model of Reading and Learning From what has been said in this chapter, there appears to be a very real need for a reading diagnosis model that will summarize as succinctly as possible, the causes of each reader's disability, his strengths and weaknesses in reading, and possible treatments to re- mediate these. Such a model was described in Chapter 1 and was attri- buted to Professor George Sherman at Michigan State University. Sher- man's model outlined on a matrix of four vertical signs: sight vocab- ulary, decoding skills, fluent texting and comprehension (skills all good readers must have), and examined each of these against three hori— zontal effecting factors: task variables, learning variables, and unique child variables (Appendix A). According to Sherman (1980): The initial step in reading diagnosis is to assess the adequacy of a child's performance on each of the four vital signs. When a sign is judged to be defec- tive a new question must be posed: Why?. . . .The search for the answer(s) leads the diagnostician into the relationship of causality and sign performance. This arrangement creates a four by four matrix . . four of which define reading as an observable per— formance (the signs) and twelve of which establish causal factors, their relationship to each other and to the signs (p. S). Sherman advocates that once the cells of the matrix have been completed "the clinician must choose a 'best fit' (treatment) from this array . . .” (p. 6). The relationship of vital signs to effect- ing factors and relationships within the effecting factors will make the identification of the ”best fit” treatment easier. 80 Summary Four main topics were discussed in this chapter. The first, diagnosing the etiological factors of reading dis- ability, looked at single-cause theory that is still accepted by some, and the multi-cause theory that is currently more widely accepted. Under this topic a number of possible causal factors were examined: Physical Factors: Visual, Auditory, Speech, Neurological, Directional Confusion, Other Factors. Educational Factors: School, Teacher, Methods and Materials. Sociological Factors: Parents, Home, Community. Psychological Factors: Mental Maturity, Emotional Maturity, Self-Concept, Short Term Memory, Modality Learning. In the second section, Therapeutic Diagnoses, five principles were discussed. These principles - general guidelines for those who were to investigate the reading strengths and weaknesses of an indi- vidual - emphasized how important it was that diagnosis: be pragmatic; include only pertinent data; consider subjective and objective infor- mation from reliable sources; be efficiently carried out; and be on— going. Standardized and informal tests were not discussed, however, references were given as to where these tests were described. In the third section, several remedial approaches and techniques were outlined: Language—experience; VAKT; Hegge—Kirk-Kirk; Orton- Gillingham-Stillman; a neuropsychological technique; and basal texts. Each of these was reviewed in terms of underlying assumptions, and, advantages and limitations. The fourth section described the Sherman Model of Reading and Learning. This model was used by this writer in the diagnosis and CHAPTER III CASE—STUDY OF A SEVERELY DISABLED READER: DIAGNOSES The writer first met Jay, an eleven year old, caucasian Amer- ican boy on May 20, 1980, when he was asked to substitute for the boy's regular tutor at the Michigan State University Reading Center. The writer was so disturbed by the boy's poor performance on all reading tasks and by his behavior while reading that permission was sought from the Director of the Reading Center to conduct an inten- sive study of the boy. Approval was granted and plans were formulated to implement the case—study. In this chapter, two main topics are considered: a. Essential Features of a Case-Study. b. The Case-Study Report of Jay. The second topic is the report in which data about the individual is compiled. Here, etiological and therapeutic diagnoses are examined. Remediation, however, is not discussed in this chapter. Remediation will be the topic of Chapter Four. Essential Features Of A Case-Study There are several features that should be considered for a viable case-study. The investigator has identified four such features: a. Rationale, Objectives and Anticipated Outcomes. b. Data-gathering Techniques. 82 83 c. Parental Consent. d. The Report. These will be discussed briefly as they relate to case-studies in general and also, in terms of this particular case—study. Rationale, Objectives And Anticipated Outcomes Case-studies are not only costly but very time-consuming. There- fore, it is essential that the investigator in a case-study, have a clear conception of the rationale, objectives, and expected outcomes. This information is needed for research plans and to formulate efficient data-gathering methodologies. Most importantly, the investigator will use this information to convince the individual, and the individual's parents, of the need for the study. The objectives, the data—gathering techniques, and the anticipated outcomes will need to be explained to them. In this case—study, the writer developed a rationale for choosing this particular individual; formulated a set of objectives; outlined data-gathering and recording techniques; and, stated the anticipated outcomes. These, as shown in Chapter One, were presented to the Direc- tor of the Reading Center for consideration and approval. Data-gathering Technigues A case—study investigator needs to be familiar with a variety of data—gathering and recording techniques if all pertinent information is to be gathered efficiently. The investigator must know: the kinds of information needed; the sources from which such information is avail- able; the people who are to be interviewed; and, the names and locations 84 of professionals from other disciplines who may be consulted or asked for assistance during the investigation. In this case-study, the child had been at the Reading Center for three years and there was a plethora of information about him. Jay's file at the Reading Center contained his initial diagnostic report; term reports; standardized and informal test results; anec- dotal reports; observations of behavior; letters from his parents; and a report from Michigan State University Psychiatry Clinics where Jay had been referred for neuropsychological and psychological testing. The investigator decided that further information would be needed and this could be obtained from: interviewing the boy's par- ents, classroom teacher and reading teacher; administering standard- ized and informal tests; observing his reading behaviors; assessing his attitudes towards reading and about himself; and noting non-reading beahvior. It was felt that the most reliable means of recording in- formation for reference was through tape recording all interactions with Jay and with all interviewees, providing there were no objections. The main points from each tape recording, along with major observa- tions made during the interactions, would be written into a daily diary (Appendix B). Parental Consent Otto and Smith (1980) emphasize that a case-study should not begin until permission has been obtained from the individual or his parents. They write: 85 . . parents have the right to be consulted if their child is singled out for special assess- ment . . . when there is reason to expect that the case study may result in a decision to alter the student's program or when it involves more than an hour's individual assessment, parents should be asked to give their permission (p. 79). In this study, the investigator met Jay's parents and explained to them the need for a case-study; the objectives; the data-gather- ing strategies; and the anticipated outcomes. The investigator asked the parents to allow him access to all reports about their son at school and at the Reading Center. Permission to interview them, their son's teachers and the psychologists who tested him at the Psychiatry Clinics was also sought. It was explained to the parents that the information would be used to gain insights into their son's reading disability so that a more appropriate remedial program could be of- fered to him. They were also asked at this time whether they had any objections to the information being used by the investigator for publication. They were assured of anonymity. The parents were given time to consider the proposal and the implications and they responded within a week. A Parental Consent form (Appendix C) was drawn up by the investigator and was signed by the father on behalf of the family. The Report The primary purpose of the case-study report is to improve the student's reading achievement: Case—study reports usually contain recommenda— tions to change objectives, the instructional method, or curruiculum materials. . . . Once a 86 decision has been made about the kinds of objectives that appear relevant, many problems related to the selection of teaching methods and curriculum materials can be solved (Otto and Smith, 1980, p. 81). These writers suggest that the report should be written in a non- technical, unambiguous manner since it may be read by the school librarian, the counselor, the principal, other teachers and tutors, and the individual's parents. Harris and Sipay (1980) recommend that a case-study report should follow a definite outline as ”fairly good insurance against omitting important information, as well as an aid to a person reading the report" (p. 328) and they provide such an outline for the writer to follow. Otto and Smith (1980) also provide an outline which they recommend, however, this investigator found both outlines inadequate and therefore, drew from both outlines for the case-report that fol- lows, so that the kinds of etiological and therapeutic information outlined in Chapter Two could be reported. Case-Study Report: Jay JAY Student's Name: Jay JAY* Today's Date: October 20, 1980 Date of Birth: July 27, 1969 Agg: 10 years, 11 months School Grade: 5 Report Writer: Edmund V. Burke Reading Center: Erickson Hall Michigan State University Period Covered in the Report: May 20, 1980, to October 20, 1980 (3 x 45 minute sessions per week) *Fictitious to retain anonymity 87 Etiological Diagnoses Physical Data Visual Factors Jay's vision has been checked on three separate occasions by optometrists, according to his parents. On the first check-up, no visual defects were found. During the second examination, the eye specialist found that Jay had difficulty coordinating the movement of his eyes. He recommended that Jay undergo more extensive eye examinations but as this process appeared to be long, drawn-out and expensive, his parents did not follow through with the recom— mendation. A third optometrist diagnosed a similar condition: poor fusion. Jay was found to have difficulty maintaining focus after a short period of time and glasses were prescirbed for read- ing and other close work. Unfortunately, Jay's parents did not insist that he wear his glasses and, as a result, he did not wear them at school or at the Reading Center. Jay often complained of eye strain during his sessions at the Reading Center. His complaints were recorded in the daily diary and his behavior was observed. Sometimes, his eyelids would be red and crusted when he arrived at the Center and he would try to shield his eyes from the flourescent lights. He would also rub his eyes and tug at his upper eyelids. His parents were aware of the crusting and redness but they were not overly concerned since he had had this condition each summer ever since he was a small child. The parents had been told that the condition was due to a viral infection. 88 Jay had another visual disability that interfered with his reading: he had difficulty making a return sweep from the end of one line to the beginning of the next. He was aware that he did this and, to help himself, he would point at words as he read. The investigator encouraged Jay to read without finger—pointing but found that he returned to the same line much more frequently than he did when he pointed. Harris and Sipay (1980) suggest that this kind of problem is due either to eye-muscle difficulty or slow fusion. Auditory Factors Jay had no obvious auditory defect. There was no mention of hearing problems in any reports from school or the Reading Center. However, the report from the Psychiatry Clinics did mention an audi- tory deficit but this was related to a brain dysfunction and there- fore, it will be considered under Neurological Factors. Speech Factors Jay's speech was fluent and clear. Jay's mother maintained a diary of his development and reported that his speech during infancy was normal. He had passed through the various baby-talk stages at approximately the same ages as his brothers and by nineteen months, he had a repertoire of words and sentences. Neurological Factors During April—May, 1980, Jay was referred to the Psychiatry Clinics at Michigan State University where he was given some seventeen 89 educational, psychological, neurological, and perceptual tests. The following interpretations were made of his performance. a. f. (Jay's) central nervous system impairment results from the unique and idiosyncratic organization of his brain functioning. (His) brain is not special— ized or clearly differentiated. Neither hemisphere is dominant . . . connections between visual and auditory projection areas of his brain are not automatically made as they are in a more typical organized brain. This unique organization is not associated with any physical or environmental trauma. . . . (Jay) has numerous perceptual and cognitive deficits. (Jay) has extreme difficulty associating a ver- bal label with a visual configuration . . . (this results) from (his) inability to integrate the functioning of different areas of his brain. (Jay's) difficulty reading to himself results from his inability to activate automatically the audi— tory areas of his brain when performing visual tasks. (Jay) has difficulty understanding abstract units of time . . . using words that symbolically repre- sent numerical concepts. . . . He needs to use con- crete, external supports . . . he cannot easily perform arithmetic operations without the use of concrete visual aids. (Jay's) strengths are on tasks that require visual- spatial ability. He capably manipulates objects in space. (His) capacity to comprehend orally presented in- formation is excellent. The report made several recommendations about the kinds of educational programs Jay should follow, based very largely on the prognosis: ”it is doubtful that he will ever be able to read significantly above his present level” which, at the time, was about first grade. 90 Directional Confusion Jay experienced difficulty distinguishing between left and right. His parents reported that he, like his mother and older brother, was left-handed and, like them, could not spontaneously identify his left or right hand. All left-handed members of the family identified their left (their writing hand) by tracing a letter or word with their left index finger. Jay mentioned that he was able to write with both hands because one of his teachers had insisted on right-hand writing, however, the investigator noticed a marked preference for the left hand in his activities. Reversals And Partial Reversals Jay reversed letters and small words and, equally as often, he would mix the order of letters within words. The report from the Psychiatry Clinics made no reference to the reversal problem: other reports, including the investigator's daily diary, show many instances of reversals and partial reversals. The letters ”b” and “d” were constantly confused in his printing and writing as well as in his reading. For example, he wrote the word baby from memory as and read it as baby. When asked to copy it from the chalkboard, he wrote 91 The following are a few examples of Jay's word reversals and letter transformations within words: pp_read as pp, pp_as pp; was as saw, §Qp_as ypg; pgy_as who; followed as flowed; lots as lost; also as lost; and earth as three. Similar Word Configurations The daily diary shows ample evidence of similar configuration errors. For example he confused the words and because of similar letter patterns. Other examples of this confusion _— are: @zlbush ; [anyI:- ; @zlairl ; Wm: km ;[When]: The report from the Psychiatry Clinics suggests Jay confuses certain words because he reverses figure and ground: ”he attends to the 'ground' of the word initially more than the 'figure.’ A word like 'rabbit‘ may be misread as 'mother' because both words have simi- lar configurations. . . .“ Other Physical Factors As mentioned earlier, Jay's mother maintained a detailed diary of each son's growth and development. In Jay's case, prenatal and postnatal development was normal: there was a full—length pregnancy; 92 there were no complications in labor or delivery; he passed through the various developmental stages at the same age as most children and he had never been seriously ill nor had he suffered any trauma. Jay's gross body movements were well coordinated. He was among the best at his school in sport and physical education. His finer movements, particularly those requiring eye-hand coordination, such as printing and writing, were not as well developed. School reports show erratic progress in handwriting. In grades one and two, for example, his teachers reported ”good progress,” but, in grades three and four his writing was assessed as “needs improvement" (Appendix 0). Particular attention was paid to Jay's handwriting in this study since the VAKT approach was used during remediation. Extracts from the daily diary show the quality of Jay's writing and give an example of how it varied from day to day: August 4, 1980 93 Jay's drawings, on the other hand, were always careful, organ- ized and very detailed (Appendix F). Drawing was obviously a source of pride and enjoyment to him and he often volunteered to do drawings in lieu of assigned reading homework. Educational Data School And Reading Center Information Many of Jay's reports from school (Appendix D) and his term re— ports from the Reading Center (Appendix E) have tended to somewhat overstate his progress and achievement in reading. In 1976, Jay repeated grade one mainly because he was unable to read. His school report for Fall, 1976, stated that he needed to work on: 1) letters and sounds; 2) sight-words. His 1977-78 grade two report showed satisfactory progress in: 1) sight-words; 2) comprehen- sion; 3) word-attack skills, and 4) reading for pleasure, and good pro— gress was reported on knowledge of: 5) the alphabet; 6) consonant sounds; and 7) short vowel sounds. His reports for 1978-79 and 1979-80 stated that three areas needed improvement: comprehension, word- attack and vocabulary development. He showed satisfactory progress in the other reading areas. It would appear from Jay's reports and his seemingly automatic promotion from grades one through four that his school espoused the philosophy: "the chief goal of the school should be the happy, well— balanced and socially competent individual . . .” (Carter and McGinnis, 1970, p. 68). Bond and Tinker (1967) foresaw the kind of predicament students such as Jay would be in when they warned: ”. . . as the 94 poorer readers are promoted from grade to grade, they drop farther and farther behind, and eventually become disabled readers“ (p. 139). Jay's term reports from the Reading Center have been more de- tailed, more analytic, and more critical than his school reports, but these, too, have tended to overstate his progress and achievement. Appendix E is an example of a report from the Reading Center. The investigator agrees with many of the tutor's observations and comments but doubts that Jay could have read the books and language experience stories mentioned since he had neither the sight-vocabulary nor the decoding skills to do so. Jay's tuition at the Reading Center was a higher standard, how- ever, his progress and achievements at the Reading Center could have been more closely monitored since the reports show little evidence of sequential development or progression. The Teachers And Tutors Jay's parents reported during an interview with the investigator that all, but one, of his teachers were complimentary to him as a pu— pil. The teachers found Jay to be a pleasant, well-adjusted child who strove to please. All of the teachers mentioned that Jay was experi- encing problems in reading, however, they thought that he would over- come his difficulties since he was being helped by the school's read— ing specialist and the tutors at the Reading Center. The one teacher who had not warmed to Jay felt that his reading disability was so severe that he would never learn to read. This teacher, according to the boy's mother, felt that she was unable to 95 assist Jay with his reading. There is no evidence in school reports of this teacher's viewpoint. Jay's tutors at the Reading Center, like his teachers at school, found him to be a likeable child. The comments in Appendix E are typical of the types of compliments his tutors made. Tutors were im- pressed by his oral expression and aural comprehension, his imagination, his wide-ranging interests, and his friendly manner. It is obvious to the investigator from school and Center reports, and from interviews with Jay's classroom teacher and reading specialist that he has had support, assistance and empathy from teachers and tu— tors. Methods and Materials Jay's reading instruction at school and at the Center has been orthodox, basically following an audio-visual approach. At school, the classroom teachers followed a basal series, sup- plemented by a phonics program wherein Jay was allowed to read basals of a lower level than his peers. As far as the investigator could ascertain, the teachers did not offer him an individualized program per se: Jay simply occupied himself with his basal when the other children read theirs. The school‘s reading specialist was aware that Jay needed a highly individualized program, however, this was logistically impos— sible with the available resources. She reported to the investigator that Jay attended her sessions with eight other poor readers from his class and, at best, she treated him as a member of this group. There 96 were, of course, times during the sessions with this group when Jay would read aloud to her, or to the aide, and had his errors recorded. His comprehension dittoes, and other worksheets, along with notes as to the types of errors he made, were kept in a folder in which a quick- reference profile was maintained. At the Reading Center, the tutors implemented a variety of imaginative and innovative techniques, based on audio-visual approaches. Some tutors followed a top-down model, using language experience to generate vocabulary and stores: others followed a bottom—up model in which they moved from phonics through to comprehension. All tutors reported that Jay had made some progress during the term but each one concluded her report by suggesting that Jay continue to attend the Reading Center since he still had many reading problems and was reading well below the level of the typical child in his grade at school. Sociological Data Parents The investigator met with one of Jay's parents twice or three times a week during the period of the study. He also visited their home where he interviewed the members of their family to obtain infor— mation about Jay and their feelings and interactions with him. The diagram below provides information about the family and Jay's position in it. 97 FATHER MOTHER Agg: 41 Age: 38 Occupation: High School Occupation: Factory Teacher Level of Education: M.A. lScience) Worker Level of Education: High School §911 Ass: Grade: M Age: 11 Grade: 5 Jay's father Was seen by the investigator as a quiet, retiring man. His mother, on the other hand, was seen by the investigator as talkative, forceful, and outward going: the dominant parent. Jay identified with his father and he would often express the same interests and values as his father speaking about them as if they were his own. He said he liked his mother less than his father because she enforced discipline in the home. Jay's parents are concerned about his reading disability. They can offer no explanation as to why he should be a poor reader since he has grown up in a household where reading is modeled and encouraged: father is an avid reader of books; mother reads magazines and books, whenever she has time; the older brothers enjoy reading books, maga- zines and comics. 