ABSTRACT

THE CONSISTENCY OF MORPHOLOGICAL GENERALIZATIONS
OF DISADVANTAGED FIRST GRADE CHILDREN
' IN LISTENING, SPEAKING AND
READING SITUATIONS

BY

Marilyn Kay Stickle

This study was designed to learn more about the
relationship between the oral language patterns and the
oral reading behavior of disadvantaged first grade children.
The purpose of the study was:

A. To survey the young disadvantaged child's
ability to understand and apply selected morphological
generalizations such as regular and irregular noun plurals
and verb past tenses, third person singular verbs, and
progressive verb forms.

B. To examine the degree to which the child was
consistent in morphological generalizations as he trans-
ferred the generalizations from listening to reading
situations.

C. To discern whether the presence or absence
of graphic inflectional clues would alter the reader's

pattern of morphological generalizations.

Marilyn Kay Stickle

Four tests--The Wug Test, Meaningful Listening
Test, Oral Reading Test I and Oral Reading Test II--were
administered to one hundred disadvantaged children con-
sisting of twenty-five Black boys, twenty—five Black girls,
twenty-five white boys and twenty-five white girls.

These tests measured the ability of the subjects to form
noun plurals, verb past tenses, third person singular
verbs and progressive tenses in listening and reading
situations. The Wug Test, by Jean Berko Gleason, assessed
the underlying system of morphological generalizations
used by such children to generate morphological reSponses.
The Meaningful Listening Test assessed the learned
language productions of the children; the Oral Reading
Test I surveyed the subjects' abilities to read passages
written in standard English language patterns; while

Oral Reading Test II examined their responses while
reading selections which were made nonstandard by omitting
the graphic representation of the morphological changes.
The latter three tests were designed by the investigator
to execute this study.

In order to test the major hypotheses of the study,
mean scores and standard deviations were computed for all
four tests. In order to describe the consistency of
morphological generalizations, plottings were made of the

children's response patterns. Correlation coefficients,

ANOVA, and post hoc tests were also computed.

Marilyn Kay Stickle

Analysis of the data resulted in rejection of the
null hypotheses in all three instances. The results of
the study indicated that young disadvantaged children can
generate gfg noun plurals, ETQ verb past tenses, and pro-
gressive verb forms with greatest regularity. The forma-
tion of esfez_noun plurals, EESTQEQ verb past tenses, and
third personal singular verbs were generated with less
regularity, and irregular noun plurals and verb past
tenses were formed with least regularity. Black children
demonstrated mastery (<75% standard responses) of £75
noun plurals while the white subjects demonstrated mastery
of all the generalizations surveyed with the exception of
third person singular verbs, irregular noun plurals and
irregular verb past tenses.

There was a significant positive correlation
between The Wug Test and each of the other measures, which
indicates that the child's underlying system of morphologi-
cal generalizations has a strong influence on the language
patterns he uses in listening and reading situations. In
addition, it was evident that the children demonstrated
great morphological consistency as they transferred such
generalizations from measure to measure.

In reading situations, it was noted that children
made more standard morphological generalizations when
reading passages written in standard English morphology

than when reading passages written in nonstandard

Marilyn Kay Stickle

mOrphology. In several instances children standardized
the nonstandard patterns without hesitation or comment.

A few children were cognizant of the missing word endings

in the nonstandard passages.

THE CONSISTENCY OF MORPHOLOGICAL GENERALIZATIONS
OF DISADVANTAGED FIRST GRADE CHILDREN
IN LISTENING, SPEAKING AND

READING SITUATIONS

BY

Marilyn Kay Stickle

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Elementary and Special Education

1972

©

Copyright by
MARILYN KAY ST ICKLE
1973

DEDICATION

To my wonderful family whose sincere
interest, enduring faith, gentle
nudges and hidden pride helped to

make this a reality.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A thesis represents not only the efforts of the
writer, but also the efforts of many other people. This
writer sincerely appreciates the time, energy and knowledge
rendered by each person, though singular mention is
impossible.

The writer is particularly grateful for the thought-
ful and competent guidance provided by committee advisor,
Dr. Byron H. Van Roekel. His patience, faith, wisdom,
encouragement, and generous devotion of time were extremely
helpful. special appreciation is extended to other committee
members Dr. Bill Kell, Dr. Jean LePere and Dr. Lee Shulman
who capably and willingly served not only during the
dissertation, but also during the entire doctoral program.
The models provided by members of the doctoral committee
have been a source of inspiration to the writer.

Many others made valuable contributions to the
completion of the study. The writer graciously thanks the
children and staff of the Pontiac Public Schools, Dr. Terry
Schurr and Mrs. John Cauley, Jr.

And to my family who assisted in ways too numerous
to mention, but too important to ever be forgotten, my most
generous thanks.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

LIST OF FIGURES o o o o o o o o o o o o o Vii

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Statement of Purpose . . . . . . . . . 6
Research Hypotheses . . . . '. . . . . 7
Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . 8
Disadvantaged Children . . . . . . . 8
Language Competence . . . . . . . . 8
Language Performance . . . . . . . . 9
Morphological Consistency . . . . . . 9
Morphological Generalizations . . . . . 9
The Importance of the Study . . . . . . 9
Rationale for the Study . . . . . . . 11
Organization of the Remainder of the Study . 14
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 15
Language Basis of Reading . . . . . . . 15
The Importance of Context Clues . . . . . 21
Language Patterns of Disadvantaged Children . 25
Linguistic Errors and Miscues . . . . . . 34
III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Background and Description of the Population . 41
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Data Analysis and Design . . . . . . . 49
Pilot Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

iv

Chapter ' Page

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . 52
The Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
The Results 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 53
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . . 77
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
DiscuSSion O O O I O O O O O O O O 80
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Suggestions for an Integrated Language
Development Program . . . . . . . . 86
Training of Teachers . . . . . . . . 89
Material Selection . . . . . . . . . 89
Implications for Research . . . . . . . 90
BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 93

APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 104

Table

4.7

4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11

4.12

LIST OF TABLES

Breakdown of subjects by School . . . . .
Organization of Task Items and Tests . . .

Summary of Pilot Data to Determine Order
Effects 0 O O O O O O O C O O 0

Standard Responses to Morphological
Generalizations . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance Test of Effects . . .
Scheffe Multiple Comparisons . . . . . .

Percentages of Standard Responses to
Morphological Generalizations . . . . .

