III II MTWI HIM {FliI‘III I ”I II I IIIIVA‘I III I II. 1 III III. III. III I "III I} MI “W IIII III I III”! I I» IIIII :33 ““— hm;- _ ....._. .—._..__.'. __. ~’—""‘ ——..__._':._.._..:':::_—- ,. ,l "a gm ‘.‘_4 — r .5 WM" ,w3, :«WHM . W I 5 , W 11' I“: III: 5: .'-III I H. —‘—_;~(J “M5 '__.:.. 4“; .«Z’iE‘JE.- ”m I I. III I I III III: ,' I. .’ ‘7 g I v I.‘ II 5 MN IIIII‘ ‘I I . :I,‘ ,1. _.' -_Y - _ ——--_-— &4*-___ -- _. “J - -m - .—_ —. x 1m g.“— A‘ o -—.- "mo—«‘5 -.' 0 1%..— “W m 2:... I'IIIIIIII 1.1" — —-—. 9.“ .- 41W q)“.— £3.22;- n.” -J_’2§x~‘ - w— ”—1125:- -b-- ‘v-.~. 2’ -5571 I I II rim; II'qr LI,“ III} ..." ' '“I‘ .. "—2.2. "I . ‘_":. i... V. :2~ ~ :{i . ‘ k; H .1 o-r' X t. A 52—“: - 31‘ 5“,” e" _, «v =1. “ .A -m -. «4.4». M . .._ V b ‘ 1_ 5‘, .lv:.-._. - ‘21 fists-3: . ' ' -< M, ‘4 ' . — ~ A... -M. 1 _ 1' W“ ,L-'.": " ' - r .4 '3‘ .5-;::'—.-"‘ . - - Q-u _ ' '37”, . ‘ ~ M ;r_ ' v -.at. -‘: v T "f1";‘.':‘5;'r- ‘n I .T‘Jr-vfi ‘3' . 'r—\ 'LR V w I .,,’ . . ,4! I III II . .- ‘33:” ’L |{ Io . I 1;; I I53: {3. x ‘ ”1 . ‘ 1 .‘ '. \ I :31: I III; ‘ . . I ‘i II, III III . ‘5“ ' IIII‘ ' a I Z . . I v I”; :3 'III‘: “p! u‘ .I I ‘ ‘g 31-. :- “I . - ’ . . 1“ ‘V ‘ , ‘ , i v ; . . l 21%;; ‘ ' .‘ 1;: M ‘ 'I I. I . I I . .3 ‘ I33 If! I; ' - . III, I", s III, .'II"I': f-.~,‘ *2 ': . :IE I ' ”II fi/qubIII$*HH' " .I: ‘.=-I ;; :" i‘t'.‘IIIIIII'I“I-’I'II" IBII .'_' II :; E5 IIIIII I I I II I II'IIIIIIII:5III::IF§I“.I, .- ,I' 5; III, I} HHI IW'II Ivy. rmIE I,I,I III} II, ‘IIIJ‘II, [IIII "I; III IIII, ,II! II III m ’IIIIIL: -..I IIIIIIIIIIII: III LII: 25:11 IgIII III, I I535: 1W; ‘w' I' wink, fierM'H Ilkfiwfi - II L5: Id ‘IIIIII I III II I 1 ‘IEIII III: II“ 'I 1T.“ II ‘ I. 0‘ I?" {I :I ‘ 5’! II‘Z'IIII’II. I II III; I i ' In!" I: --I":"ti‘ 3" H? {I I ‘:::'::£III:II::I':IIII'I t“ I! 'II;: III II III, III}: :IIII‘: I: ,III IIIIIIHIIIIII: 31%;}: I Iii"? .2 M l 12;: ‘ I. ,‘ ~2~IIMFWI’IIIIWIHIWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIQAIM;,I:I . ' ‘. :H:‘.::§;1I:1,!Q!! " 1,; ”I H, 31%;, QIIIIIIIIIIIIBI“: I V .‘ "II 'I’If‘ I. ;“‘:II . ‘ 1“ 33,33?“ 3“}? Iii. 1 $1," ”I” Jib-I , M y'. . :I'HJ" I‘ I I111; >‘ ,1 I‘ll "‘I II ”I ,WIIIHII$ fiph~m&i1l Ipmnwmzawn , ' . I [LII ., I 1., z [I 13., k‘: 13: u ":11: ' LII": ”:01“. “I'III‘IIII Q‘III 1:7 MI: “3“} ,IIII III”: Zr? 1"” I .I. w I: I ?‘3'f I»: "It“ ""I III?2 I M“ "IIIIIIII ‘I I,“ ‘--‘I' I II Imwvv' II I I I. IgII‘m‘IIpI I :Ir‘ij'I'I III: IIIIE" {fi' :2 I“. ".f. I“) 9 II: III-III I..- r II . I ‘ II; I 'I, IIIIIIIII I“ I II ' 'IHvI I I WI I.I :IIIIII II'I, III: '1th 11‘ II“ IIII": It! I I‘IIIIHI: “(II 1,; I,I 'III'III: 'IIIII‘ III! I: ‘ ~ I‘ III, ' 5. IIIIII‘I I II II-IIIJI 1'III‘IIIIIII‘II‘IIIIIIIII‘JI‘III I II! I I W" III ,. , h IIII III. 1': IBIIIII 1' l A-z-nps. .‘- 1" THESIS s a, ‘7 .-I .-.--~’, :4 _L‘ < . . .1, a.) I. _ . . D “ 1131:2331“ .. .A '5' 1 ‘9' i} a ,2 a: h ”‘bg'nyn w;':';;;"-.L-:_' ' 71:. «xx . .7.“ :LJJIIIIJ.‘ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Assessment of the Effectiveness of Modeling Instructional Techniques During Home Visitations to Achieve Parents' Participation in Improving Children's Reading Skills presented by Donna Merkley has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Department of Administration and Curriculum Major professor Date JUly 21, 1982 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 g Illllliilllllfllliflllllllllllfllll 3 1293 01072 2308 ‘}V1E31_] RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from .g-g—. your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNIQUES DURING HOME VISITATIONS TO ACHIEVE PARENTS' PARTICIPATION IN IMPROVING CHILDREN'S READING SKILLS by Donna Merkley A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Education 1982 / / ABSTRACT ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MODELING INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNIQUES DURING HOME VISITATIONS TO ACHIEVE PARENTS' PARTICIPATION IN IMPROVING CHILDREN'S READING SKILLS By Donna Merkley This study attempted to determine how effectively parents could serve as teachers of their own children. The study compared reading achievement of children who received help from a tutor outside of school hours to children who received help from their parents for each of whom appropriate techniques and use of materials had been demonstrated through modeling. A second area of investigation was what changes would occur in parents' perception of their own ability to help their child in reading. The subjects were 23 second and third graders from a mid- western, upper-middle socio-economic level, university community. The children came from eight classrooms located in four elementary schools. The children were from among those recommended by teachers as children who: I) experienced reading difficulty and were able to benefit from additional help, 2) did not qualify for special-help programs available, 3) were mentally within a normal—bright range. The measuring instruments used included the Slossen Intelligence Test, the "Reading Subtest" of the Metropolitan Achievement Test, Donna Merkley the "Recognizing and Blending Common Word Parts" subtest of the Gates-McKillop Reading Diagnostic Tests, and the Gilmore Oral Reading Test. Parents' responses to items on a researcher-designed questionnaire provided data on parents' perception of their ability to help their children in reading tasks. The analysis consisted of computing analysis of covariance and t-tests. The major findings were that although both groups showed significant improvement, at the end of the treatment, there was no significant difference between children in the parent-group and children in the tutor-group on the measure of comprehension while reading silently or on the measure of comprehension while reading orally. There was no significant difference between the scores of children in the parent-group and those in the tutor-group on a measure of reading comprehension administered six months after the end of the treatment. The gains for children who participated in the parent—group were significantly higher on the measure of word analysis and on the measure of oral reading accuracy than the gains of children in the tutor-group. Parents who participated showed increased confidence in their ability to help their children. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Drs. Jan Alleman-Brooks, Robert Ebel, and George Sherman have graciously served as members of my committee and have modeled professionalism and excellence in teaching. I wish to express my appreciation to Professor Byron H. Van Roekel. He has provided guidance as an advisor and has shared his experience and expertise throughout my graduate education. Finally, I wish to thank my husband and family for their endless patience and support. ii Chapter 4. LIST OF TABLES. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY. TABLE OF CONTENTS THEORY AND SUPPORTIVE RESEARCH. . . . . . . . . . . Theory of Reading and Studies of Tutoring . . Parents' Ability as Teachers. . . . . . . . . Theory of Modeling and Studies Employing Modeling Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESEARCH DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Treatments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inter-rater Correlation of the Three Raters . Research Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Logs of Reading Activities for Participants . Parent—group Participants . . . . . . . . . . . Tutor-group Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . End of Treatment Feedback from Parents who Participated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION . . . . . Conclusions and Discussion. . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii 10 10 15 26 31 35 35 37 38 39 44 45 46 47 48 50 52 53 56 60 61 64 65 67 69 72 75 83 85 Chapter REFERENCES. APPENDICES APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX A. B. INTRODUCTORY LETTERS . RESPONSE FORM. PARENT DATA SHEET. . PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE . . . PARENT LOG OF READING ACTIVITIES . TUTOR-GROUP RECORD . GENERAL TUTORING PROCEDURES. PARENT-GROUP HOME VISITATION RECORD. PARENT INFORMATION HANDOUTS. CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SHEET. iv Page 89 98 100 101 103 104 105 106 107 108 110 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 0:1. Distribution of Subjects in the Sample. . . . . . . . . . 38 1. Pearson Correlation Coefficients to Assess Inter-rater Reliability I O O C O O O O O O O O O I O O O O I O O O 54 2. Comparison of Each Subject's Pretreatment Score with His/Her Posttreatment Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3. Score Difference between Pretreatment and Posttreatment . 58 4. Differences between Pretreatment Scores and Post- treatment Scores with Main Effects of Parent and Tutor. 59 5. Score Difference between Students with Different IQ Levels. 0 O C C I O C O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O 63 6. Summary of Parent-group Reading Activities. . . . . . . . 66 7. Pearson Correlation Coefficients to Assess Relationship between Time and Gain Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 8. Pearson Correlation Coefficients to Assess Relationship between Frequency of Oral Reading and Gain Scores . . . 67 9. Summary of Tutor—group Reading Activities . . . . . . . . 68 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY In light of mounting fiscal constraints facing education, school personnel are under pressure to implement strategies that are cost— efficient and that show promise of producing gains in children's learning. Social research has provided evidence concerning the significant impact of parents and the home environment on the child's early and continuing cognitive development (Roff, 1950; Douglas, 1964; Mosteller and Moynihan, 1972). Hence, parent involvement programs are receiving increased attention. Extensive research is available on programs for very young children where parents are trained in how to stimulate their children's cognitive development (Hess 35 al., 1969; Moore, 1968; Levenstein, 1970). These reports are consistently positive with regard to children's intellectual growth. Brofenbrenner (1974), Radin (1972), and Gordon (1978) found that long-term cognitive growth can be achieved by early intervention only when provisions are made for active parent involvement with their children; programs for preschoolers that treat only the children without active parent participation are ineffective. A review of the research indicates that most early childhood programs tend to be home-centered and many involve extensive home visits by a trained paraprofessional or educator. It has seldom been demonstrated, however, that this technique of home visitations is a viable strategy to support parent involvement when elementary age children's achieve- ment is in question. Once children are attending school, programs of parent involve- ment shift primarily to involving parents in the classroom or to requests that parents reinforce what is taught at school. Political efforts have attempted to mandate parent involvement in the teaching/ learning process of elementary age children. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 were ambitious attempts to develop home-school cooperation. Parent involvement has been required in Follow Through and Title I programs (Mowry, 1972). In these programs where parents can play roles as paraprofessionals, decision makers, tutors, volunteers, or observers, student achievement seems to correlate directly with the level of parental involvement (Gordon, 1978a; Herman & Yen, 1980; Matusez, 1977). Broadening the focus from compensatory education programs for disadvantaged children, Rich (1976) and Radin (1969) compared different levels of parent involvement in experimental school programs. They too found that students whose parents were most involved made the greatest achievement gains. At issue then, is not whether parent involvement is a productive influence in the achievement of elementary age children, but what are effective ways to implement,support and maintain parental involvement. One approach that some teachers have found useful is to involve parents in specific classroomrrelated learning activities with their children at home (Becker and Epstein, 1981). This type of parent involvement is distinctly different from parent involvement that brings parents into the classroom to assist the teacher or parent involvement that includes parents as participants in decisions on school governance. Parent involvement in learning activities can be defined as strategies for increasing the educational effectiveness of the time parents and children spend with each other at home (Gordon, 1979). As with most educational strategies, there are differing opinions about the likely effectiveness of efforts to get parents to be more actively involved in school-directed, learning— related activities at home. Some educators believe that parent interest in the academic progress of their children constitutes an immensely underutilized teaching resource (Henderson, 1981). Others point out that the competing time commitments of parents and teachers, the diverse instructional skills of parents, and the emotional and attitudinal resistance of parents and educators all constitute formidable barriers to practical implementation of the approach (Chilman, 1971; Sowers 9; al., 1980). There is growing information to support the former of these two positions. However, this writer ascribes to the view that more information is needed on the effectiveness of incorporating into school programs those elements which studies of parent involvement at the preschool level have found to be effective -- namely, that home visitations and modeling of techniques can be employed to offer direct instruction to parents on how to improve their children's achievement. At the primary level, children's achievement and academic progress in reading are of primary importance to parents, teachers, and administrators. If parents are interested in helping their child in reading at home, there are numerous resources which provide parents with practical suggestions (Larrick, 1958; N.E.A., 1963; Scott Foresman; Smith, 1971). These usually consist of general guidelines for stimulat- ing children's reading interests (e.g., read to the child; plan library visits; be a good listener; set a good example by reading). For those children who require extra help in reading but who do not meet the guidelines for special assistance within a school (e.g., Learning Disabilities Program, Title I program), private tutoring as an option is expensive and often limited in availability. Parents themselves usually do not have the expertise to initiate specific techniques or to modify materials for use with their children. There are few programs that directly instruct parents on how to do this (Della-Piana, 1966; De Franco, 1973). Research by Robinson 35 a1. (1979) suggested that untrained tutoring by parents at home produced little improvement in their children's reading. Based on Robinson's observations, parents without training in how to tutor their children typically made few comments about the child's good reading or attempts at problem solving. Untrained parents also tended to correct the child immediately if a mistake was made. Parents helped the child by telling him the word but rarely showed him how to analyze it. School efforts to support parents' involvement in learning activities typically consist of workshops or informal meetings where parents are given information about the reading process or where they discuss concerns and make games for home use (Wartenberg, 1970; Behrmann, 1972; Powell, 1970; Duncan, 1974; Harrington, 1971; Esworthy, 1979; Greenfield, 1977). This writer is of the opinion that the weaknesses of many of the programs reside not in the theory or objectives upon which the parent involvement is based, but in failure to provide sufficient individualized support for instructing parents in the use of techniques and the modification of materials to employ with their own children. Past programs have reflected the values and objectives of educators. There has been scant assessment of the parents' concerns about reading or how they felt about sharing in the teaching/learning process. There has also been little provision for the variety of competencies that exist among parents. As a rule, parents have been given lists of suggestions or prepared materials. There have been few programs that provide demonstrations of methods to use accompanied by supervised practice in implementing the methods (Duncan, 1979). The measure of the effectiveness of reported parent tutoring efforts has commonly been limited to measuring children's reading achievement gains at the end of the treatment. More informa- tion is needed concerning long-term treatment effects. As a rule, parents have merely been asked for their reaction to the program. More standardized techniques are needed to measure the increase in parents' knowledge and abilities as a result of their participation in the program. Most studies reported have compared the effects of "parent involvement" to "no parent involvement" on children's reading achievement. No research was found where the achievement of children helped at home by parents was compared to the achievement of children helped outside school by a trained tutor. Broadly stated, the question addressed in this study was: Can parents, through a carefully planned individual instructional program, be guided to be as effective as a trained tutor in improving their own child's reading skills? Information about this variable would be of value because private tutoring is an option parents may consider when additional help in reading is not available for the child at school. There are numerous theoretical models of reading describing the various components that make up the reading process. There are numerous standardized tests that measure one or more of these components. For the purpose of this study, a Model of Reading and Learning proposed by Sherman (1980) was used. The literature indicates that it is possible to tutor a child to significant gains in various areas that contribute to reading competence. Gains in children's performance on measures of "word knowledge" were reported by the Early Reading Assistance program (1968), Baron (1979), Heron (1976), Sobkov and Moody (1979), Wise (1972), McCormick (1977), Smith and Brahce (1963). Gains in children's oral reading ability have been reported by Della-Piana (1966), Oakan (1971), Murray (1972). Word analysis skills improved in tutoring studies reported by O'Neil (1975), McKee .g£.al. (1966). Gains in children's performance on measures of "comprehension" have been reported by Wise (1972), McCormick (1977), Smith and Brahce (1963), Thurston (1977). In this study, reading achievement of children consisted of measures of comprehension while reading silently and orally, oral reading accuracy, and word analysis. The purpose of this study was to determine the relative effect of two tutoring approaches on the reading achievement of second and third graders. In this study, the researcher served both as the reading specialist working with the parents and as the tutor for the tutor group. Hereafter, for editorial convenience, the children who were tutored outside the classroom by a reading specialist will be referred to as the tutor-group, and children who were tutored at home by parents will be referred to as the parent-group. For the parent- group, use of materials and techniques were modeled during home visitations by the reading specialist. The subjects for this study were 23 second and third grade children from eight different classrooms in four different schools of a midwestern university community. Classroom teachers in the beginning recommended 46 second and third graders who qualified for the study by meeting three criteria: the child 1) was experiencing reading difficulty and able to benefit from additional help; 2) was unable to qualify for special—help programs in the system; 3) had ability within a normal to bright range. These 46 children were then randomly assigned to the parent-group or the tutor-group after which the parents were sent a letter explaining the study with an invitation to participate. The 23 subjects in this study were those children whose parents accepted the invitation to participate. Pretreatment scores were obtained for each student on four measures of reading skills: comprehension while reading silently; oral reading accuracy; comprehension while reading orally; and word analysis. The treatment was conducted over a period of 16 weeks. The reading specialist worked individually with the children in the tutor-group for a total of 100 minutes a week. The reading specialist visited the home of each child in the parent-group once weekly. During the visitation, techniques and use of materials appropriate to the child were modeled. Materials were left for home use and the parents were asked to work with their child for 15 minutes five times during the week. During the treatment time, each child was observed in the classroom in an attempt to coordinate classroom and tutoring efforts. Posttest scores were obtained on all measures. Long-term treatment effects on comprehension while reading silently were obtained six months after the end of the treatment. For the purpose of this study, the following research questions were explored: 1) Will significant differences result among the reading achievement scores of children who participated in the parent—group compared to those who participated in the tutor-group in: a) comprehension while reading silently, b) oral reading accuracy, c) comprehension while reading orally, d) word analysis? 