98 Jay's mother expressed more concern than his father about the reading disability, wondering how he would cope at school and in later life. She had very negative feelings toward the way Jay was taught to read by teachers at schools and talked of withdrawing him from classroom reading instruction. She believed, ”the teachers don't know what they were doing," and ”conventional methods haven't worked so far and won't work in the future" (Recorded interview with parents: 8/26/80). She strongly resented her son being given ”baby stuff,” low- er level basals to read in the classroom because these materials did not challenge him. She expressed approval and satisfaction with the "special methods” that were used by the reading specialist and the tutors. Jay's parents encourage open-discussion in the home. The investi- gator found this an admirable quality in that there was rapport among family members and a special kind of ease and spontaneity during family discussions. However, this kind of home environment did have one ob— vious drawback: Jay‘s disability was openly discussed. Jay was aware of his performance on tests, the prognosis from the Psychiatry Clinics, term reports, and conversations with teachers and tutors. In general, Jay's parents have provided him and his brothers with a very comfortable home environment. They are encouraging, supportive, and concerned about his progress and achievements. The Home Jay lives in a neat, comfortable, middle-class home in the sub- urbs, a quarter mile from his school. The house is well-furnished and 99 equipped with facilities, indoors and out-of—doors, for family recreation and for private study. As mentioned, there is an air of freedom in the home, never~ theless, each member has certain daily chores and responsibilities and these must be attended to. The children are held responsible for their own school assignments and homework, but they may seek help from their parents if they need assistance. During the Summer months, the investigator often assigned homework which required that Jay work with his parents, and this was always completed on time. Psychological Data Mental Maturity And I.Q. Jay was given the Wechsler Intelligence Tests for Children- Revised (WISC-R) on two different occasions, some three years apart, and similar results were obtained each time. The WISC-R was administered to Jay when he was seven years, seven months, at the time admission was sought into the Reading Cen— ter, and he fell within the average range for children his age. This test was given again in April-May, 1980, by the psychologists at the Psychiatry Clinics and the same results were found. The report from the Clinics places Jay within the average range but adds: ”. . . his present intellectual functioning is impaired by a central nervous system deficit that significantly lowers his verbal skills. A more accurate estimate, corrected for his central nervous system impairment, places him in the Bright-Normal range.” 100 Emotional Maturity Jay's present teacher feels that he is as emotionally mature as any other child in her classroom. She told the investigator that he participates freely in all non-reading activities, often leading a group. He also volunteers for classroom and school duties and responsibilities but when an activity entails reading, he tends to withdraw. The tutors at the Reading Center have not commented on Jay's emotional maturity, however, they have made remarks about his con— fidence, his friendliness and his willingness to engage in conversa- tion. The investigator, like the classroom teacher, is of the opinion that Jay is emotionally mature for his age. If the seven character- istics outlined by Carter and McGinnis — mentioned in Chapter Two - are a yardstick of emotional maturity of children, Jay should be judged to be emotionally mature. Self-Concept Jay has been assessed as having a poor self-concept. On two occasions, several months apart, Jay was given a sentence completion test. The sentence beginnings were read to him and he was asked to respond as quickly as he could with the first thoughts that came to him. He did this, and his responses were tape recorded and later transcribed (Appendix G). After the administration of the first test, the tape recording was played on two doctoral interns in Psychology. They listened to 101 the recording and offered the following interpretations of his responses: a. Overall, he is a child who is very sad about himself and his lack of ability in reading. b. He identifies with his father and he views his mother as a disciplinarian. c. He would like to be able to read to please his parents whom he feels are eager and con— cerned that he learns to read. d. He equates smartness and intelligence with being able to read. e. He is aware that he is a poor reader and that he is not doing as well as his peers in class- work. He wants to be noticed . . . he wants to be outstanding at something so that his peers don't tease him about being a ”dummy.” f. His world tells him reading is fun, and, since it isn't fun for him, there must be something wrong with him. g. He would like to escape from the sometimes uncomfortable atmosphere of the classroom where reading and reading activities are compulsory (Personal communication with R. Sturgis and M. Lieberman). Jay mentioned to the investigator, on a number of occasions, that he was teased by other children for reading ”baby stuff" - a term his mother used - in the classroom. He resented being teased and referred to as a “dummy" and as ”stupid” by his peers and was very upset by these remarks. Short-term Memory There is no first-hand evidence to support the assumption that Jay's reading disability is contributed to by a deficit in visual or auditory short-term memory. Nevertheless, the views put forward by 102 Jorm (1979) and by Carr (1980), mentioned in Chapter Two under ”Short-term Memory, make good sense and appear to describe Jay's difficulty in recoding the letters of a word into their phonological presentations. Modality Learning There was no evidence in any of the reports of Jay's modality— preference. However, since the investigator had opted to use the multisensory VAKT approach for remediation, modality-preference was not an issue of real concern. Therapeutic Diagnoses Sign #1: Sight Vocabulary Date Tests 5/20/80 Slosson Oral Reading Test (SORT) 10/20/80 Slosson Oral Reading Test (SORT) -- Teacher-made Tests and Observations Interpretation 0n the first administration of SORT Jay obtained a raw score of thirty-four and on the second administration of this same test, his raw score was forty—five. He was not able to recognize such words as come, baby, three, down, ball in List P; with, friends, NEE, what, bump, dark, first, basket, in List 1; gam , breakfast, larg , better, suddenly, happen, river, lunch in List 2 . . . words that have been taken from standardized school readers for the SORT. Many of these same words appear in the ore-primer and primer lists of the Dolch 103 Basic Word Lists. Jay made several types of errors in his sight word test. Some of these errors occurred sufficiently often to warrant mention: Let- ter reversals and letter confusion; word reversals and letter trans- formations within words; similar configurations and guessing. There are several examples of letter reversals and letter con- fusion. Jay very often reversed the letters "b” and ”d,” and he would invariably confuse ”d" with ”m,“ in isolation and in words. For ex- ample, he read baby as dady; bump as dump; grade as grame; ppg as g_g; gpy as p_y; drive as brive. There appears to be an explanation for the "b"/"d" reversal in that it is a common mistake amoung younger children (Moyer and Newcomer, 1972) and that Jay was a left-hander in a right-handed classroom. However, the investigator can offer no ex- planation at all for the ”d”/"m“ confusion. Jay knew the names of the letters of the alphabet including the letter ”m,” and, he never con- fused ”m” with ”d.” Word reversals and letter transformations within words were com- mon. Jay read saw as was, was as saw; pp as pp, pp as pg; dark as drak; lost as lots, lots as lost; three as earth; ppp as how, how as Egg; 2gp as ypp, wpp as pyp. Jorm (1979) and Carr (1980), both of which were discussed under ”Short-term Memory” in Chapter Two, seem to offer a plausible explanation for these phenomena. Jay would confuse words of similar configuration even where the letters of the words were not alike. For example, he read ball as bill; ppg as air; pgg as gig; five as fine; made as rule; 104 should as still; radio as water. Jay worked hard to win the approval of the investigator and he would often guess somewhat blindly at words. The investigator was sometimes troubled over Jay's responses, wondering whether they were a configuration error or guesses. There were instances where obvious configuration errors occurred and the investigator accepted the explanation put forward by the psychologist at the Psychiatry Clinics: figure/ground reversal. There were also many obvious in— stances of guessing to please the investigator. For example, Jay read remote control as switch blade, three and another; without as backward; found as control; there as round; g3; as going; picture as children. Sign #2: Decoding Performance Date Tests 5/20/80 Slosson Oral Reading Test 10/20/80 Slosson Oral Reading Test 10/20/80 Gates-McKillop Reading Diagnostic Test (1962)-Form 1(V-1) -- Teacher-made Tests and Observation Interpretation Jay knew the names of the letters of the alphabet save “b“ and ”d” which he confused with one another, and ”d” which he sometimes called /m/. He knew the sounds of the consonants but he appeared to have little knowledge of long and short vowel sounds. In fact, he often confused the sounds of the vowels with the names of the letters. For example, the word given was read as /ga1vn/ with ”i“ being made 105 into a diphthong so as to say its name. The Gates—McKillop Reading Diagnostic Test (V—l), Recog- nizing and Blending Word Parts, was administered and an analysis of the results show that Jay's initial attempts at the whole words were almost always incorrect. He correctly pronounced two of the twenty-three words. Sometimes, his attempts were totally wrong, for example, he read spack as shash; stade as shash; dween as droop; chack as tash; prible as pair; whast as shit. His performance on the initial blends was good, scoring sixteen out of the twenty—three. In four of the seven errors, Jay substituted /sh/ for pp, pp, pp, pp. His attempts at the word endings werealso poor. Here, he showed little knowledge of the long and short vowels and, in many cases, the consonants and consonant blends that followed. To provide one example to illustrate this point, he read -able as pp. Jay's overall perform- ance on this test was poor. Clearly, his understanding of vowels, both long and short, and consonants and consonant blends in the final position is below standard. The investigator had warned Jay the words on this test were non- sense words and wondered whether some of his responses were guesses, effected by this warning. Jay showed practically no knowledge of structural analysis: syllabication or roots and affixes. Likewise, despite having a sizable oral vocabulary, he appeared unable to generalize from phonic rules, homophones, heteronyms, compounding, contractions, possessive forms and abbreviations - knowledge and skills that competent readers possess 106 (Blair and Burke, 1980) and would have acquired at school in a reading/ language arts program. Sig #3: Fluent Texting Dates Tests 5/20/80 Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty, New Edition (Oral Reading) 9/16/80 Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty, New Edition (Oral Reading) -- Teacher-made Tests and Observations Interpretation Jay's fluency was severely hampered by his inadequate sight vocabulary and by his inability to decode unfamiliar words. He had a sizable oral vocabulary and his knowledge of word meanings in iso— lation and in oral context was good, nevertheless, because of weaknes- ses in sight-words and in word-attack, he read word-by—word with hesi- tations, mispronounciations, repetitions, and errors. For example, he read the following passage, at approximately twenty—three words per minute, in the manner shown: 3. Ce emping R P Six boviput upiflenqby‘the‘side of pine rix er.‘ They took‘thingsito eat‘with them. ‘ W hen he suc‘ went‘downitl 18“ w a“: into‘thc‘tent‘to s 'ecp*‘ In‘ th ”g I" ‘ . e. t r e m a cow‘came are 4553:}! 1;): cm g ass. of: :‘1 id.* l he',‘ ‘around‘the tent.* The boys‘were thought‘it was‘a‘bear.‘ 107 The investigator found that when Jay read a text of known words, that is, words he knew or had learned through the VAKT approach, he read quite fluently though not much faster. The fol- lowing passage is an example of his fluent reading: Jay and Elsie went'for a walk dd‘wnlthe road for aboutl three milesx' They came to an old farm.‘ Jay thought he‘ would|like to look around‘the farm-housex‘He thought hen was a little scared becauselthe house was very, very old.| Thgre‘wgsla track from the house‘to an old well|aer|an old] fiI‘ér-pumpJJay could seelanother well‘in the valley‘ about a mile away.‘ It can be seen that Jay hesitated at the end of each line in both of the examples. He was observed by the investigator to point to words as he read and, even though he did this, he occasionally returned to the line he had just read. Sign #4: Comprehension Dates Tests 5/20/80 Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, 1978 Edition, Level B (Comprehension) 5/20/80 Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty, New Edition (Listening Comprehension) 9/16/80 Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty, New Edition (Oral Reading) 9/20/80 Gates—MacGinitie Reading Tests, 1978 Edition, Level B (Comprehension) 108 -- Teacher—made Tests and Observations Interpretation Jay's reading comprehension was affected by inadequacies in his sight-vocabulary, decoding and fluency. Whenever he was con- fronted by unfamiliar words in a text he read haltingly and, because he concentrated so much on decoding words, the message would often escape him. If he was able to recognize most of the words in a pas- sage, his comprehension was considerably better; he was astute; he saw intended humor and wit; and he was even able to draw attention to content errors in stories the investigator had composed for him. Jay strongly objected to reading silently. If he was asked to read to himself, he would reluctantly do so, sub-vocalizing in the beginning, gradually reaching the stage where he read aloud. 0b- viously, he relied heavily on aural input for comprehending the message of a written text. The investigator observed Jay to have an auditory modality preference. His aural comprehension was assessed at approximately grade five-six level on the Durrell Listening Comprehension Test. Degree 0f Disability In Reading At times it is important to assess the severity of an indi- vidual's reading disability in a case-study report. This kind of information may be used by the school or district for placing a child under a Title Program since new federal regulations limit the category of severely disabled to no more than two or three percent 109 of the school population (Harris, 1981). Such information may also be used to indicate to parents the severity of their child's disability. The Sherman Model, as mentioned in Chapters One and Two, pro- vides a neat and succinct summation of the individual's strengths and weaknesses in reading, however, it offers little indication of the degree or level of the disability. How then can the severity of the child's reading disability be determined? Most definitions of a severely disabled reader, with one exception, are of little assistance as they lack sufficient specificity. Ekwall (1976), un- like most of his contemporaries, offers the most comprehensive des- cription — a list of seventeen symptoms — of a disabled reader. This description attracted the investigator and, hence, it was used as a checklist to determine the severity of Jay’s reading disability: Checklist Ekwall's Characteristics True of Jay a. Reversals of letters or words True b. Short or erratic memory for words True c. Oral rereading not improved after first oral or silent reading True d. Inability to hold information in memory until needed True e. Difficulty in concentration True f. Inability to see whole relationships or form a Gestalt True 9. Emotional instability Not True h. Tendency towards impulsiveness True i. Poor eye-motor coordination True j. Difficulty in sequencing True k. Inability to work rapidly True l. Omission of words and phrases True m. Directional confusion True n. Poor auditory discrimination ‘rue o. Hyperactivity True p. Poor syntax, stuttering or speaking haltingly Not True q. Achievement in Arithmetic considerably higher than reading and spelling True 110 day was found by the investigator to meet fifteen of the seventeen characteristics, using the data that was available about him. Ekwall does not provide a sliding—scale for determining the degree of dis— ability, however, the investigator is of the opinion that since day meets eighty-nine percent of Ekwall's characteristics, he should be deemed a severely disabled reader. Summar Two main topics were addressed in this chapter - the essential features of a case-study and the case-study of a disabled reader. The first topic examined the four features that were thought to be essential for a viable case-study: a) The Rationale, Objectives and Anticipated Outcomes; b) Data-gathering Techniques; c) Parental Consent; and d) The Report. Each feature was discussed in general terms and then, in terms of this particular case-study. The second topic, a case-study report, was presented using the outlines provided by Harris and Sipay (1980) and Otto and Smith (1980) as "fairly good insurance against omitting important information . .