Differences Between Percentages of Standard
Responses to Items . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Item Difficulty and Item
Discrimination O O O O O O O O O 0

Items Which Discriminate Between High and Low
Achievers . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Nonstandard Responses . . . .
Consistence of Response Patterns . . . . .
Response Patterns According to Generalizations

Correlations Between Measures for Total
SUbjectS O O O O O O I O I O O 0

Correlations Between Measures for Black
subjects 0 O I O O C O O O O O 0

Correlations Between Measures for White
SUbjeCtS O O O O O O O O O O O O

t-Tests of Differences Between Means . . .

t-Tests of Differences Between Means . . .

vi

Page
43

47

51

54
56

57

60

62

64

66
67
69

71

72

72

73
74

76

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

4.1 Plots of Mean Scores of Subjects . . . . . 55

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Numerous authorities in the area of language acqui—
sition and use have attempted to describe the speech and
language development of English speaking children by
observing the level of language abilities of preschool
children. Braine (1963), Ervin (1964), and Brown and
Bellugi (1964), for example, observed children in their
natural environment, their homes. By recording the utter-
ances of these children from the pre-grammatical period
through the time when they acquired a relatively complete
grammatical competence, these researchers were able to
describe the morphological structures of children's speech.
Braine (1963) concluded that the morphological structure
of children's speech could best be classified as a gener-
ative grammar incorporating two classes of words which
he labeled as pivot and open classes. Brown and Bellugi
(1964) noted that the morphological structure of children's
speech as reported by Braine was a forerunner of an adult
form of grammar. Ervin (1964) also identified two main
form classes of words in the speech patterns of children

which she chose to label operator and Open classes. These

studies imply that the early grammars of children grow
and expand to become the adult grammar of their speech
communities.

Much discussion has been generated around the
question of how a child actually acquires his language.
According to John Carroll (1960), the child is most likely
to learn the detailed sound and meaning patterns of the
language used by his parents. As the child develops
proficiency in using his language, he is required to learn
the distinctive features and the grammatical, phonological
and semological systems of his language. According to
Gleason (1965), it would be complex enough if a sample
of speech had just one structure reflecting a single
system inthe language, but it does not. All speech has
at least two systems-—grammatical and phonological, and
most messages have a third system-—semological or meaning.
By acquiring the syntactical patterns of his language, the
child is not only able to imitate the responses of others,
but he is also able to generalize language patterns and
make some predictions of the words which will follow, based
on the structure and context of the sentence pattern.

Chomsky, Miller, Skinner and other linguists and
psycholinguists have develOped theories which attempted
to describe and explain language behavior in systematic
detail, and the importance of such work has been recognized

by people dealing with the realm of verbal behavior.

Arthur Staats (1968) observed that descriptions of lan-
guage behavior have shown that in any given language
community most peOple in that language community will
follow a common pattern of word selection; they will
not use a wide selection of other words. Whorf (1956)
cited that man's ideas are shaped by the linguistic
system of the language he uses, and that man classifies
observations along lines provided by his language.

Noel (1953) and others stated that by school age
the average child has already learned to speak the vocabu-
lary, sound system and grammar of the language he has
heard in his home and in the neighborhood. The ability
to make generalizations about the speaking system is an
important step in the language develOpment of a child.

The language habits acquired by the school aged child
may assist him in dealing with the verbal areas of the
school curriculum, or they may impede his progress.
Carroll (1960) commented that the educational research
concerning language arts instruction in the primary and
intermediate grades has not given sufficient cognizance
to this problem.

Berko (1958) was one of the first investigators to
attempt to assess the system of underlying rules which the
child has develOped and then uses to invent word or sentence
patterns rather than to assess the language he has learned

through imitation and instruction. She conducted a study
/

to discover what morphological principles were developed
by children eXposed to English in their daily activities.
In order to assess the underlying system of generalizations,
she used nonsense picture materials, commonly called The
Wug Test, to appraise the child's ability to use the
morphological principles of his language. The child was
asked to complete the last sentence in a four sentence
description. The study concluded that by age SiX most
children had mastered the morphological elements of their
language, and that they had generalized their knowledge
in such a way that they could use the information to
generate new nonsense words in accordance with the
morphology and the context of the sentence.

Gleason (1965) stated that written English has
its own grammar, which is not exactly like that of spoken
English, though there are similarities and resemblances.
There are many differences, and one of the most frequently
noticed is the instances of written ambiguities. In speech
the intonational patterns clear up such ambiguities. He
also noted that there are differences in sentence con-
struction between written and spoken forms of English.
He observed that language users may write down what they
hear, but that they may have difficulty transferring the
vocabulary items and the structure signals. On the other

hand, the reader has to reverse that process to read a

selection. This affords some support for Carroll's (1960)
recommendation that new language patterns should be learned
in the spoken language before being presented in written
form--as in reading instruction, and that educators need

to be aware of the gaps which still exist in the child's

verbal response system.

The Problem

 

Numerous writers, including Bereiter and Engleman
(1966), Ponder (1965), Bernstein (1970), John (1963) and
Hittleman (1969), have described the language deficiencies
of disadvantaged children as an important barrier to success
in learning to read. The nature of the language deficiencies}
have been delineated by the above writers, but the specific
characteristics of morphological generalizations used by
disadvantaged children in listening, speaking and reading
is a different question. It is the latter question which
was undertaken in this study, and such information could
provide valuable guidelines for the development of curriculum,
instructional approaches and procedures, and instructional
materials.

If the language of disadvantaged children is a
barrier to success in language arts, questions arise and
additional information seems to be needed. What are the
underlying morphological patterns used by disadvantaged

children? How consistently do disadvantaged children

apply such generalizations in other speaking and reading
situations? Do children alter their generalizations when
the standard morphological pattern is written in a reading
selection or do they maintain their underlying generaliza-
tion and ignore the printed pattern? Are morphological
generalizations used in listening and speaking situations
modified when the children read selections written in a

nonstandard pattern?

Statement of Purpose

 

The purpose of this study was:

A. To survey the young disadvantaged child's
ability to understand and apply selected mor-
phological generalizations such as:

1. Regular and irregular noun plurals

2. Regular and irregular verb past tenses
3. Third person singular verbs

4. Progressive verb form.

B. To examine the degree to which the child was
consistent in morphological generalizations as
he transferred the generalizations from listening
to reading situations.

.C. To discern whether the presence or absence of
the graphic inflectional clues would alter the

reader's pattern of performance.

This study differs from other studies in the following
dimension. A measure of the disadvantaged child‘s underlying
rules about his language (language competence) was included
in the design, along with measures of his language perform-

ance in meaningful listening and reading situations.

Research Hypotheses

 

In an attempt to ascertain the effects of a child's
morphological generalizations on his performance in listen-

ing and reading situations, it was hypothesized that:

H1: There will be a significantly positive correla-
tion (.01 level) between the subjects' under-
standing of English morphology as determined by
The Wug Test and their ability to make standard
English responses as demonstrated on each of
the following:

a. Meaningful Listening Test
b. Oral Reading I Test
c. Oral Reading II Test

H2: The presence of the graphic representation of
standard English morphology in the Oral Reading
Test I will prompt the subjects to produce a
significantly greater number (.01 level) of
standard responses on Oral Reading Test I than
on The Wug Test.

H3: The absence of the graphic representation of
the standard English morphology in the Oral
Reading Test II will prompt subjects to produce
a significantly greater number (.01 level) of
nonstandard responses to Oral Reading Test II
than to Oral Reading Test I.