2) Will a significant difference result in the reading comprehen- sion score between the parent-group and the tutor-group after a lapse of six months following the treatment? 3) Will there be a significant difference in the Parent Question— naire scores between parents who participated with their children and parents of children who were in the tutor-group? A description of the model of reading and the theory of model- ing that serve as a basis for this study and a review of literature concerned with parents as teachers of their children are presented in Chapter 2. A description of the methods and measurements employed in this study is given in Chapter 3. CHAPTER 2 THEORY AND SUPPORTIVE RESEARCH Three areas of research seem relevant to the emphasis of this study. First, the model of reading upon which the study is based will be described followed by citations from research of variables to be considered when planning special help for a child in reading. Second, because this investigation involves parent tutors, theoretical and empirical statements concerning parents' ability as teachers of their own children will be reviewed. Research dealing with parents' capability to augment their children's reading skills will be cited. Third, since a modeling procedure will be utilized in training parents, a theory of modeling will be reported and selected studies employing the theory of modeling will be reviewed. Theory of Reading;and Studies of Tutoring The theory of automatic information processing in reading developed by LaBerge and Samuels (1976) seemed most compatible with the focus of this study. The theory does not encompass all aspects of the reading process, but it is pertinent to beginning and early reading. According to LaBerge and Samuels, reading is a complex skill that requires the coordination of numerous component processes within 10 th to 11 a short period of time. The reading process involves perception of symbols, attention, learning of distinctive features, visual recogni- tion memory, mediation hookup, and auditory discrimination and memory components (Spache and Spache, 1977). Attention is essential for learning, and this theory assumes that the capacity of a reader's attention is limited. The component subskills, therefore, need to become automatic -- not requiring attention -- in order for the complex skill to be successfully performed. During early reading experiences, students may not know where to direct their attention. Hence, cues are needed on which to focus. In this theory, visual discrimination implies that the child learns the distinctive features of the unit (letter, spelling pattern, or word). The speed with which a correct response occurs will increase with experience at this type of task. This is not a rote memory process; strategies for generalizing about units are acquired with practice. LaBerge and Samuels emphasize that accuracy of a response can be achieved fairly quickly, but extensive rehearsal is needed before the response is automatic. Mbst children learn to accurately associate a new word (visual pattern) with the pronunciation of that word (phonological response). However, further training and practice must be provided if the association is to occur without attention. Vocabulary in early basals is planned to have meaning for beginning readers based on their experience with language. Since attention need not be directed toward meaning, it can be focused on decoding. Additional exposure 12 to a word and its pronunciation usually results in the reader's immediate response. Mastery of reading subskills and their integra- tion becomes automatic as a result of practice. Distributed practice and feedback of response time very likely enhance the integrated response. Judgment of a student's readiness for a skill requires consideration of the accuracy and spontaneity of his performance. As word meaning and reading subskills become completely auto- matic, the reader can direct and maintain attention at a semantic level, as meaning is organized. LaBerge and Samuels presume that a fluent reader has mastered reading subskills and their integration at an automatic level. With regard to the beginning reader, the authors favor determining skills for testing, training, and sequencing. A majority of children learn to read to a certain level within a given period of time. If a student should fall below normal achievement, however, special help for the student seems justified. Intervention programs featuring special help in reading skills have shown evidence of substantially improving children's reading achieve- ment (Shaver and Nuhn, 1971; Strang, 1974). Guthrie (1978) delineates the enormous variation in special- help programs for poor readers. Teachers within a given program can range from a classmate, to a volunteer, to a paraprofessional, to a highly-trained specialist. Students for whom a program is designed can vary in age and ability. Teacher-pupil ratios vary as do instructional materials, teaching methods, and duration of program. 13 Age is not consistently a significant variable in remedial intervention programs (Below, 1965; Mersink, 1971). Pearlman and Pearlman (1970), however, reported appreciably higher growth rates for students in grades one to three. They claim that the earlier disadvantaged readers are identified and treatment is begun, the less time is necessary to correct deficiencies. Guthrie £5 31. (1978) reviewed the influence of age to learning rates in reading intervention programs. They conclude that although differences among age groups are inconsequential, older disabled readers usually have larger discrepancies between predicted and actual reading skills. The intervention time needed to close this gap is there- "... the rate of remediation (or fore longer. They emphasize that return to normal) is lower for older children than younger children since their learning rates are equal" (page 8). The literature reports a variety of sources for tutors providing instruction in a reading intervention program. Miles 55.31. (1978) compared the effectiveness of specialist intervention in school, outside of school, and remedial assistance given by classroom teachers on primary age pupils in Australia. Although all groups improved, regular classroom teacher instruction was found to be more effective. Classroom teachers, providing remedial instruction outside regular classroom setting, are reported by Steirnagle (1971), Cashden and Pumprey (1969), Marani and Tivvis (1970), and Talmadge ‘33 El. (1963) to have aided poor readers in significantly improving their skills. Manning (1979) reports on the effectiveness of teachers compared to paraprofessionals in improving innercity l4 fifth-eighth grade children's reading and math achievement. Students were given one—half hour daily instruction (in groups up to four) in addition to classroom instruction. No significant differences were found between groups for word knowledge or reading. Balow (1965) reports that graduate student clinicians in a university reading clinic were effective in improving children's reading skills. Reports of Willis 35 31. (1972) and Lane gt a1. (1972) suggest that students can be trained to tutor younger children using a structured program. Allen and Boraks (1978) compared the effects of peer tutoring and direct adult-child tutoring on second, third, fourth, and fifth graders' scores on the Slossen Oral ReadingiTest as well as informal reading devices. After two 50-minute sessions a week for 12 weeks, the peer-tutored children showed a greater gain on the Slossen Oral Reading Test than did the adult-tutored group. Guthrie (1978) summarizes implications stating that "... effective intervention must be carefully planned by a knowledgeable expert in reading but the plan often may be implemented by lay persons as efficiently as specialists" (page 9). It is a common belief that children with reading deficiencies benefit from small group instruction with low student-teacher ratio, one teacher to one child being preferred. Guthrie gt 31. (1978) reviewed literature to compare effects of low student-teacher ratios (1:1, 1:2, 1:3) and high student-teacher ratios (1:4 to 1:8). Although the learning rate of children was greater for studies with low ratios, IQ was found to be a confounding variable. The author's conclusion -- .. when a low teacher-pupil ratio was used with 15 children of relatively high intelligence, learning rates were higher than when opposite conditions prevailed" (page 10). Harris (1971) recommends one-to-one tutoring. ... The special magic of individual remedial help is that the child receives total undivided atten— tion and appreciation of an adult. For many students this is a unique experience; there have always been siblings, playmates or classmates. Individual remedial teaching gives a teacher the opportunity to try to use to their maximum effect the basic psychological principles that underlie all good teaching. There is no need to compromise between what one child needs and what another student requires ... the special value lies in the personal relationship and the opportunity to fit the instruction more precisely to the child than is usually achieved in the classroom (page 419). Parents' Ability as Teachers Biological maturation theories have been proposed in an attempt to explain children's development. Freud theorized that as a child passes through four stages of development, his "personality" is formed (Staats, 1971). According to Piaget's conception of intellectual functioning, a child also advances through four stages. Each stage serves as a foundation for the next (Piaget, 1956). Piaget concedes that the manner in which a child absorbs environ- mental experiences is important. However, he provides no account of systematic observation of the learning conditions in a child's environment which influence the development of his intellectual skills, nor does he suggest how to produce desirable learning (Staats, 1971). Staats, in contrast, suggests that a child's intellectual ability is the result of cumulative behavior repertoires. Opportunity for acceleration or retardation of these repertoires 16 begins at birth. Staats' analysis of a child's behavior emphasizes the parent as the teacher. Consciously or unconsciously, the parent is the agent of a child's original learning conditions. It is these learning conditions that largely determine the behaviors a child will acquire. The parent, therefore, plays an important role in the acquisition of complex behaviors (Staats, 1971). In research studies that have involved parents as tutors, the programs vary in the approach used to provide parents with skills to aid their child's development. Some programs recommend specific skills; others emphasize general principles of learning and behavior. The evidence indicates that parent tutors can increase the per- formance of the young preschooler. The studies of Gilmen (1969), McCarthy (1968), and Karnes (1969) have reported the positive effects of participation by parents (as learners and tutors) both on parents' attitudes about themselves and on their children's IQ scores. The Early Training Project at George Peabody College was initiated in 1961 in an attempt to influence the home contribution to cognitive development and motivation which might affect later school performance (Gordon, 1968). The children for the project were drawn from homes in which conditions in language, stimuli, and child-adult interaction required compensation. During the first 2 years, a summer program for the preschoolers was supplemented by a home visitation phase during the winter. A certified teacher scheduled meetings of 45 minutes a week with the family to help the mother see herself as a teacher and to involve her as an active participant. The visitations focused on 1) using role playing to 17 help the parents use books with the children, 2) suggesting trips to the library, 3) requesting parents to plan time for actually training the child. In the third year of home visitations, when the children were in regular school programs, the home visitor arranged biweekly visitations to foster home-school liaison activities. The initial findings indicated that children in the experimental group (N838) scored better than those in the control group (N-42) on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, measures of reading readiness, and Stanford Achievement Tests. A. Edward Ahr (1968) attempted to involve parents in testing and training their own children as a means of communicating to parents the child's special needs. At the experimental Education Unit School in the Child Development and Mental Retardation Center at the University of Washington, parents have been taught to help their handicapped children at home. Parent training takes the form of modeling, and the content depends on the needs of the child and the parent (Hayden, 1976). Lundeen (1977) reports of a program that successfully modified the behavior of chronically disruptive children through teaching parents to reinforce the child's acceptable behavior. The Portage Project was funded in 1969 to serve young rural children handicapped in one or more developmental areas (Shearer, 1976). All instruction was provided by the parent in the home. A trainer visited each family weekly for 1.5 hours. After assessment of the child in language, socialization, motor and self-help skills, and cognitive abilities, a weekly individual curriculum was planned. 18 A minimum of three behaviors were chosen by the trainer/parent team for learning each week. Pre- and post-baseline data guided subsequent activities. Results indicated that children progressed and that parents were able to initiate, observe, and accurately record behavioral changes. The Verbal Interaction Project is an ambitious attempt to promote a verbal-cognitive curriculum into the homes of low-income preschoolers. The goals are to prepare children for later school learning and to guide the mother in stimulating the child's cognitive growth through language interaction. Trained demonstrators visit each mother and two-year-old in their home twice weekly, October-May for 2 years. Using carefully selected stimulus material (a toy or a book), the demonstrator models verbalized play and interaction with the child. The demonstrator supervises as the mother imitates the techniques and urges that the mother practice with the child between sessions. The goal is to encourage verbal interaction long after the withdrawal of direct assistance. Short-term and long-term evaluation of the program indicates significant cognitive gains (Levenstein, 1970; Levenstein, 1972). Lille (1975) maintains that the simplest argument in favor of involving parents in the cognitive develOpment of their children rests on the belief that during early years a large proportion of what the child learns occurs in the home under the influence of the parents. He has been joined by other early education specialists (Gray, 1970; Levenstein, 1970) in arguing that unless effective parent education programs are developed as a major element of 19 parent-child-school efforts, these efforts are destined to only marginal success. Most of the research has centered on parent intervention programs for preschool children, and the evidence is consistently positive that there are significant, long-term effects, and that children whose families participated do better than comparable children. Although the research suggests that young children can be affected by alterations in parents' behavior, it is not clear how these results come about. Positive outcomes, however, are more likely when the training and involvement are intense and when parents' needs as well as students' needs are met. Home visits are most effective when carefully planned, last at least a year, have an educational focus, and include as their major delivery system parents working at home with their children. Data concerning the effect of parent-as-teacher on the academic achievement of children at the elementary level are not as plentiful as that for preschool children. This may in part be due to an uncertainty of which skills parents of older children need to acquire and refine and what changes are needed in parents' attitudes and actions toward older children when involved in teaching/learning situations at home. Research suggests, however, that parents can provide home-based instruction and activities which positively influence their child's achievement in reading. Niedermeyer (1970) assessed the effect of parent-monitored home practice on the reading performance of kindergarteners. Specially designed programmed practice exercises were coordinated with 20 classroom teacher plans for a period of 12 weeks. Parents attended an orientation meeting where they received explicit oral and written directions. At the end of the treatment, mean reading scores of the participating group significantly exceeded those of a randomly drawn control group, and a group representing parents who declined to take part. The researchers concluded that: 1) parents are interested in participating in a fairly lengthy program if communication with the school is maintained and if materials are simple to use; 2) advice on how to teach as well as what to teach was necessary. Boulder Valley, Colorado's final report (1975) shows that high- need children (children who showed developmental lags at the beginning of kindergarten) who were given teacher-designed home stimulation by their parents scored significantly higher on standardized reading readiness tests at the end of kindergarten than other high-need children who received only an in-school program. Parents of the experimental children met with the teacher every 