“ (Harris and Sipay, 1980, p. 328). Some adaptations were made to these outlines so as to accommodate all of the pertinent data about day as an individual, as a learner, and as a disabled reader. Three areas were discussed under the second topic: a) etio- logical diagnoses; b) therapeutic diagnoses; and c) the severity of the reading disability. Under etiological diagnoses, the following areas were examined: Physical Data: visual; auditory; speech; neurological (directional confusion, reversal and partial reversals; 111 similar word configurations); and other physical factors. Educational Data: school and reading center information; teachers and tutors; and methods and materials. Sociological Data: parents and home. Psychological Data: mental maturity and 1.0.; emotional maturity; self-concept; and short- term memory. Under therapeutic diagnoses, the investigator assessed Jay's reading strengths and weaknesses in reading, using the four signs of the Sherman Sign Sign Sign Sign Model: #1: #2: #3: #4: Sight Vocabulary Decoding Performance Fluent Texting Comprehension Finally, the investigator used Ekwall's seventeen symptoms of a severely disabled reader as a checklist to determine the severity of Jay‘s reading disability. day was found to meet fifteen of the seventeen symptoms and was therefore categorized by the investigator to be a severely disabled reader. CHAPTER IV CASE STUDY OF A SEVERELY DISABLED READER: REMEDIATION The remediation program for Jay began on July I, 1980, and con- tinued until October 20, 1980, a period of almost sixteen weeks. Dur- ing this time the investigator met the boy three times a week for forty-five minute sessions either at the Reading Center or at his school. Before July 1, the investigator collected much of the data mentioned in Chapter Three from reports, interviews, observations and test result analysis so that ”the right 'match‘ between pupil type and instructional type” (Zigmond, 1978, p. 441) could be organized. About this time, the investigator also drew up a set of principles which would underlie the remedial instruction and facilitate learning. In this chapter, two topics are considered: a. The Principles of Remedial Instruction b. The Remedial Program Under the first topic, each principle is discussed generally, and then in terms of this particular remedial program. The second topic provides details of the methods, techniques and materials that were used during the sixteen weeks. The Principles of Remedial Instruction Several different sets of principles for remedial instruction in reading have been suggested (Bond et al., 1979; Roswell and 112 113 Natchez, 1971; Wilson, 1972; Otto and Smith, 1980; Harris, 1981) and these have been found to differ from each other mainly in terms of focus. Some were oriented toward building the individual's self- concept: others were pedagogical, concerned with the facilitation of learning. The investigator was attracted by principles from both orientations, and consequently arrived at a set which were incorpor- ated into this remedial program. Principle 1: Remedial Instruction Must Be Based On Diagnoses Harris and Sipay (1980) emphasized that remediation must be based on etiological and therapeutic diagnoses. This information would enable the clinician to devise an appropriate program - "a plan of teaching to overcome the difficulties and gaps” (p. 334). For Jay‘s program, the investigator took into account facts and other pertinent information of the kind discussed in Chapter Three. For example, it was believed that day: a. had a central nervous system impairment and that connections were not automatically made between visual and auditory projection areas of his brain; b. had difficulty understanding abstractions and he needed concrete, external supports for learning; c. experienced directional confusion and reversals; d. was reliable and responsible; e. had a poor self—concept; f. had difficulty recoding letters of a word into their phonological presentations; 114 9. had limited sight vocabulary and very few decoding skills; and h. tended toward an aural modality preference. With these and other factors in mind, the investigator decided that a multisensory approach, in this case the VAKT, would be used with day. It was also decided that priority would be given to the develop- ment of his sight vocabulary so that he could begin reading immediately. Principle 2: Rapport Must Be Developed Between Teacher And Learner The importance of rapport between the learner and the teacher has been stressed as an essential part of a remedial reading program (Roswell and Natchez, 1971; Otto and Smith, 1980; Harris, 1981). It is thought that once a working relationship has been developed, the learner will become an active participant and will learn more effic- iently and effectively. According to Otto and Smith (1980), ”The success of corrective and remedial teaching depends heavily on the extent to which the learner gets involved” (p. 475). Bond et al. (1979) look at the same issue from a slightly different perspective: ”When a child recognizes that an interest is taken in him and his problem, it will give him the much—needed sense of personal worth and the confidence in himself that he has hitherto lacked” (p. 253). Roswell and Natchez (1971) agree with Bond et al., in fact, these writers consider teacher/pupil rapport a cardinal principle of re- mediation. The investigator found it easy to develop rapport with Jay since he wanted a male teacher. He was in early adolescence and 115 had not had a male teacher since grade one nor had he ever had a male tutor at the Reading Center. Jay took delight in talking to the in- vestigator about his sporting interests, his hobbies, and his mascu- line pursuits. The investigator capitalized on his willingness to talk about himself and about things which interested him by writing them down for him to read later, and by asking him to illustrate some of his ideas since he enjoyed drawing. Once rapport was established, the investigator began to demand more work from Jay, knowing that he would do what was required of him. Sometimes, Jay would do more work than he was assigned for homework, often in the form of drawings which he would discuss in class. Principle 3: Success Must Be Reinforced Throughout The Program Harris and Sipay (1980) believe that nothing succeeds like suc- cess and for them, the clinician or teacher is responsible for design- ing a program wherein the pupil succeeds from the very beginning. They write, It is essential to begin . . . at a level and with specific tasks that are easy enough so that successful performance is virtually certain. . . . After the child has tasted the delightful flavor of an auspicious begin- ning, good judgement is needed in estimating how much to cover, how fast to go, and how soon to move to a higher level of difficulty" (p. 336). Roswell and Natchez (1971) agree with the notion put forward by Harris and Sipay but they warn against giving the individual too easy—to-read materials simply to develop the feeling of success: Building up feelings of success in these defeated children is a very complex problem. . . . Reading very easy material perfectly is less rewarding than making 116 errors in more stimulating stories. . . . One must assess the child's capacity for making mistakes with- out his becoming extremely upset over them (p. 73). In this study the investigator used the Fernald approach in which the child was to experience success on the first day (Johnson, 1978). The program began with language experience stories - sen- tences that reflected Jay's interests, his speech patterns and his vocabulary. He learned his own words through the VAKT approach and then read these words in his dictated stories and in other stories that the investigator had composed for him. Success in reading was almost guaranteed since Jay would be reading known words in a familiar context. The investigator made use of praise and, less occasionally, extrinsic rewards such as international postage stamps for signs of progress. Jay's parents were kept informed of his progress and he found their response toward him very encouraging. Principle 4: Learning Must Be Cumulative With Freguent Review Otto and Smith (1980) and Harris (1981) advocate that when dealing with disabled learners, the teacher should design a program of small steps, each one leading to the next. They also suggest that time be allocated for frequent review and practice to facilitate the recall of knowledge and to further develop any skills. In this study, the investigator scheduled some time at the be- ginning of each lesson for the review of known words, for language experience stories and for practicing newly acquired skills. Regular review enabled Jay to be taken from what he knew to what he was about 117 to learn, that is, he was prepared in advance to learn new material and skills easily and efficiently. Principle 5: Learning Materials And Tasks Must Be Meaningful Otto and Smith (1980) address this principle by claiming that research studies have confirmed "that meaningful tasks and materials are mastered more readily than materials that have limited meaning or tasks that are not clearly understood" (p. 477). Bond and Tinker (1967), like Rosewell and Natchez (1971), agree that tasks and mater- ials be meaningful and they add that the learner should be told about the purpose and structure of the program. They also feel the learner must be made aware of his strengths and weaknesses in reading and understand the purpose of certain activities, such as drills, tracing and the like, which in themselves may not be associated with the reading process. Bond and Tinker write, ”the remedial teacher will find that making the processes of reading meaningful to the learner helps to solve his reading confusions” (p. 251). The investigator explained to Jay that a different approach would be used to help him to read. He was told about the various techniques within this approach: dictating language experience stories; finger-tracing of words; writing words; and reading familiar stories. Most important, he was informed that this approach had helped many children, like him, to read. The explanation about the different tasks in the VAKT approach, the materials, and about his role within the approach appeared helpful and meaningful to Jay. 118 Principle 6: A Variety Of Remedial Technigues Must Be Used Bond et al. (1979) believe that there is an unfortunate ten- dency among clinicians and reading teachers ”to stick to one specific type of exercise to overcome a known deficiency. . . . (Whereas) an effective remedial plan will include a variety of teaching techniques and instructional procedures" (p. 195). (Writer's parentheses). Harris (1981) concurs with the second point of view but he feels that flexibility in choosing methods and techniques should depend upon the individual's feelings and aptitude. In the initial stages of planning Jay's remedial program, the investigator was very attracted to the notion put forward by Bond gt g1: and planned to use an array of techniques and procedures. How— ever, after a short time it became clear that Jay was unable to cope with different techniques. He became apprehensive when new techniques or exercises were tried mainly because he was not sure whether he would be able to respond appropriately. His confusion and insecurity hampered the amount he learned. When Jay was even slightly apprehensive, the number and variety of his defending strategies increased. At this time he would resort to one or more of the following: he would drop his pencil as far as possible under the table; he would complain of eye strain, sore mus- cles, and severe headaches; he would insinuate that none of his tea- chers understood him; he would cry; he would say that he wanted to be a truck-driver because they didn't have to know how to read; or, he would suggest that his mother would withdraw him from the Reading Center. 119 Thus, the investigator chose to use a limited number of tech- niques and exercises until Jay demonstrated enough confidence to accept a wider variety. Principle 7: Spaced Practice Must Be Included In The Program Otto and Smith (1980) have found sufficient evidence from re- search with disabled learners to suggest that long—term retention was improved by spaced practice. For them, spaced.practice was important because it provided relief from monotony, frequent rest periods and changes in activity. In this study, the investigator made use of this sound edu- cational principle by dividing each lesson into four main segments (Appendix B): a. Correcting homework b. Revising known words, reading familiar passages/ sentences, and practicing skills. c. Learning new words, reading new passages/sentences, and acquiring new skills. d. Assigning homework. Jay learned best when he was aware of the organization and structure of each lesson; consequently, this lesson format was maintained throughout the sixteen weeks. This structure provided spaced practice two or three times a week. As well, there was time within each lesson to reteach or review anything that Jay found par- ticularly difficult. .'I"|E 12D Principle 8: Achievable Goals Must Be Set Wilson (1972) emphasized the need for goals and objectives in remedial reading programs. He recommended that clinicians and reading teachers draw up sets of long—term goals, which should in turn be broken down into lesson objectives formulated in behavioral terms. Thus, the behavior which was expected as a result of the instruction would be easily assessible. Wilson also put forward the idea that ”children should be alerted to the daily instructional goals; indeed, we have found it beneficial to involve them in the development of goals” (p. 147). The investigator in this study formulated goals and objectives which were thought to be achievable and, in addition, organized sets of rewards for when the goals were reached. Jay was informed of the goals and objectives and he worked toward the rewards. For example, Jay was told that the Director of the Reading Center would visit to congratulate him when he was able to recognize two hundred words, and as this was an important goal, he worked hard to learn this number of words. Jay was not involved in the development of goals and objectives since the investigator was unsure how beneficial an eleven year old's contribution would be in the development of a remedial program. Principle 9: Cooperation Must Be An Integral Part Of The Program The importance of the classroom teacher and the individual's parents has been stressed by several writers (Harris, 1981; Wilson, 1972; Bond et al., 1979). Bond et al. (1979) suggest that the 121 disabled reader's teacher and parents be asked to assist in the remedial program because they are important people in the child's life and he may strive to please them. These authors also feel that by working with the individual on the program, the parents and teacher may grow to appreciate the nature of the disability and better understand the goals and objectives of his program. The investigator visited Jay's school on a number of occasions and informed the principal, the classroom teacher and the reading specialists about his program at the Reading Center. They were given copies of his word lists and reading passages and they were asked to let him work on these at school. Likewise, Jay's parents were invit- ed to observe how he was taught at the Reading Center and they were asked to assist him with his homework. While Jay received the sup— port of his teacher and parents his progress was indeed good. Principle 10: Skills Development Must Be The Major Objective Of The Program Wilson (1972) has criticized many remedial reading programs for not developing the reading skills of the disabled reader. He feels that in many instances remedial programs are tutorial in nature where ”the instruction is designed to enable the child to be successful with a given material in a given classroom situation“ (p. 147). For him, each lesson must be designed to develop the specific skills in which the child has demonstrated a deficiency. - The diagnostic model used in this study was skills oriented, and as a result, the investigator was able to design a remedial program that addressed the four skills: sight-vocabulary, decoding, 'fluent texting and comprehension. Since the VAKT approach was used 122 almost exclusively during remediation, most attention was given to sight-word development, nevertheless the other skills were also at— tended to and developed during the period of remediation. The Remedial Program Sign #1: Sight Vocabulary The investigator decided to give priority to the development of Jay's sight vocabulary during the period of remediation for the following reasons: a. The number of written words he could recognize was severely limited. b. He urgently needed to develop his sight vocabulary if he was to begin reading as soon as possible. Source Of Sight Words During the first four weeks of the program, Jay's sight words were obtained from his language experience stories and sentences. He dictated his sentences to the investigator who determined if Jay was able to recognize his written words in one of two ways: a. Jay was asked to locate or identify randomly chosen words from his sentences; b. Each word from his sentences was typed onto a small index card and then shown to him. If he recognized a word in the second instance, the card was placed in an index file. If he was not able to recognize a word, it was written in large cursive letters on a flashcard (Appendix I) for 123 later use. By the end of four weeks the investigator found that many of the words from Jay's sentences were low-frequency words and of little use for generating other meaningful sentences. For example, he used comb-switch blade; remote-control car; fire-cracker, and back-track in his sentences, and though these compound words could be broken down into single words, they were still not high-utility words. Jay needed more high-frequency words and therefore the investi- gator decided to discontinue with language experience sentences as the source of sight words and to obtain future words from a basic word list. The Revised A and P Sight Word List - sets of fifty words organ- ized according to frequency of occurrence - was readily available and was chosen for this purpose (Appendix J). Organization Of Sight Words Each new word was written on a 13 by 3 inch flashcard in large cursive letters (Appendix I). The same word was typed on a primary typewriter onto an index card for the investigator‘s file box (Appen- dix K) and onto a strip of card for Jay’s use (Appendix K). Jay cut the words from the card and kept them in alphabetical order in a plastic envelope inside his folder. Learning New Sight Words The Fernald technique was slightly modified to teach Jay his new sight words. The following procedure explains how words were learned: 124 a. Each new word was written in large cursive letters onto a flashcard (Appendix I). b. Jay looked at the word as the investigator said the word. c. He was told the meaning(s) of the word. d. He traced over the letters of the word on the card, with the index finger of his left hand, and said the word when he finished tracing it. He repeated this process between ten and fif- teen times depending on the length, complexity or difficulty of the word. He continued to trace and say the word until he was able to write it with his index finger from memory. e. He wrote the word in pencil five or six times, again saying it after it was written. f. After each day's words had been treated in this way, each card was flashed to see whether Jay could recognize the word. If he recognized it, the card was placed on a ring binder for later use: if he was not able to recognize a word, the tracing/saying, writing/saying pro- cedure was repeated. Nine or ten new high frequency words were presented each session. Reviewing Known Sight Words Known sight words were kept in three places: the ring binder, the index file, and Jay's plastic envelope. All known words were 125 reviewed each week either by flashing the words on the ring binder or by drawing cards from the index box. In addition, Jay would be assigned homework which required him to use his word cards. Home assignments usually took one of three forms: a. Jay composed sentences by using his small word cards in the following way: EEII EEE He then copied these sentences onto a piece of paper He completed cloze passages of known words in which all but the first letter(s) of certain words were deleted: We followed a tr into the woods and we ate b . We w for miles and miles th______the quiet bush th_ we came to our camp—5.... .on the b._. To complete this assignment, he looked through his small word cards in the plastic envelope and when he found the appropriate word he wrote it onto the line. His parents played a game with him in which his small word cards were flashed and Jay said the word on the card. 126 Difficult Sight Words There were certain words that Jay seemed unable to learn re- gardless of how hard he tried and how many times he was retaught them. He experienced this kind of difficulty with such words as ppggpt; pply; because; plgpe; Egg. Whenever Jay appeared unable to learn a word, the investigator found it expedient to allow him to associate the difficult word with a concrete object. One example of this kind of stimulus-response may illustrate the point: Jay has experienced difficulty with bought even though this word has been retaught several times. Today when he again failed to recognize bought, the flashcard was placed against the telephone near the desk. He looked at the word and heard me say ”bought“ five times. Jay then pointed at the flashcard and said ”bought“ five times. Jay somehow associated the word bought with the telephone and referred to bought as his ”telephone“ word (Extracted from the Investigator‘s Daily Diary). He continued to use this kind of stimulus-response until he became very familiar with the word on the card. The telephone/bought asso- ciation lasted almost three weeks before Jay was able to recognize bought without saying, "That's the telephone word: bought.” Final Assessment Of Sight Words By the sixteenth week Jay had learned three hundred sight words (Appendix L) from his language experience stories and the Revised A and P Sight Word List. During the review periods of lessons he dem- onstrated that he recognized between ninety and ninety—five percent of these words when he was tested. Jay showed no evidence of being 127 able to generalize from these words to new words. Each new word was an entity in itself. On October 20, 1980, Jay was given the SORT and obtained a raw score of forty—five - a grade equivalence of 2.2. He had progressed from a grade level of 1.7 to 2.2 during the sixteen week period. Sign #2: Decoding Performance Jay's attempts at unfamiliar words on the SORT and the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test (1978 Ed.) on May 20, 1980, showed that he had relatively few decoding skills. Despite this poor performance on these tests, the investigator decided not to emphasize decoding skills for the following reasons: a. Jay needed to develop his basic sight vocabulary so that he could begin reading as soon as possible. b. The Fernald technique was to be used during remedi- ation and this was a whole-word approach. c. He was diagnosed as having a central nervous system impairment wherein connections between visual and auditory projection areas of the brain were not automatically made. d. He had had many years of phonics instruction and he had not learned to use this knowledge. Source Of Words For Decoding Jay's sight words were used to show him how certain words could be decoded using letter-sound correspondences. He was also shown how certain words on his sight word list could not be decoded using the 128 same letter-sound relationships. Organization Of Words For Decoding In the early stages of the program, the letters of the alpha- bet were printed on small cards and were used to review letter names and sounds. Later, when Jay was decoding simple words, his sight word flashcards were used. Likewise, when he practiced using the VC plus "e” Rule, as in gate, write and code, his flashcards were used. Learning To Decode Jay knew the names of the letters of the alphabet except for "b“ and “d” which he always confused. To overcome this confusion he was taught the sign language signals for these two letters and this appeared to help him. His problem with the other consonant letters was that he confused the letter names with the sounds as he decoded words. He had considerable problems with vowels. He not only confused letter names with sounds but he invariably used a short vowel where a long vowel existed in the word. Some work was done with word families and Jay enjoyed the search for words with similar elements. He had a good oral vocabulary and could easily find words for the word-family lists. Only one phonic rule was taught during the sixteen weeks. Jay learned the VC plus ”e” Rule and practiced it on his known sight words and any new words to which it was applicable. However, he very seldom used the rule of his own volition on an unfamiliar word. In 129 almost each instance, he had to be reminded to use the rule. Final Assessment Of Decoding Performance Jay often appeared to have little control of the final pro- nunciation of a word he decoded. One example from the daily diary may illustrate the point: He looked at the flashcard lost and sounded the letters correctly. He hesitated for a moment and said, ”Look." I asked him to re-examine the word. He looked at it again, decoded it without sounding out the letters and said, ”Long. No. It's lots, long. Heck, I don't know.” I then spelled the word to him: LOST. Jay immediately responded, ”Lost. ll Quite often when Jay could not decode a word, the investigator spelled the word to him or asked him to spell the word aloud. More often than not, he could identify the word if it was among his known words. It soon became apparent to the investigator that Jay did not like phonics nor was he motivated to develop his word-attack skills. He became frustrated when he was unable to decode a word and he would hit the table or his leg with his hand. On two separate occasions, he became annoyed because he could not remember the sounds of certain letters and began to tap the microphone of the tape recorder with a pencil. After several repetitions of these behaviors, the investi— gator decided to discontinue the development of word-attack skills, except for the VC plus “e” Rule and word families. Sign #3: Fluent Texting At the beginning of the remedial program Jay had extreme dif- ficulty trying to read meaningful units of language. In fact, he 130 appeared to have all of the characteristics of a non-fluent reader. For example, he would: a. read word by word - approximately thirty words per minute; b. repeat words; c. omit any difficult words; d. ignore punctuation; and e. return to the line he had just read. The passage below illustrates some of these errors: m '\ 2. The Dog A littlelblack doglran away from'homex Hel played‘with‘two‘big dogs.