Assumptions

 

l. The Wug Test developed by Jean Berko provides

a measure of the child's underlying system of

generalizations about the morphology of his
language (language competence).

2. The seventeen items included in the tests were
selected to form a representative sample of
the common morphological generalizations
observed in children's language and reading.

3. The 100 randomly selected subjects consisting
of 25 Black boys, 25 Black girls, 25 white
boys and 25 white girls represent a random
sample of disadvantaged children, and thus

provide a basis for generalization.

Definition of Terms

 

Disadvantaged Children

 

The current literature is replete with synonyms for
the term "disadvantaged children," but the basic construct
lacks a concise definition. However, in this study the
term is used to identify children from lower class homes
where the family income is less than $3,000 set by the

Office of Economic Opportunity.

Language Competence

 

Language competence has been defined by Chomsky
(1965) as the speaker-hearer's knowledge of his language.
In this discussion, however, language competence refers

to the underlying-rule system which each speaker appears

to develop in order to generate new words or responses
which have neither been taught nor learned through imita-

tion.

Language Performance

 

Language performance is the actual use of language
in concrete situations (Chomsky (1965). In this discussion

it refers to learned language productions.

Morphological Consistency

 

In this study morphological consistency refers to
the pattern of consistency with which the subjects transfer
their morphological generalizations from listening to

reading situations.

Morphological Generalizations

 

The phrase, morphological generalizations, refers
to the system of responses the child uses to deal with
the patterns of word formation in his language. It
includes the inflectional endings needed to form regular
and irregular noun plurals, regular and irregular verb
past tenses, third person singular verbs and the progres-

sive tense items used in this study.

The Importance of the Study

 

If the level of language performance appears to
be a controlling factor in the reader's ability to use

context clues effectively, what happens to the disadvantaged

10

child whose language patterns and morphological generaliza-
tions differ from those of the author? Each year many such
children who speak non-standard English are referred to
reading clinics for remediation because they "ignore word
endings." Teachers of such children frequently employ
techniques and devices to assist those who display such
behavior in reading. Usually this instruction brings about
no marked change in reading habits, perhaps reflecting the
fact that such instruction fails to take into account the
vital role played by a child's own language habits. A
cursory examination of children who omitted word endings
(when reading prompted this investigator to note that such
children tended to omit inflectional suffixes in speaking
- and writing situations, too. The reader's behavior sug-
gested that such responses to printed matter are not
simply weaknesses in visual discrimination or structural
analysis, but rather a miscue from responding to the
context of the written passage in his own non-standard
language.

If the child's own language patterns provide the
background and stimulus value for using context clues,
any discrepancies in morphological generalizations could
cause inaccuracy in word identification. This realization
led to the following alternatives: does the presence of

the printed word prompt the child to overrule his usual

11

language pattern and pronounce the word printed in the
passage, or does the child overrule the graphic symbol
and pronounce the word in a manner which is compatible

with his own language pattern?

Rationale for the Study

 

Many authorities in the area of reading instruction
believe that the child's ability to understand and use the
syntax and morphology of his language influences his ability
to think with the author, and, as a result, to predict the
occurrence of some words in a given sentence based on the
sequence of words in the sentence pattern. The ability
to predict word sequence or identify unknown words in
print from the structure and syntax of the sentence is
identified as the ability to use context clues. In
addition, the ability to predict what word will be used,
based on the context of the sentence, is one of the word
recognition skills utilized in most beginning reading
programs and procedures. Since the stimulus for predic-
tion of a word from the context of the sentence, whether
the setting is in reading or listening, is based on the
language pattern of the reader, it would seem that the
ability to generate accurate predictions from context
would be somewhat dependent upon the reader's ability
to match the sentence and morphological patterns of the

author.

12

Success in any communicative process, including
reading, depends to a great degree on the language facility
of the two parties involved, the speaker-writer and the
listener-reader, and according to Smith, Goodman and
Meredith (1970) close agreement on language between the
two parties is important. As a child learns to read, he
may experience conflicts between his speech and that of
the book he is reading. While most people, including
children, learn to understand a wide range of dialects
which differ from their own, they seem most comfortable
and fluent when constructing spoken and written patterns
which are consistent with their own dialect. Hence,
Smith, Goodman and Meredith (1970) explain there is a
tendency on the part of the reader to translate the text
language into his own dialect. This translation is not
error, pure and simple; the child is making a language
leap. Sometimes he is trying to regularize an irregular
pattern.

Carroll (1964) criticized reading researchers for
their failure to incorporate linguistic findings into the
procedures which they had chosen to examine in research.
He noted that much research has proved to be of little
use because the teaching procedures examined were not
thoroughly sound. The literature contains many conflicting

ideas which, in part, may be due to the criticism leveled

13

by Carroll. Studies by Bordeaux (1966); Cooper (1964);
Harris and Serwer (1966); Harris, Serwer and Gold (1967);
and Hughes (1966), indicate that there are no significant
differences in achievement between various instructional
approaches, but none of the approaches was built on a
diagnostic or developmental language foundation.

It is the intent of this study to describe the
morphological principles used by the disadvantaged child
in various listening and reading situations in order to
gain linguistic information needed to design experimental
instruction programs which could assist the child in
overcoming the hurdles he faces in the language arts
program. Bloom (1964) stated that any given character-
istic has its greatest potential for change during the
period of its most rapid growth. Hence, since the period
of rapid language growth is in the young child, it is
important to seek ways to promote the growth of functional
language patterns in the pre-school and primary grade child.

When one considers the relationship between
speaking and reading, it seems clear that the young child
needs to have access to standard English in order to have
a prognosis of successful learning in his future experi-
ences with standard English. It is hoped that the infor-
mation gained in this study may shed some light on the

developmental status of the language patterns of the

14

young disadvantaged child as such status relates to

reading.

Organization of the Remainder
of the Study»

 

 

The remainder of the study includes a survey of
the related literature which is reviewed in Chapter II.
Chapter III contains a description of the research methods
and procedures. An analysis of the data and the results
of the study is reported in Chapter IV, and Chapter V
contains a summary of the findings, selected conclusions

and recommendations for additional study.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The literature related to this study pertains to
the language basis of reading, the importance of context

clues to the beginning reader, the language patterns of

the disadvantaged child, and linguistic errors and miscues.

Language Basis of Reading

 

Much of the literature dealing with the language
arts attempts to describe, define, and depict in theoretical
models the relationship which exists between reading,
speaking and thinking. Several writers have defined reading
as an active thinking process of reconstructing meaning
from language represented by graphic symbols (letters),
just as listening is the active process of reconstructing
meaning from the sound symbols (phonemes) of oral language.
In order to understand the entire process of reading, it
is necessary to understand the devices within language
that convey meaning and to comprehend the ways readers
decode, interpret and react to the graphic representation
of such devices.