2 weeks and were given workshops and suggestions on activities particular to their child's developmental needs. The group who had received home stimulation showed a markedly higher level of maintaining their gains than the children who had received only the in—school program. Rich (1976) found that parents who used simple, learning-at— home techniques to tutor their first-grade children helped to raise their children's achievement in reading. The treatment consisted of eight activities, each written recipe-style on a single piece of paper, that parents and children working together at home could use to reinforce and supplement reading. Preceded only by a letter of 21 explanation, the papers were sent home from school, one every 2 weeks for 16 weeks. Mothers from "culturally deprived" homes in Michigan were used to augment their children's vocabulary development and reading comprehension through work at home in a study described by Smith and Brahce (1963). The mothers were given training, materials and advice, and extensive home-school communication. Vocabulary and comprehension gains for treatment group were significantly higher than the control group gains. Rosenquist (1972) describes an effort to assess the effect on reading achievement scores when first graders, assisted by members of the family, completed school-recommended reading activities at home. After an initial orientation, guidance for participating parents was provided throughout the school year by random home visits and mailed information. Positive reading experiences, games, puzzles, library visits, reading to the child, and listening to the child read were suggested. Highly significant differences between mean scores of reading achievement were found which favored the treatment group. O'Neil (1975) designed a study to compare the performance of reading disabled students 1) when parents tutored with no super- vision and 2) when parents tutored with supervision by a reading specialist for 10 weeks during the summer. A non-tutored control group was included. The first, second, and third grade children who were involved were at least 1 year below grade level in reading. All parents were requested to tutor one—half hour four times a week. 22 "Supervision" consisted of attending weekly instructional workshops on how to use the prescribed reading program in an effective manner and opportunities to ask questions and to share information. "Un- supervised" parents were merely provided with the prescribed materials to use at home. The results of her study suggest that parents can serve as effective tutors in teaching their own children to read when given a structured program to follow. Except in the case of first grade oral reading rates and the reading of consonant sounds, parent tutorial efforts were no more effective when "supervision" was provided than when it was not provided. Parents who participated in the Supervised Parental—Tutorial Group, however, experienced greater confidence in their efforts, tutored on a more regular basis, and worked at a faster pace than did the "Unsupervised Parental-Tutorial Group. Della-Piana (1966) studied the effectiveness of parents serving as reinforcers of their children's reading. The children in the study were in grades one through six, 1 year or more below grade level in reading, and enrolled in the school remedial reading program. Mothers in the experimental group were given formal sessions once a week for 14 weeks. The training focused on productive learning conditions and practices in the home. At the termination of the treatment, the experiment group (N=13) scored significantly better than the control group (N=16) on oral reading measures of accuracy, comprehension, and rate. There was no significant difference between groups on the measure of silent reading. 23 In a review of Compensatory Education Programs, Kern (1970) suggests that more attention be given to the development of strategies for bringing the home and the school into a partnership designed to help students achieve. He describes five compensatory education programs that have a major emphasis on parents involved as teachers of their own children. The Florida Parent Education Follow-Through Model, in operation since 1968, appears to have the most comprehensive parent involvement component. The focus of the program is on changing the kind of educational experience that the child receives at home as well as at school. In addition to serving on parent advisory committees and being encouraged to volunteer in the classrooms, parents receive weekly home visitations by a school— trained paraprofessional. During a weekly 30-minute home visit, parents are taught learning enrichment tasks which the parent teaches later to the child. The paraprofessional makes home visits one—half of each school day and serves as an aide in the classroom the other half of the day. This increases the likelihood of home/school coordination and communication. The South Auckland, New Zealand project of Robinson 32 31. (1979) also studied how parents can help children with reading difficulties. Fourteen families agreed to tutor their child at home in English three times weekly for 10 to 15 minutes, and tape the sessions. The children, 8 to 12 years old, were 2% to 5 years behind in reading. During the 10 to 15 weeks of the project, experimental families were visited twice a week. At each visit, the director discussed the previous tape-recorded session, observed 24 the parent tutoring the child for 10 minutes, and discussed the tutoring observed. The project results indicated that: 1) parents do want to help with their children's reading difficulties; 2) parents can learn to apply specific reading tutoring procedures; 3) considerable gains were made by children at home in the percent of words they read correctly at sight, the percent of errors they self-corrected, and their progress in book level. The majority of children did not show similar gains at school. The project as described, however, raises a number of questions concerning the following: the actual length of the project; who trained the parents; population; sampling procedures; whether or not children were concurrently receiving help in school; whether or not English was the children's second language; and procedures for assignment to control/experiment groups. Murray (1972) assessed the feasibility of training parents and then supervising them as they tutored children. The parent tutoring component was preceded by 10 hours of group instruction for parents in personality theory, learning theory, reading methodology, and demonstration lessons. Parent-tutors were supervised in a clinic setting twice weekly for 1 hour sessions for a period of 6 weeks. Since there was no mention of additional supervisors having been trained, supervisor-tutor ratio is assumed to be 1:14. Children in the experimental group (N=l4) showed significant gains on the oral reading inventory dimensions of: level of difficulty, rate of error, speed compared to the control group (N=12). There was no significant difference in the gains on the California Reading 25 Achievement Test. Murray reported that tutoring sessions were taped and then evaluated for content and process. However, there were no details concerning provision for supervision feedback to the parent tutors. Graduate students of the author also worked with siblings of children being tutored. This component was not clearly defined but could have produced confounding elements. There was no attempt to coordinate tutoring session content with the classroom. As a rule, evaluation of the success of the parent-as—teacher programs has either been 1) inferred from measurement of the child's achievement or growth, or 2) change of attitude as measured by pre- post parental survey. Thurston's research (1977) attempted to quantify changes in parental knowledge or abilities. She trained parents of eight black urban elementary children how to employ correction procedures during daily oral reading sessions in the home. The training emphasized techniques for employing principles of positive reinforcement during the home reading sessions. In addition to measuring children's gains in sight words and compre- hension, the study used a multiple baseline design to evaluate effects of training on the parents' use of positive reinforcement during tutoring. Olmsted's study (1979) was designed to 1) determine if the teaching behaviors of parents could be modified through a parent education program and to 2) examine the relationship between first graders' achievement and parents' use of the Desirable Teaching Behaviors (DTB's) emphasized by the program. In one community, those enrolled in the parent-education program exhibited more DTB's 26 at the end of the treatment than parents not enrolled. Also, the number of DTB's exhibited by parents was significantly related to the reading (and math) achievement score. The author interpreted this as evidence of a relationship between the way parents teach their children and the child's school performance. Gordon's (1978) review of recent research indicates that the more comprehensive and long-lasting the parent involvement, the more effective it is likely to be, not just on children's achievement but on the quality of schools as institutions serving the community. Parent impact programs for school-aged children have not been as thoroughly researched, but the data suggest that the quantity of home communication is the most important aspect of these programs. Theory of Modeling and Studies Employing Modeling Various theories have contributed to our understanding of how behavior is learned and refined or modified by direct experiences. Bandura (1969) claims that a fundamental means for acquiring new modes of behavior and modifying existing patterns of behavior involves modeling. Modeling can be defined as learning by observa- tion (Bower and Hilgard, 1981). In the modeling phenomenon, a "trainer" provides a sample of behavior; a "learner" responds in a way that matches the sample. This imitation is reinforced (Zemke, 1978). Early theorists considered modeling to be governed by instinct. Association principles were later explored to explain imitative behaviors, but simple association failed to account for the role 27 of modeling in learning novel responses. Later theories of modeling emphasized the reinforcement that occurs in imitative behavior. Recent interpretations of modeling suggest that observers acquire ... "symbolic representations of modeled events rather than specific stimulus-response associations" (Bandura, 1971, page 16). That is, cognitive functioning is thought to play a prominent role in observational learning. The ability to learn by observation allows people to acquire patterns of behavior without suffering tedious trial and error. The writings of Bandura (1965) and Bandura and Walters (1963) indicate that most learning that results from direct experiences could also occur as a result of observing another person's behavior and the results of that behavior. These authors suggest that through modeling: 1) Intricate response patterns can be acquired. 2) Expressions of known responses can be regulated. 3) Inhibitions can be instilled by observing model of a behavior being punished. 4) Emotional responses can be conditioned by witnessing the reaction of models experiencing a situation. 5) Fearful behavior can be extinguished by observing a model's behavior when faced with feared objects. Bandura (1971) describes four interrelated processes governing modeling: 1) Attention: To learn by observation, 3 person must recognize and differentiate the distinctive features of the model's 28 behavior. These features must then be attended to. The sensory abilities of the observer as well as the distinctive- ness of the model and actions must be considered. 2) Retention Processes: If a person is to reproduce behavior when the model is no longer available as a guide, the desired response patterns must be retained in symbolic form. Forming mental images, coding modeled behavior into words, rehearsing the behavior all serve to facilitate retention. That is, the learner can describe to himself the model's behavior and can rehearse and learn the verbal descriptions. Their later recall can serve as cues for guiding him through the imita— tive responses. 3) Motoric Reproduction Processes: Component parts are practiced and fitted together into a whole using the above symbolic representations of the modeled behavior as a guide. A person may know cognitively what is to be done and may recognize the correct performance but still be unskilled at the task. Practice with feedback may be needed to allow gradual shaping of the skill. This is particularly true for motor skills. "Cognitive rehearsal" or "imaginary practice" can often result in significant improvement in performance, according to Richardson (1969). 4) Reinforcement or Motivational Processes: Positive incentives serve to activate learning into performance. The basic modeling process is essentially the same regardless of whether the behavior is conveyed through words, pictures, or 29 live actions. Different forms of modeling, however, are not always equally effective.... Some forms of modeling may be more powerful than others in commanding attention. The characteristics of the model have a great influence on someone's imitation when the individual can observe the model's behavior but not the consequences of that behavior. When the value of modeled behavior is not shown, observers tend to rely on such cues as "... clothing, linguistic style, general appearance, age, sex, likeableness, and various competence and status symbols as the basis for judging the probable efficacy of the modeled modes of response" (Bandura, 1971, page 55). Response consequences generally outweigh model characteristics in promoting imitative behavior, however. Most cognitive theorists suggest that a training program for transmitting behaviors employing this observational/modeling method will incorporate differential reinforcement. After observing a model and responding in a manner resembling the desired response, reinforce- ment can be used to refine the response and step up its rate. The nature of the task will determine the division and order of time allotted for observing a model versus practicing with reinforcing feedback. Bandura (1971) considers reinforcement a facilitory rather than a necessary condition because factors other than response consequences can also exercise selective control over attention. He contends that "behavior is regulated not only by directly experienced consequences arising from external sources, but also 30 by vicarious reinforcement and self-reinforcement" (page 46). He maintains that people set for themselves certain performance standards. They then self-reward or self—punish depending on how their performance compares to self-imposed demands. Modeling procedures have been proven to be effective in helping patients overcome debilitating fears, e.g., snakes, rats, spiders (Bower and Hilgard, 1981). Lovaas and colleagues (1967) have developed an approach to the treatment of autism which employs modeling procedures. Chittenden (1942), as reported in Bandura (1969), employed modeling procedures to transmit, elicit, and support modes of response that were incompatible with children's hyper-aggressive and domineering responses to frustration. Modeling in the form of role practice has been extensively adapted for counseling therapy (Kelly, 1955) and for training of industrial and managerial skills (Corsini, Shaw, and Blake, 1961). Liebert and his associates (1973) have shown that children can acquire attitudes, emotional responses, and new styles of conduct through filmed and televised modeling. Researchers have successfully employed modeling phenomenon in business training (Zemke, 1978) with learning disabled students who exhibit poor attention skills (Mercer, 1975) and with adolescents exhibiting undesirable behaviors (Matheny, 1978). Friedman (1973) employed modeling in parent-tutor psycho- therapy. The parent, determined to be a weak or ineffective learning model, was brought into the child's therapy session. The therapist modeled a constructive tutoring approach that contrasted the parent's 31 past weakness. The parent was then asked to assume the tutor role as the therapist observed and responded to the interaction. The application of modeling suggested by H. D. Fredricks 35 El: (1976) seems pertinent with regard to this study. ... The effectiveness of any parental involvement program is largely dependent on how precise the instructions are that are given to the parent.... Once the teacher has modeled the entire procedure a number of times to the parent, the parent is asked to try the procedure with her child in the presence of the teacher (page 110, 113). The writing and research of Bandura (1965) and Bandura and Walters (1963) have provided three effects that modeling influences have: 1) An observer may acquire new patterns of behavior response patterns that did not previously exist in his behavioral repertoire.... It is necessary for a model to exhibit novel responses which the observer has not yet learned to make and which he must later reproduce in a substantially identical form. 2) Observation of modeled actions and their consequences to the performer may strengthen (or weaken) inhibitory responses in observers. 3) The behavior of others often serves merely as discriminative stimuli for the observer in facilitating the occurrence of previously learned responses in the same general class. Summary LaBerge and Samuel's (1976) theory of automatic information processing in reading maintains that reading is a complex skill. 32 When he reads, a child is required to coordinate numerous component skills within a short period of time. Therefore, the component skills or subskills need to be refined and practiced so they occur automatically -- without requiring attention. Although a child may respond accurately during skill instruction, extensive practice is required before mastery and integration of subskills are automatic. LaBerge and Samuels stress that since the reader's attention capacity is limited, this integrated mastery of reading subskills allows the reader to attend primarily to organizing the meaning of the text. The amount of practice required for mastery and integration will vary from child to child. A valid concern, therefore, is whether it is reasonable to expect that school time alone can provide the practice reading time needed for beginning and early readers. This study has been an attempt to measure the effects of enlisting parental help at home to provide skill instruction and practice time to extend and refine children's reading skills. For a student who experiences difficulty achieving progress in reading achievement, a variety of intervention programs is available (Strang, 1974). Programs vary greatly with respect to: the teacher or tutor for the child, age and ability of the child receiving the help, the tutor-pupil ratios, the instructional materials and methods, and the length of the program. Evidence does seem to support that: l) The earlier disadvantaged readers are identified and helped, the less time is necessary to correct the deficiencies. 2) Low tutor-pupil ratio may be recommended by educators. However, low teacher-pupil ratio seems to be significant only when used with 33 children of relatively high intelligence (Guthrie, 1978). 