‘ 1111:;‘1‘311 away‘from' him. 'It began to rainx Helwent'under‘la tree.‘ an t I '1 . He anted'tp go home, but he did not know the s w way. ‘ He‘sugiiva fi‘helknewx The‘boy ltook | him home.‘ Source Of Passages For Fluent Texting The investigator felt that the best way to develop Jay's fluent texting skills was to allow him to read passages in which he knew all of the words. Hence, for sixteen weeks he read passages of known words - sentences he dictated, or stories that the investigator composed, using his known words. 131 Organization Of The Passages Jay was presented with new reading material almost every week, sometimes twice a week. Since the investigator composed and typed all of the reading materials, it was easy to maintain the same for— mat and layout. For example, all materials were typed on a primary typewriter and one and a half or two spaces were left between lines. The primary typewriter was used because Jay complained he found it difficult to read smaller type, and large spaces were left between lines to prevent Jay from returning to the line he had just read. Learning Fuent Texting The investigator only allowed Jay to read materials composed from known words. After Jay dictated a language experience story, he learned all new words as sight words before he read the story. This was done so that he recognized every word in the passage and would therefore read his sentences fluently and meaningfully, just the way he had said them to the investigator. When Jay was given a new story that the investigator had com- posed, a procedure similar to the neurological impress technique was adopted. In this case: a. All difficult words in the story were drawn from the index file and quickly reviewed. b. The investigator read the passage aloud, fluently and expressively, while Jay listened and followed the story by pointing at the words with his finger. c. Jay's attention was drawn to any difficulties in 132 punctuation and phrasing. d. The investigator and Jay read the passage aloud. e. Jay read the passage aloud, fluently and with full expression. Sometimes Jay was given oral reading for homework. He was asked to practice reading the stories or sentences by himself and with his parents so that he could read them like a radio announcer. When he read his stories in class, they were tape recorded and played back to him. He enjoyed this role playing activity. Difficulties With Fluent Texting Jay's fluency in reading was hampered because he repeated words and also because he ignored punctuation. When he repeated a known word, for no obvious reason, the investigator would ask Jay to re- read the whole sentence, slowly, without repeating any words. When- ever he was penalized in this way he reread the sentence fluently, without repetitions. Before a new passage was treated, the investigator found it timesaving to review punctuation. The various punctuation marks were written in a column on the chalkboard and Jay was asked the names of the marks. Some words and sentences were then written on the board, using the different punctuation marks, and Jay read them aloud. His knowledge of punctuation was good during these practice sessions, however, he tended to ignore most punctuation in his oral reading. 133 Final Assessment Of Fluent Texting During the last weeks of the remedial program Jay was asked to read the following passage: Jay lost his new cofiblswitch-bladeJHe looked and lookedI for itlbut he could not find it.|He walked through the woodsl nér'the farmlto the beach.‘ He looked near the berry bush.‘He minoflfind it] iii'é'filhe got to his hm,‘heds§id|to his mom, "I have lost my new comb.IThe one I bought for‘my birthday] Have you seen it around the house?! I have looked around the house,'near the school,'in the garagejon the track! and on thelbeach.| I just can't find it! Where could it be?" knuenyub _ ? . I! r | - . Mom'had not seen lt.l She saidy‘Jay, nave you looked in your school bag?" I Jay looked there.‘ There it was!‘ It is obvious to the investigator that when Jay does not have to con- tend with unfamiliar words in a passage, he is able to read meaningful units of language with expression. Sign #4: Comprehension When Jay was tested on May 20, 1980, he performed so poorly on Signs #1 through #3 that it was thought that Sign #4: Comprehension was also deficient. His results on the Gates-MacGinitie comprehension test Were very poor and confirmed this belief. It was not until he was administered the Durrell Listening Comprehension Test that the investigator decided to further test Jay's comprehension skills. The decision was made for the following reasons: 134 a. Jay's school and Reading Center reports commented on his imagination, his oral vocabulary, and his ability to express himself orally. b. He could converse with adults with seemingly per- fect comprehension. c. He showed an aural modality preference in class and at school, and his results on the Durrell Listening Comprehension Test demonstrated that he was able to listen for minute factual detail. Source Of Passages For Comprehension Working with Principle #3 in mind, the investigator decided to allow Jay to read only those passages where all of the vocabulary were known to him. For the entire period of remediation, he read his language experience sentences and stories as well as the sen- tences and stories written by the investigator. Organization Of The Passages The passages that Jay read were always clearly typed on a pri— mary typewriter, with one and a half or two spaces between lines. The content of the sentences and passages was limited by the fact that only known words could be used in the exercises. Learning To Read And Comprehend Whenever Jay was given a new passage to read the following pro- cedure was used: 135 a. New words that were essential to the story were learned from flashcards, using the VAKT technique. b. Known words which occured in the passage were taken from the index file and were very quickly reviewed. c. Jay was reminded about the importance of punctuation. d. He was asked to read the passage, remembering as much as he could about it. e. He was asked factual questions about the passage. Each time Jay was asked to read silently he objected, saying he hated to read to himself. Nevertheless, he began by reading to himself, subvocalizing and pointing at each word. His volume gradually increased until he was reading aloud. The investigator did not prevent him from reading aloud since Jay relied on aural input to comprehend what he said. Likewise, he was not prevented from finger pointing because this helped him locate his place on the page and more important, it helped him on his return sweep to the next line. Oh those occasions when Jay was asked not to point at words, he lost his place and frequently re- turned to the line he had just read. Difficulties With Reading Comprehension Reading comprehension is best developed through practicing reading and by deliberately trying to remember what was read. Jay disliked reading and he would not read unless he was compelled to either by the investigator or his parents. 136 Final Assessment Of Reading Comprehension Jay‘s performance on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Test on October 20, 1980, showed that he had improved in this skill. He had moved from a grade level of 1.5 to 2.4 during the sixteen week period of remediation. Jay did not have a reading comprehension deficit. His per- formance on Sign #4 was hampered by limited sight vocabulary and poor decoding skills for when he read new materials composed from known words his comprehension was good. In fact he was able to recall min- ute details from the passages several days after he had read them. Development Of The Affective Domain The investigator felt strongly that Jay should experience how pleasurable books could be. Stories were selected about children of Jay's age and three or four pages were read to him each week. The investigator always made a point of finishing the week's reading at a high point in the story so that Jay would want more next week. It was even hoped that Jay would ask if he could borrow the book to finish the story for himself but this did not happen. Jay enjoyed listening to stories and he would ask for the story during the first session of a new week. However, he would never ad- mit that reading, or being read to, was pleasurable. Whenever he was asked why he sat so still and listened so attentively to the story he would make a joke of his behavior - “I was asleep. That's why!” Nevertheless, the investigator read to Jay each week knowing that he really did find pleasure in listening to good stories from books. There were two main topics in this chapter - the principles of reading remediation, and the remedial program that was offered to Jay. To obtain the ten principles, several different sets of prin- ciples were examined. abled reader's self-concept: 137 Summary Some of these focused on developing the dis- Hence, the ten principles below reflect both orientations: Principle 1: Principle 2: Principle 3: Principle 4: Principle 5: Principle 6: Principle 7: Principle 8: Principle 9: Principle 10: Each principle was discussed in general terms and then, in terms of Remedial Instruction Must Be Based On Diagnosis. Rapport Must Be Developed Between The Teacher And Learner. Success Must Be Reinforced Throughout The Program. Learning Must Be Cumulative With Fre— quent Review. Learning Materials And Tasks Must Be Meaningful. A Variety Of Remedial Techniques Must Be Used. Spaced Practice Must Be Included In The Program. Achievable Goals Must Be Set. Cooperation Must Be An Integral Part Of The Program. Skills Development Must Be The Major Goal Of The Program. Jay's remedial reading program. others centered on pedagogical issues. .1 138 The second topic gave details of Jay's remedial program and his progress in five areas: sight vocabulary; decoding; fluency; compre- hension; and, the affective domain. Each sign was examined separately with the headings: Source; Organization; Learning; Revision; Diffi- culties; and Final Assessment. Considerable attention was given to Sign #1: Sight Words since the development in this skill was essen- tial for developments in other signs, particularly Sign #3: Fluency and Sign #4: Comprehension. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS There are three topics in this chapter: a. Summary of the Study; b. Response to Research Questions; and c. Implications of the Study. For topic one, the investigator reviewed Chapters One through Four and drew together the most salient points. Under topic two, there was an examination of the research questions and in topic three, implications of this study were discussed. Summary Of The Study In Chapter One the investigator put forward the rationale, pur- pose, theory and objectives of this study - a case-study of an eleven year old severely disabled reader. It was suggested that although tomes exist about the reading process and about reading disabilities, our knowledge of both of these areas may still be described as piece- meal and fragmentary. It was also argued that since the causes of reading disability ”are complex, often obscure and always interre- lated” (Roswell and Natchez, 1971, p. 11), the best and most efficient means of gaining insights into a reader's disability was through an indepth study of the individual - a case-study. 139 140 It was proposed in this chapter that a case-study allowed the investigator to collect pertinent information about possible causal factors; to diagnose specific strengths and weaknesses in reading; to offer appropriate remediation; and, to monitor progress. It was also suggested that though there were case-study reports about dis- abled readers in books and journals, most of them lacked the detail and specificity that made them useful to personnel in colleges and schools. Harris (1970), a strong advocate of the case-study approach for disabled readers, was cited in the chapter for his remark: ”. . . published case reports . . . have not been numerous . . . most of them have been presented non—technically or in a brief compressed way, due to the limitations imposed by the professional journals” (p. xxi) and his remark was used to justify this indepth and detailed study. The investigator presented a comprehensive survey of literature and research in Chapter Two, beginning with an examination of possible causal factors of reading disability. The factors were examined under four headings: physical; educational; sociological; and psychological. Many factors were considered under each heading, however, each factor was chosen because of its relevance to this case-study. Within Chapter Two there was also a discussion of five principles of therapeutic diagnosis. As well, there was a description of six remedial approaches and techniques: language-experience; VAKT; Hegge- Kirk-Kirk; Orton-Gillingham-Stillman; a neuro-psychological technique; and basal texts. Each approach and technique was reviewed in terms of its underlying assumptions, advantages, and limitations. 141 The investigator concluded Chapter Two with the remark that there was real need in reading diagnosis for a model or framework that would succinctly and neatly summarize pertinent information from the etiological and therapeutic diagnoses. Such a summary would enable the best treatment to be chosen for the individual in terms of his specific strengths and deficits in reading. It was found that the Sherman Model provided such a framework and assessed the individual's performance on each of the vital signs or essential reading skills: sight vocabulary, decoding, fluency and comprehension. In Chapter Three two main topics were addressed: the essen- tial features of a case—study; and, the case-report of Jay's etio- logical and therapeutic diagnoses. Under the first topic, the ine vestigator identified four features that were thought to be essential for a viable case-study: a) The Rationale, Objectives and Antici- pated Outcomes; b) Data-gathering Techniques; c) Parental Consent; and d) The Report. Each feature was discussed generally in the first instance, and then, in terms of this particular study. It was within the second topic, the case-study report, that pertinent etiological and therapeutic information was collected and analyzed. Etiological data about Jay was obtained very largely through interviewing his parents, his classroom teacher, and the reading specialist at school; from reading his school reports and his file at the Reading Center; from meeting with the psychologist at the Michigan State University Psychiatry Clinics; and from Jay himself. 142 Jay's strengths and weaknesses in reading, on the other hand, were diagnosed through standardized tests and from teacher-made tests and observations. The information obtained was classifed under the four signs in the Sherman Model. Information of the kind shown below was obtained from etio- logical and therapeutic diagnoses and was very important and very useful when considering ”the right 'match‘ between pupil type and instruction type” (Zigmond, 1978, p. 441). Etiological Data Physical Factors a. Jay had a history of eye trouble. He was found to suffer from poor eye fusion and corrective glasses were prescribed. However, he refused to wear them. He was diagnosed as having a central nervous system impair- ment that resulted from the unique and idiosyncratic organi- zation of his brain functioning. His brain had not special- ized: neither hemisphere was dominant. His prognosis from the psychological examinations stated that it was doubtful that he would ever read significantly above his present level. He had difficulty reading to himself and decoding words because connections were not automatically made between the visual and auditory projection areas of his brain. He attended to the ground of the word more than he did the figure. Hence, he confused words of similar letter 143 configurations. He experienced directional confusion. He reversed cer- tain letters and rotated the order of letters in words. His speech, listening, and gross-motor skills were well developed, however, his finer movements, those involving hand-eye coordination, were not so well developed. Educational Factors a. Jay has had a history of reading problems and it is un- fortunate that his reports have overstated his progress and achievements in reading. He was seen by his teachers and tutors as a pleasant, well-adjusted, responsible boy who strove to please. He was exposed to a variety of reading materials and techniques at school and at the Reading Center but all of these were basically audio-visual. He deeply resented being given ”baby stuff“ - lower level, easy-to-read basals - at school. Sociological Factors a. Jay came from a comfortable, middle—class home where reading was modelled and encouraged. His parents were concerned about his reading disability and his mother, in particular, wondered how this would effect him in school and later life. His parents encouraged open and free discussion in the home and therefore, Jay knew about his parents' concern; 144 the psychological report and the subsequent prognosis; his school and Reading Center reports; and his parents' perception of the poor quality of reading instruction in schools. Psychological Factors a. Jay was administered the WISC-R on two occasions, and he was assessed as falling within the average intelligence range. b. He was thought to be emotionally mature. c. He was found to have a poor self-concept. d. He appeared to have a visual short-term memory deficit. e. He appeared to have an auditory modality preference. Therapeutic Data Sign #1: Sight Vocabulary a. Jay's sight vocabulary was severely limited. b. He did not know many words in the pre-primer and primer lists of the Dolch Basic Word List. c. He would confuse words with similar letter configurations. d. He was unable to maintain a visual image of a word. e. He guessed at words. Sign #2: Decoding Performance a. Jay had practically no decoding skills. b. He knew the names of the letters of the alphabet but he confused the letters ”b” and ”d.” He also confused ”d“ 145 with I'm.” c. He often confused the letter names of consonants with their sounds. d. He had little knowledge of vowels. He confused the letter names with their sounds. e. His performance on tests showed some knowledge of consonants and consonant blends in the initial position, however, he was unable to decode word endings. f. He showed no knowledge of structural analysis or phonic rules. Sign #3: Fluent Texting a. Jay's fluency was hampered by limited sight vocabulary and by an inability to decode unfamiliar words. b. He was a slow, word—by-word reader when he read passages of unfamiliar words. However, he was more fluent when he read passages of known words. Sign #4: Comprehension a. Jay's comprehension was affected by inadequacies in sight vocabulary and decoding skills. b. He read unfamiliar passages poorly because he was preoccu- pied with unknown words. c. He read passages of known vocabulary fluently and his com- prehension was good. d. He disliked reading silently and he appeared to need aural input to comprehend the text. 146 In the last part of Chapter Three the investigator sought to assess the severity of Jay's reading disability. Ekwall (1976) offered a list of seventeen symptoms of a severely disabled reader and this was used as a checklist. Jay was assessed as having fif- teen of the seventeen symptoms and was thereby deemed to be a severe- ly disabled reader. In Chapter Four, there were two main topics: the principles of remedial instruction; and, details of the remedial program that was offered to Jay. Several very different sets of principles were examined to arrive at the ten principles which were incorporated in this remedial reading program. Some were included within the set of ten because they developed the disabled reader's self-concept; others were chosen because they were pedagogical and enhanced learning. Each of the ten principles was discussed in general terms and then, in terms of how it was incorporated into this remedial program. The second topic gave details of Jay's remedial program. Here, all pertinent etiological and therapeutic data were used to arrive at an appropriate match between pupil type and methods and materials. In keeping with what was done in Chapter Three, remediation and pro- gress were reported under the four signs of the Sherman Model. Remedial Instruction Sign #1: Sight Vocabulary The investigator gave priority to the development of Jay's sight vocabulary during the whole period of remediation. This was done for 147 three reasons: a) he was severely limited in this skill; b) a sight vocabulary would allow him to begin reading as soon as possible; and c) the word-oriented Fernald approach was to be used in remediation. During the first month, Jay's nine or ten daily sight words were obtained from his dictated language-experience sentences. How— ever, this was soon changed as the main source of words because many of his words were of such low-frequency that they could not be used to generate other meaningful sentences for reading. At this point, the investigator used the A and P Revised Sight Word List for high- utility words. With all of the information that was available about Jay the investigator decided that all new words would be learned through a multi—sensory approach, using a slightly modified Fernald technique. The following steps were used to learn new words: a) words were ob- tained from language—experience sentences or from the sight-word list; b) the investigator wrote each word on a flashcard in large cursive letters to facilitate the flow of movement during tracing and writing; c) Jay traced over each word until he could write it from memory, say- ing the word each time he traced it; d) he wrote the word in pencil five or six times, saying it after he wrote it; and e) the day's words were flashed to determine whether he could recognize them. Jay was given a variety of different word games and activities through which he could revise his known words each week. As well, he was assigned homework which involved working with his words. There were certain words that Jay had difficulty remembering no matter how hard he tried or how often he learned them. It was 148 found that he could remember these words if he associated them with concrete objects. He used the concrete objects as the stimuli until he became very familiar with the words and no longer needed to make the associations. By the end of the sixteen-week remedial period, Jay had learned three hundred sight words and demonstrated that he could recognize be- tween ninety and ninety-five percent of them each time he was tested. 