Writers frequently describe language as an elaborate

system of codes used to transmit meaning from the sender to

15

16

the receiver, and listening as a complex process of decoding.
If writing may be viewed as a graphic representation of this
elaborate system of codes, then, reading, by the same token,
can be viewed as an equally complex process of decoding.
Though the importance of the phonemic clues within words

has often been underestimated or even negated by writers,
Fries (1963) reminds his readers that no language is
unphonetic. He emphasized the phonemic basis of alpha-
betic writing and urges respect for the teaching of its
phonemic base. Chomsky (1964) believes that there is a
deeper phonological explanation for the relations between
the sounds and spelling of English than is usually estimated
by a glance at phoneme-grapheme correspondences. He
observed that English spelling often gives the reader
considerable syntactic and semantic information (e.g.
"silent g" in sign makes sense when the word signal
isyconsidered).

In the realm of language arts, speaking and writing
are the eXpressive aspects, while listening and reading are
viewed as receptive aspects. Within this framework it is
easy to understand why reading has often been defined as
"talk written down" (Chall, 1970; Applegate, 1964; Hester,
1964; and others). Yet while the printed message does
bear the thoughts and intents of the writer, the written

language is not always the exact oral language written

17

down (Robinson 1971). Ives (1969) states that contrary
to popular belief, writing is not necessarily recorded
speech or "written down talk," although at times it may
be exactly that. He believes that neither speech nor

writing is the language; rather both of them are expressions

 

of the language.

Gleason (1965) states that every functioning
language has three systems (phonological, semological,
grammatical), but in a language such as English, there
is, in addition, a writing (graphemic) system. Written
English has its own grammar which is not exactly like that
of its Spoken counterpart. There are many differences,
though in broad outlines and many details the resemblance
between the two is very close. Perhaps the most frequently
noticed differences are the ambiguities which may occur in
written English but do not occur in spoken English. In
written passages there is no way of eliminating such
ambiguities without drastic reorganization of the sentence.
On the other hand, intonation signals give a clear indication
of the intended message in spoken English. In many ways
the writing (graphic) system of written English is the
correspondent function of the sound (phonological) system
in spoken English. With this relationship in mind, then,
it is understandable to view the written passage as a

graphic representation of a thought sequence or a spoken

18

communique. And it is upon the similarities, rather than
the differences, between the spoken and written systems
which beginning reading instruction procedures have placed
much emphasis.

Ives (1969) believes that children automatically
learn the linguistic forms of their language as they learn
to speak. Gradually, they begin to notice certain "regu-
larities" within the grammatical system and the vocabulary
of the language of their environment. They start to make
generalizations about such things as kinds of sentences,
order of words, formation of plurals, parameters of sounds
used in their speech community, inflections, etc. Soon
they are in command of a whole stockpile of linguistic
forms which they can express through their speech. Research
in language development has confirmed the findings of Ives
and has elaborated his ideas by noting that even the early
oral language efforts of the young child demonstrate a
marked structural resemblance to the grammars used by the
adults around him. The question of how the child gained
such language abilities naturally arises. Brown and
Bellugi (1964) demonstrated the role of imitation and
induction, while Berko graphically illustrated the child's
ability to make generalizations and construct new sentences

within the patterns of his language.

S‘.’

-L

bl.

I):

19

By the time a child enters school, then, he

usually possesses a firm grasp of the grammatical and

syntactical structures of his oral language. For him,

learning to read and write is a process of associating

graphic forms with the linguistic forms he already knows,

thereby extending his language competence. At the same

time, not all children have made identical progress

toward mastery of their language patterns. Such differ-

ences are, in part, due to the language patterns of the

home and community, and to the language opportunities

afforded the young speaker. Therefore, language growth

among children acquires a highly individualized pattern

of development.
Numerous investigators have classified problems

aussociated with language development as a major contributor

t<> the deficit in school achievement observed in disad-

‘VEtntaged children (Deutch, 1965; Filmer and Kahn, 1967;

allti John, 1964). A significant relationship between the

‘15363 of "movables" and elements of subordination in oral
1al‘iguage and oral reading interpretation was revealed in

a £31:udy conducted by Strickland (1962) of children's oral

letrlguage development and reading achievement at the sixth

91TEi<3eelevel. She found that children who scored high on

mea.sures of comprehension were found to make greater use

of movables and elements of subordination in their oral

lajilsgilage than did children who ranked low on measures

2 0

of those variables. In building a theoretical model for

the relationship between the child's oral language behavior
and his learning to read or decode print, Anastasiow (1971)
judiciously explained that oral language is important only
in that it may reflect cognitive and perceptual mastery

of language, but it is an insufficient and inaccurate
predictor for many children of their capacity to learn

to read.

Research conducted by Hess and.Shipman (1965) at
the Urban Child Center of The University of Chicago on the
relationship between maternal language style and children's
cognitive level revealed a significant relationship between
the level of abstraction of a mother's speech and the
CNDgnitive style level achieved by her child-szf a mother
ennployed an elaborate language style, her child was likely
t1) employ a high level of cognitive style. Miller (1967)
discovered that maternal language as measured by a scale

C>f7 syntactic elaboration was related to reading readiness,
éilici that maternal language as evaluated by the scale of
Ineaiin sentence length, adverb range and syntactic structure
elaboration was related to first grade reading achievement.
PeeJC'haps the generally more elaborate style of the maternal
liaurlgguage provided the child with opportunities to hear and
respond to expanded language patterns which, in turn,
Yielded greater familiarity and compatibility for him

be tween the language patterns used in reading materials

21

and those used at home. As a result, the child may have
learned he could employ his own language pattern as a

valuable reference when dealing with "book language."

The Importance of Context Clues

 

As the young child learns to read, he needs to
develop effective ways of decoding printed language. In
the research summarized by Chall (1967) and others, it
was suggested that reading programs which utilize a "code-
emphasis" were superior to programs which utilized a whole
word approach as the basis for beginning reading instruc-
tion. Context clues is one of the word attack skills
and is often the first decoding skill used by children.
Context clues can be arranged in a complicated taxonomy,

knat the "automatic--what would make sense" type of response,
is; usually learned quickly. As a result the child has a
VEiluable decoding skill at his fingertips the moment he
13€Bgins to read. Due to the complexity of using phoneme
't<> «grapheme correspondences and structural analysis skills,
SI3<:h.skills require careful and sequential instruction.
Ilj- 'turn, the applicability of such skills is often delayed
ar1<3. far less spontaneous. Thus, context clues seem to
be Come a staunch ally to the child who is learning to read,
and a continuing companion as the child is taught addi-

ti‘ Onal nuances of such clues.

22

The nature and scope Of context clues show greater
resemblance to structural analysis clues than to phoneme
to grapheme correspondences. Letter-sound correspondences
help the child associate the sounds and symbols of his
language, but do not aid in establishing understanding
or meaning as do context and structural clues. This
is an important contrast between phonics and context
clues.