3) Guthrie (1978) summarizes that although lay persons can effectively implement intervention, it must be planned by a knowledgeable expert. Research indicates that the utilization of parents as tutors working with educators can improve the performance of preschool-age children. Lundeen (1977) worked with parents in an attempt to modify children's chronically disruptive behavior. Verbal—cognitive growth resulted from parent-child participation in the Verbal Inter- action Project (Levenstein, 1972). Language and cognitive abilities were among developmental areas that showed improvement as parents were guided in working at home with their children as part of the Portage Project (Shearer, 1976). Research on parents as tutors/teachers of their elementary level children and the effect on academic achievement is not as plentiful. There is evidence that school-suggested home activities can positively influence a child's reading skills (Niedermeyer, 1970; Rich, 1976; Rosenquist, 1972; O'Neil, 1975; Kern, 1970). The quality of home communication seems to be a crucial but perhaps underutilized factor. This study was designed to employ home visits as a vehicle to model, monitor, and assist instructional efforts as parents worked at home with their children in reading. Because many parents have not had training in teaching, modeling theory provided a reasonable avenue for efficiently demonstrating and monitoring strategies that parents might implement. Effective modeling consists of four interrelated processes (Bandura, 1971): 34 l) Focusing parents' attention to the distinctive features of the model's behavior. 2) Aiding the parents in retaining the desired response pattern in symbolic form. 3) Providing opportunities for parents to practice with feedback. 4) Providing for reinforcement or motivation. Modeling techniques have been successfully implemented in counseling therapy (Kelly, 1955), behavior therapy (Bandura, 1969; Matheny, 1978), business training (Zemke, 1978), parent—child psychotherapy (Friedman, 1973). This study was designed to compare children's reading achieve— ment when they receive help outside school from a tutor to when they receive help from parents to whom appropriate techniques and use of materials have been demonstrated through modeling. CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN Parent involvement in children's schooling is receiving increased attention. Since academic success is considered by many to be rooted in the development of children during their early years, the effective- ness of parents as continuing educators of their children seemed to be a productive area of study for reading research. If schools and teachers extend a process begun in the home by the family, additional knowledge of specific ways in which parents can participate as the child learns to read in school would, therefore, be helpful. When a child experiences difficulty in learning to read, parent-help may be a reasonably productive and cost—efficient means of supplementing classroom instruction. This study was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of including parents in the reading instruction of their children. In this chapter, the sample and data gathering instruments will be described, and research procedures will be outlined. Population This study was conducted in a community of 45,820 (figure includes 23,000 university students) which has one parochial and eight public elementary schools, two junior high schools, and one 35 36 high school with total enrollment (September, 1980) of 5,190 students. A state university and the State Department of Transportation located within the community employ the majority of residents. Light technical industry, a federally funded research laboratory, and medical facilities for the surrounding farming communities are located in the community. The socioeconomic make-up of the area is largely middle and upper-middle class. Representation from minority groups is low. Elementary school children of university student families are bussed and divided among all public elementary schools in the community. The population for this study consisted of children enrolled in the second and third grade classrooms of this midwestern community. The children were from those elementary schools in which Title I tutors were not employed. Students identified by classroom teachers as l) experiencing reading difficulty and able to benefit from additional help but 2) not qualifying for special-help programs provided by the system (L.D. program, talented and gifted program), and 3) having ability within a normal-bright range (IQ 90-120) formed the potential population pool. It is important to note that the population pool appears restricted. Only 46 students met the criteria for possible inclusion in the study. Perhaps influenced by factors provided in the descrip— tion of the community, the academic competencies of the school children as measured by standardized tests (school-administered Stanford Achievement Test) were well above average when compared to national norms. A well—established learning disabilities program 37 in the elementary schools provided assistance to many students experiencing academic difficulties. The decision was made not to extend the population pool to grades 4, 5, 6 for a number of reasons. 1) District-funded (non-Title I) tutors were available in two of the four schools for teacher-referred upper-elementary students. 2) Additional grade-level representation would have resulted in unequal representation from classrooms. Representation from every classroom was sought in an attempt to control the teacher variable, and also to allow for procedural convenience of biweekly classroom observa- tions. 3) The distribution of the subjects in the sample (portrayed in Table 0:1) made it possible for one researcher to deal with all students. Therefore, the cost, the time for training, and the availability of an additional tutor(s) was not a consideration. The introduction of the multiple extraneous factors involved in an additional tutor (personality, training, availability) needed not be addressed. Sample The 46 students were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups -- the parent-group or the tutor-group. A letter explaining the study was sent home (Appendix A). The subjects of the study were 24 students whose parents responded affirmatively (Appendix B). All 24 subjects were pretested and administered a treatment, but results for only 23 subjects were used in data analysis. One of the subjects in the parent group could not be used because midway through the study, the parent chose not to participate. 38 Table 0:l.--Distribution of Subjects in the Sample Parent- Tutor- School Teacher Grade Group Group 1 A 3 l 1 l B 2 11 111 2 C 3 ll 1 2 D 2 ll 1 3 E 2 l 111 3 F 3 l l 4 G 2 l l 4 H 2 ll 1 T = 12 T = 12 male: 9 male: 6 female: 3 female: 6 (The sole purpose of this table is to provide a description of the sample. It was not used in data analysis.) Results for 19 of the 23 subjects were used in the post2 data analysis for long-term results. Two of the subjects moved from the area. Two of the subjects received additional tutoring during the interim period (June, 1981 - December, 1981). Variables The dependent variables in the study were: the children's scores on reading comprehension, word analysis and oral reading measures, and parents' responses to items on a parent questionnaire. The independent variable was the tutoring sequence in which the child was involved. The possible extraneous variables included: IQ, teacher factor, and socioeconomic status of the child. Because the Ig_of the child might have influenced the experimental outcome but was not itself an 39 object of the study, two procedures were used to control for IQ: 1) Teachers were asked to refer only students whose ability fell within the average-bright range, based on a judgment of five months (September - January) of working with the student rather than on the basis of test scores. Students qualifying for special help services within the school were not to be considered for inclusion. There— fore, regression toward the mean was not considered to produce a confounding effect. 2) Analysis of covariance was used to compensate for initial IQ differences between treatment groups. An attempt was made to control the teacher factor by including children from several classrooms from each of the several schools represented in the study. No attempt was made to obtain socioeconomic data, to hold the variable constant, or to include the variable in the design. As previously mentioned, the subjects were drawn from schools in a community composed of middle and upper—middle income level families. The four schools from which the students were drawn were not eligible for Title I tutors. Generalizability of the results of this study may, therefore, be limited to communities of similar make—up. Instrumentation The following measures were used to collect data to investigate the research questions: tests (comprehension, word analysis, oral reading, IQ) and questionnaire (Parent Questionnaire). Reviews in Buro's Mental Measurements Yearbook (1959, 1965) were consulted when selecting instruments to be used. Silent Reading Comprehension Ability was measured using the Metropolitan Achievement Test, Reading Subtest, Primary 2 Forms JS 40 and KS for grade levels 2.5 - 3.4 (published by Harcourt Brace Javanovich, Inc., 1978). The test, which can be group-administered, consists of 11 passages at six reading levels from primer through grade five. Five multiple-choice questions follow each passage, and students are allowed to refer to the passages when answering the questions. According to the authors, the difficulty of the reading passages has been controlled so that, in general, they match the difficulty of basal readers. The authors reported controlling vocabulary, sentence and passage length, difficulty of ideas, and level of interest of content. The difficulty of the test items has been controlled in that the items that accompany each passage are appropriate to the grade level of the passage. The test is designed to yield "Instructional Reading Levels." The authors reported a KR20 reliability estimate of .95, Standard Error of Measurement (raw score) of 2.9 at the beginning of the school year for grade 3. The validity of the test is defined primarily in terms of content validity. Each student was allowed the suggested 40 minutes for completing this test. Each student's subtest was scored by hand, and the raw scores were used as the comprehension score in the analysis of the data. Word Analysis was measured using a subtest from the Gates- McKillop Reading Diagnostic Tests (Teachers College Press, New York, 1962), Forms 1 and 2. The Recognizing and Blending Common Word Parts subtest assesses the student's ability to pronounce nonsense words such as "spack" and "snew." The test was administered as directed in the manual. If the student was unable to pronounce a word (e.g., "spack"), each part was shown separately ("sp" and "ack"). 41 After pronouncing each part, the child was asked to blend the parts into a whole word. Norms for the tests compare errors made by students taking the test with those of students of comparable oral reading grade level or grade placement. Nowhere in the manual is the norm group for this subtest clearly identified. For purposes of this study, the students' raw scores in pronouncing the "words" and the ability to blend the parts into a whole were combined and used as a word analysis score. The Gilmore Oral Reading_Test Forms C and D were used to assess the child's accuracy in oral reading and ability to comprehend following the oral reading. This is an individually administered test designed to analyze the oral reading performance of pupils in grades 1 through 8. The test provides measures of accuracy of oral reading, comprehension of material read, and rate of reading. Pearson product-moment correlations between this test (Form A) and two other oral reading tests are reported. Gilmore-Gray .77 Accuracy ____ Comprehension .45 Rate Gilmore-Durrell .80 Accuracy .59 Comprehension .50 Rate Alternate form reliability for Accuracy, Comprehension, and Rate scores for grade 3 are: Accuracy, .94; Comprehension, .60; Rate, .70. Each form consists of 10 oral reading paragraphs forming a continuous story followed by five comprehension questions for each paragraph. An individual record blank was used to record the student's reading errors and responses to the comprehension questions. An Accuracy score was obtained by recording the difference between the number of errors made in each paragraph and the number 10. 42 A score of 10 could be obtained if a paragraph is read entirely without error. Each unread passage below the child's basal level (point at which pupil made no more than two errors on a paragraph) was scored "10." The sum of the scores in the "10 minus No. Errors" column comprised the Accuracy score. Each child's oral reading performance was tape-recorded to allow two additional judges to determine an accuracy score for each child pretreatment and post- treatment. Interrater reliability was computed. In computing a comprehension score, one point was given for each question answered correctly. The Parent Questionnaire (Appendix D) consisted of 12 items designed to reflect parents' assessment of their ability to help their child read better. The parent was asked to respond "yes" or "no" to each question. The responses in the "yes" column were summed to provide a total score. The questionnaire was pretested on a sample of 20 individuals similar in circumstances to the parents of the children serving as subjects in this study. The Parent Log of Reading Activities is a checklist-type of instrument designed to collect data from the parents of the subjects without demanding a great deal of time or effort (see Appendix E). Dates, times, the circumstances, and the nature of reading activities are all displayed in columns and rows to facilitate daily checking of the appropriate spaces. The log is a revision of an instrument devised by Rosenquist (1972). His study was designed to assess the effect on reading achievement scores of school-related reading activities completed in the home by first graders assisted by 43 members of the family. There are no norms or estimates of reliability or validity. In this study, the Log was used: 1) to provide a systematic method for parents to record details of their children's reading- related activities at home, 2) to facilitate data collection con- cerning time spent and frequency of activities, 3) to provide a basis for discussing with parents each week the variety, pacing, and results of reading-related activities in which the child participated at home. Each week 3 Log was left with the family. The parents and child were asked to record the dates, times, participants, and the nature of the reading activities in which the child engaged during the week. The completed Log was discussed at the following meeting. Suggestions for modifications were made where the researcher deemed appropriate. 19. The examiner administered the Slossen Intelligence Test for Children and Adults (SIT) to each child individually (published by Slossen Educational Publications, 1971). The test is untimed. Administration and scoring require from 10-30 minutes. The examiner is directed to begin asking questions at a level where the person being tested can successfully pass "ten in a row" without error. The administration is terminated when the child encounters 10 consecutive failures. Scoring is fairly objective and can be accomplished while testing is in progress. Although the SIT employs ratio IQ scores, 44 it is essentially adapted from and validated against the Stanford- Bipgp (Form L-M). The manual is vague in describing the criteria used for retention or rejection of individual items: "... only those items producing favorable results were included" (page iv). The manual is also vague in describing the standardization sample. A test-retest reliability coefficient (interval within a period of 2 months) of .97 was reported for a sample of 139 individuals from ages 4-50. The Standard Error of Measurement was found to be 4.3. Concurrent validity is reported between SIT and Stanford-Binet (L-M) for each of ages 4 through 17 and for age 18 and older. A correlation of .98 was reported for ages 6 and 7.4 It should be remembered, however, that SIT items are essentially adaptations from Stanford-Binet items. Despite these limitations, the SIT_was deemed suitable for use in this study for the following reasons: the administration is less time-consuming than other available individual IQ.tests; the school system from which subjects were drawn prefers to reserve use of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Revised) and/or the Stanford-Binet to school psychologists when consideration for special programs for a child will be reviewed; and the results were not used for educational placement or major decisions, but to screen and to assure that the IQ of students fell within the desired range. Researchlguestions The study was undertaken to investigate the effectiveness of parent participation in the reading instruction of their children. The research questions to be investigated were: 45 1) Will there be any difference in the reading achievement of children in the parent-group compared to children in the tutor—group in the areas of: a) Comprehension while reading silently? b) Oral reading accuracy? c) Comprehension while reading orally? d) Word analysis? 2) Will there be any difference in reading comprehension between the two groups six months following the termination of the treatment? 3) Will there be any difference in scores on the Parent Questionnaire between the parents in the parent-group and parents of children in the tutor-group? Tutor-Group (Treatment 1): Treatments The tutor met with students twice weekly for 50 minutes. Students were tutored outside of school at a location and time convenient for the student. Instructional procedures and the skills to be taught for each of the tutoring sessions varied with the child's needs. A record of each tutoring session was kept by the researcher (Appendix F). General procedures followed were as described in Appendix G. Biweekly classroom observations of each child were conducted by the researcher to allow for teacher input and to coordinate tutoring and school efforts (Appendix J). 46 Parent-Group (Treatment 2): The tutor met with each student and his/her parent(s) once weekly in their home. The tutor would: 1) work with the child modeling a strategy for the parent to use during the week, 2) present feedback as the parent employed the strategy, 3) leave materials for the parent(s) to use during the week, 4) ask the parent(s) to work with the child five times during the week for 15-minute periods, using the strategies demonstrated by the model and the materials provided, 5) telephone parent(s) before the next meeting to gather feedback concerning the prior week's sessions. Procedures and content for each of the tutoring sessions varied with the child's needs. A record of each visit was kept by the researcher (Appendix H). General procedures as described in Appendices G and I were suggested. Biweekly classroom observations were conducted by the researcher to allow for teacher input and to coordinate home and school efforts (Appendix J). Design This investigation was an extension of the control-group pretest- posttest design in that this study has two variations of an independent variable-method of providing help in reading. In this study, con- clusions will be reached about the differential effects of Treatment 1 and Treatmentz. 