0n the last day he was given the SORT and obtained a raw score of forty-five. He had progressed from a grade level of 1.7 to 2.2 dur- ing the sixteen weeks. Sign #2: Decoding Performance Jay's attempts at unfamiliar words showed that he had few word- attack skills and, during the first few weeks of the program, attempts were made to develop these skills. Initially, the letters of the alpha- bet were revised, however, Jay continued to have great difficulty dis— tinguishing between the letter names of consonants and their sounds. Likewise, he experienced this problem with vowel letter names and their long and short sounds. Hence, he was unsuccessful whenever he decoded a word because he sounded some letters and named others. Jay was not able to tell the difference between the letters ”b“ and "d" and he confused “d“ with ”m.“ The ”b/d“ confusion was over- come by teaching him the hand sign language signals for these letters, however, the ”d” and “m” confusion was not resolved. Relatively little was done about the actual decoding of words, apart from giving Jay the VC plus ”e” Rule and exercises in word 149 families. The development of this skill was not emphasized for the following reasons: a) the development of a sight vocabulary was a priority; b) the Fernald technique was to be used during remediation; c) his central nervous system impairment made phonics and decoding difficult for him; and d) he had had very many phonic programs at school and at the Reading Center and he seemed unable to retain this knowledge. It became apparent during the first weeks of the remedial pro- gram that Jay really disliked decoding words. He was not motivated to acquire or develop his word-attack skills and his behavior showed that he became annoyed and frustrated that he had not mastered sound- symbol relationships and could not decode words. Sign #3: Fluent Texting At the beginning of the remedial period Jay showed all the characteristics of a non-fluent reader. When he read an unfamiliar passage he: a) read word—by-word - at approximately thirty words per minute; b) repeated words; c) omitted difficult words; d) ignored punc- tuation; and e) often returned to the line he had just read. The investigator decided that Jay's fluency would develop if he was restricted to reading passages of known words. If he did not have to negotiate each word as he read, he would soon realize that writing was "speech written down“ and therefore read in meaningful units. In the first instance he was given his dictated language-experience stories to read and he read these well once he had learned to recognize all of the words. 150 During the sixteen weeks of remediation the investigator com- posed several stories and sets of sentences from known words. These stories and sentences were typed on a primary typewriter and a large space was left between each line. The large type was used because Jay complained that he had difficulty reading smaller type, and space was left between lines to enable him to make the return sweep from the end of one line to the beginning of the next line. Whenever Jay was given new material to read, the following pro- cedures were adhered to: a) difficult words were learned or revised; b) the investigator read the passage aloud and Jay followed the story by pointing at the words; c) Jay was shown difficult phrasing and punctuation; d) the investigator and Jay read the story aloud; and e) Jay read the story aloud with full expression. Jay did not have a fluency problem per se for when he did not have to contend with unfamiliar words in the text, his fluency was good and he read with expression. Sign #4: Comprehension Jay's comprehension, like his fluency, was thought to be very poor. When he read an unfamiliar passage he concentrated so much on the words in the text that he failed to comprehend the message. Con- sequently, when he was given a new comprehension passage, the following steps were used: a) new words that were essential for understanding the story were learned, using the modified Fernald technique; b) words which were known to him but only with a different set of cues were 151 reviewed; c) punctuation that occurred in the passage was reviewed; and d) Jay was asked to read the passage, remembering as much as he could about it. When Jay read passages after they had been treated in this manner, or when he read passages which were composed of known words, his comprehension was good. In fact, he could recall minute factual details about the passage and sometimes, he appeared to draw inferential meaning from what he had read. Jay was given the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Test on May 20, 1980, and again on the last day of the program and he showed that he had improved in this skill. His grade level had risen from 1.5 to 2.4. Chapter Four concluded with a short note about affective develop— ment. Jay did not like to read by himself, however, he thoroughly enjoyed listening to stories which were read to him. To this end, the investigator found stories about boys of Jay's age and read several pages to him each week, always finishing the day's reading at a high point in the story. It was hoped that Jay would want to borrow the book to finish the story by himself but this did not happen. Never- theless, the investigator continued to read to Jay and also encouraged his parents to read to him. Response To The Research Question Three questions were formulated at the beginning of this study and answers were obtained to each as the program developed. a. The VAKT technique enforces careful, systematic obser— vation of words; makes necessary a consistent left-to— right direction in reading; provides for learning through 152 repetition; gives the learner a sense of progress and accomplishment; and reinforces visual impressions through the sensory impressions of tracing, writing, and saying the words (Harris and Sipay, 1980). If the individual's present audio—visual approach to reading was discontinued and a remedial approach such as the VAKT used instead, would the individual show higher gains in reading skills? The traditional audio-visual approaches used with Jay at school and at the Reading Center, with heavy emphasis on decoding, were not used during the period of remedial instruction. Instead, priority was given to the development of a sizable sight vocabulary of high- frequency words so that Jay could begin reading as soon as possible. All new sight words were learned through a multi-sensory method, somewhat similar to the whole-word Fernald technique. Each new word was written on a flashcard (Appendix I), in large cursive letters which Jay traced with his index finger, and said aloud, until he could reproduce the word from memory. He then wrote and said the word many times until he could write it from memory. When he showed he could recognize the word, the card was held on a ring binder with other known words for later review. During the sixteen week period of remediation, Jay acquired a sight vocabulary of three hundred words and he showed that he could recognize between ninety and ninety-five percent of them. When he was tested, his results on the SORT showed that he had improved. His grade equivalency had increased from 1.7 to 2.2, a raw score improve- ment of elevenfrom thirty—four words on the first administration of 153 SORT. Jay showed that he was not able to generalize from his know- ledge of whole words when he was confronted by an unfamiliar word. If he was prompted by the investigator he could identify some of his known words within new words: other in brother; doll in dollars. Sometimes, he would look for similarities in known and new words: bpgghg and thppgflp; nigh; and nigpp, however, he seldom did this of his own volition. In almost every case, Jay saw each new word as an entity in itself. Jay always confused the letters ”b” and ”d.” Tracing over these letters from left to right with the index finger on his left hand seemed to help, however, it was not until he learned the sign language signals for ”b” and "d” and practiced them that he correctly recognized these letters. It would be fair to say that Jay showed some improvement in decoding skills as a result of remediation. These gains may have been due more to the small amount of instruction he was given in phonics rather than to his ability to generalize from known sight words. Jay's fluency and reading comprehension showed improvement by the sixteenth week of the program, but, the improvement was obvious only when he read passages of known sight words. Jay read these pas- sages fluently and with expression, mainly because he did not have to negotiate a host of new or unfamiliar words. Jay‘s comprehension was good when he read passages which were composed from known words. He showed that he could recall minute 154 factual detail from the passage and demonstrated that he could draw inferential meaning and identify humor in a passage. Whenever he was given a passage of unfamiliar words, he immediately became word bound and invariably forgot the message in the text. By the end of the remedial period Jay was reading passages of known words fluently and with expression. His grade equivalency on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Test improved from 1.5 to 2.4. b. The investigator has access to the child's school and reading center files and is able to interview the child's parents, teachers and others who know him. How efficiently is the investigator able to diagnose the reading dis- ability and determine appropriate remediation? In the past, and to a large extent even now, teachers in schools and clinicians in reading centers have relied almost solely upon infor- mation from the individual's performance on standardized and informal procedures to decide on the kind of remediation. Chall (1978) quotes Black who expressed this very view in a journal article: . . . The placement of children with learning disabilities in programs for remediation should be based upon the presence and nature of the achieve- ment problem, not upon the presence or absence of concomitant factors. . . . Once placed in remedial programs, the emphasis for these children should be upon good teaching of reading and related aca- demic skills. . . . The most efficient way to re- mediate reading problems would seem to be the teaching of reading (p. 35). 155 It appeared to the investigator that little importance has been placed on collecting etiological data. Beyond having the dis- abled reader's parents fill out the Parent Form, seldom was any— thing done about obtaining etiological information. After the investigator obtained parental approval to use the sources mentioned in the research question, a plethora of very per- tinent data, of the kind mentioned in Chapter Three, was gathered about Jay. These data allowed for better understanding of him both as an individual and as a learner. However, these kinds of data did not directly identify specific reading deficiencies nor did they determine the content of the remedial program. It was not until data from etiological and therapeutic diagnoses were combined that it became possible to see Jay as ”a unique creation“ (Stauffer, 1980, p. 128) - an individual with very specific needs and problems. Hence, it was only possible to match learner characteristics with methods, materials, and sequence of remedial reading instruction once both types of data were analyzed. c. Reading disability occurs among children in all parts of the world and that in many classrooms teachers are solely responsible for the diagnosis and remediation of disabled readers. How feasible would it be for teachers to replicate the remedial procedures of this study or to incorporate the principles and meth- odology of this study into their classroom and remedial practices? 156 In the investigator's opinion, it would be possible for the principles and remedial procedures of this study to be followed by teachers except for the fact that this program was individualized and very time-consuming. The ten principles of remediation which were described in Chapter Four are educationally and psychologically sound, and many of them would already be incorporated into daily teaching practices. The procedures that were used to develop Jay's sight-vocabulary were simple and could be easily followed. They were basically the same as Fernald's first three stages: a) tracing/saying; b) writing/ saying and, c) recognizing each new word. Likewise, it would not be difficult for teachers to type the language-experience sentences and stories composed of known words. The materials for the program were inexpensive and most were tutor-made. For example the following items were used: a) card- board for large flashcards (Appendix I) and for the learner's word- cards (Appendix K); b) a small index card (Appendix K) for each flashcard; c) a file box; d) ring binders for the flashcards, and e) paper or light cardboard for the language—experience sentences and stories (Appendix M). The teacher would also find it beneficial to have access to a primary typewriter and a photocopier. Teachers and reading specialists in schools may not be able to replicate this study simply because it was very time-consuming. Each program is tailor-made with the disabled reader receiving indi- vidualized attention while working with his own sets of materials. Within such a program it is also essential that the individual's 157 day-to—day reading instruction, his progress and behaviors be monitored and recorded, in detail, in a daily log. Jay's classroom teacher felt that it would be impossible to replicate the remedial procedures of this study in her classroom since she had twenty other children vying for her attention. The reading specialist at the school felt that she could work with the principles, methods and materials of the study but she could not possibly individualize her programs. Demands on her time were such that she could only work with groups. A disabled reader, such as Jay, would be placed with eight to ten poor readers and, at best, be treated as a member of the group. Under present circumstances, it was logistically impossible to offer any disabled reader individual- ized attention. The investigator strongly believed that a severely disabled reader, such as Jay, had to receive individualized attention in a specially tailored program if he was to gain in the four reading skills. Conclusion Two main points arose from the summary of Chapters One through Four and from the responses to the research questions. First, when dealing with a severely disabled reader it is es- sential, in fact vital, that all pertinent data be obtained from etiological and therapeutic diagnoses. Etiological diagnoses pro- vide information about the disabled reader as an individual and as a learner: therapeutic diagnoses, on the other hand, tell of the 158 reader's strengths, weaknesses and behaviors in reading. Both types of data complement one another and must be examined together so that the prognosis may result in the best possible match between the learner's characteristics, his strengths and weaknesses in read— ing, and the methods, materials and sequencing of remedial instruc— tion. Second, it would be extremely difficult to adopt the methods, 'materials and strategies of the study for use in classrooms and read— ing centers in schools. Teachers and reading specialists were at— tracted by the simplicity of the instructional procedures and by the design of the materials. However, each one of them felt that it was logistically impossible under present circumstances to offer even severely disabled readers such intensive, highly individualized in- struction. Implications Of The Study Appropriate Methods And Materials There is no ”one best method” to teach reading (Zigmond, 1978, p. 438). This study has shown how very important it is to arrive at remedial instruction from an analysis of pertinent etio— logical and therapeutic data. Before the investigator determined what method and materials to use in this study, a thorough examination was made of all relevant data. Once this information was analyzed, the investigator decided to use a modification of the Fernald technique, complemented by a language-experience approach. In addition, it was decided that no commercial materials would be used and, in lieu, all reading materials 159 for the development of fluency and comprehension would be teacher- made. All sentences and stories for reading were especially composed from known words. It cannot be too strongly recommended that teachers and diag- nosticians base their prognoses and remediation on a thorough analysis for Ell diagnostic data. A Model For Case Studies Case study reports, as mentioned in Chapter One, have not been numerous and most have been pre— sented in a brief and compressed form due to the limitations placed on them by publishers. Teachers, reading specialists, clinicians and college pro- fessors of reading need more explicit models of diagnosis and remediation with specific illus- trations. The investigator maintained a daily diary of all diagnostic information; all remedial instruction; gll materials, and all major observations of the child's progress and behavior. Extracts from the diary and illustrations of the child's work have been included in the text and in the appendixes. The maintenance of the diary allowed the investigator to recall important details of diagnoses, remediation, observations, and other information. These provided accuracy, as well as specific examples, for this case report. Cooperative Efforts This study has shown that there should be greater cooperation between the Reading Center and the dis- abled reader's school and home. The question immediately arises as to how much more effective remediation could be if the tutors, teachers and parents worked 160 cooperatively on ppe_reading program for the disabled reader. Cooperation could be easily achieved. The tutor should feel responsible for regularly informing the child‘s parents, teacher, and reading specialist of the methods and materials that were being used. The tutor might even give them copies of the materials and advise them as to how they use or supplement these at school or at home. In most instances, as in this study, the parents and teachers welcomed the opportunity to work cooperatively to the advantage of the disabled reader. . '——-l-.I q]...__ —_.—-. APPENDIX A SHERMAN MODEL OF LEARNING AND READING 161 20:. “3.23723: ”£53332 .: SZ 7; 3;. 923:. Z 302.33. mcowpflvsoo Hapcos:0gw>cm physio; 2:02 .13 mnuigimsiafimz .Q EDEZQiE E: gov; “$3.26 DHDVU‘ ~ H3>3 Enw 32.23232 .N LSQUQE xowgtuoa mafiaumgzcv GEN mzflonoffimi 3 Upaaopg::u nw < .m mufim ms. 3.. a n c3352: a :amgnwaOmm< zocofloHEOEQ mmmdmcdq .2 5:33:32; mcfldooh Toafixmiaoo 9:03:23?“ H .HC a: 3:433 :oflppcdsflgomfln anzma> .v.H .aoupcoo owsogmoeu .< 9::de .~ EPHSQE anamfl> nmjn<_:<> $341253; msgm CZ.— zx A.~®©2= cwpn3:wmwm < umwmocwadc m:flcwou Du :oHuuzcogu:H .o>mH .:esgozw.2.o ”db—OLA CQJ Udhdvmflv APPENDIX 8 ONE DAY'S DAILY DAIRY ENTRY ”..— Place: Today's Tasks: a. Check homeworki 162 Michigan State University Date: Tuesday, August 26, 1980 Reading Center - Teach new words. Read sentences. Assign homework. Make observations. 1:. Teach. signs "b" and "d". c. Revise known words. Record errors. 0904300: Cassette: #10 Time: Session 1‘ 10:00 a.m. - 10:h5 a.m. Session 2 11:00 a.m. llth a.m. Homework: Jay passed in his homework. It was read through quickly and he was asked to read it aloud. He read fluently until he began to make mistakes and then, he switched to word-reading in a monotonous voice. [can‘t 53.35:. snitch-bleed but I was my tip ’orolhcrs near my school. ' i like to Moms, fish, cars fifire-crackcrs. My brother can MTT‘C: the beach. i-‘Ey other brather .% to “in the woods. 1 143 to fish and hike. Hex t year l .vill buy Wrote-control car fork“, birthday. lilien i am in fifthM will not 414% car to schcol Some people like my Woe—also he can do fiufifith coins. T can hook these Muhen 1 pump “my boat. h‘e valked M the valley, thromh fifernsgnd I got lost. He followed a trail M2 the woods and Re . ‘ berries. .‘J He walked for wad miles through the quiet Mn we. came flour camp-site athe beach. 163 Confusion: Jay has always confused tie lower—case letters "b” and "d” ”b"7"d" in print. He also confused the lower-case letter "d” with and "m", however, he did not confuse "m” with ”d” or "b” with "d"/"m” "m". For example, when asked what letter the word do; began _.— with, he may say either " b" or "m". He would not say that the word mother began with "d". *Seek advice on the "d" and "m" confusion. The words pgg and dgg were printed in large, lower-case letters on the chalkboard and Jay was asked to read them aloud. He read them both as dgg. He was asked to read them again, this time more carefully, looking for differences. He said there were no differences. He was shown the hand signs for the letters "b" and "d" on the chart below. INTERPRETER CARD MANUAL ALPHABET I A §N\\ éE$\ ?