Hildreth (1958)stated that the use of context
cilues has its roots in linguistics, and, when fully under-

stxaod by the reader, can provide a wealth of valuable
iruformation. Emans (1969) explained that context clues

seem to fall within one of the following classifications:

1. meaning bearing
2. language bearing
3. organization bearing

He further described at least four major uses of context

Cers in word recognition:

1" To help children recall words identified earlier
and forgotten.

2. To act as a check on the accuracy of words
tentatively identified by other methods.

13. To aid the child in rapid recognition of words
by anticipating what a word might be. It is a
faster technique than other word recognition

aids such as phonics.

4%. To help the child select the correct identifi-
cation of some words (e.g. permit, record).

23

Many writers, including Artley (1943) and McCullough
(1943, 1945, 1958), have identified two categories of

context clues: the (l) format or typographical aids

which include parenthetical explanations, definitions
and semantic variations given within the passage, and
(2) syntactical and structural clues which include
contrasts, linked synonyms, direct descriptions, word
relationships, sentence patterns and other stimuli.

The value of context clues has been corroborated

15y various authorities. Carter and McGinnis (1962) stated

tiiat context clues provided one of the most important aids
tc> word identification and interpretation. Cordts (1962)

ccnnmented that it would be difficult to overestimate the
verlue of context in children's perception in reading,

and Gray (1960) noted that contextual clues are perhaps
The

tile: most important single aid to word perception.
Person who has not developed skill in the use of verbal

Context has not become a mature reader, according to

Tinker (1965) .
Dulin (1970) believed that the assistance provided

by syntactical and structural context clues are often
underestimated and underused because the child has not

re Ce ived the direct instruction needed to tap the resource
vw ~ . . . . . .
hlch lies Within him. The reader learns to think With

t.
I163 vvriter and to foresee his ideas. Through the use of

24

what Bond and Tinker (1967) call expectancy clues, a child

anticipates the occurrences of certain words within the

context of the passage. For the more experienced reader,

the anticipation is enhanced by patterns of previously

read selections and his own language patterns. Since

the beginning reader cannot rely on his previous reading

experiences, great dependence is placed on his own language

(Dulin 1969). Since the children already use spoken

context as a clue to a familiar missing word, it seemed
reasonable to McKee (1966) to make use of printed context
as an important part of the reading technique.

According to Bond and Tinker (1967), it is important
to know that many children who are thought to be in dif-
ficulty in reading because of limited skill in analytic

techniques or because of insufficient knowledge in phonics,

visual or structural elements are usually in difficulty

because they do not use context clues well. Dulin (1970)

Observed that more mature readers are able to use context
Clues assisted by phonic and structural analysis clues.
Such a combination of decoding skills provides the reader

with greater flexibility and accuracy.

Though all readers use general context clues in a

s . . . . . .
Omewhat automatic way, direct instruction is needed in

or O I O I I 9 D |
(3‘31? to maXimize its value. This realization is particu-

1
ar 1y pertinent for disadvantaged children who have non-

St:
andard language patterns. Dulin (1970) stressed that

25

language must be reinforced if context clues are going
to be used as a technique for word identification. And
Goodman (1970) explained that the proficient reader goes
directly from print to meaning in the same manner as he

goes from speech to meaning as a listener.

 

 

 

DECODING * meaning

 

 

graphic
code

 

 

 

On the other hand, the linguistically different child may

be recoding graphic code (print) as oral code (speech)

without decoding for meaning.

 

 

oral DECODING y meaning
code

 

graphic RECODING ’

 

 

 

As a result, the child appears to be a poor and ineffective

reader. The recoding process is not only laborious and time

Consuming, but also it may decrease enjoyment as well as

comprehension. Other linguistically different children may

experience frustration because their language patterns

differ from those of the author. The words "anticipated"

from their language patterns are not present in the passage,

and they must make modifications.

Language Patterns of Disadvantaged
Children

There appears to be consensus that the language

pa tterns of disadvantaged children differ from the language

26

patterns of non—disadvantaged children, but there is much

debate concerning the nature, extent and cause of the

differences. From research completed at the Institute for

Developmental Studies, Deutsch (1962) postulated that the

lower class home was not a verbally oriented environment.

Observers reported that speech sequences appeared to be

temporally very limited and poorly constructed. As a

result, a major focus of deficit in the language develop-

Inent of the disadvantaged children lies in syntactical

clrganization and subject continuity.
Bereiter and Engleman (1966) succinctly pointed

cnit that disadvantaged children who have been stunted in
Llaaiguage growth enter school inadequately prepared to

(Lesil with the variety of sentence patterns they will

hzavwe to face. Their deficiencies involve not merely

VNDCLabulary and grammar, but also a failure to master

Cxer“tain uses of the language. While some educators and

psychologists assert that primary causes of poor reading
am<Dl'ig'disadvantaged Negro children are due to severely
limited oral speaking vocabularies, some linguists believe
tjléit: a vitally important factor is that their speech

patterns are different (Baratz, 1969a and 1969b; Shuy,

Fasold (1960) believed that since we are dealing

w ‘ .
'lstlj- two dialects of the same language, it seems likely

27

that the differences found will be relatively small ones.
This does not mean they are of minor consequences, however.

Some of the differences occur at the deepest level of

language, that of the message. He suggested that there

are some messages possible in Black English which are

not possible in standard English and vice versa. Loflin

(1967) stated that the similarities between the grammar

of nonstandard Negro English and standard English are

superficial, and that a fuller description would probably

ineveal a grammatical system which must be treated as a

ftxreign language. The general work of Labov and Cohen

(1i967) indicated further exploration of Black English.
Thuey suggested that the differences between the Negro

ciiealect and standard English are greater on the surface

'thiin in the underlying grammatical structure. They also

IKEEMDrted that many Negro speakers of nonstandard dialect

Efilcnv evidence of having the perception and comprehension

(Dfr knoth standard and nonstandard patterns. However, in

production, they form all utterances in the nonstandard

(iiéilxact. This behavior suggests that there is under-

standing of both language patterns, but generation of

responses is usually effected through the nonstandard

pattern which may be an automatic language level.

In another investigation, Labov (1964) observed

t
kléit: working and lower class informants utilized a much

28

higher degree of nonstandard language forms than did the
lower middle class groups. In contrast, the lower middle
class demonstrated greater insecurity about the adequacy
of their own language habits, and greater awareness of
outside language standards. Labov also noted a gradual
increase, with age, in the percentages of cases in which
the young peOple followed the predominating language
pattern of the adult community. The investigation
identified six stages in the acquisition of the full
range of spoken English including the basic grammar,
the vernacular, social perceptions, stylistic variation,
consistent standard and full range. Such a pattern of
language acquisition and behavior may suggest the develop-
mental nature of Negro spoken language from nonstandard
to standard in a scheme which, in many ways, replicates
the initial language acquisition of the young child.
Differences between standard and nonstandard
English dialects include differences in sound system,
vocabulary, morphology and syntax. Labov's (1967) exten-
sive analysis of Negro speech indicated that there were
large scale phonological differences among Negro speakers
Of nonstandard English that coincide with important
grammatical disparities. The result is a large number
(If homonyms in the speech of Negro children which are
‘diJfferent from those in the Speech of their teachers.