47 Analysis of Data All tests were hand scored; questionnaire responses were hand tabulated. Calculations were done at the Iowa State University Computer Center using an SPSS program (Statistical Package for the Social Studies), with program writing assistance from the Research Institute for Studies in Education Consultants and the SPSS Consultant. The analysis of covariance facility within the SPSS subprogram ANOVA was employed to reduce the effects of initial group differences in IQ before making final comparisons of achievement between groups learning under the two conditions. IQ was the covariate, treatment group was the independent variable, and difference scores were the dependent variables. Calculations were done by computer. The formula D = ,“+O‘j + IBy-x (x - ux) + e (Hays, 1973) ij ij Gain Treatment IQ Y - Y = D pre post was used. A t-test to determine significant difference was used. 48 3. The t-test Paired Difference Model was used to compare each of the subject's pretreatment scores to his/her posttreatment scores. Each subject was measured twice, once before the treatment was applied and again after the treatment was applied. Statistically, this meant that each subject was being paired with himself and acted as his own control. The formula t=MD-E(MD) est.a~ MD was used (Hays, 1973). Research Schedule The research study proceeded according to the schedule outlined below: A. Preparation for the study. 1. In December, 1980, permission was obtained from the school district Research Committee to use subjects from the schools in the research project. In January, 1981, principals were contacted and meetings were conducted with teachers to discuss the purpose of the study and the criteria for referral. Teachers submitted students' names and were asked to comment on areas of concern. Two research assistants met for two hours of instruction and practice in judging oral reading accuracy. 5. 49 The basal series in use in the district was analyzed to determine skill requirement at each level. B. Conducting the study. 6. 10. 11. Forty-six students, referred by the teachers, were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups using a table of random numbers. In February, parents of students were sent an introductory letter explaining the program and requesting their participation (Appendix A). A stamped addressed envelope was included to increase prompt reply. Follow-up phone calls were made to answer questions about the study and to enlist participation. Based on parent response (Appendix B), treatment groups of 12 children each were finalized. The 24 subjects met individually with the examiner in a 70— minute session outside of school to take the measures described (Metropolitan Achievement Test, Reading Subtest, Gates-McKillop Subtest, Gilmore Oral Reading Test, Slossen Intelligence Test). All parents were asked to respond to the Parent Data Sheet (Appendix C) and the Parent Questionnaire (Appendix D). Commencing the third week of February and continuing through the second week of June, meetings were conducted with students receiving tutor-help and with the families where parents were participating. Although procedures and subject matter for each of the tutoring sessions varied with the child's needs, general procedures as described in Appendix G were followed. 50 12. During this same time, each child was observed six times (on a biweekly basis) during class in an attempt to coordinate tutor/parent help with the content, approach, and emphasis of the classroom (Appendix E). This provided an additional opportunity to communicate with the classroom teacher concerning each child's strengths and weaknesses. 13. During the second week in June, each child met with the examiner in a 60—minute session outside of school for post- testing. 14. All parents were asked to respond to the Parent Questionnaire (Appendix D). 15. During the second week of the following December, each child met with the examiner in a 40-minute session outside of school for post-testz. C. Scoring and data analysis. 16. All tests were scored according to keys. All Parent Questionnaire responses were recorded. 17. Two research assistants scored each child's oral reading tapes to establish interrater reliability. 18. Analysis of covariance was calculated. 19. T-tests were calculated. Summary This study was undertaken to investigate: l) to what extent children's reading achievement would improve when parent-taught as compared to tutor-taught in the areas of: reading comprehension during silent reading, oral reading accuracy, comprehension during 51 oral reading, word analysis; 2) the difference in reading comprehension between groups six months after the termination of treatment; 3) the change in parents' perception of their ability to help their children in reading. The final sample consisted of 23 second and third graders from eight classrooms located in four elementary schools in the community. The students were selected from among those recommended by teachers as children who: 1) experienced reading difficulty and were able to benefit from additional help, but 2) did not qualify for special-help programs available, and 3) were mentally within a normal-bright range. Measuring instruments used in this study included four tests and a questionnaire. Reading comprehension after silent reading was assessed by the Metropolitan Achievement Test, Reading Subtest. A word analysis score was obtained from the child's performance on the "Recognizing and Blending Common Word Parts" subtest from the Cates-McKillop Reading Diagnostic Tests. Oral reading accuracy and comprehension after oral reading were measured with the Gilmore Oral Reading Test. The Slossen Intelligence Test was used to screen student referrals' IQ range. Parents' responses to items on a questionnaire provided data on parents' perception of their ability to help their children in reading tasks. The analysis consisted of computing analysis of covariance and t-tests. CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Data were collected and recorded according to the schedule outlined in the previous chapter. Care was taken to ensure accuracy in scoring and recording of all measures. Two students, with junior standing and majoring in Elementary Education who had completed the undergraduate level reading sequence (9 quarter hours), were trained to serve as additional scorers. Reliability of scoring was a factor to consider, particularly for the measure of oral reading accuracy (Ekwall, 1976). Inter-rater reliability data for that measure is therefore, included in the initial section of this chapter to inform readers of cautions exercised prior to analysis of the results. Presentation of the reliability among the three scorers is followed by results of data gathered to answer the research questions: 1) Will scores earned by children who participated in the parent- group differ significantly from the scores earned by children who participated in the tutor-group on measures of: a) comprehension while reading silently, b) oral reading accuracy, c) comprehension while reading orally, d) word analysis? 2) Will there be a significant difference between the scores earned by the children assigned to the tutor-group and the scores earned by children assigned to the parent- group on a measure of reading comprehension administered six months 52 53 after the end of the treatment? 3) Will there be a significant difference in the Parent Questionnaire scores between parents who participated with their children and parents of children who were in the tutor-group? Inter-rater Correlation of the Three Raters Two trained scorers listened to audiotapes of the 23 students recorded during the administration of the measure of oral reading accuracy by the researcher. Both scorers rated each student's performance. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed to assess inter-rater reliability. H0: The population correlation coefficient is equal to zero. H1: The population correlation coefficient is not equal to zero. The measure of inter—rater reliability yielded agreement among the three scorers. The results, reported in Table 1, show a very high positive relationship on the scoring of students' pretreatment oral reading accuracy (.98, .97, .97) and on the scoring of students' posttreatment oral reading accuracy (.98, .97, .97). The results also reveal a strong positive relationship between each judge's scoring of students' pretreatment and posttreatment oral reading accuracy (.57, .54, .60). The null hypotheses were therefore rejected for all correlations. For convenience of discussion, the following abbreviations are used in the tables for the variables in the study: '39 = Comprehension measured after the child read silently. OA = Oral reading accuracy. 54 Table l.--Pearson Correlation Coefficients to Assess Inter-rater Reliability TBA SBAl SBA2 TPA SPA1 SPA2 TBAa r=l.0 r=.98** r=.97** r=.57** r=.56** r=.59** SBAlb r=1.0 r=.97** r=.57** r=.54** r=.57** SBAZC r=l.0 r=.60** r=.58** r=.60** TPAd r=1.0 r=.98** r=.97** SPAle r=l.0 r=.97** f SPA2 r=1.0 aTBA b SBA1 SBA2 C dTPA e SPA1 f SPA2 judge judge 1 2 before treatment. before treatment. tutor before treatment. . tutor post treatment. B judge judge 1 2 post treatment. post treatment. **Significant at the .01 level. "B" before any of the above indicates a before-treatment score. "P" before any of the above indicates a posttreatment score. 0 0 ll Comprehension measured after child read orally. Word analysis. Responses to items on the Parent Questionnaire. "D" before any of the above indicates a difference score, posttreat- ment score minus before-treatment score. 55 PPRC refers to comprehension while reading silently measured six months after the end of the treatment. The t-test paired difference model was used to compare each subject's pretreatment scores with his own posttreatment score. Statistically, this meant that each subject was paired with himself/ herself and acted as his/her own control. Results of the t-test paired difference model, reported in Table 2, indicate a positive relationship between the pretreatment and posttreatment scores for each student when compared to himself/herself. The better the student performed on the pretest, the better the child performed on the posttest, regardless of which treatment the child received. The relationship was significant at the .01 level for students' scores on measures of comprehension after silent reading, oral reading accuracy, and word analysis. The relationship was significant at the .05 level for students' scores on the measure of comprehension while reading orally. The results suggest a significant posttreatment improvement in the four skills measured in this study, regardless of assignment to treatment group. The scores of all of the students participating in the study increased significantly on the posttreatment administration of comprehension while reading silently (alpha = .01), oral reading accuracy (alpha = .01), word analysis (alpha = .01), and comprehension while reading orally (alpha = .05). Although the students' scores improved significantly from pretreatment to six months posttreatment (alpha 8 .01), the improvement in the reading comprehension scores 56 from the end of the treatment to six months after the end of the treatment was not significant (alpha = .123). Table 2.--Comparison of Each Subject's Pretreatment Score with His/ Her Posttreatment Score Standard Mean Deviation Correlation t Value :3: 2123:: 1::2: 382 iiié‘é‘éi 2:233 ~580** 1W“ 388 $83333 3:322 503* ”7* $32 3:32? 2:332 -872** 8M“ iii: 3 18233 11333 342 4-50“ iii. 221233? “3:33 ~553** -6-24** Siffic 231233 3:323 ~759** -1-62 *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. Research Qpestion 1 Research Question 1 asked if scores earned by children who participated in the parent-group would differ significantly from the scores earned by children who participated in the tutor-group on measures of: a) comprehension while reading silently, b) oral reading accuracy, c) comprehension while reading orally, d) word analysis? 57 The hypothesis to be tested for each of the above is: H0: There is no difference between the means of the two popula- tions from which the sample is drawn. H1: There is a difference between the means of the two popula- tions from which the sample is drawn. The first question concerned the extent to which children's reading achievement in four areas (a-d) differed for the two treatment groups. Results of the t-test are reported comparing the scores of the parent-group and the tutor-group before the treatment commenced. Following that, the results of posttreatment scores for the two groups on the selfsame measures are described. Results reported in Table 3 indicate that at the beginning of the treatment, the mean score for the tutor-group on each of the measures was greater than the corresponding mean scores for the parent-group. However, only on the measure of word analysis was the difference significant. Prior to the treatment, the children in the tutor-group scored significantly higher (alpha = .05) than the children in the parent-group on the measure of word analysis. Following treatment, there did not appear to be a significant difference between the performance of the children who participated in the tutor-group and the performance of the children who participated in the parent-group on any of the measures of reading achievement. Based on these data alone, one may conclude that any posttreatment differences between the two groups were probably due to sampling error or chance. 58 Table 3.—-Score Difference between Pretreatment and Posttreatment Standard Group N Mean Deviation t Value 1 11 11:31:; 12:11: 1 11 11:11:: 2:11 1 11 11111: 2:111 1 11 111111 1:11: PRC 2 22 222222 2:222 -1-57 1 11 1:11: :11: 1 11 11:11:: 1:211 1 22 2222222 2:222 -1-71 PPRC 2 12 222222 2:222 -1981 BPA 2 22 222222 2:222 ~55 1 11 111111 1:111 *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. #Significant at the .07 level. 59 The analysis of covariance, however, was computed to adjust for initial IQ differences between children in the parent-group and children in the tutor-group. The following table reports the results of the comparisons of the differences between pretreatment scores and posttreatment scores with the main effects of parent and tutor. Table 4.--Differences between Pretreatment Scores and Posttreatment Scores with Main Effects of Parent and Tutor F Group 1 (Parent-group) Group 2 (Tutor-group) Value Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted Adjusted N Mean Mean N Mean Mean Mean DRC 11 10.73 10.90 12 10.58 10.42 .032 DOA 11 15.64 15.37 12 10.58 10.83 3.428# DOC 11 4.64 4.44 12 2.75 2.93 1.071 DWA 11 7.55 7.71 12 4.25 4.10 8.757** DPa 10 2.80 3.02 9 1.22 .97 .575 nab 10 13.60 14.02 9 11.44 10.98 .504 DPA 11 3.00 2.95 12 .75 .70 9.611** aPPRC-PRC bPPRC-BRC *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. #Significant at the .08 level. These data reveal that children in the parent-group increased their scores on the measures of word analysis significantly (alpha = .01) when compared to children who participated in the tutor-group. On the measure of oral reading accuracy, the difference between pre- tests and posttests was statistically significant (alpha = .08) for the parent-group. Ch ‘5 60 For all other measures, the difference between pretreatment scores and posttreatment scores between the two groups was not significant. The results lead to rejection of the null hypothesis for word analysis and oral reading accuracy. The null hypothesis is not rejected for comprehension while reading silently or for comprehension while reading orally. Research Question 2 Research Question 2 asked if there would be a significant difference between scores earned by the children assigned to the tutor-group and the children assigned to the parent-group on a measure of reading comprehension administered six months after the end of the treatment. HO: There is no difference between the mean of the two popula- tions from which the sample is drawn. H1: There is a difference between the means of the two popula— tions. The results reported in Table 3 indicate that after a six—months lapse following the end of the treatment, the reading comprehension mean score for the tutor-group was significantly higher (alpha = .07) than for the parent-group. However, when an analysis of Covariance to adjust for initial IQ differences between the two treatment groups was computed (see Table 4), there appears to be no significant differ- ence in the reading comprehension scores of the pupils in the two treatment groups from pretreatment to six-months posttreatment nor from posttreatment to six-months posttreatment. Hence, the null hypothesis is not rejected. 61 Research Question 3 Research Question 3 asked if there would be a significant difference in the Parent Questionnaire scores between parents who participated with their children and parents of children who were in the tutor-group. H0: There is no significant difference between the means of the two populations from which the sample is drawn. H1: There is a difference between the means of the two popula- tions from which the sample is drawn. The results reported in Table 3 indicate that at the beginning of the treatment, there was no significant difference in scores of parents who participated with their children and parents of children who were in the tutor-group. At the end of the treatment time, how— ever, the parents of children in the parent—group earned significantly higher scores (alpha = .01) than the parents of children in the tutor- group on the instrument designed to measure parents' perception of their ability to help their children in reading. The data in Table 4 indicate that there is a significant differ- ence (alpha = .01) in the time lapse pretreatment to posttreatment between responses of parents to items on the Parent Questionnaire. Those parents who were trained to work with their children showed significant gains in confidence in their own ability to help their children as measured by an increase in affirmative responses on the questionnaire when compared to parents of children in the tutor-group. 62 The data in Table 2 show a significant (alpha = .01) improvement in parents' scores in pretreatment to posttreatment. Based on the results reported, the null hypothesis is rejected. Students were regrouped by IQ in an attempt to determine if the children's IQ may have been a significant factor affecting performance differences. The IQ classification chart from the Slossen Intelligence Egg; manual was used to group children into A = average range, B = bright range. The results as reported in Table 5 indicate that IQ did not appear to be a factor affecting performance differences. The data also suggest that the child's IQ did not appear to be an influence on the parents' pretreatment responses or posttreatment responses to items on the Parent Questionnaire. Summary Data establishing scoring reliability for the oral reading accuracy measures were presented at the beginning of this chapter. Inter-rater correlation coefficients for the three raters ranged from .97 to .98. A display of the results from the t-test paired difference model followed. The data indicated that irrespective of the treatment, there was a significant positive relationship between the pre- and posttreatment scores for each student and a significant improvement in all skills measured at the end of the treatment period. Reading comprehension scores obtained six months after the end of the treatment, however, were not significantly improved when compared to scores at the end of the treatment period. 63 Table 5.