\ Ci U l X?) \\b 5‘" ‘l/ A K' ‘le Q ’f‘f‘lx \~ 8 13 He then practiced making the signs for ”b" saying the sound and the name of the letter. He then did the same thing with the letter "d”. This technique seems to have helped, however, he needs more practice with these letbers. Jay was also shown how the printed small letters "b" and "d" resembled their handwri t can counterparts: «ALV Colored chalk was used to highlight the differences and ‘re similarities. By the end of the session, Jay could correctly sign the beginning letters for the Jor's biz”:i;, bone/done, bust/dust, to. Revision of Known Words: Code: Jay was reluctant to revise his known words, saying that he had already revised them with_his father before he came He appeared not to be trying too hard during to the Center. this activity. Words my ' his due”; § collect because I tricks dog water boat up fish is garage came collars round state comb next year Valley-Farms school fihcav * as scare noun» ‘- crackers left called hfihu. fi hiking trail no‘danotmomq . onto beach another into berries bush should back birthday buy backward p i he that 9 <3 as she had can h4>e,voflso when ‘ how when chrc fi mahymS [ we some see so P hi: word LUQXLr LutIYL fi which § woe-l; on 1 no go P = Pronounced for Jay. handwritten word = Iay' Circle around word ‘ Ap 164 to brother collects can't camp drive all two from still near fifth are ‘whac but YOLLI‘ asks g likes money coins hook pump in x, were people lots he house fire quiet through mile mt: filost all give: control fi switch and said going Lansing «no». )t them bought our got followed found said ten car g put at g this not hua.hb * each out ——————i 165 Today's Words: Jay was taught the following words: get now long find look made just big very first way Each.word was treated in isolation on a section of the chalkboard where there was no other writing. Each word was written in large, lower-case, cursive writing. Jay saw the word written and heard it said after it was written. He then traced the word, with his index finger, in the air, five or six times, saying the word each time he traced it. He then traced the word on his desk without looking at the board to see whether he had developed a visual image of it. If he was able to do this success- fully, he wrote the word in pencil on his pad, again, saying it after he had written it. He wrote the word four or five times on the pad. If he was unable to trace the word, or write it correctly, he returned to tracing the word in the air and began the process again. As he was able to correctly recognize each word, it was put into a list on the far corner of the board. Here, they could be easily revised. Jay was able to recognize each new word by the end of the session. Oral Reading: Jay was asked to read the following sentences which were typed for him on a primary typewriter: 1\WLoP \ ‘He put his b“o the: s Laney neL :heL; can. R M a"; {no paew5e\from c.:{la..ey«zerns Schiul EtouLht GI goat. \fi will wLik cots Lxrltrti \ulLloLL\ L trothers“\ but Jay's errors were recorded in handwriting. -work: Jay was to: P1 0 l. Revise all known words 2. Write four sentences using his known words. and rehearse the fcllo owing sentences "5 t 166 1. He put his brother’s money near their car. 2- {so people from near Valley-Farms School bought my boat. 3- Next year I will walk down the trail without my brothers. I will not get lost in the bush. 4. Steven said, " I got ten dollars for my birthday. I will buy (fl lots of things. I want a remote-control car, two fish, a comb and someLcolns. What do you want for your birthday, Jason?" What is that little word? This word is ’no‘. . He has given each of his dogs some water and some food. The people went hiking In the woods near our camp. I ate the berries we found near the beach. Observations: l. 1: Jay was particularly restless and somewhat argumentative today. He used many of his delay—tactics to avoid learning words or reading. He traced and wrote at a snail's pace; he dropped his pencil under the desk so that he would have to crawl under to pick it up; he complained of a headache, that he was sleepy, his eyes hurt, and, he was bored; he said he did not want to learn to read. He yawned throughout the two sessions, saying he wanted to go home and go to bed. Thursday2 August 28: Jay's father reported that Jay did go home and sleep following the two-hour session on August 26. Maybe he was sick/ tired! Jay felt the two forty—five minute sessions were too long. He also resented the fact that his father had agreed that he should come to the Center during his Summer vacation. He suggested that the writer was 1 ke all his other teachers in that he, too, had confused him about the le ters ”b” and ”d”. External locus of control? Jay volunteered to draw a picture for neXt session. He is very proud of his art work. APPENDIX C PARENTAL CONSENT FORM 167 MlCHlCAN S'I'A’l‘li UNIVERSITY (.(illlhl (ll ll)l(A||(l\‘ liASl' l..‘\\\l\(. ‘ .\ll( lll(.\.\ ' ”CHI! 1)! PA“ I \H .\| t)! I I !,.\ll .\ 1 ANY AND SP’HZIAI HJL (LA 1 10V PARENTAL CONSENT I, give ow permission to Edmund V. Burke, doctoral student at Michigan State Universi y, to gather information about my child. Information may be obtained from: l. my family members, 2. my child‘s teachers and school records, , 3. my child‘s records at the M.S.U. Reading Center, 4. other sources, where my child has been tested and the results have been recorded, 5. tests fiiat may be administered, 6. eports and observations of my ch ld' s behavior and, 7. diary entiies made of my child‘ 5 treatment and progress during the remediation program. The information gathered can be used: a. to gain insights into my child's reading difficulties, b. to offer an appropriate remediation program, c. as data for Edmund Burke's doctoral dissertation and any resulting publications. I understand that anonymity will be maintained. There will be no photographs nor any information in the dissertation, or resulting publications, that may identify my child. I realize that even though I have given my permission, my child has the right to refuse to participate. Parent‘s signiture: witness: Date: APPENDIX D SCHOOL REPORTS 168 7*: Pupil EJ’/:f//!./.:f1‘,: _ J'mal‘flfi: , Curtis; ’3; . — L” 7é — fis'ctlifir“ _ , Month bly‘ Ye.” Oil . . . LANSXNG SCHOOL DISTRICT . InnsingMichigsn :l'cn hr: —. 7 ~ T‘rTzizipil _ :\ V; S-chool PERSONAL GROW’TH: Aim/Mom“.- Days Abscu:_____— Times Tardy—_‘x, Wot-l: Hné-iu: , ’ EDUCAnoNAL GROWTH: 5" Language Arr::(l[m)z.’:.'.1[tin—g, Lgngu. 15:, Li1:m:m‘r, Reading, Site/ling) Rms'izrg Lawl Mal/unm/iu . _ ,. , ,v' 5- ' .. v ._'T-‘.;/: .1. x "3 2 4 / ,1 _.- « r ..- a T F . _. ’ _1 / . f .r .. I" .‘ , ‘1 . ‘ ..4’ V .3, . ")"I’-’|llfl. i/ ..’ s" I, I .. I». , 7 l < 1’ 5’ _ l r, _.- - . L| 1 \4 .’ \,i/'-',,;1|J a- ‘ I C/ ’ ‘l u l . _. . . ._/ guy/11:, (’ 1 1 . we on‘ ~ 3) has “m L 1 . . ' I .9 I an , i) lea-hers en."- SO‘H'M I l ,3 . ’3'. “537,3: -4'n£éY16!:'7 Q, 5‘0”," ' , . r- J (82ng ., no - JO «1 ‘f (win/JV n l , .‘/K,; 1 I ‘ . /_ ,l,.. I 51:} can: "a - 7'1’ '1 ' Arr-ml}:sic—Pipin'd.’ Edam/I'm T i 1 \ ,’, 3" 'I ,- ’ ' /" “'1‘ I . , . 2‘ ., c .1 ,, / .4, ,,c :g,‘ l - I y —/I ~ I ’ - . L4”. '1‘; -- rm: RU . Pure/It's C0,“) _ __._.__.—1 ,u «Eu; 5. LEO.—.i§0 riaf A]; L..- sin; .3. a .2... 3...... ..l‘.1w.ll1l~.l§.a~l.a q ..de~ r 5.2.0 ....... .......0. 11«z1..J. llllrlllllllvll c.3312. ....:.::.:5 $2.... M.— -0. AQAJ. fiéDuywmkusQ é (mlkwtrgi 1 or. .+ 13%., 8&3? 3:53 «3:. ,._ _. s ... a . i w.:___o_a::L._.,:u—. .. I... .n. .. 2.1;: 31: 52:22? 9:. .1! .. ‘ I. i u _ 2:2: 33.; :5. 7.60m a 1:)..J::.n.:._ c3451.... .. .... 2: €12”... :. z... .21.; :34: .T.5...1.Q 169 ac... 3. .3 >37 5 3.2.2.1 : A. . .2 4:3) «7...: 1 .1... a. . 2...“. :— 7:: _. ... :_.L If“. firs-:1“ 443:5." O...< .71.“...1v. _.... ..n f... 17‘ 30 97:77..“ ._ a z: ..Liu 1333.5...m :. 1...... < . .1 , o «.1353: A.:._._.._S:: .3 1:50 mu:d::._:<2 ZdOEOZ/n .0252.) 1 _ l. 0&0me mum—moo”: kZmoahw 2...." 49...... 2...: z........\ a:;.:...3.-..E: 5.4 3.3.. 5.?) E: a i ._...<.. Pa. 3.... :36: 3.2.3135. «32.0“. <2. 2...: . (:12 3:32 _:.:5‘.r... . 3...; 5:. 5 :iifi 2.3.1.1543. uh 02.042. .iocx 2:3. as: N S 9 a. M M m e o a a .... m. s e o .. n . n u i 5 r1 6 3::— cip m ..n M 5 W H m N n. M l a , . . s .. o W. a m. n M m H u u. L n u. l A 1 I 7 I I m _A w 339. :50 M m I» m M m w W m m m s a A a A m w A n m s 92.2521 m .n n 3 m u 2:2... 3...: .- i O u a II I. I 25.3» x L 11l1.3_u=.i v 6— 33:9 llll 1.”. .n.’ l i I l 30.3w I Ill “7.! l- 3.24 1 --~-——........ ..... 170 no: -= - MI...- III?1“ ,3... $415.». V 2. 32...: .32.; 2.... .1: n-adl 1:435 01( ._<.UOM 5123...... a. QED: :x ~z< a_._........:...__m 2:32.: :. 2...... .....m 20:4Q3Qu 436 1..? LVMWEH 3 gflvuuxufl i.1\¢.%mvé1 3.1.x: V13 SAKS.‘ \ 36.3% 111.36.- 319.31.36.10.‘ NV. .6936. 3611.13.11 , 1LJ1».\.\.1 .§W1oo..wwk11 NW9 §\\.fi11\.11\1$3\ 11,1...1l31xtxhuéu -11. 11..q..1Q1111q111 12:55.1. 3:52:35 ==._..:.u:..i 0532 :23...“ 1.... _x( 53:55:.ut ZOEtm .3.....|. 51.91 05:23.. {is .2... 3. a. _..:.. 3.... .3 4...; $33.56 :3...) o: .. .1... 45$ .2... E 2535. £35 :3. 9.1. _..w... ..a _.3. .25 €3.23 .1. _..:.....2. .. ....,> :53... 7:712... 3...). 2:2. .54.. r. 1.52.1... >....>....»:c 5.39. m»!< w0<352(. \ 32:9. 4.3) .2... 2. a. .4..— c..... .5 2:25.?11 a:...3..5.w :3? 2. 33...... .2 . 3.. :1... 35...... .3: 2:... .323 3.0; «9.9; 951.....— :5...) 5...) .3»: 02.6(u: .0)... 06:0 2.0:... _..=.=v>u...ua :3... 49.3.3. 5:230 3550.; 13°C C. ..a..u.a< . _9..UGM_ .2n: 1 . 1H11. . 35...: 33.: W- . “nun-1'9 1 . .uzunu— :1 I 1 no.1...nExa Rod: '11} 1 Z.) 1 1.. 1 1‘ .1 11 1 1.5.555 GOVL l W .3111. . 1.11.39.4m 0”. “Pm. 1| 1 11.. fi 9:32 buy—chm;— .OOIom. 26.0395. .GZ_mZ<._I.hCO¢w: mmwzcomm PZNQDhm g . . ~ . «- ' In: :no APPENDIX E READING CENTER REPORTS ”1de 1919 APPENDIX E READING CENTER REPORTS 172 NAME: Jay JAY ADDRESS: AGE: 10 GRADE: 4th SCHOOL: TERM: Fall 1979 TUTOR: Jay is a handsome boy who expresses himself freely. He is a creative con- vérsationalist and willingly shares_his ideas and experiences. His interests cover a wide variety of topics. His vocabulary and use of language is very good. His friendly personality makes it easy to get to know him. He created two language experience stories during the term (see attached). The language experience approach proved to be quite successful for him because the content is high interest and it allows him to be creative and utilize his except— ional verbal abilities. He enjoyed reading his own stories versus stories from books we used. Having him retell the story prior to reading it, especially if there is a time lapse between the composition and the actual reading, greatly assists him during the reading process. Comprehension and recall is not difficult for him if he reads the selection orally. He can discuss the details and often adds his own insights. However, he can not do this when he reads silently. His inability to mediate words greatly hinders the amount of information he obtains while reading independently. On one occasion, he read two pages silently from a selection in Cloverleaf (Houghton Mifflin Reading Series, Level F) with the knowledge that he would be asked to answer some basic recall questions when he finished. He was able to respond correctly to three of the seven questions. This poses a problem, since reading orally is a laborious process for him and sometimes he becomes very frustrated. But he is limited in deriving information when he reads silently. To alleviate some of this problem in our sessions, Jay . would go over with me all the words he did not know. Then he would read silently and then orally. Usually we would work on one paragraph at a time. Once he read through the material, he could easily discuss it. Jay is fortunate in that he knows that reading is getting meaning. This is demonstrated by his approach to reading. He relies on contextual clues to decode words. This is often his only strategy — to guess words he doesn't know. He was encouraged during our sessions to skip words he did not know and finish the sentence thereby utilizing the contextual information. In doing this, he would randomly guess at the words. This indicates that he does not attend to the visual clues in the words. We worked together breaking the words into chunks, syllables. etc. When given assistance. he usually can decode the words, but seems to he lost when attempting this on his own. He is cognizant of the vowcl-consonant-vowel rule and the silent e principle, but can not apply them. He is also aware that word analysis involves attending to the initial, medial, and final letters in a word. He stated this to me when I asked him how he figures out words he doesn't know. 173 Part of his problem is that he confuses the letters b and d. He cannot readily distinguish these letters. From speaking with his mother, it seems this has been a long-standing problem for him. We worked tngcthcr on this problem by highlighting the distinguishing features. He needs additional assistance with this. Jay has difficulty in reproducing words from memory. We did an exercise where I wrote a word on the board. He had five seconds to examine the word. After this time, I erased the word and he was to write the word on paper. The results of this exercise are listed below. The words on the right are JaY'Si was was saw sow (the s was backward) no ‘ on seen seem gone goeh went wemt From the results of this exercise it appears he is also having difficulty in discriminating_n and 3. Since this is a very limited test, it is not prudent to draw a lot of conclusions. But it is my feeling that he is weak in the visual prerequisites for reading. I think it is basically a visual problem because he is able to hear the distinctive sound units in words. We went over a list of approximately fifteen words and he could identify the initial, medial, and ending sounds in each word. On other occasions, I have asked him what sounds he heard in words and he could eaSily identify them. Throughout our tutoring sessions, I have noticed that.Iay v frequently rubs his eyes, adjusts his glasses and often gets very close to the material he is reading. When asked about this, he said that he could see the letters clearly. I recom— mend that next term Jay ' work on visual discrimination, sequencing and visual memory. I strongly feel that these are skills which need considerable attention. /"\ 174 Hooks used this term: Indian Two Feet and His Horse, Margaret Fickey Somebody Stole Second, Louise Munro Foley The True Book of Airports and Airplanes, John Lewellen The Giving Tree, Shel Silverstein Where the Sidewalk Ends, Shel Silverstein Cloverleaf, Houghton Mifflin Reading Series Sunburst, Houghton Mifflin Reading Series It is my recommendation that Jay return next term to the reading clinic at Michigan State University. 175 ”The Lost Pilot” A Language Experience Story by J ay JAY There was a whole fleet of airplanes and they were being attacked by Japanese bombers. So they took off.‘ There were too many Japanese so they were going to come in. A big, huge, deep cloud came over. They couldn't see the airport. They were searching around for a hole in the sky. There were four fliers. Two came in. They were Buck Rogers and Matt. There were two more and they didn't get down. Number four was Mike Rice. Number five was Jim. Mike Rice was the best fighter plane fighter. He was also a teacher. He taught other fliers how to fly. Jim didn't know how to fly. This was his second week. They came in. Only two of them got in. They got out of the cockpits and walked away. It was one of those airplanes which only had two legs, one at the top and one at the bottom. They were talking to Jim, and they said, ”When are you gunna come in?" A "Well I'm looking for a hole in the clouds and I can't find H one. "Well about a couple miles west you can get past the clouds.” He kept on going and they started talking to Mike Rice. He says, ”I'll be in in a few seconds.” Because he knew evervthin? about fl in? he ke on talkinc . D :3 ID ) to Jim and he kept on flying j . The Captain says, ”I think I know where he can land.” 176 And he says, "Whore?” ”Oh, 20 degrees left and 20 degrees south.” So they say, "There he is! There he is!" And everybody started saying, "Yea! Yea! He almost landed that airplane like a pro.” They say, "Hey, that is a pro. That's Mike Rice. See the number 4 on the plane.” He says, "Oh no, I landed in the wrong place.” And they got on the radio and said, "Calling number 4, calling number 4. Do you read me?" "Alright.” And they were doing all sorts of things trying to get him back and finally they heard him say, "Hey, you’re landing me in the wrong field." "What happened? Did you crash or anything?" "No, I just landed in this airport field.” "Just stay right there. We'll get some police crew over there." The End 177 Chapter I by Jay JAY - We used to have seven pets. Our cat died. Do you know what he died of? Te died of this heart stuff. I think ring worm. Elsie use to have ring worm. that's our dog. We took her to :he vets. I have fish and my brother has two. .Three jumped out of the bowl and they all dried up. One jumped into my brother's dresser and when he opened it up he saw two eyeballs looking up at him. When Elsie was a little girl she had a dog that had a string and the eyes would go up and down. I found another one and bought it fog her. And she chewed it all up. I'm going to burn it and l melt so she can chew it and it won't break into small pieces. ‘ Elsie is four years old. 178 She can roll over. She can beg and she walks on her hind air. (I) legs. She can shake hands. She can catch food out of th She's a small Doberman pinscher, a very small one. She is part golden retriever, traveling salesman and I think one more. She's a little bit igger than a Chihuahua. ’ There's a little white Soot that looks like a heart on her he 01 chest. Her head's real small but her stomach is real big. sleeps in the house on my bed and Brian's bed. Stevie's, sh (D can't get up to, cause it's a bunkbed. We make up names for her. We call her "bubba" and "little nasola". -We think of all kinds of names, like "gorilla hopper” 179 ob of 05! H. . I was playing at school, outside. A whole 0'! rls were picking on me. So I called them girl hoppers. Than I said, "no you're gorilla hoppers". ' I just make up all sorts of names: Elsie hates showers, because once in awhile I bump on the real hot. She just hates it, because she gets Soap in her eyes. When we got her, she was so small. We put her in a real small basket. I have a big animal truck. It has cages and it has a glass top. Elsie was so small, I would fit her right in it. And she didn‘t mind it at all." She would look up and could see Stevie'“ ugly face. And sometimes when I'm sleeping she gets up and puts her paw on the door and pulls it. That's how she gets out. \ .u APPENDIX F DRAWINGS 180 July 8,1980 August 26,1980 APPENDIX G SENTENCE COMPLETION TESTS \st Test A daminié*bvd m '7- 23.90 182 ElomumwK E.V.Kuytg SENTENCE Ci ‘P“L."IT LON Al Reading books at school is {1m A2 Easy books are 9.333 A3 I have to read when I‘M *ol& *0 AA I'd never read a book if Lth 445.3 A5 Reading is TM A6 The worst thing about reading is oJL'UU- ICivlfiwei’do L Cult aqua, cut. A7 Reading is hard when I W had. been). Reading (orojective) 81 Harry hates to read the“. 82 John got a good grade in reading when “nah. 33 Jane likes to read; she is “Mk. EA The best thing in Mary's reading class _is wau 85 Bob wished that reading books Lac/A W. § hool (1 rm p ‘ '1'-‘VC CO Stbufl I. M- “ Tilt “a cup, . LS ”and, . “MW C3 561001 is M C6 in school, m, teachers M M 183 ,,I, ll h.» {)1 “iv IUL‘IL'I' always W wu. .32 “vst :athers M D3 I wish my father knew WM [)4 I wish my mother knew WM' D5 Host. mothers M W “5 . ' D6 I wish that my father MAMN W AM. D7 When he was with his mother, he felt M3 D8 'w’hen he was punished by his father, «bu. REL: AGJL. FwWMSLMW W - AMA—0W . D9 I like my mother, but WW m cum; “”3 de~ Siblings El I wish my brother/m NW “Mung“. ‘22 Sometimes my WXbrother W m al.)..ltu. W. E3 I get mad when my mat/brother m m, Guilt feelines Fl He felt he had been bad when he M@M\M , F2 when I think about it, I feel bad that I Woke. UT. F3 I feel euilty about WM% '0‘. W4 I would like to fort-e: GAL M i F5 The worst thirty I ever did u)“ *0 W M M 3 J L _ rv |n Cl It looked impossible, so he bal-W AOWSLL- 62 he iel: proqd that “DEW [,3 'when I am criticized, I M W. CZ. when they looked at me I Look beak. C3 > 184 _ . .3) »».-n :avr ro m..k.~ n chlJlon, I W9. Mu. WM , «.0 lL'OplL' seem to Llllnl" I m». AtH-QMA. M's We; W Mulmgim IAH‘L‘LLW MWW~3WMW13¢ “a“ Future Hl He often wished he could «“4, WW . H2 I'd like most to be VM5.vcv15. WW. H3 Someday I walla-L W‘vons. Vunfi Mm. Ha When I am olderrwul. ‘01. Man; wishes II If I hadmyway, I meLM. 1?. I always wanted to ‘QLM.TM Moot—1(mwg WWQW),W1 uni-4L walk. mm Cw M Minion. I3 My secret wish is to %.IM u nun-a” md- M ML {0%. 2nd. lust Awlilm a... mm.“ 185 AMM by BALM. SENTENCE CUFVLETLON Read 1 I'll‘ Al Reading books at school is gum- AZ Easy books are W5 A3 I 'have to read when AAA-5 W Ms M. A4 I'd never read a book if I. M m *0. A5 Reading is 9%. A6 The worst thing about reading is alto-AL W M Ms . A7 Reading is hard when I M M M wads. Reading (Droiective) Bl Harry hates to read book) 82 John got a good grade in reading when bu. m M book. 83 Jane likes to read; she is Mg. 34 The best thing in Mary's reading class _is M Sgt *0 pin-Swath wards. BS Bob wished that reading books Lula": W. School Cl than I 213V? to study, I XML”. b:- - C? If i think ::cl".n.',~lx.:.\':gl; is to.» 3;"'_'<’., '. wk M W. C3 School is PM . CI" H: didn't study Lcczuse \M. W W we; *o cite. C5 The trouble with school is M m Wk MM C6 in school, my teachers M M. 186 [A Mv faint-r always W \M-L m m 32 ”est fathers AAA—9J9 M Ms M wee-k. D3 1 wish my father knew W I 90W A0 MA 0. W QM. D3. I wish my mother knew “Ad I. UAW *9 MA (LWQCM D5 Most mothers M W W hath ML We . D6 I wish that my father MW HM. MA W MW. D7 When he was with his mother, he felt. 44%, 08 When he was punished by his father, MA- D9 I like my mother, but Ala, Sag. “1'5“" Wax W Wisel- Siblings El 1', wish my brother/SM new Ate? Wang M... a? 7.2 Sometimes my Meet/brother MAX: Ml. A0 *‘m L Iv“) W“ M Wk 53 I get mad when my W/brother W \MJ..L1LH.:M3) Guilt feelin 3 Fl He felt he had been bad when he W NJ) MM dam *Lu. Ate—9: . F2 When I think about it, I feel bad that I W W M M W ““9"“ W m 1 feel 21:; about W5 M M w. 5:94. bed. 1‘. I would to forget Ham: 1'. W 40.4: We wt \‘Lu. booLLW) £5 The worst thing i ever did W M wui us Abilities Cl It looked impossible so he am a? c: he: feel: proud mat w. QM N: we NA. As a. MA. be ,ALLM of“ we. C3 when i am criticized, I m «“3 MM- Ca when they looked at me 3:. Wk bO-Lk- 11 1. ~.