Some of these are:

29

l. "L" lessness
(e.g. tool = too; help = hep; all = awe)

2. Simplication of consonant clusters at the end
of words.

(e.g. passed = pass; mend = men; hold = hole)

3. Other phonological variables, such as distinction
between short i and short 3 before nasals.

(e.g. pin = pen; tin = ten; since = cents)

. - - _.....:

Morphological differences were identified, too.
Putnam and O'Hern (1955) reported that first and second
person singular and first, second and third person plural
forms regularly took the suffix s inflection while third
person singular form was uninflected. Wolfram's (1969)
research, however, yielded observations which conflicted
with those of Putnam and O'Hern. He noted that the
standard English suffix represented by -g has several
grammatical functions including those of third person
singular, present tense (concord), possessive marker and
plural marker. In Negro nonstandard English this suffix
Often was absent. The presence of the suffix, then,
appeared to be a mark of social stratification which was
absent in the working class, but usually present in Negro
upper middle and lower middle classes. Steward (1966)
explained that -z plural absence is optional for non-
srtandard Negro speakers of English only when the noun

ccr-occurs with a quantifier which is inherently plural;

30

otherwise, it is usually absent. Wolfram (1969) found
that the -z suffix was observed in 10.8 per cent of the
situations when it co-occurred with numerical quantifiers,
but only 6.2 per cent in the presence of non-numerical
quantifiers.

Later Labov (1966) became concerned with the
mechanics of linguistic change in which the dynamics of
social interaction appear to play an important part.
Noting that there were three stages in this change, he
labeled them origin of a change, propagation of a change
and completion of a change. Labov's studies of linguistic
change identified two social forces exerting presure upon
the language. These forces were labeled "pressure from
below" (below the level of conscious awareness) and
"pressures from above" (overt process of social correction
applied to linguistic form).

Labov also described the phenomenon of hypercorrec-
tion which is the tendency of lower middle class speakers
(especially females) to go beyond the highest status group
in their tendency to use the linguistic forms considered
correct and appropriate for formal style. In addition,
the lower middle class exhibited the greatest hypersensi-
tivity to stigmetized features (e.g. "duh" for Egg) in

thfa Speech of others, and they tended to hold inaccurate
Perceptions of their own speech patterns. And while lower

1middle class informants tended to adopt changes faster

31

than lower class members, the slowest rate of change was
in the upper class. Cases of hypercorrection on non-
third person singular forms were reported by Wolfram
(1969). Thus, he arrived at the following principle
based on his research of the Detroit Negro Dialect:
On the basis of the different frequencies with
which hypercorrection is found for various types
of grammatical forms, an important principle about
the nature of hypercorrection can be suggested.
There is a hierarchy of hypercorrections which
relates to the frequency of —§. The number of
instances of a particular type of hypercorrection
is inversely proportional to the degree of its

deviation from correct standard English usage.
(1966:139)

Ponder (1965) described the similarity of language
habits of disadvantaged Black and white children coming
from the same area. He observed that usage, pronunciation,
verb forms and sentence sense were common problems for
both groups. Such irregularities do not, for the most
part, approximate the standard patterns expected at school.
Various descriptions of the speech patterns of disad-
vantaged children have been developed. Osborn listed
the following language traits of the disadvantaged four

year old:

1. He omits articles, prepositions, conjunctions
and Short verbs from statements.

2. He does not understand the function of not in
a sentence.

3. He cannot produce plural statements correctly,

and he cannot produce actions implied by plural
statements.

32

4. He cannot use simple tenses to describe present,
past and future action.

5. He is able to use he and she for male and female
figures, but cannot use tfie pronoun lg to refer
to inanimate objects.

6. He does not understand many of the common
prepositions and conjunctions, such as between

and or.

7. He can often perform directions but is unable
to describe what he has done.

8. He does not realize that two or more words can
describe one object.

Bernstein (1970) and John (1963) found that the
restricted language patterns among working class youth
were characterized by: Short grammatically simple, often
unfinished sentences with poor syntactical form; simple
and repetitive use of conjunctions; little utilization
of subordinate clauses; rigid and limited employment of
adjectives and adverbs, and infrequent use of personal
pronouns. In contrast, middle class language was more
complex and accurate in syntax and exhibited greater
frequency and range in the use of various parts of speech.
A description of the language of disadvantaged children
in Milwaukee (1961) indicated lack of verbal patterns
for common objects and ideas, speech patterns which caused
frequent misunderstandings in oral communication, and
IMide use of nonstandard patterns. Raph (1965) delineated

Hkaagerness of quality and quantity of verbal expressions,

33

slower rate and lower levels of articulatory maturity as
distinctive features of disadvantaged children's Speech.

Gordon's (1965) summary of research resulted in
these language characteristics of disadvantaged children:
weaknesses in auditory and visual discrimination, limited
vocabulary range with much communication through gestures
and other non-verbal means due to restricted language
usage, limited number of grammatical forms used, lack of
familiarity with speech utilized by teachers, deficiencies
in cognitive develOpment, especially in abstract concepts
and ability to generalize, lower I.Q. scores including
decreases after age five, and depression of intellectual
functioning.

Hittleman (1969) observed that disadvantaged
children treat sentences as giant words which cannot be
separated or recombined to form new sentences. Their
language appears to be inflexible, and it does not take
into account the full range of grammar and syntax. This
rigidity may account for the difficulty such children
have learning new vocabulary and new structures. In
essence, the disadvantaged child seems to learn a particu-
lar pattern for a particular situation. Such a character-
iStic may infer that a child has failed to master the use
Of srtructural words and inflectional endings which are

neceSsary for expressing and manipulating logical rela-

ti on Ships .

34

Observations cited in this section provide con-
siderable evidence to indicate that the language patterns
of the disadvantaged child exhibit many inconsistencies
and nonstandard patterns which could cause considerable
interference as the child learns to read. Frazier (1964)
argued that lingually different ‘hlldren possess a great
deal of language, but that it is language divergent from
that of the schools. He suggested that we need to under-
stand and learn the language of the disadvantaged child
if we are to "take him.where he is." McCarthy (1954)
summarized the research relating to language development
of disadvantaged children, and found that there was con-
siderable evidence in the literature to indicate that
there exists a marked relationship between socio-economic
status of the family and the child's linguistic develop-
ment. The opportunities for language development are
stretched on a continuum, and the economic "have nots"

are often the verbal "have nots" as well.

Linguistic Errors and Miscues
In the past, research in oral reading errors has
been marked by an interest in words as visual displays,
but this approach has neglected to consider the written

Worxi as a linguistic unit represented graphically. Weber

(19637) concluded that the fact that the reader's knowledge

0f? tile grammatical structure of his language comes into

[A

. L A_a _..__4.‘.‘..A .fl-urm_ ~

35

play during reading hardly enters into any discussion of
reading errors. This conclusion is somewhat surprising
because most reading programs since the 1920's have placed
much value on context as a clue to word recognition.
Recently, researchers have begun to examine and classify

the errors children make during oral reading, perhaps

an important step toward developing more adequate approaches
to reading instruction.