--Score Difference between Students with Different IQ Levels Standard Group N Mean Deviation t Value 1 I; 11:11:: 11:11: 1 1; 11:11:: 1:21: 1 I: 11:21: 1:12: 1 1; 11:21:: 2:11 1 1: 22:11:: 11:11: POA 2 12 2222222 2:222 .17 1 1; 11:12:; 1:11: PWA 2 12 22:2222 2:222 --81 1: 21:: 2:1: EPA 2 12 2:2229 2:222 -46 1 1': 1:111: 1:111 using t-test and analysis of covariance. The null hypotheses for the three research questions were tested 1. At the end of the treatment, there was no significant difference between the test scores of children in the parent-group and of the children in the tutor-group in: a) comprehension while 64 reading silently and b) comprehension while reading orally. Children who participated in the parent-group, however, scored significantly higher on the measure of word analysis and on the measure of oral reading accuracy than the participants in the tutor-group. 2. There was no significant difference in the reading comprehen— sion scores between children in the tutor-group and those in the parent-group six months after the end of the treatment compared to posttreatment scores. 3. Parents who participated with their children showed increased confidence in their own ability to help their children in reading as measured by significantly higher scores on the Parent Questionnaire at the end of the treatment than the parents of children who were in the tutor-group. Logs of Reading Activities for Participants Table 6 summarizes for each child in the parent-group the minutes spent in parent supervised, reading-related activities and the frequency of each activity area for the weeks of the treatment. Table 9 summarizes the same for each child in the tutor-group. The data indicate that, on an average, children in the parent-group read orally to someone more frequently than children in the tutor-group (30% vs. 19%). Children in the parent-group created their own reading material by dictating or writing stories less frequently than children in the tutor-group (3% vs. 10%). The frequency of other activities was similar for the two groups. 65 Parent-group,Participants For participants in the parent-group, time spent in reading- related activities ranged from 74 to 145 minutes (average 109 minutes) per week (Table 6). Sixteen to 42% of the activities (average 30%) consisted of the child reading to someone. Eighteen to 46% of the activities (average 27%) consisted of someone reading to the child. Nine to 34% of activities (average 21%) consisted of the child reading silently and discussing the content. Nine to 34% of the activities (average 19%) fell into the "other" category, which included games, worksheets, puzzles, word cards. One to 7% of the activities (average 3%) consisted of the child creating his own reading material by dictating or writing stories. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the relationship between total minutes logged in reading-related activities and the gains in reading achievement for the parent-group participants. The data reported in Table 7 indicate a weak positive relationship between time logged in reading-related activities and parent-group children's gains in comprehension after silent reading (r = .25), comprehension after oral reading (r = .27), and reading comprehension six months after the end of the treatment (r = .24). A negative relationship existed between the time logged and gains in oral reading accuracy (r = -.l6) and word analysis (r = -.23). The data indicate no significant relationship between time spent in reading-related activities and gains on any of the measures. Pearson correlation coefficients were compiled to determine if a relationship existed between the number of times that parent-group 66 Table 6.--Summary of Parent-group Reading Activities Child Read Someone Child Silently Child Total Weekly Read to Read to and Dictated Student Minutes Average Child Someone Discussed Stories Other -— (times) ——— 2,040 136 22 a 41 30 3 41 (46%) (30%) (22%) (2%) (30%) 1,600 106 31 15 24 6 15 (34%) (16%) (27%) (7%) (16%) 1,795 119.6 26 46 32 9 17 (20%) (35%) (25%) (7%) (13%) 1,175 78.3 16 22 13 1 1 (30%) (42%) (24%) (2%) (2%) 1,110 74.0 16 10 15 l 3 (36%) (22%) (33%) (2%) (7%) 1,220 81 11 14 15 2 18 (18%) (23%) (25%) (3%) (30%) 1,535 102.3 25 31 15 2 19 (27%) (34%) (16%) (2%) (21%) 1,960 130.6 27 23 32 2 9 (29%) (24%) (34%) (2%) (9%) 2,180 145.3 39 50 20 3 45 (24%) (31%) (12%) (1%) (28%) 1,843 122.8 43 35 10 5 17 (39%) (31%) (9%) (4%) (15%) 1,450 96.6 25 23 21 2 20 (27%) (25%) (23%) (2%) (21%) 17,908 281 310 227 36 205 (27%) (30%) (21%) (3%) (19%) Average per child per week 108.533 aThe percentage calculated indicates what portion of the activities were of that type. For example, for Student A, 46% of the activities during the project consisted of someone reading to the child, 30% of the activities consisted of the child reading to someone, etc. 67 Table 7.-—Pearson Correlation Coefficients to Assess Relationship between Time and Gain Scores DRC DOA DOC DWA SRCa TRCb Time .25 -.16 .27 -.23 -.1047 -.0064 8Difference between pretreatment reading comprehension and read- ing comprehension six months posttreatment. bDifference between posttreatment reading comprehension and reading comprehension six months posttreatment. children engaged in oral reading and the gains on the measures of oral reading accuracy and word analysis. The data reported in Table 8 indicate a negative relationship between the frequency of oral read- ing and gains on the measure of oral reading accuracy (r = -.03), and gains on the measure of word analysis (r = -.06). Table 8.--Pearson Correlation Coefficients to Assess Relationship between Frequency of Oral Reading and Gain Scores Frequency -.03 -.06 TutorjgroupiParticipants For participants in the tutor-group, time spent in reading— related activities averaged 103 minutes per week (Table 9). Twenty- five to 36% of the activities (average 29%) consisted of the tutor reading to the child. Six to 37% of the activities (average 24%) consisted of the child reading silently and discussing the content 68 Table 9.--Summary of Tutor-group Reading Activities Child Read Someone Child Silently Child Total Weekly Read to Read to and Dictated Student Minutes Average Child Someone Discussed Stories Other -- -—- (times) -- L 1,540 103 21 5 17 7 19 (30%) (7%) (24%) (10%) (27%) M 1,540 103 29 19 17 10 20 (30%) (20%) (17%) (10%) (21%) N 1,540 103 16 11 15 8 12 (25%) (17%) (24%) (12%) (19%) 0 1,540 103 24 15 17 11 16 (28%) (18%) (20%) (13%) (19%) P 1,540 103 27 25 20 9 19 (27%) (25%) (20%) (9%) (19%) Q 1,540 103 28 20 22 ll 15 (29%) (20%) (22%) (11%) (15%) R 1,540 103 20 7 28 7 12 (27%) (9%) (37%) (9%) (16%) 8 1,540 103 26 22 5 7 12 (36%) (30%) (6%) (9%) (16%) T 1,540 103 21 11 20 5 8 (32%) (16%) (30%) (7%) (12%) U 1,540 103 22 5 20 6 8 (36%) (8%) (32%) (9%) (13%) V 1,540 103 23 20 28 8 12 (25%) (21%) (30%) (8%) (13%) W 1,540 103 20 12 20 7 13 (27%) (16%) (27%) (9%) (18%) Total 277 172 229 96 166 (29%) (19%) (24%) (24%) (18%) 69 with the tutor. Seven to 30% of the activities (average 19%) consisted of the child reading to the tutor. Twelve to 27% of the activities (average 18%) fell into the "other" category which included games, worksheets, puzzles, word cards. Seven to 13% of the activities (average 10%) consisted of the child creating his own reading material by writing or dictating stories. End of Treatment Feedback from Parents who Participated An end-of—treatment conference with parent-group parents provided the opportunity to reflect on the program as a whole and to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. All parents could see improvement in their children's reading skills and felt that their interactions with the child had had some influence. Parents had observed a marked increase in their children's willingness to read independently for pleasure. All parents planned to continue working with their children during the summer. Concern was expressed by all parents, however, that summer activities would interfere with the frequency and intensity that had been established. Parents indicated the following to be strengths of the project: 10 of 11 (90%) were pleased that appropriate (difficulty level and interest area) library books had been provided. 9 of 11 (82%) favored the convenience of the home visitations and felt that the weekly visitations provided incentives to work with the child regularly. 8 of 11 (73%) felt they benefitted from actually being shown how to use techniques and from observing someone else working 70 with their child. 11 (73%) valued the extended opportunities to discuss their child's strengths and weaknesses. 11 (55%) felt they had benefited from information shared by the researcher about the school's reading program and the feedback on classroom activities and classroom teacher's comments. 11 (55%) mentioned that the personalized material -- games, worksheets, word cards -- was helpful. 11 (36%) felt that other children in the family had also benefited from exposure to the program. 11 (18%) felt that the program had provided the opportunity to improve their rapport with their child. Parents indicated the following to be weaknesses in the project: All of the parents felt that the effectiveness of the project 6 of diminished somewhat during the last of May due to: City-sponsored Sports activities in which children were involved. Approaching end of school which affected children's attitudes. Daylight—savings time adjustment which affected children's schedules. ll (55%) parents would have preferred more home visitations without their child present. Although phone conversations helped, more opportunities to discuss concerns without the child would have been helpful. 4 of 3 of 3 of 71 ll (36%) parents felt that their children were too dependent on motivation created by the researcher's visits; i.e., the children would work the day following the visitation and the day before the visitation with little incentive in between. 11 (27%) indicated that they would have benefited from formulation early in the project of more specific goals to work toward with their child. 11 (27%) would have preferred starting earlier in the school year. CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION Following the summary, conclusions drawn from the results of the data analysis are presented. After a discussion of the limitations of the study, implications for parents, schools, and teacher—training institutions are suggested. This is followed by suggestions for related research. This study attempted to determine how effectively parents could serve as teachers of their own children. The study was designed to compare reading achievement of children who received help from a tutor outside of school hours to children who received help from parents for each of whom appropriate techniques and use of materials had been demonstrated through modeling. A second area of investiga- tion was what changes would occur in parents' perception of their own ability to help their child in reading. The research was suggested by: 1) the body of literature which emphasizes a link between parent involvement and children's cognitive development; 2) few studies employing home visitations and modeling theory to augment the tutoring skills of parents of elementary age children; 3) few studies providing data-based evidence of changes in parents as a result of a training program; 4) a continual search for effective, cost-efficient alternatives for providing support to 72 73 supplement classroom instruction when children encounter reading difficulties. Specific research questions were posed: 1) Will significant differences result on the reading achievement scores of children in the parent-group compared to children in the tutor-group in: a) comprehension after silent reading, b) oral reading accuracy, c) comprehension after oral reading, d) word analysis? 2) Will a significant difference result in the reading comprehension score between the two groups on a measure administered six months after the end of the treatment? 3) Will there be a significant difference in the Parent Questionnaire scores between parents who participated with their children and parents of children who were in the tutor- group? The population for this study consisted of 46 second and third grade children from a midwestern university-community school system. The community is middle to upper-middle socio-economic level, and minority representation in the community is low. The children from eight classrooms in four different school buildings were judged by their teachers to have met the criteria for participating in the study because they were 1) experiencing difficulty in reading acquisition and able to benefit from additional help, 2) not able to qualify for special help from the school, and 3) within a normal to bright range of mental ability. These children were randomly assigned to the parent-group or the tutor-group. The parents were sent a letter explaining the study with an invitation 74 to participate. The 23 subjects in the study were students whose parents responded affirmatively. Testing was done outside school hours during the second week of February. The measuring instruments used included the Slossen Intelligence Test, the "Reading Subtest" of the Metropolitan Achieve— ment Test, the "Recognizing and Blending Common Word Parts" subtest of the Gates-McKillop Reading Diagnostic Tests, and the Gilmore Oral Reading Test. Two elementary education majors, of junior standing, were trained to score and record all measures. Students' performance on the measure of oral reading accuracy was tape recorded. This allowed independent evaluation by three scorers and the opportunity to compute interrater reliability among the scorers using Pearson Product Moment Correlation. The results of all other measures were analyzed using the t-test. A summary of the results is as follows: la) Although both groups improved, at the end of the treatment, there was no significant difference between children in the parent— group and children in the tutor-group on a measure of comprehension while reading silently. lb) At the end of the treatment, there was no significant difference between the gains of children in the parent-group and the gains of children in the tutor-group on a measure of comprehension while reading orally. 1c) The gains for children who participated in the parent-group were significantly higher on the measure of word analysis than the gains of children who participated in the tutor-group. 75 1d) The difference between the gains for the two groups was significant on the measure of oral reading accuracy in favor of children who participated in the parent—group. 2) There was no significant difference between the scores of children in the parent-group and those in the tutor-group on a measure of reading comprehension administered six months after the end of the treatment. 3) Parents who participated with their children showed increased confidence in their ability to help their children as measured by significantly higher scores on the Parent Questionnaire at the end of the treatment than the parents of children who were in the tutor- group. Conclusions and Discussion Given the characteristics of the sample and the limitations of the testing instruments, the following conclusions are drawn from the results of the data analysis. Parents as Tutors: Conclusions and Discussion The results of this study support the proposition that as parents acquire and implement tutoring skills, or at least skills at reinforc- ing school learning, their children's reading achievement is augmented. Parent help is, therefore, a potentially effective alternative to tutor help for providing children with reading support outside the classroom. When the financial dimension is considered, the cost- effectiveness in favor of parent help compared to tutor help makes the parent-help option particularly attractive. 76 ReadingfiAchievement: Conclusions and Discussion It was determined that in this study, children's IQ score was not a factor on pretreatment or posttreatment measures of reading achievement nor on the measures of reading achievement administered six months after the end of the treatment. Parents were more success— ful than the tutor in fostering improvement in children's word analysis ability as measured in this study. Not only did children in the parent—group improve enough to overcome a pretreatment deficit on the measure of word analysis, they also earned significantly higher posttreatment scores than the tutor-group on word analysis. This study was not designed to analyze the experimental treatment to determine which factors contributed to the gains of either group. It is interesting to note, however, that children in the parent-group participated in oral reading activities more frequently (an average of 30% of the activities) than the tutor—group participants (average of 19% of the activities). This may lead to speculation that the higher percentage of oral reading activities could have provided parents more opportunities to extend and refine their children's word analysis skills, thus resulting in significantly better gains. More frequent oral reading might also lead one to suspect it contributed to parent-group participants' higher scores on the measure of oral reading accuracy. However, the correlational data indicate a negative relationship between the number of times children in the parent-group read orally and gains in word analysis and between the number of oral reading activities and gains in oral reading accuracy. A negative relationship also existed between the 77 total time logged by the parent-group in reading-related activities and gains in oral reading accuracy and gains in word analysis, respectively. It is important to remember that the small sample size and the narrow range of scores upon which the results are drawn are very likely contributing factors to the above relationships. As previously mentioned, data analysis confirmed that the IQ of the children was not a contributing factor in these gains. It seems desirable, therefore, to offer possible alternative explanations which may account for the significantly better post- treatment performance on measures of oral reading accuracy and word analysis by the children assigned to the parent group: 1) It is possible that during the treatment time, additional classroom emphasis was focused on word analysis and oral reading skills. The subjects from both groups, however, were fairly evenly distributed among the schools and teachers (Table 0:1) so any additional skill emphasis would, therefore, be available to members of both groups. 2) It is not certain if the subjects in this study performed better because they had had intensive individual instruction and practice or because parent involvement made them feel that reading was important and that they would please their parents by performing well. Although the same reasoning could be applied to participants in the tutor-group, parental satisfaction, praise, and attention may have higher value than tutor satisfaction, praise, and attention. Therefore, the reason for this difference in word analysis and oral reading accuracy may deserve further investigation. 78 Posttreatment reading comprehension scores showed significant improvement for both the parent-group and the tutor-group. These results are consistent with previously cited research which reports gains in comprehension scores after fairly limited treatment time in which intensive, individualized instruction is offered. In this study, the attempt to extend and refine children's comprehension skills was conducted exclusively through discussion and questioning using library books. Therefore, parents have a free, readily avail- able source of potentially effective material to use with their children. Parents' pretreatment responses in this study on the Parent Questionnaire indicated, however, that many parents may not feel they are able to: 1) choose books to fit the needs and interests of their child, 2) judge the quality of a book their child has chosen. Therefore, in order to obtain maximum potential from library materials, parents may require direction in choosing books and helping their child choose books. Four months of instruction and supervised practice outside the classroom regardless of the source was sufficient to produce significant end-of-treatment improvement for all students. The significant gain made on the posttreatment measure of comprehension after silent reading was not maintained when subjects were retested six months after the treatment. There was no significant difference between treatment groups. 