-u - mvo r0 mane il derifllm‘. :- Mi. cs l'ooplo seem :to thmw I M M. PJIure H1 He often wished he could W. H2 I‘d like most 'to be To» No. . when-5..” \owukwmaaxmax- n3 Someday I ’d, Mu. +0 an M. H4 When " am older I‘A. Lua- ‘0 ‘09. 0- W WV“- .Mk Q“ M- L Wishes [1 If I hadmyway, I +0 Maw. 12 I always wanted to ‘0). [3 My secret wish is to %.TOMMMMM§W,TO M“? “My” WWW“ fiWCMm3.H5mm mu?w-Mmuem.1mwaw’ W wk WW5}. w. ? APPENDIX H TEST RESULTS: SAMPLES Sight Words Decoding Fluency Comprehension 188 D NG "Keep a remrd from year to year" SLOSSON ORAL READING TEST (soar) Egg: \-"( SCHOOL NAME IA! .39! AGE \0 one '10 6° GRADE _Alf :l']? “I JDLE List P (10) ’ L15: 2 (60) SCHOOL hila‘Oy bi ufi&§.\!5 __. _ r - Hm; I. see ' y l. Wit {1 game V rwmta E. Mb. 2. look ! 2_ friends y 2 hide V 3 mother-l 3 came . ' 3 grass . w M List 5 mm ' . l h . <1. little. I 4. horse”; -l aCI‘OSS V l safe 1 harness l cushion 5. here . l 5. ride . 5 around \/ .‘ agatnfit l Emit: 2 generality i smas ; 3 es 4 extendc I n 6‘ can ' 6' under ‘ ° breakfastvt l reward l t silence J. custom _ I saw _ a 1d . l . I. wan /‘ 7. was V r, e V 3 evening 3 develop l 5 tailor 3‘ come l 8, what 8. lar e / (a stream ; a promptly ' (r haze 9. onem l 9. bump 9. b3 er \/ ; 7 32:? i 7 :32; 7 37393” . ‘: § :: ;: ignrf 10. baby 2/ 10 live 10 suddenlvj W grove .5 W forehead y) terrace ll. three vi 11. very I ll. ham.” m desire . in distant ll” applause !12_ run - l 13’ PUPPV : 12. farmer w “l ll ocean . .l anger 1 ll jungle ' ' ' r i; l.’ ca t t: ' 13 jump i 13. dark . 13. river - i 56"“ .. V3 " .. l’agrf‘m ‘ i y ‘ 1 h l: damp g i» appearance i r. intenere 14 down \/ ‘44 first ’ *‘l- unc _, timid 1 H speechless ill marriage 15‘ is 7“ /l 15. Wish - l 15 SHEEP 3 perform ; 3 region 3 13 profitable l6 up 15‘ basket” l5. hope hoot/l o geitrov Ln :lumber i .r. define . i .‘ " 1.‘ ture l.‘ obedient -v - 1“ . 7 forest / , ‘3 “mus “ . . , 1" make ’ ' tood I ~ ‘ 1:: hunger L in claimed l ll; ambition ;18_ ball - l 13. road ‘ 13. ”tars ‘ l l“ excuse . l') common l l'} presence 19. help . l 19. hill ~ l 19. heavy \/ l m understood . :0 dainty 1m merchant 2 plav. 2 along/ 2 _ stationt/ 1 i I I ‘ ‘ ‘ =l =l List 6 (no) List 7 (too) List 8 (no) l High School (zoo) SCORE l installed 1 administer l prairies ‘ l traverse L' . ,, . is; l "l importance - tremor 2 cvtdent l affable . > 1 '. medicine 3 cnvrronment i nucleus 1 compressrble List I L rebellion I counterfeit l antique l excruciating Us; 2 a infected 3 ICHSIS _ , 3 twilight ‘ 3 pandemom‘um Us; 3 n responsible ” industrious (. memorandum ‘5 scrupulous . ‘——I T liquid 7 approxtmate .‘ whimsical T primordial “5‘ 4' :1 tremendous :: society :: proportional 1: chastisement List 5 ') customary " architecture ') intangible ‘) sojourn L1“ 6 1|) malicious U) malignant Lu formulated l” panorama L' t . ll spectacular H pensive . ll articulate Ill facsimile ‘3 ‘ r 12 inventory ' ['3 standardize 12 deprecate 12 auspicious U“ 8 1;; yearning l3 exhausted lii remarkably , l3 contraband List H. s. H. imaginary 14 reminiscence H. contrasting l H envisage _._—__. 15 consequently 15 intricate ‘ l5 irrelevance is futility R to excellence l6 contemporary 16 supplement 16 enamoured 52:” l? dungeon l7 attentively [T inducement 17 gustatory _— :: detained W compasswnale :: nonchalant 1:: decipher (Total number of w abundant l‘) complexion u) exuberant nu inadequacy correct no rd: _m compliments i ‘1“ continuously _‘u grotesque Tm simultaneous in cl ud i n q tn 9 i no r d s b e l o n == g: = =i startingleveL) Any specific :oacn-nq on than curricular words ull naturally man“ the validity at :hvs test. 189 wfivflmmm tm war to rear W 523%.“ M - .1255“ _fiyw _ijr accli— um: _ML 33?)? I I]? ll D°L( 1 List P r 1 List 1 (:0) List 2 160) SCHOOL ”.51).. Bgeéu‘ea 952g“! 1. see . 1. wit 1. game \/ SWINE 2. look E 2. frien my 2 hide ‘ 3 mother I 3. came 1 3. grass Us! 3 1w» List 4 won) m 1. little l 1. horse ' 4. across 1 safe t/ 1 1 hamess‘i/ 1 cushion 5, here i 5. ride 5. around 1 -‘ 353"? V, /-’ fink“? ’ l Senefgllg ‘ 1 smas : 3 es w l exten e 6‘ can.“ l 6' under 6' bmfash/ 4 reward ly i silence “3“" 1 custom ‘ 7. want i 7‘ W35 7- field‘us— 3 evenipg “3W” develognfq 3 tailor ‘ 8, come 1 8. what 8. large Vi 1» stream ‘Il I» promptly . (, haze 9 » l 9 . bump 9 bettew I 9' empty ’- serious ’1 T gracious 10 i383?” 10 live 10 suddenlyf “one m/l ‘: coyfie . ‘: dlg’my ‘ ‘ ' « i ‘ grove / fo e ad 3(‘( ‘1 terrace ill. three . ll. very I ll. ha- Pen \I/‘i ill desire / ‘. lil distant , VI 111 applause 12_ run 1. 12> pu V 13 far V l 11 ocean \/ V1 anger wl ii jungle 13. lump I 13 dark W13. river I '-' benCh /I vacanwhwz fragrant . w ‘ i , Jampdflh- i: appearancew 1.1 interfere l 1:, down l. 1-1 first 1 14k lunch . timid a“ \K 1 speechless vi 1 marriage 15 is i 15 wis ‘ 15. sheep .3 perform M :3 region .r 1 1'5 profitable 16 up i 16 basK {$16. hope 1 1h destroy Vl slumber \/ l .1: define 17} make 9 1" food 17 forest . oeiicmus J1. iuture « 1 obedient F 5%“ 1‘ V at 2. nunger \f; 1. claimed v . ambition ; 10 ball “ ‘5‘ road 18 ars 1’! excuse / 1 Common Vi 1‘} presence l 19 . help l 19 . hill 19 heVunderstood"(:1i dainty 'lJi merchant l20. play ‘ 20 along 20 station \/ \ i l =l V : La” , 1% . ’ ___1§ . I _LQ. I E —- — V I List 6 (140) List. 7 «160) List 3 (ism I High School (zoo) 1 installed l administer 1 prairies . 1 traverse i I importance '-' tremor 2 evident J affable . ‘. medicine I '- envrronment 1 i nucleus l '. compressible L rebellion 1 counterfeit l antique 1 1 excruciating 3 infected 3 CHIS” 3 twilight I‘ i pandemonium r. responsible . ‘3 industrious h memorandum H scrupulous ' liquid 1 7 approxrmate 7 whimsical T primordial 1: tremendous l :; SOCICIY :: proportional -“- chastisement 'J customary " architecture 1) intangible " sojourn in malicious l 11) malignant 111 formulated 11! panorama 11 spectacular ‘ ‘1 pensive ‘ 11 articulate l1 facsimile 12 inventory l3 standardize 12 deprecate 1 1'2 auspicious 1:; yearning 13 ethS‘ed 1:; remarkably I 111 contraband it imaginary H reminiscence l-l contrasting 11 envisage 15 consequently 15 intricate 15 irrelevance 15 futility a 1 excellence 16 contemporary 16 supplement ‘ 10 enamoured 52;” 1+5 1? dungeon 17 attentively 17 inducement } 1.‘ gustatory 1:: detained ‘ ll: compassionate i:: nonchalant ‘ 1:: decipher (Total numeer of 1‘) abundant 1') complexion 1') exuberant ‘ 1') inadequacy co rrect do rd: 2'.) compliments J“ continuously m grotesque II _‘11 simultaneous in cl u a I n g tn e l i no r a s b e l o a =al=l=-== “I “a = startinglevel.) tiny soocrfic coaching on those particular words nll uturally reduce the validity of this :estn 190 r. ‘ 4 ‘1' (V 1'. 73:12:17. ;_ f. A . . 'j.‘ L '_ _..:.....“i I; .' V 11'. ._:..;::'::l .A L» 7.1 ‘:_‘:1‘::. 3:: 1' Z. 3.“ :.‘:.:‘."*‘_.-__;__m.-:£’;z :1”; L," ‘ ‘1 .WM- —7>_‘-—5'Ty V ‘ ‘vn-tw‘yy— w. w :. W7. «— vr “m‘ W > 1" -. Lb amp“-.. .._:_. .. V. ..‘M.~ u m.“ . k _.vfiLfiA O i I pronec; i thnown - 3 f \ : Vphoxie c: ., V , ~ - . Y‘.......-...,_. W._— ‘«V_._...M.~ . _t -W.- ‘ WJL-taohumghbw- u ..J.~<~.‘J_'.A.— 1......» ' ‘Fwfigm (93 later- E v | @ ’fifiéij: AI loa'lf ”In “v. nan» \r Mar-um um. lather'ZD litter z: 10 F1 .... .4 O ,— : l ; ( S sn'ack - shake .: ake 1:: 191 [LC-IT ‘25-)“ :J'.‘J“.Z.‘ZZJ‘:5T”Z T£\Vl.fimfh‘""m;llfim MELT‘T'W mrxmr‘gzz‘szmmg—fl / W 6% L hash C) stream C) {larder G \ squirt- _ , , Skirt <3 leader - . shirt :3 larder c3 squint CD lavender <3 21 \ twines <:;-‘ wins a twins - tins C) 24 stretch - conlcnt - screech c: consist (:3 concept a: -.:__-,.r~:_.x .. U 192' . hw.’n—e>evmf;e.=“— E" “~" ""1 "3‘31’7'117" 7‘ " ' -".:'”“""‘_"L':‘-". 177.“? 42:1; - 32.3-:"J'L; '3 ' ' I ' ' : "5"" (291 27 THIS V WAY digestion- g mouth :3 . . l :> dedrcgrtxou -:3 ; moth - - I directiorla 5 math :3 C/ dejection C.) muff <:> mmmm‘. ‘. ..‘JCZLI- .m'fi" ..lw ”hi“.-mmu '1 1.2:}: 1"": 77: ff. 37:32:11" 0 '\ so i impair C‘ 3 despair - lawyers __. repair 2 //‘_“\ compare C3 :/ I ! lowers —-— I ,r\ r ‘ ‘ 3}; \3? . I /’\- pond- l \haul : pouch C: l l hull - pound .3: l 5 llO\Vl :3 ‘v / ' ,, poured ~ i ‘ l hurl '3 maximm'urr 1; _‘_'-.:1'.'_ ti‘IiZM-mimi 53:“? 1"?” T::Z.;L‘:Z.".:.Z‘.‘L‘.‘: " A t r ’34 x \35 36 v; secondary D i decides - costume - /"\ \secretary is deceives '3 custom :3 desires L.) l l 2 l securitv - 6 $0) @gy -3 i z I secretlv 4:2 l) customer :3 cushion —”—‘- A. 193 . 9“ ~ u—A.-..__.:v ..3 t‘...:, 3 r" ’ "_i' 1‘ _ j‘ 7' ' . ;:;'t-*" _ .__~__‘ -. 1:- _—\ 38 inflame :3 L: s: constitution "L onstructio‘n a inflict ~: contraction - inflate - constriction 3 infant <3 w..._..mw__,_. ...:,..._ H V". . 7.)" _”1‘ww , at—v—m'nszr‘fiw -,—-— , exfia‘ in: Mga. 11.1.; «3;..5‘J‘JL__C‘mv«mrgw~_c.§.‘; 23;“.- -- kn”- ._m:.143!:.«:-~. _ - 40 41 y? trial - i deserve :3 . g ) fix?) trivial :2 z i“ preserve :- conserve : f j“.— observe . patent x: fl \ , patien/t/z; patriot : pattern - g -. .4; 1..: 23.11» (Lat—a. [..kgfimm y.“..4’;T-:.L..u “432'; . J 4;.‘3733. @t outwit :3 outset - outfit a sculptor : f scalpel "— seholar :3 sculpture - ",n'-—'7W-_-4wwr—‘ ‘ /'\_ \ purse - piers :_ i r I ————...-—,.~-. -, r ‘ M __.....£.5- H.) 1 . 3 'i i i 194 41:: Mgkillop Reacting D~l°*.3hpb'tr'¢ T“) LL93: Form 1 UN.) , ~7—~_: Tmlwsl'mfil \OlO-Yt Y/ MM la) Hula \ x' o I imitLL'ilthe — l'hvmnat \ thl‘: AHUII z-n-m‘ivL-u ‘— .\\x(.’7fLU|\ xff’vl‘x m».- -u- ..Ltzonl _ \ mm in ’CF\ 1m ..uuw _ \lllnlj\ .-I 5 mt t-uwn _ Blend) nut ~1o~n l 198 cm mmumé Flu? .‘tbl‘iluisfifiiicm flmmdlm Lu? ER Mommas 5.10.60 QM) . Leia—ts. e... .- . . ‘3 . 2' / A r l'," ‘ ( f l wilt-fix . .. "T ‘. J g. l.. --.“':l - . 2 ..‘ 'a." 3:513 L‘ aha-4),, '-~ ““. :E L WA 0‘ t l.- 313‘“; ‘ "'L—‘la'. :3. ..‘I-CiS iL—DW V ’(l‘;; 5:5’59- \r/‘I‘: 33561 . 1. This man is selling balloom. V i 4 ...fi 9 a a A If 7'13 “I”; 2%?“4. . n . ‘ __ WM?! ll/ I" "'1 v/l Ix \ ‘ /(‘ 4 (v: 3.1"- “Tu-"- 44L eyes ~ as. Leslie’s father is lifting her up' so she . 4 branch. can smell the blossoms on the tree. . FOR ’[WATCH l §C__HILDRENI lwl 1%:- l E ii? i .1 ii a a - 5. Mary is carrying both her purse and 6. Which Sign tells the dxiver to look her books. out for boys and girls? \/ a1.“ __ _9 3f- - T. l iiko to swing above the gwund 8. Mr. Billings'had only one :e\VSpflT-’9!' and lot my arms hang. Everything looks left when 1; was time to close his stand so funny upside down. , for the night. (I) 199 \ 1 "ea 91;; t ,/ ,1 M1: .;;;\ ‘ .6» "Mt 4’ ‘7'. i ‘3‘ 1’)" {M‘U‘Milhnai fl/fi vcc FY. ‘ mpq ‘4‘“_ \ YEA: r,}\:\ ,7.” Li’tk f'l Irv» /4,--, 7", 3 1‘ V r7; ' ,' “r" '7 If; - ‘.:. : 4- 7.5 ('i‘” *" i f -- . ‘l i ‘ fifth W“ 7 7,: y. V ‘ 4. ., l , i x , . ,i M5142 W l‘ V 31 ’7??? j l V; “ M .d J: ' .. “it . e « as; - \/ 9. The many branches of the candelabra 10. Betty is putting on her skates. cactus all point upward as they grow. i l b i ‘l 11. When Fran is on her stilts, she is 12. two feet taller. m. The girl has a long scarf. The boy 14. The seat at the end was the only has a short one. Which is the boy’s? ‘ empty one in the front row. 15. Hal put the puzzle together except 16. After Grace glued the handle back for one piece that was lost. What did on the cup. it looked like new. How did his finished puzzle look like? it look before she fixed it? ‘i 200 V “i-“ ~* I V W __ 7 '_ AW 7&8}le ,. ha;Ee~u-lr— WLQMML \O .10 .80 a...“ <~r-_-—,--a—f—\-v-'—-— -v- Wis. .42.“; ..g . .. . “4,15%...“ ‘4< 4.2)Leslies father is lifting her up so she can smell the blossoms on the tree. -,._..._,.__._.., ”I .__.,_,, .... .- , A... ._. ..l._,,._... V _ -..._n.1r~x1_1-.._... -_ _.l.....-..--_.a.... . .1..- ..W....v- I I l 151-41 l/pj\ 1,‘ I (”n BUS" TRUCK1 1 KEEP 1 WATCH1 I ‘STOP' g:\:r FOR CROSSING' V L111c_11_11lél3l11110111a11l ! 11: 1 .R I {\5“ Mary is carrying both her purse and 4 6. Which sign tells the driver to look ‘hei‘ books. l out for boys and girls? 3"“ 7;“,m...‘ l...__.. _.. ,....._..,.,_v. . _ t .-N will Eu. .‘._.-;;.‘ _ “mgfafl‘uu... .. .1... . l I like to swing above the ground \‘ahd let my arms hang Everything looks so funny ups1de down. 8. Mr. Billings had only one newspaper left when it was time to close his stand for the night. 1 «hikltllsva 1 _._—u.-. _._ _._ ._......___..___..... -.~.__._..b._. _.._.~..~__‘.1._‘_...__ _ _. .___ 201 0. Betty is putting on her skates. 1 9 .7 The many branches of the candelabra / 1-, .,. k}: cactus all point upward as they grow. . “F”- «- (m‘ P71"- _.V._.- A. u.--....a;-.--. 1.. WM: .. .21..0III.IIII.‘IJII\.II~. 1.331-! 12. None of the pencils is sharp. 14. The seat at the end was the only empty one in the front row. The girl has a long scarf. The boy a short one. Which is the boy’s? . a ~-~~e-_- WW _ , ,._i. . 3:33;: i . 2": wr—r'v "4mg.“ Q . 7167),.“ After Grace glued the handle back the cup, it looked like new. How did it look before she fixed it? ‘0 fer one piece that was lost. What did his finished puzzle look like? \ v 177": .- .’..r.- _. «dag-4- ..V . 17. This will be Joan’s first trip on an \_airplane. She has waved good-bye and haslfound a place to sit. When the plane takes off, she must have her seatbelt on. Which picture shows Joan ready for the plane to take off? 19. The first time Jill used her new camera, she took a picture of her brother. She pointed the camera too low, and her brother’s face was not in the picture. Which picture did she take? ‘ 'Jfi‘ 3:227..- .2“..w;'.w"’ 13 ‘; \glyi Mr. Lester is a teacher. On the days when he doesn’t teach, he works around his house. There is always some painting or gardening to do. Which picture shows the kind of work that Mr. on his days off? Lester does /18\‘] Jerry’s dog followed him everywhere. ' “Once when Jerry went fishing, he slipped ’ and fell into the water. The dog followed him there, too. What did they look like then? " mm “C‘E‘ ."-‘.’{.El'3'~?’;““ ‘7‘“ V‘ _ .3: 11."..II’IEI'JE _—_1 1 EH/ ' 1 U. 1' :- ‘11 r , Q Lffiltilh ‘, 1 ,1 /,. ' “'1‘ Al x , ' 131 1 1-. ”G / 1 111 i,\ 11\°\“1 c: - z: 1:) L2Q.1'/1‘Debl‘a was all ready to go shopping. Then she stepped out the front door and saw that it had started to rain. What did she go back inside to get? a“ - ....-.. m r: : .t:—:, -33:- ‘ - l' l' 3‘ »\\ 11:11" 7.. 1 1 has; his. 1115;3/1/ ' i ifi— may: watts “pi/1:1 1= a e .. .11 a sf 3 :34” 1-‘ 1 \, 11,1 /fl/ 1w: \,1'.-— i :g \ r‘—\J—/~’\)—L l’/ I] ' ——_ : 1 1 . - ;—..—‘_ . 15x11 1 x L. 1,. {<3 C) (3 (D - 43 Q2: Harold was sitting on the front steps, wondering what to do. Then his brother came out and asked him if he wanted to go to the movies. Where did Harold’s brother find him? ”23;. Nick and John are flying the kites \ \\\the'y made. Nick’s has a sun painted on it. John’s is striped. Right now, Nick’s kite is higher. :- : 24.. While we were playing catch in the l park, my dog took the ball and ran. He wouldn’t give it up until I made a trade for it. Which picture shows how I got the ball back? 25. Dorothy needed to wear her glasses :‘M for reading, but not when she pitched for the baseball team. Which picture shows when Dorothy did not need to wear her glasses? outdoors as well as in laboratories. To learn more about some kinds of plants, they may even dive underwater, as this botanist is doing. l 26. Botanists study plants. They work I l m:rmmmmmmwmxrmt:?*‘ " ' ' ' ~ 2 {(27:- Usually Nina’s dog, Jinx, greets her when she comes home from school. \Vhen he doesn’t, Nina knows he is probably asleep under her bed. When Nina came home yesterday, Jinx didn’t greet her. Where did she think she would find him? ‘;..;.... _......... ,..-/-. "728.2. Cora was telling her friends about , her brother Freddy. “He pulls my hair," 1 she said, “but he doesn’t mean to hurt i me. He’s only nine months old.” Which I 3 picture shows Cora and Freddy together? 11111 A IN a (I) - {59? If you put a bar magnet on a pile of nails and then lift it up, the nails will cling to the magnet near both ends, but not in the middle. 31. Jane was eating an apple and , asked her mother what the seeds l were for. Her mother explained that 5 apple trees grow from apple seeds. What will these seeds become if they are planted? 33. Lois Webster is a wildlife artist. She begins a picture outdoors, drawing an animal where it lives naturally. Then she finishes the picture by painting it indoors , in her studio. Here she is starting a ‘ picture. i 1 1 l "Mr-w...— _-.......~.. . . ~. .. .r— .7 J ; ‘\Q i i ! 30. Vic wanted a dog. His father said, “If we get a dog, you will have to take care of it. Mother and I will help feed it, but we will not take it for its walk.” Which picture shows what Vic himself must always do for the dog? _m. >\,:‘ :--_233... _..U‘. 1 \ 32. Erica went shopping for school supplies. The store was out of ball-point pens, but she did get everything else she needed. She bought a notebook, a ruler, and some pencils. Which picture shows what she did not buy? 34. Train engines used to have cowcatcheis. These sloping, pointed bumpers on the fronts of the engines alered objects off the tracks ._. u~M.J-,. ._ . .... . .--._...~-._.._..-..W..M._.......__...__._.7........~ ... ........ . q. CDPZFGIIIJ-B—845210/79 ‘mw fr“. »....-.__. We... ,,.,,_.,_._..,q. ..,_ __._. _..1 -,..-.,_ ... 1 . ‘ .. h..-” ..a , . ., -. , .. . .-.__ .. "":‘>."£1‘.‘:""."£11’_‘;?;E;Z;':.ZZZ..L~LZ_T.;EL‘ :-;-.:f.. l . l l m l 1 :13- : 1 magi,“ 00000 3 1 53$ i "e; .- 030? 1 ' 316 m 13% 1 1&3 NM , CD C CD $3? Robin lives on the top floor in l 38? If you look through a microscope at in? apartment house. Lena, who lives 5 grains of salt, you can see what shape just below her, has a birdcage in her i they are. They are not round, as you window. Which picture shows Lena’s ' might think, but look like little glass window? i blocks. Which picture shows what salt looks like when seen this way? A 37. Where a tree is cut in two, you i 3 3) George got a new shirt just like see rings. Rings close together may mean his father‘s. It had long sleeves and that dry years made the tree grow slowlyi buttons down the front. Which picture Rings far apart may mean that wet yearsl shows George in his new shirt? helped the tree grow fast. Which arrow points to such a sign of wet years? mm 1...“.- ”‘1‘ Wm. . (d... 39. Bricks are made of clay and sand. I: :15 Long ago, the Babylonians wrote by When there is not enough sand in the using a stick to press marks in soft clay mixture, the bricks crack easily. When 3 tablets. When the clay was dried, it there is too much, they may crumble i became hard, and the writing was fixed into tiny pieces. Which brick was made in the tablets. with too little sand? APPENDIX 1 ll FLASHCARD 'f !! Aeuam Hmsuoo :3.— auxu 2...} was; :5. can!— x3..— 13;... .u>u: _..:.. to: UJ=U—:Ua 43.... _..:... ”:0... «‘3:— u..: :3 10.;«5 hog—.6:- .:o 7::— .23 .212...— .U_——..=l u .2. ,3 .1... «a: .25» :a... co. .9... Am... .4 .... 4 .3 2:3 ..5 .o 3.. :0... us 3...... n... =3. ..w‘u 32. gala. 3 ‘ ..a .1...» 3.: E.— 9...... 0—1—2— ; ...:..I 23 1 3...... .19.: .22 .3: 2. E: 3:32... 1.....— E: 74...: 51?. UM=A:- 2...... no...— wréi 3.1—; U-uz— $33.... 4.35 x; 5 Tu. m... 7:.“ 3...... 4.3. Hu—-: 2:...— .3: Ea 3m Au: 1...... 0.9.1 .5...— _..:..: .3: U _..2: 5.. :1... ..X. .1u: .3350 PE: .31 a3. .2. .10 qua-=3.— 3:35 5:0 33;» hNU; .3. $30- :9:— 2.... :31...— . :31. 1.: .31 HA...— :3... 3:... x... ‘V—v—U a: x... :33: “:3: 0::- 1.:3U .31.: ..u 01...“:— 1:. :21; «.2. :1, .E. 0:; =...-: 2.. “hi—- 2. z _..._.. U—IA 2:54; 2...: .u. :33 3...... .2.— ._. :5 u...._.u:.:. _._! 5 x .u: =-..=4 .5: _..:.....t Ua_:¢4..X— u...— :5... x1... :1:— .2 -U—«-¢ =..: 4...... _..:..... :1 :3: n1.— 3»)— wt... 50:.) _._—1‘} 1.3.1 kHz-:4 :_..- 3:: ad: 5...... r: 2: .w. —-1U_— :4: 2.3 via ”3... _._... bug—2.: =U)U 112—4n x...” =U3 9.: _..:..—.1 Ban «5... _..i :5... _..:....— u::. . 2. 3:3 3:... 31.“ .23.. 1.2.3... z... :52. u... :2... 1:.— _. Us... 2 3 .3 u... 3 _..:..—1 ..u... u: .3 . 5.... 2:: _._...3m APPENDIX K WORD CARDS a. Teacher's Index Card b. Student's Word Cards 208 Axon mafia a :H Hangs amufiuoamsaam :w uaex mum: mvnmu omwFS (_m. xw C m Lm 03w _ .Awao~w>:u adammH; : ummflu a :H pv6po Hmuduwnmzaym :m mvumo usu ugox U:m ocwd :wapL ms. m:odm gnu u:wwsdm vzkv Lo Lo ”_flcw zfiw ‘l‘ll..-l.llla|l“ Lw>wc APPENDIX L w SIGHT WORDS birthday boy but came can't collect control day do don‘t drive end farms fire food garage go grade has blade Brian buv C83? car collects could did does door each enough father first forward get going great hard boat brother camp—site children comb country didn't dog down earth even fifth. fish found give good grow have can coins come crackers different dollars draw eat every find followed from given got had he land left likes long made may mom most much near next now old onto out part play read right same its: keep Lansing let line look make me money mother must need night number once or over people PumP remote round saw it“: . kind large letter little lost man men more never no off one other own picture put remote-control TOW say like live lots many mile morning Mrs: name new not oh only our paper place quiet rip said scare .. -m‘h some sound story take that they three together very we what white with would your see should small something state sun tell them think through told track under use walked well when who woods write ZOO 211 sentence show so sometimes Steven switch ten there this time too trail until valley water went where why word year soon still switchrblade than these thought to took tricks UP Valley-Farms way were which will work you 5}; . a. H) other trainer he; lots of my. I ' I ' _. APPENDIX M READING PASSAGES _ _._, _._-_-_.-_-.-_.I--_-.___-. .- 7’ Dictateo Stories (Language Ehperlence) 212 Jill—5 I like to callect coins. My 605 can so tricks. My brother hes fish. M) other brother has lots of money. July 3 I like to camp. I like to pump up my boat and row in the water. I can't fish because the hook may rip the boat. July 8 I went to a garage-sale.at a orive-in. Lots of people from all over the state came and sold things. I bought a comb switch-ulaoe for two oollars. ABLE Next year I will be going to Bimtnmefisans School near my house in Lan51ng. I am 501n3 into fifth grade. I am going to scare them with fire crackers. Reed these sentences July IS 213 I. My brother and I went to the drive-in. f‘. a. I bought a pump for two collars. 3. My two brothers bought a lot of fish hooks. 