Goodman (1965), one of the research pioneers in
the area of linguistic errors and miscues, defined reading
as a psycholinguistic process. Linguistic scientists
furthered his cause by identifying the cue systems within
the language. By the time a child learns to read, he has
already internalized the cue systems to the point that he
responds to them without being consciously aware of the
process. Goodman (1965a) stressed the important difference
between understanding oral language which uses sounds as
symbol units and understanding written language which
depends on graphic symbols. In a study of one hundred
children in first, second and third grades, Goodman (1965b)
observed that first graders were able to identify in
Context 75 per cent of the words missed on isolated word
lists. They never missed a word in context which was
knCfiNn in isolation, but they did make incorrect sub-

Stifitutions while reading the story orally. While

36

regressions were common in young readers, every regression
Observed during this study was made to correct a previous
error. Goodman went on to conclude that many so called
errors were actually miscues caused by differences between
the child's own language and that of the book. As a
result, the child was experiencing interference rather
than assistance from his own language.

In order to observe miscues in reading, Burke and
Goodman (1970) asked children to read orally basal text
stories they had never read. The number of miscues
tabulated during oral reading did not have a linear
relationship to the child's ability to achieve fair
comprehension of the story. Miscues involved nouns,
verbs, adjectives, adverbs, function and indeterminate
words. The children's oral reading evidenced use of
letter-sound correspondences, but self-corrections were
made only when the meaning or syntax was disturbed.
Even though syntactic and semantic acceptability of
the reading declined sharply, intonation remained
acceptable. Numerous dialect miscues were observed, but
only in isolated cases did the child correct such an
error. However, dialect miscues did not usually cause
the meaning of the passage to change.

Weber's (1970) linguistic analysis of the reading

errors of first grade children found that children usually

 

37

made responses which conformed to the constraints of the
preceding grammatical context. While better readers
excelled weaker readers in her study, both groups brought
their knowledge of linguistic structure to bear on the
word identification. She concluded that children trans-
ferred their capacity for handling spoken language to

the reading task with apparent ease.

Yetta Goodman's (1970) investigation of reading
miscues supported the findings of Weber. She, too, found
that children made frequent substitutions, and were able
to correct 75 per cent of their errors. Less proficient
readers tended to produce miscues which were responses
to the graphic field or to a habit strength association
which had been developed. The more proficient readers
made more complex miscues involving integration of the
meaning, grammatical and sound systems of the language
with the graphic input, and their experiences and back-
grounds.

In another study Biemiller (1968) found that the
fairly regular progression in the types of word attack
errors made by children from the beginning to the end
of first grade could be divided into three rather distinct
phases: substitutions, non-responses and greater flexi-
bility in word identification strategies. An analysis of
the errors suggested that the beginning reader may rely

heavily upon context clues during the first phase of

38

learning to read. Then, due to previous inaccuracies,

he may become hesitant to depend on his "educated guesses"
to supply the unknown word; thus, he makes no response at
all during the second phase. As his reading Skills advance,
he is able to move to the third stage characterized by
flexible strategies.

Edwards (1964) described oral language deficiencies
as only one of several related problems, including per-
ceptual distortion, which hampers the disadvantaged child
from making accurate reproductions of standard Speech.
These deficiencies inhibit the child from making accurate
associations between the graphic symbol and the Spoken
counter part. In addition, he has trouble developing
word recognition skills because of the distortions and
the syntactical differences between his language patterns
and those found in school related tasks. Thus, it is
clear, that the nonstandard language patterns used by
disadvantaged children do present hurdles to successful
learning to read experiences.

AmeS, Rosen and Olsen (1971) compared the ability
of Negro children to read both standard and nonstandard
sentences. While only four of the eight error features
appeared to be dialect based, those dialect differences
were significant at the .001 level of confidence. Possessive

noun errors were very frequent as were errors related to

39

noun plurals and third person singular verbs. Such dialect
interference is understandable when one considers that the
most commonly used context clues are those derived from

the language patterns or familiar expressions Of the child
(Ames, 1965).

In a study to observe whether second and fourth
grade children could comprehend material written with
frequently used language patterns better than material
written with infrequent patterns, Tatham (1970) reported
that there were no differences in the performances of
boys and girls, but both performed best on material
written with frequently used oral language patterns.

Goodman (1969b) then hypothesized that the greater
the divergence between the dialect of the learner and the
dialect of learning, the more difficult would be the
learning task. The most common divergencies were associ-
ated with inflectional suffixes and verb forms, but
differences in vocabulary and intonation were noted,
too. Venezky (1970) reported that children who have
nonstandard language patterns experience interference
when learning to read, and he suggested that they should
be taught a "standard brand" of English before they learn

to read.

The literature infers that, at the present time,

language patterns are an important factor in the prognosis

40

for success in school learning. While children appear to
need the ability to understand and use standard language
patterns, there also appears to be value in a familiarity
with a variety of language styles and patterns to provide
greater language flexibility. It is hoped that this study

will provide information needed to develop flexible language

skills in children.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter is divided into five sections. In the
first section the pOpulation is described. Section two
contains an explanation of how the population sample was
Obtained. Section three contains a description of the
materials used in the study. The research procedures are
delineated in section four, and in the final section the
procedures for data analysis and processing are discussed.

Background and Description of the
ngulatIOn

For several years the participating school district
has been actively developing compensatory education pro-
grams for disadvantaged children in the area. The city
is classified as a middle-sized industrial town which
has a population of approximately 100,000 people. The
city population includes a large middle class, a moderate
sized upper class, and a substantial proportion of dis-
advantaged Blacks and whites. The children used in this

Study were chosen from among the latter group.
A heavy proportion of the people are employed by

the; automotive and related industries; hence, employment

41

42

is influenced by the usual factors such as fluctuations
in sales, manpower changes through automation, strikes in
the related industries and decentralization of the giant
corporations.

The school population of the city is rapidly
changing. Extensive urban renewal and housing projects,
along with industrial eXpansion have prompted unusual
Shifts in the school population. As a part of a massive
desegregation project, a plan has been developed which
would involve cross-city busing for both Black and white
children in order to achieve school populations which are
representative of the city population. Some of the more
affluent parents, both Black and white, are moving to
the suburbs to avoid busing and to achieve a neighborhood

school environment for their children.

Sample

The stratified random sample by race and sex of
one hundred subjects was drawn from five disadvantaged
schools in the COOperating school district. Through
the use of a table of random numbers, twenty subjects
were selected from the enrollment census of each
participating school. The subjects had completed first
grade, and they are identified as such in the study.
‘However, without exception, each child identified himself

as "second grade-come September" when questioned by the

43

investigator. Subjects who were retained in first grade
were not excluded from the sample.
Table 3.1 provides a breakdown of the subjects

selected from each participating school pOpulation.