79 The concept of extinction from learning theory offers a possible explanation for subjects' failure to maintain posttreatment gains. If the reward -- praise and attention from the parent or tutor -- was no longer consistently available, the child may dis- continue responding in the previously rewarded behavior -- reading. Then too, participants in the tutor-group received no special reading help during the summer nor was there assurance that parents would continue the schedule established during the treatment. Consequently, habits may not have been sufficiently established within the four- month period for the individual from the tutor-group and for the family from the parent—group to continue in the absence of tutor support to survive competition with summer activities. This could be a reflection of the fact that this study involved children at the beginning stages of reading acquisition where considerable attention to reading subskills of decoding is required (LaBerge and Samuels, 1976). Students at this level may, therefore, not have refined these subskills to the point where they occur automatically, allowing students' attention while reading to be directed at organizing meaning when parent or tutor help is not consistently provided. Parent Participation: Conclusions and Discussion During the course of this study, parents were willing to invest considerable time at home working with their children in an attempt to improve their children's reading skills. Eight of 11 parents (73%) who participated fulfilled the request that they spend 15 80 minutes five times weekly with their child on reading-related activities. Parents also demonstrated a willingness to try all of the activities and materials suggested. The data reported in Table 6 show that some types of activities were used with greater frequency than others. It is not known whether this reflects parent preference or children's preference. For example, despite modeling of the technique, discussion of its benefits, and having stimulus booklets and pictures provided, most parents did not require their children to write or dictate original stories on a regular basis (average 3% of the activities). Parents were willing to participate in the sequence of modeling theory employed. After observing the researcher use a technique or material with their child, parents readily tried the technique or materials, in order to discuss the results and receive feedback. Parents in this study displayed diversity in skills and knowledge of techniques and materials to use with their child. Home visitations offered the researcher the opportunity to better meet the needs of the parents as well as the child. After participating with their children in the project, parents were more confident of their own abilities to help their child in reading as evidenced by a significant increase in yes responses to items on the Parent Questionnaire. A child's ability as measured and classified by the Slossen Intelligence Test did not influence parents' responses to the items on the Parent Questionnaire either before or after the treatment. That is, parents of "bright" children displayed no more confidence in their ability 81 to help their child in reading than did parents of "average" children. Information gathered on the parents of children in this study may have had bearing on the results but was not amenable to analysis of the data. During the initial meeting with each child, one of the child's parents was asked to respond to questions on a Parent Data Sheet (Appendix C). A summary of the responses is provided for the two treatment groups. The modal age range was 30-34 for parents of both treatment groups. The average number of children in the family was 2.5 for both groups. The modal age range of children in the family was 8—12 for both groups. Six of 11 mothers (54%) in the parent-group had an occupation outside the home; all respondents were married. Ten of 12 mothers (83%) in the tutor-group worked outside the home; 7 of 12 respondents (58%) were married. The modal education level completed was 4 years post high school for both groups. No respondent from either group had taken coursework dealing with reading within the last year. Four of 11 (36%) of the parent-group and one of 12 (8%) of the tutor—group responded that they had, within the last year, read books or articles about teaching reading. Two respondents from the parent-group and one respondent from the tutor—group had seen films on T.V. programs about reading within the last year. Home Visitations: Conclusions and Discussion The comments presented in this section are drawn from observa— tions the researcher summarized after four months of weekly home 82 visitations in 11 residences. In this study, parents' tutoring skills varied considerably. Home visitations offered the opportunity to approximate and adjust for parents' strengths and weaknesses. The format of the treatment attempted to individualize for parents' skills as well as for children's strengths and weaknesses. The atmosphere in each home was very unique as were the child/parent interaction patterns. It required time and concentration for the researcher to determine what might be an appropriate and effective approach to use and tone 3 to set with each family. It was essential, however, to remain f flexible. Plans for a visitation often needed to be modified depending on the child's mood or distracting home conditions or activities. The children seemed very receptive to the visitation format. Without exception, they were attentive and participated eagerly. In this study, written explanations of techniques often needed further clarification concerning how modifications would apply to a specific child. This raises the question of how effective the commonly reported techniques in parent involvement programs of group lectures or mailed programmed material for home use really are in meeting parents' needs. The modeling of procedures and materials during home visitations demanded a different performance from the researcher than classroom teaching had ever required. The researcher was a guest and was therefore in a position of less authority than the traditional 83 classroom or clinic setting provided. Each meeting offered the opportunity for parents to evaluate the researcher's teaching. Being the "expert, the researcher needed to be able to modify approaches in order to tap the child's ability and be able to offer parents an explanation of why something did or didn't work. The home visitations coupled with regular classroom observations of each child provided the opportunity to establish a complementary and continuous link between schools and families. The researcher was able to explain the classroom reading program, the classroom teacher's approach, and how materials and techniques modeled during the visitations could reinforce school activities. Parents seemed particularly receptive to this information. Limitations Problems and limitations of the research should be noted when generalizing from these conclusions to other populations and when planning replications or future research of a similar nature. The study was conducted with a small sample size, so generalizabil- ity is therefore limited. However, small sample statistics were available to help assure the researcher of acceptable reliability in estimating sampling error before making decisions about the data. The researcher had to consider balancing practical considerations against statistical power and generalizability. A small sample was considered acceptable and appropriate in view of the intensive home visitations and the attempt to coordinate tutoring with classroom activities. 84 The study depended on the voluntary cooperation of the respondent. This factor compromises the interpretation and generalizability of the results. The small number of parents who elected to participate with their child suggests that many parents may not be as motivated to tutor as these were. Even though parents of children in the tutor—group did not participate in the project, there is no assurance of how much time those parents spent on reading-related activities with their children at home. Since it was not possible to control the home reading i activities of tutor-group participants, gains exhibited by tutor- group participants may not be reflective of the treatment alone. However, it is reasonable to assume that the consistent weekly tutor input over the four-month period had considerable effect on the tutor- group performance. There was no assessment of whether the treatments also positively influenced classroom achievement in reading. Since biweekly classroom observation of the subjects was incorporated into the study, there was extensive opportunity for classroom teacher input. Therefore, teacher evaluation of children's achievement due to treatment would very likely have been biased. The Parent Questionnaire used has definite limitations. The limited number of items and the yes/no, forced-choice format created questions concerning the instrument's reliability and validity. 85 Implications The findings of this study suggest implications for parents of children in the beginning stages of reading instruction for school systems and for teacher training institutions. Implications for Parents When an early-elementary student exhibits minor difficulty in reading, there are options for the parents to consider in order to provide help for the child outside the classroom. Parents themselves are a viable source of reading help when they have available informa- tion on techniques, information on the child's strengths, weaknesses, and appropriate materials to use. It is possible, within a busy household schedule, for parents to make time available on a consistent basis to work with their child. It may be necessary for the parent to initiate the extra help and to seek within the school system or within the community a resource person to guide the home-tutoring efforts. The child's classroom teacher should be able to provide initial input. Considering time demand on classroom teacher, how- ever, it may not be reasonable for the parent to expect teachers to provide the type of support that was available to parents in this study. Parents must also remember that most classroom teachers have been trained to work primarily with children. Their expertise in teaching parents to teach and to reinforce learning at home may not be well-developed. Although classroom teachers and principals of schools from which subjects for this study were drawn were en- thusiastic about the concept of training parent tutors, this may 86 not be true of educators from other schools. With these potential barriers in mind, parents who want to tutor their child must be diligent in asking of the school: 1) specific information on the child's reading strengths and weaknesses, 2) specific techniques that could be used at home, 3) specific materials that could be made available for home use. If a parent chooses to tutor his child, a careful assessment of n» how the family would be affected should be made. How does the child feel about parent-teacher discussions that go on about him? In this researcher's opinion, the home visitations by an educator in a supportive role allowed the child and parent teams in the study to relate to home and school as two separate places with complementary but not identical functions. Implications for School Systems The school system seems to be the logical agent to initiate, plan, implement, and evaluate parent-tutoring efforts. School personnel, however, need to avoid the temptation to View parent tutoring as a kind of panacea. There is the additional danger of educators supporting parent tutoring efforts as symbolic placating gestures rather than efforts producing educational profits. Strategies are required to get parents to participate and to sustain their involvement. In this study, the regular home visitations, the modeling of techniques and materials, and the continual contact with the children's classroom teachers nearly eliminated the above mentioned pitfalls. Were a school district to consider the parent support offered in this project, time demands on teachers would need to be 87 altered in order to afford teachers time to meet with parents. School personnel would very likely need to convince others that education dollars should be spent outside the classroom. Implications for Teacher-training Institutions A reasonable question to pose when reflecting on this study is by what means educators acquire the skills necessary for working with parents with diverse backgrounds? Perhaps preparing teachers for parent education and providing models of effective parent involvement would be most productive during teacher training as future educators begin to formulate their professional identity. Rutherford and Edgar (1979) point out, however, that parent—teacher relations are usually not present in the curriculum of most teacher-training programs. Minimally, teacher-training programs need to use established coursework as an avenue to philosophically explore the option of accepting parents as partners in the educational process. Teacher- training institutions might consider offering coursework exploring which skills parents need to develop and how educators can aid this develOpment in order for parents to tutor their children. Coursework could be offered that reviewed educationally productive aspects of parent education programs and parent involvement programs with related field experiences available. Stallworth and Williams (1981) have begun to explore inclusion of these options into teacher training. Suggestions for Future Research Replications of this study could be carried out increasing the sample size and the length of treatment time. 88 Most studies involving parents as tutors of their own children have used preschool or early elementary age subjects. The effective— ness of parent tutoring with older children needs to be explored. Much of the research on parent tutors focuses on the curriculum areas of reading and mathematics. It would be interesting to explore whether home instruction and reinforcement of science concepts, social studies concepts, or writing skills would result in a significant increase in student achievement. As parent tutoring becomes more widely accepted, there is a need to develop standardized instruments to assess the increase in parents' a) knowledge of tutoring techniques, b) knowledge of children's reading skills, and c) ability to tutor. The reasons for the parent-group participants' significantly higher scores in word analysis and oral reading accuracy deserve further attention. If there is a negative correlation between gains in these areas and the time spent in reading and a negative correla- tion between gains and the type of activities in which the parent/ child team engage, what factors account for the gains? REFERENCES REFERENCES Ahr, A. E. Parent Readiness Evaluation of Preschoolers. Skokie, Illinois: Priority Innovations, Inc., 1968. Allen, Amy Roseman, and Nancy Boraks. "Peer Tutoring: Putting it to the Test." The Reading Teacher, December 1978, 32, 274—78. Balow, B. "The Long-term Effect of Remedial Reading Instruction," The Reading Teacher, Vol. 18, 1965, 581-6. Bandura, A. "Analysis of Modeling Processes." In A. Bandura (Ed.), Psychological Modeling: Conflicting Theories. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1971. Bandura, A., and R. H. Walters. Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963. Bandura, A. "Vicarious Processes: A Case of No—trial Learning." In L. Berbowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. II. New York: Academic Press, 1965, pp. 1-55. Bandura, Albert. Principles of Behavior Modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. 1969. Baron, Jonathan. "Orthographic and Word—specific Mechanisms in Children's Reading of Words," Child Development, March 1979, 50, 60-72. Becker, Henry Jay, and Joyce L. Epstein. Parent Involvement: Teacher Practices and Judgements. Baltimore, Maryland: Center for Social Organization of Schools, 1981. Behrmann, Polly. "Help from Home." The Grade Teacher. Vol. 89, January 72, 16-18. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. "A Report on Longitudinal Evaluations of Preschool Programs, Vol. II: Is Early Intervention Effective?" Office of Child Development, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1974. Bower, Gordon H., and E. R. Hilgard. Theories of Learning. Engle— wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, 1981. 89 90 Boulder Valley, Colorado School District. "A Personalized Kinder- garten Program with Supplementary Parent Involvement: Final Report." Sponsored by the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education, June, 1975. Cashden, A., and P. D. Pumfrey. "Some Effects of the Remedial Teaching of Reading," Educational Research, 1969, 11, 138-42. Chilman, Catherine. "Some Angles on Parent-Teacher Learning." Childhood Education. 48, 3 (December, 1971), pp. 119-125. Chittenden, G. E. "An Experimental Study in Measuring and Modifying P Assertive Behavior in Young Children." Monographs of the 4 Society for Research in Child Development, 1942, 7 (1 Serial 2 No. 31). ' Corsini, R. J., M. E. Shaw, and R. R. Blake. Roleplaying in Business and Industry. New York: Free Press, 1961. y DeFranco, Ellen B. "Parent Education as an Aid to Improving Children's Reading." Adult Leadership, Vol. 21 (Ap. 73), 320-3. Della-Piana, Gabriel. "The Influence of Parental Attitudes and Child-Parent Interaction upon Remedial Reading." Utah University, Salt Lake City, 1966, ERIC Document #012689. Douglas, 1. W. The Home and School: A Study_of Ability and Attainment in the Primary School. London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1964. Duncan, Linda J., and B. Van Behren. "Pepper -— A Spicey New Program." The Reading Teacher. Vol. 28, November, 1974, 180-30 Duncan, Patricia H. "Family Education in Reading: A School— Initiated Model." Paper presented at the National Reading Conference (29th, San Antonio, Texas, November 29 - December 1, 1979). Early Reading Assistance: A Reading Tutorial Program. Program for Action by Citizens in Education, Cleveland, Ohio, 1968, ERIC Document #041722. Ekwall, Eldon E. Diagnosis and Remediation of the Disabled Reader. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976. Esworthy, Helen F. "Parents Attend Reading Clinic, Too." The Reading Teacher, Vol. 32(7), April, 1979, 831-3. 91 Flint Public Schools. "School and Home: Focus on Achievement. A Plan to Raise the Achievement Level of Underachieving Elementary Students." Flint, Michigan, 1963. Fredricks, H. D., and V. L. Baldwin, and D. Grove. "A Home-Center Based Parent Training Mode,” in Lille, David, P. L. Trohanis, and K. W. Goin (Eds.), Teaching Parents to Teach: A Guide for Working with the Special Child. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1976. Friedman, R. "Structured Family-oriented Psychotherapy for School Behavior and Learning Disorders." In R. Friedman (Ed.), Family Roots of School Learning and Behavior Disorders. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Co., 1973. Gates, Arthur 1., A. S. McKillop. Gates-McKillgp Reading_Diagnostic Tests. Columbia, New York: Teachers College Press, 1962. Gilmen, B. B. "Intra-family Diffusion of Selected Cognitive Skills as a Function of Educational Stimulation," DARCEE Papers and Reports. Vol. 3, No. 1. Peabody College: Nashville, Tennessee, 1969. Gilmore, John V., E. C. Gilmore. Gilmore Oral Reading Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968. Gordon, Ira J. Parent Involvement in Compensatory Education. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1968. Gordon, Ira, Patricia Olmsted, Robert Rubin, and Joan True. "Continuity between Home and School: Aspects of Parent Involvement in Follow Through." University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1978. Gordon, Ira J. "What Does Research Say about the Effects of Parent Involvement on Schooling?" Paper for the Annual Meeting of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1978. Gordon, Ira. "The Effect of Parent Involvement on Schooling." In Partners: Parents and Schools, Ronald Brandt (Ed.), Alexandria, Va.: ASCD, 1979. Gordon, Ira. "Aspects of Parent Involvement in the Parent Education Follow-through Program." A paper presented for the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, Ca., April, 1979. Gray, Susan W., R. A. Klaus. "The Early Training Program: A Seventh Year." Child Development, 1970, 41, 909—24. 92 Greenfield, Carol Sue. "Stimulating Parent Involvement in Remedial Reading Programs: Strategies and Techniques.” Paper given at International Reading Association. (22nd, Miami Beach, Florida, 1977.) Guthrie, John T., M. Seifert, and L. W. Kline. "Clues from Research on Programs for Poor Readers." In S. J. Samuels (Ed.), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 1978. Harrington, Alma. "Teaching Parents to Help at Home." In C. B. Smith (Ed.), Parents and Reading. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 1971. I; Harris, Albert J., and Edward R. Sipay. Effective Teaching of Reading (Second Edition). New York: David McKay, 1971. a i Hayden, Alice H. "A Center—based Parent Training Model." In ? David Lille 35 31. (Eds.), Teaching_Parents to Teach. New r York: Walker and Co., 1976. Hays, William L. Statistics for the Social Sciences (Second Edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Henderson, Anne (Ed.) Parent Participation —- Student Achievement. The Evidence Grows. Columbia, Maryland: National Committee for Citizens in Education, 1981. Herman, Joan L., and Jennie P. Yen. "Some Effects of Parent Involvement in Schools." Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education, University of California at Los Angeles. Paper for AERA Annual Meeting, Boston, April, 1980. Heron, Timothy E., and S. Axelrod. "Effectiveness of Feedback to Mothers Concerning their Children's Word-recognition Performance." Reading_1mprovement. Vol. 13(2), Summer, 1976, 74~81. Hess, R. D., V. C. Shipman, J. E. Brophy, and R. M. Bear. "The Cognitive Environments of Urban Pre-school Children: Follow- up Phase." Graduate School of Education, University of Chicago, 1969. Karnes, M. "Research and Development Program on Preschool Dis- advantaged Children: Investigations of Classroom and At-home Interventions." Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C. (1969). Kelly, C. A. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Vol. II. Clinical Diagnosis and Psychotherapy. New York: Norton, 1955. 93 Kern, Alexander. "Compensatory Education Literature Review." College of Education, Institute for Educational Finance, University of Florida, March, 1979, ERIC Document #177596. LaBerge, David, and S. J. Samuels. "Toward a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in Reading." In Singer and Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, Second Edition. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 1976. Lane, P., C. Pollack, and N. Sher. "Remotivation of Disruptive Adolescents," Journal of Reading, 15(1972), 351-354. Larrick, Nancy. Parents Guide to Children's Reading. Garden City, New Jersey: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1958. Levenstein, Phyllis. "But Does it Work in Homes Away from Home?" In Theory into Practice. Vol. 1(3), 159-162. Levenstein, Phyllis. "Cognitive Growth in Preschoolers through Verbal Interaction with Mothers." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1970, 40(3), 420—32. Liebert, R. M., J. M. Neale, and E. 8. Davidson. The Early Window: Effects of Television on Children and Youth. New York: Rergamon Press, 1973. Lille, David. "The Parent in Early Childhood Education." Journal of Research and Development in Education. Vol. 8(2), Winter, 1975, 7-13. Lovaas, O. V., L. Freitag, K. Nelson, and C. Whalen. "The Establishment of Imitation and its Use for the Development of Complex Behavior in Schizophrenic Children." Behavior Research and Therapy, 1967, 5, 171-81. Lundeen, Richard. "Modifying Children's Behavior Through Parent Workshops." Journal of Clinical Psychology. Vol. 6(1), Spring, 1977, 36-37. McCarthy, J. L. "Changing Parent Attitudes and Improving Language and Intellectual Abilities of Culturally Disadvantaged 4-Year- 01d Children Through Parent Involvement." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana (1968). McCormick, Sandra. "Should You Read to Your Children." Language Arts, Vol. 54, 1977, 139—143. McKee, Paul, J. E. Brzeinski, and M. L. Harrison. The Effectiveness of Teaching_Reading in Kindergarten. Final Report, Cooperative Research Project 5—0371, U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Denver: Colorado State Department of Education, 1966. 94 Marani, S. D., and J. Tivvis. "A Successful Reading Program for the Disadvantaged." Reading Teacher, 24(1970), 39—41, 1965. Matuszek, Paula. "Review of Research in Parent Involvement in Education, Interim Report: Low Socio-economic Status and Minority Student Achievement Study." Austin Independent School District, Texas, July, 1977. Matheny, Kenneth B., C. L. Anderson, and F. R. Blue. "Development of Effective Behavior in School Through Use of Models." Journal of Psychology, Vol. 99, May, 1978, pp. 75-81. Mercer, C. D., D. Cullinan, D. P. Nallahan, and N. K. LaFleur. "Modeling and Attention in Retention in Learning—disabilities Children." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1975, 8, 444-50. Miles, John, P. J. Foreman, and J. A. Irvine. "A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three Remedial Reading Procedures." Reading . Education, Autumn, 1978, 3, pp. 27-36. V Morsink, C. V. "Teaching Early Elementary Children with Reading Disabilities." The Reading Teacher, 24, 1971, 550-555, 557. Mosteller, P., and P. Moynihan (Eds.). On Equality of Educational Opportunity. New York: Vintage Books, 1972. Mowry, Charles. "Investigation of the Effects of Parent Participa- tion in Headstart. Non—technical Report.” Study done for Midco Educational Associates, Inc., Denver, Colo. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1972. Murray, Beulah B. "Individualized Amelioration of Learning Dis- abilities Through Parent-helper Pupil Involvement." Final Report. Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tenn., April 1972, ERIC Document #068497. N.E.A. A Briefing for Parents: Your Child and Reading. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1963. Niedermeyer, Fred C. "Parents Teach Kindergarten Reading at Home." Elementarnychool Journal. Vol. 70, May, 1970, 438—45. Oakan, R., M. Winer, and W. Cromer. "Identification, Organization and Reading Comprehension for Good and Poor Readers." Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 62, 1971, 71-78. Olmsted, Patricia P. "An Observational Study of Parental Teaching Behaviors and Their Relationship to Child Achievement." North Carolina University, Chapel Hill, School of Education, April, 1979, ERIC Document #168721. 95 O'Neill, A. L. "An Investigation of Parent Tutorial Intervention as a Means of Improving Reading Skills in the Primary Age Child." (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oregon, 1975.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1975. (University Microfilm #76-15,050.) Pearlman, E., and R. Pearlman. "The Effect of Remedial Reading Training in a Private Clinic." Academic Therapy, Vol. 5, 1970, 298—304. Piaget, Jean. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1956. Powell, Frances. "Parents Should Know About Reading Skills." The Reading Teacher. Vol. 23(8), May, 1970, 738—40. Practical Applications of Research. Newsletter of Phi Delta Kappa's Center on Evaluation, Development, and Research. Bloomington, Indiana. Vol. 4, No. 2, December, 1981. Prescott, George A., I. H. Balow, T. P. Hogan, R. C. Farr. Metropplitan Achievement Tests. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1978. Radin, Norma. "The Impact of a Kindergarten Home Counseling Program." Exceptional Children. December, 1969. Radin, Norma. "Three Degrees of Maternal Involvement in a Pre- school Program: Impact on Mothers and Children.” Child Development. December, 1972, pp. 1355—1364. Rich, Dorthy. "The Relationship of the Home Learning Lab Technique to First Grade Student Achievement." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Catholic University of America, 1976. Robinson, Vivian, T. Glynn, S. McNaughton, and M. Quinn. "Parents as Remedial Tutors: A Report on the Work of the Mangere Home and School Project." SET, #2, 1979. Roff, M. "Infra-family Resemblences in Personality Characteristics." Journal of Psychology, 1950, 30, 199—227. Rosenquist, Arthur R. "School and Home Cooperation and the Reading Achievement of First Grade Pupils." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, 1972. Scott Foresman. When Parents Ask About Reading. Chicago: Scott Foresman and Co. Shaver, J. P., and D. Nuhn. "The Effectiveness of Tutoring Under— achievers in Reading and Writing." Journal of Educational Research, 65, 1971, pp. 107—112. 96 Shearer, David E., and M. S. Shearer. "The Portage Project: A Model for Early Childhood Intervention." In T. D. Fjossem (Ed.), Intervention Strategies for High-risk Infants and Young Children. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1976. Sherman, George. "Model of Reading and Learning." Inservice Presentation. Madrid School District, Madrid, Iowa, October 17, 1980. Slossen, Richard L. Slossen Intelligence Test (SIT) for Children and Adults. East Aurora, New York: Slossen Educational Publications, 1961. Smith, Carl B. (Ed.). Parents and Reading. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 1971. Smith, Mildred E., and Carl 1. Brahce. "Focus on Achievement." Educational Leadership. 1970, February, 1963, 314-318. Sobkov, Joan, and Mark Moody. "Memory and Reading: The Effects of Semantic Context on Word Identification." The Journal of General Psychology. April, 1979, 100 (second half), 229-236. Sowers, J., C. Lang, and J. Gowett. Parent Involvement in the Schools: A State of the Art Report. Newton, Ma.: Education Development Center, 1981. Spache, George D., and Evelyn Spache. Reading in the Elementary School, Fourth Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1977. Staats, Arthur W. Child Learning, Intelligence, and Personality. Kalamazoo, Mich: Behaviordelia, Inc., 1971. Stallworth, John T., and D. L. Williams. "Parent Involvement Training for Undergraduate Elementary Teacher Preparation." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educa- tional Research Association. Los Angeles, California, April, 1981, ERIC Document #205473. Starnagle, E. "A Five Year Summary of a Remedial Reading Program." Reading Teacher. 24(1971), 537—542. Strang, Ruth. Reporting to Parents. Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1974. Talmadge, M., A. Davids, and M. W. Laufer. "A Study of Experimental Methods for Teaching Emotionally Disturbed, Brain Damaged, Retarded Readers." Journal of Educational Research. 56(1963), 311—316. 97 Thurston, Linda. "The Experimental Analysis of Parent-tutoring Program to Increase Reading Enjoyment, and Oral Reading and Comprehension Skills of Urban Elementary School Children." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Kansas, 1977. Wartenberg, Herbert. "Parents in the Reading Program." The Reading Teacher. Vol. 23(8), May, 1970, 717—721. Willis, J. W., B. Morris, and J. Crowder. "A Remedial Reading Technique for Disabled Readers that Employs Students as Behavioral Engineers." Psychology in the Schools. 9(1972), 67-70. Willmon, B. "Parent Participation as a Factor in the Effectiveness of Head Start Programs." Journal of Educational Research. 1969, 62, 406—410. Weikart, David P., and Delores Lambie. "Early Enrichment in Infants." In V. H. Denenberg (Ed.), Education of the Infant and Young Child. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Wise, James H. "Parent Participation Reading Clinic -- A Research Demonstration Project, Children's Hospital of the District of Columbia, 1972, ERIC Document #072174. Zemke, Ron. "Behavior Modeling: Using Monkey See, Monkey Do Principle in Training." Training. Vol. 15(6), June, 1978, 21, 23-26. APPENDICES APPENDIX A INTRODUCTORY LETTERS Dear Parent: With the approval of your school administration, I am offering reading assistance to families of second and third graders. The program is designed to help you, the parent, promote better reading skills in your child. The objective is to see how much better a child might read when the parent is involved in the reading instruction. The program is available to students who are not currently receiv- ing additional help in reading. A 20-minute meeting with you and your child will be scheduled weekly if you choose to participate. During that meeting, a technique appropriate for the child (based on previous testing) will be demonstrated. Materials will be left that you can use with the understanding that you will spend five lS—minute sessions on reading with your child during the week. Our weekly meeting can be scheduled evenings or weekends in your home to meet your schedule. I would like to start the program in February and continue through May. The assistance is offered at no cost to you or to the school district. The program is designed to fulfill a research requirement for my Ph.D. degree from Michigan State University's Department of Elementary Education. At the same time, it provides a service to children and their families. Since schools and teachers extend a process begun in the home by the family, I feel that additional knowledge of specific ways in which parents can participate as the child learns to read in school can be helpful. Since 1971, I have been active as a reading teacher in public schools. I have worked as the Reading Diagnostician and supervisor of tutors at the Michigan State University Reading Center. I have taught graduate and undergraduate courses in Reading Methods at Michigan State University and have served as Instructor of Reading Methods in the Department of Elementary Education at Iowa State University. If you feel that you need more information concerning how this program can benefit your child and you, please feel free to contact me. If you would like to participate with your child, please return the enclosed form within the week. Thank you, Donna Merkley 233-3248 98 99 Dear Parent: With the approval of your school administration, I am offering reading assistance to families of second and third grade students. The program is available to students who are not currently receiving additional help in reading. I would like to arrange 50—minute sessions twice weekly outside of school with your child. During the meetings, techniques appropriate for the child will be employed. The objective is to see how the child's reading achievement will compare with children who are tutored at home. The assistance is offered at no cost to you or the school district. The program is designed to fulfill a research requirement for my Ph.D. degree from Michigan State University. Since 1971, I have been active as a reading teacher in public schools. I have worked as the Reading Diagnostician and supervisor of tutors at the Michigan State University Reading Center. I have taught graduate and under- graduate courses in Reading Methods at Michigan State University and have served as Instructor of Reading Methods in the Department of Elementary Education at Iowa State University. If you feel that you need more information concerning how this program can benefit your child, please feel free to contact me. If you would like your child to participate, please return the enclosed form within the week. Thank you, Donna Merkley 233-3248 APPENDIX B RESPONSE FORM Child's name: School: Parent's name: Phone number: Address: The most convenient day and time for us is: Day: Time: I understand the nature of the research project and that participation is voluntary. I understand that all results will be treated confidentially, that the subjects will remain anonymous, and that I can request information on the results. I also understand that no guaranteed benefit is given. Signed: 100 Please put a check mark (V) on the line to the left of the appropriate response. 1. § 24 or under 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45 and § Male Female 3. Among the children in your family, how many are there in each of over at sex are you? APPENDIX C PARENT DATA SHEET at is your age group? the following age groups? Under 5 years of age 5-7 years of age 8—12 years of age 13-15 years of age Over 15 years of age 8th grade 2-year 4-year 6-year 8-year 5. Does the mother have another occupation besides that of housewife? Yes No High school post high post high post high post high school school school school or more 6. Are both parents living in the household? Yes No 101 uu-a 102 Have you attended any courses or workshops recently (within the last year) dealing with children's reading or language develop— ment? Yes No If yes, please specify Have you read recently (within the last year) any books, or magazines or articles about the teaching of reading? Yes No If yes, please specify Have you seen any films or television programs recently (within the last year) about children's reading or language development? Yes No If yes, please specify Please put a check mark (90 in the appropriate box. APPENDIX D PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE Yes No Do you know what conditions at home will encourage your child to read? Do you know what to do if your child makes a mistake when reading aloud? Are you able to motivate your child to read more? Can you determine if your child has understood what she/he read? Do you know what methods and materials are being used in school to teach your child to read? Do you know how to help your child learn to recognize words instantly? 7. Are you able to help your child learn the meanings of words? 8. Can you choose books to fit the needs and interests of your child? 9. Can you judge the quality of a book your child has chosen? 10. Are you able to help your child use the sounds of letters in recognizing words? 11. Can you help your child identify word parts in order to "sound out" words? 12. Are you able to help your child read aloud fluently? 103 If APPENDIX E PARENT LOG OF READING ACTIVITIES 'S mamuoe cam umm Mum 2:. fiGB m3. :o: 8.0 n.m 3 mut.nos Two Q. . 32$;me m a .... m m 2.11 a a a. 2 a CVmawMMMwomm w. m. m. P m 953 .mmeszzEEE: 2.3 a 3m 0 uu. u 1 u. a own: A. . s)u.an.laI. a fie 1 6 meet. a I lllllllllll Inf-Ir- llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 1 ouuURe P 1 91 an P a HPJ. so. 1 a a a 31.9 a P 189 est. a . Wm D. M.» Pm fl P m. .conmom some Houwm :uuoufio moUfiSuom wsfivmou chooou ammo?“ oa assu 3 em. 5 m2.” n. o m. $352.35 .m. HPA a a S T. IHH3 mzom H4 MZOQ mmHPH>HBU< OZHQ