4. People came from all round to see my tricks. ' 5, I sold a pump, hooks, a boat, two fish, a comb, a switch-blade~ and coins at the garage—sale. My two brothers bought a lot of things b. by baby dog can't fish but he can do a lot of tricks. Read these sentences £211.23 I Will be going'onto fifth grade next year. My school is called bshhayafiahms School and it is near Lansing. My house is next to the drive-in and a garage. I am not going to scare my brothers with fire-crackers. My other brother can't go to the camp-site because he can't find the trail. His‘baby brother was quiet. Bicteted stories (cont.) 214 J l .5 We left our camp-site to go hiking. We went to the trail called Quiet Trail. We hiked through the trail and we got onto the beach. we walked for a mile and followed another trail into the woods. Then we got lost. We found a buckle-berry bush and ate all the berries. My mom said we should backtrack to the camp site. July dl I was given ten dollars for my birthday to buy a remote ,t control car. The car can go backward, forward, left and right. You have to put five batteries in it before it will work. I enjoy playing with it. 215 Reed this snort story August 4 My brothers and I went hiking in the woods near labilyefilaul school. I got lost. I left the trail and walked for two miles through the woods. I ate berries because I was lost. The berries were near the trail. I walked and walked for miles and miles. I saw lots of peOple near a beach. A baby was near the water. I saw my two brothers near our camp-site. They said,"Ja)! were you lost in the woods?" Next year when I am in fifth: grade I will not get lost. 216 Read these sentences August 2| I. I can't see a switch-bladesbut I can see my two brothers near my school. I\) I like to collect coins, fish, cars and fire-Crackers. 3. My brother can fish from the beach. My other brother likes to hike in the woods. I like to fish and hike. 4. Next year I will buy another remote-control car for my birthday. 5. When I an in fifth grade I will not drive a car to school. b. Some people like my brother because he can do tricks with coins. 7- I can hook these fish when I pump up my boat. CC) I We walked into the valley, through many farms,and I got lost. We followed a trail into the woods and we ate berries. He walked for miles and miles through the quiet bush then we came to our camp-site on the beach. August 26 217 I- He put his brother's money near their car. 2- Two people from near bsaheswfisass School bought my boat. 3. Next year I will walk down the trail without my brothers. I will not get lost in the bush. 4- Steven said, " I got ten dollars for my birthday. I will bUy lots of things. I want a remote-control car, two fish, a comb and someecoins. What do you want for your birthday, J” '5" Nhat is that little word? This word is 'no'. (II b- He has given each of his dogs some water and some food. 7- The people went hiking in the woods near our camp. 8- I ate the berries we found near the beach. dead these two stories 218 bEfiEEl_Z§ I. My brothers could not find our dog. Elsie got lost when we went for a walk in the woods. Steven said to Brian, "Will we find Elsie? Nd will have to walk on the trail through the woods and call out for her." They walked for two miles. when they came to the beach Brian said, "Steven, you walk back to the camp-site on that track and I will so on this one." urian walked to the left and Steven walked to the right. They walked back to the camp. When they got there, they saw Elsie near the car. Jay had found her and he had given her some water and food. he: said," Jay , could you make some long words from your little words?" Jay put these words near each R) o other: and 10 make , camp gnu to make , ano to make and to make m and to make and to make I remote} and to lake y: and (CE—é] t0 make ”There!" said Jay ” I did it. Am I ribht?” 219 Read this snort story Soolooooo_§ Jay ' lost his new comb switch-blade. He looked and looked for it but he could not find it. He walked through the woods near the farm to the beach. He looked near the berry bush. He could not find it. hhen he got to his house, he said to his mom, "I have lost my new comb. The one I bought for my birthday. Have you seen it around the house? I have looked around the house, near the school, in the garage, on the track and on the beach. I just can't find it! Where could it be?" Ibm had not seen it. She said," Jay , have you looked in looked there. There it was! Seotember II " Can you make some words that sound your school bag?" Jay Read this story Brian said to Jay, like other words?" " I can try, can't I? " said Jay each trlok wlll book grooo school beach flick pill lack trade pool peach sick shrill track spade tool bleach lick fill smack shade cool preach chick chill shack fade fool "There! I mace up a lot of new words. Steven, can you try it too? " Steven made these word families. logo foooo vhoo abool strong round then shout along hound ten lout mound pen spout sound trout Steven said, "There! I can’t do any more words. You won,Jay‘ Read this story (Part I) 220 Segtember lb Jay and Elsie went for a walk down the road for about three miles. They came to an old farm. Jay thought he would like to look around the farm-house. He thought he was a little scared because the house was very, very old. There was a track from the house to an old well and an old water-pump. Jay could see another well in the valley about a mile away. A long way off, Jay could see some people working on a farm near a school. He could see their children playing nearby. Jay thought," Who are those people? Are they farmers? 00 the children go to Vuufiinflnrna School? Do I know them?" Just then, Jay saw a new car driving up the track to the house. The farmer who lived in the house was in the car and he looked mad! Jay and Elsie ran down the trail to the people working on the farm. Jay thought the farmer would follow them. He looked back again and again. The man did not follow them. Jay said to Elsie," Come on Elsie, I want to run home. I don't think the farmer likes children. He looked mad! I want to ask Dad about the farmer and the old farm-house." Read this story (Tart 2) 221 September 23 Brian and Steven asked Jay to take tnem to the old house on the farm. Jay didn't want to go there again because he knew the farmer did not like children. Jay saiu to his brothers, " Steven and Brian, why oon't we go and see the farmers who are working near the school? Their children are there too. They may like to go hiking with us." Steven was mad! He only wanted to go to the old farm- house. Brian said " Jay , I will go with you to see the children near your school. Do you know any of them? Do they go to your school?"Jay and Brian walked along the track to W School. They walked for a mile before they could see the farmers and their children. The people on the farm saw Jay and Brian and one old man said," Good-day boys! Do you live near here? Would you like to play with our children?" Another man called the children to come over. He said," This is Jay and that is Brian. They live nearby. They want all of you to hiking along the bush trial. Do yOU want to go?" Jay , Brian and ten children went along the trail Read this story (Part 3) 222 Segtember 30 Brian, Jay and the children from the farm near the school walked and walked along the trail. Some of the small cnildren ate the berries Jay found and asked him to find more for them to eat. Jay looked around in the bush but he could not see any. Everyone walked on until they came to the beach and some rowing boats that were in the water. Brian asked the man near the boats if he could use one of them to show the children how to row. The man said that they could have two boats and they did not have to give him any money for them. The children in Jay's boat began to row their boat away from the beach. They called to the children in the other boat, "Come on! Come to the other side of the lake. Row fast! Row fast!” The children all liked the boat ride. When they came back, they walked back to tne trail. Brian said, ” We must stay t0gether. We don't want to get lost in the bush. " Some of the children were scared because it was late, As they walked along, Jay heard something move in the bush nearby. He said, "What was that? Something made a sound over there[ Brian, can you see anything?" What made the sound? What made Jay scared? Was it some- thing big? You will have to read the next story to find out. 223 Read these sentences: Cctober b I. Brian could see some fish below the boat. Steven looked too but he couldn't see anything. 2. Jay! made these word families from his words: 1112 em. nee: wee " hive lend right rent strive bend bright tent drive , trend light lent arrive fend fright scent flight 'W like doing this,"said Jay . ”Can I do some more?" 3. Mom went to the shop and bought many things. Here are the things she bought for my birthday: one remote-control car three fire crackers one boy's bike one rowing boat five story books one switch-blade comb three tricks one picture. She put the things in a big box until my birthday. 4. Father wrote a stury about two brothers who got lost as they were walking along a bush trail. Father thought the boys were lost out they were not. They had been playing on the beach and in a rowing boat. Read this story (Part 4) 224 Brian could not hear the sound. Jay thought he heard it again but this time the sound came from the left side. The children looked at Brian and Jay . They were scared! Just then, Jay called out "Who is there? What do you want? Why do you want to scare us?" The sound could not be heard anymore so everyone walked on. A little way along the track, Brian heard the sound. Jay and the children heard it too. They all came together because they were scared. Brian said,"Don't be scared children. I think it may be a dog. The dog could be following us and when we stop it stops too. Come on, let us walk on.” When they got back to the farm where the people were working, an old man saw the cnildren and said," Did you have a good time? Did you learn to row a boat? Why do you all look so scared?" A little boy told the man that they had had'fun at the beach but that they were scared."What scared you?" asked the man. The little boy was about to say something when Brian began to laugh. He laughed and laughed and Jay began to laugh too. They could see Steven near the school-house. Steven had followed them to the beach.Steven was the sound in the bush! He had wanted to scare Brian, Jay' and the tan little cnildren as they walked along the bush track. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, M. J., Anderson, R. C. and Durkin, D. Beginning reading: Theory and practice. In C. H. McCullough (Ed.) Inchworm, inchworm: Persistent problems in reading education. New- ark, Delaware: IRA, 1980, 153-162. Berres, F. and Eyer, J. T. John. In A. J. Harris (Ed.) Casebook on reading disability. New York: David McKay Company Inc., 1970, 25-47. Blair, C. E. and Burke, E. V. Vocabulary/contextual/spelling inter- dependency in specific reading and writing tasks for the elementary school student. Guidelines - RELC Journal Sup- plement. June, 1980, o, 95-103. Blumenfeld, S. L. Why America still has a reading problem — and it has nothing to do with ”dyslexia." The Reading Informer, July, 1974. Bond, G. L. and Tinker, M. A. Reading difficulties: Their diag- nosis and correction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Bond, G. L., Tinker, M. A., and Wasson, B. 8. Reading difficul: ties: Their diagnosis and correction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1979. Brown, B. S. Foreward: In A. L. Benton and D. Pearl (Eds.) Dyslexia: An appraisal of current knowledge. New York: 0UP, 1978. Buike, 8., Duffy, G. G. and Burke, E. V. Teacher conceptions of reading as they influence instructional decisions and pupil outcomes. A paper presented at the Annual Confer- ence of the International Reading Association, St. Louis, Missouri, May, 1980. _Burke, E. V. Helping the slow reader in the primary school classroom. Guidelines - RELC Journal Supplement. Decem- ber, 1979, g, 60—67. Buros, O. K. (Ed.) Reading: Tests and reviews. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1968. 225 226 Buros, 0. K. (Ed.) The seventh mental measurement yearbook. Vols. I and II. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1972. Buros, O. K. (Ed.) Reading: Tests and reviews II. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1975. Buros, O. K. (Ed.) The eighth mental measurements yearbook. Vols. I and II. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1978. Calfee, R. C., Drum, P. A. and Arnold R. D. What research can tell the reading teacher about assessment. In S. J. Samuels (Ed.) What reasearch has to say about reading instruction. Newark, Delaware: IRA, 1978, 135—164. Carr, T. H. Building theories of reading ability: On the relation between individual differences in cognitive skills and read- ing comprehension. An unpublished paper: Michigan State University, 1980. Carter, H. L. J. and McGinnis, D. J. Diagnosis and treatment of disabled reader. London: The Macmillan Company, 1970. Chall, J. S. A decade of research on reading and learning dis- abilities. In S. J. Samuels (Ed.) What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark, Delaware: IRA, 1978, 31-42. Clay, M. Reading acquisition: Do you get what you plan for? In A. M. Ridsdale, D. Ryan, and J. Horan (Eds.) Literacy for life. Proceedings of Third Australian Reading Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 1977, 1-12. Cohen, E. G., Intili, J. K., and Robbins, S. H. Teachers and read- ing specialists: Cooperation or isolation? The Reading Teacher, December, 1978, pp, 281-287. Cohn, M. and Kernelly, D. For better reading - a more positive self-image. The Elementary School Journal. January, 1970, 19, 199-201. Cohn, M. and Stricker, G. Reversal errors in strong, average and weak letter namers. Journal of Learning Disabilitie , October, 1979,_;g, 533-537. Drum, P. A. and Calfee, R. C. Teacher attitudes, purposes, prac— tices, and outcomes. In R. C. Calfee and P. A. Drum (Eds.) Teaching reading in compensatory classes, Newark, Delaware: IRA, 1979, 114-145. 227 Drum, P. A. and Calfee, R. C. Compensatory reading programs, what are they like, and are they different? In R. C. Calfee and P. A. Drum (Eds.) Teaching reading in compensatory classes. Newark, Delaware: IRA, 1979, 172—191. Duffy, G. G. and McIntyre, L. D. A qualitative analysis of how various primary grade teachers employ the structured learning component of the direct instruction model when teaching read- ing. A paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Amer- ican Educational Research Association, Boston, Massachusetts, April 11, 1980. Durkin, D. Teaching young children to read. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2nd Ed., 1976. Eames, T. H. Physical factors in reading. The Reading Teacher, May, 1962, 1Q, 427-432. Early, M. Teaching reading and writing. In C. M. McCullough (Ed.) Inchworm, inchworm: Persistent problems in reading education. Newark, Delaware: IRA, 1980, 139-152. Ekwall, E. E. Diagnosis and remediation of the disabled reader. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc , 1976. Farr, R. Reading: What can be measured? Newark, Delaware: IRA, I969. Fernald, G. M. Remedial technigues in basic school subjects. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1943. Finkelstein, M. G. What I do (and what I used to do) as a reading specialist. The Reading Teache , December, 1978, gg, 288—291. Fry, E. 8. Elementary reading instruction. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1977. Gould, T. S. Home guide to early reading: A handbook for parents of pre-school age children. London, UK: Sphere Books Ltd., 1976. Harris, A. J. (Ed.) Casebook on reading disability. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1970. Harris, A. J. Lateral dominance and reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilitie , May, 1979, 12, 336—343. Harris, A. J. Practical suggestions for remedial teachers. In D. J. Sawyer (Ed.) Disabled readers: Insight, assessment, in— struction. Newark, Delaware: IRA, 1980, 94-103. 228 Harris, A. J. What is new in remedial reading? The Reading Teacher, January, 1981, §§, 405-410. Harris, A. J. and Sipay, E. R. How to increase readin abilit . New York: Longman, 1980 (7th Editionl. Hildreth, G. Understanding the reading process. In W. H. Miller (Ed.) Elementary reading today. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972, 18-36. Howlett, N. and Weintraub, S. Instructional procedures. In R. C. Calfee and P. A. Drum (Eds.) Teaching reading in compensatory classes. Newark, Delaware: IRA, 1979, 87-103. Jordan, D. R. Dyslexia in the classroom. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1977. Jorm, A. F. The cognitive and neurological basis of developmental dyslexia: A theoretical framework and review. Cognition, 1979,_Z, 19-33. Kelly, L. J. and Vergasou, G. A. Dictionary of special education and rehabilitation. Denver, Colorado: Love Publishing Com- pany, 1978. Kingston, A. J. The psychology of reading. In W. H. Miller (Ed.) Elementary reading today: Selected articles. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972, 7-17. Liu, S. S. F. Reading diagnosis in the classroom. In D. J. Saw- yer (Ed.) Disabled readers: Insights, assessment, instruc- tion, Newark, Delaware: IRA, 1980, 57-66. Mackay, D. and Simo, J. Help your child to read and write, and more. England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1976. Martin, H. H. Vision and its role in reading disability and dys- lexia. The Journal of School Health, November, 1971, ELI, 468-472. Metheny, W. Teacher‘s reading instructional decisions: A compar— ison of pupils' reading abilities and their socioeconomic backgrounds. A paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Reading Association, St. Louis, Missouri, May, 1980. Miller, W. H. The home environment of culturally disadvantaged children. In W. H. Miller (Ed.) Elementary reading today. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972, 40-44. 229 Miller, W. H. A reading program for disadvantaged children. In W. H. Miller (Ed.) Elementary reading today. New York: ‘Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972, 292—297. Monroe, M. Causative factors in reading disability. In H. New- man (Ed.) Reading disabilities: Selections on identifi- cation and treatment. Indianapolis: The Odyssey Press, 1969, 51-65. Moyer, S. B. and Newcomer, P. L. Reversals in reading: Diagnosis and remediation. Exceptional Children, April, 1977, 33, 424- 429. Myers, C. A. Reviewing the literature on Fernald's technique of remedial reading. The Reading Teacher, March, 1978, 31, 614-619. Ofman, W. and Shaevitz, M. The kinisthetic method in remedial reading. The Journal of Experimental Education, March, 1963, El, 317-320. Orton, S. T. A neurological explanation of the reading disability. The Educational Record, January, 1939, 58-68. Otto, W. and Smith, R. J. Corrective and remedial teaching. Bos- ton: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1980. Peters, C. W. Diagnosis of reading problems. In W. Otto, N. A. Peters and C. W. Peters (Eds.) Reading problems: A multi- disciplinary perspective. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison— Wesley Publishing Company, 1977, 151—188. Pressy, S. L., Robinson, F. P. and Horrocks, J. E. Psychology in education. Cited in W. Otto and R. J. Smith, Corrective and remedial teaching. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1980, 98. Price, E. H. How thirty-seven gifted children learned to read. Reading Teacher, 1976, 30, 44—48. Robinson, H. M. Visual and auditory modalities related to methods for beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, Fall, 1972, VIII, 7-37. Rossman, J. F. The disabled adolescent reader. In D. J. Sawyer (Ed.) Disabled readers: Insight, assessment, instruction. Newark, Delaware: IRA, 1980, 16—25. Roswell, F. and Natchez, G. Reading disabilitv: Diagnosis and treatment. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1971. 230 Rupley, W. H. Stability of teacher effect on pupils' reading achievement over a two year period and its relation to instructional emphases. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.) Reading: Theory, research and practice. 26th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. The National Reading Con- ference, Inc., Clemson, South Carolina, 1977, 69—73. Rupley, W. H. and Blair, T. R. Credible variables related to teacher effectiveness in reading instruction. Reading World, 1977, 1], 135—140. Rupley, W. H. and Blair, T. R. Teacher effectivenss in reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, May, 1978, 31, 970-973. Rutter, M. Prevalence and types of dyslexia. In A. L. Benton and D. Pearl (Eds.) Dyslexia: An appraisal of current knowledge. New York: 0UP, 1978, 3-28. Satz, P. Reading problems in perspective. In W. Otto, N. A. Peters and C. W. Peters. Reading problems: A multi- disciplinary perspective. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison— Wesley Publishing Company, 1977, 42-73. Sawyer, D. J. A profile of children in compensatory reading programs. In R. C. Calfee and P. A. Drum (Eds.) Teaching reading in compensatory classes. Newark, Delaware: IRA, 1979, 40-53. Sherman, G. B. Introduction to reading diagnosis: A diagnostic model. An unpublished paper: Michigan State University, 1979. Sherman, G. 8. What's in a model? The practitioner's response to reading disability. An unpublished paper: Michigan State University, 1980. Spache, G. B. The teaching of reading. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., 1972. Spache, G. D. Diagnosing and correcting reading disabilities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976. State Board of Education. The language-experience approach to teachin readin . Springfield, Illinois: Illinois Office of Education, {No date). Stauffer, R. G. Reverence for remedial reading instruction. In C. M. McCullough (Ed.) Inchworm, inchworm: Persistent problems in reading education. Newark, Delaware: IRA, 1980, 125—137. 231 Tarver, S. G. and Dawson, M. M. Modality preference and the teaching of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, January, 1978, 11, 5-17. Valtin, R. Dyslexia: Deficit in reading or deficit in research? In D. J. Sawyer (Ed.) Disabled readers: Insights, asse - ment, instruction. Newark, Delaware: IRA, 1980, 34—48. van den Honert, D. A neuropsychological technique for training dyslexics. Journal of Learning Disabilitie , January, 1977, 19, 21-27. Wilson, R. M. Diagnostic and remedial reading for classroom and clinic. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1972. Witman, C. C. and Riley, J. D. Colored chalk and messy fingers: A kinisthetic-tactile approach to reading. The Reading Teacher, March, 1978, g1, 620-624. Zigmond, N. Remediation of dyslexia. In A. L. Benton and 0. Pearl (Ed.) Dyslexia: An appraisal of current knowledge. New York: CUP, 1978, 437-448.