TABLE 3.l.--Breakdown of Subjects by School.

 

School School School School School Total

 

 

l 2 3 4 5
Black Boys 5 5 5 5 5 25
Black Girls 5 5 5 5 5 25
White Boys 5 5 5 5 5 25
White Girls 5 5 5 5 5 25
Total 25 25 25 25 25 100
Materials

 

Four related tests, The Wug Test, The Meaningful
Listening Test, Oral Reading Test I and Oral Reading Test
II, were administered individually to each subject. The
Wug Test, developed by Jean Berko, was used to provide a
measure of the language competence, rather than the language
performance, of the child. By employing nonsense rather
than meaningful words, the test was designed to elicit
responses which were automatic or generated rather than
learned or imitated. The examiner read this test to the
Chi 1d.

The Meaningful Listening Test was designed to

e‘haluate the child's ability to apply his morphological

44

generalizations to meaningful words which were in his
listening vocabulary. Since this test used familiar words,
it attempted to measure the child's learned responses as
opposed to his own language inventions. This test was also
read to each child by the examiner.

The Oral Reading Test I was created to assess the
child's language pattern in a reading situation. The
child read each item in the test. Since the standard
Inorphological pattern was written in the selection, the
examiner was attentive to whether the child pronounced
the printed inflection or the inflection of his own
£3peech pattern. The test was designed to determine if
tile child would read the selection as it was written or,

Inather, as he had anticipated it should be read based

(Drl his own language pattern.

The Oral Reading Test II provided a contrast for
the Oral Reading Test I by utilizing items which replicated
the format used in the other tests, but which incorporated
Ei Ilonstandard pattern into the reading selections. Once
EiGJEiin, this test was designed to assess if the young
ITEEEader would read the selection as written or, rather,
as he anticipated the passage would read based on his
larIguage pattern. The examiner was alert to the comments

f13CIn1 the readers regarding the irregularity found in each

pas Sage.

45

Below are examples of the items used in the four
tests.

The Wug Test

5

This is a Wug.

4%?

Now there is another one.
There are two of them.
There are two " .

 

Meaningful Listening Test

a?

This is a frog.

6%“

Now there is another one.
There are two of them.
There are two "" "' .

 

Oral Reading Test I

This is a bug.

3E .

Now there is another one.
There are two of them.
There are two bugs.

46

Oral Reading Test II

Q.

This is a dog.

Now there is another one.
There are two of them.
There are two dog.

The Wug Test employed illustrations which were
colored by the investigator, while the remaining three
tests utilized apprOpriate illustrations cut from books,
magazines and workbooks. A primer typewriter was used
to type the selections in the two reading tests.

The items used in The Meaningful Listening Test,
Oral Reading Test I and Oral Reading Test II were adapted
by the investigator from the seventeen items selected from
Berko's Wug Test. The purpose of the four tests was to
observe the child's language patterns as he moved from
task to task and from test to test. Table 3.2 illustrates
the organization of the tasks and tests.

Throughout the four tests, the child's responses
Were recorded on a Pupil Response Sheet. Correct responses
‘Nere marked with a check mark, while other responses were

recorded in a manner which would preserve the phonemic

quality of the response. The investigator was interested

TABLE 3.2--Organization of Task Items and Tests.

-
-_

47

 

Task Items Wug Meaningful Oral
Test Listening Reading I Reading II

Regular

Plurals 8 8 8 8
Irregular

Plurals l l l 1
Regular

Past Tenses 4 4 4 4
Irregular

Past Tenses l 1 l 1
Third Person

Singulars 2 2 2 2
Progressive

Forms 1 l l 1

Total 17 17 l7 l7

48
in the degree and nature of the relationship between the
responses on the four tests. Space was provided on the
response sheet to record the comments, if any, made by

the child in reaction to the nonstandard pattern found in

Oral Reading Test II.

Procedures

Approval to conduct the study was obtained from
the Director of Elementary Education, as well as, from
the principals of the participating schools. Once the
subjects were identified, the investigator visited the
subjects' classrooms to explain the tasks involved in
the study. Four sample pictures were presented to the
children in order to demonstrate to them the kind of
items they would be using in the test situations. Due

to the "instant success" the children realized on the

examples, they were eager to assist. The investigator

‘Mas provided with a room suitable for testing. After
aibrief get-acquainted time, the examiner collected the

ffollowing data: the child's name, age, grade, school,

Sex and race.

To control for the learning gradient which might
hérve an influence on the test result, the order in which
tiles two reading tests were given was alternated, 50 subjects
WeIre given Oral Reading Test I first, and 50 subjects were

Wi‘len Oral Reading Test II first. In addition, two days

49

elapsed between the administration of the third and fourth
tests. The two sequences for administering the tests were

as follows:

I II
The Wug Test The Wug Test
Meaningful Listening Meaningful Listening
Oral Reading I Oral Reading II
(two days) (two days)
Oral Reading II Oral Reading I

The testing periods were marked by periodic breaks
which provided good opportunities to converse with the
children and to give them praise and encouragement. During
the administration of the two reading tests the examiner
was free to assist the reader by pronouncing any unfamiliar
words except the key word in the last line of each item.

Approximately thirty minutes were required to
complete the entire procedure. In order to facilitate
testing, two certified teachers were trained to assist

the investigator.

Data Analysis and Design
The major hypotheses of the study were tested by
employing several procedures. Mean scores and standard
deviations were computed for all four tests, and t-tests
were made to determine the significance of difference in
the mean performance on the various tests. In order to

describe the consistency of morphological generalizations,

50

plottings of the response patterns of the subjects on the
four tests were made, and the results are reported in
percentages of total responses. Correlation coefficients
were computed to determine the degree of relationship
between the various tests.

An additional question of differences in performance
due to race and sex seemed to emerge, so the data were
subjected to ANOVA procedures and post hoc tests.

The data were transferred from the Pupil Response
Sheets to IBM cards in preparation for processing in the
Michigan State University CDC-3600 computer system. Use of
the Michigan State University computing facilities was made
possible through support, in part, from the National Science
Foundation.

A 2 x 2 sex by race design with four levels over the
repeated measures (The Wug Test, Meaningful Listening, Oral
Reading Test I and Oral Reading Test II) was used, where
the independent variable was the subjects' performance on
The Wug Test, and the dependent variables were the subjects'
performance on the Meaningful Listening and Oral Reading

tests.

Pilot Data

 

Pilot data were collected to determine if the
order in which the tests were administered were a factor in

the performance of the subjects on the two reading tests,

51

and t-tests for differences in means were conducted.
Because no difference was observed, it was not necessary
to consider test order a factor in the performance of the
children. Table 3.3 contains a summary of the data
obtained in the test order pilot. There were twenty sub-

jects in the pilot study.

TABLE 3.3.--Summary of Pilot Data to Determine Order Effects.

 

 

 

 

Order I Order II Level
Oral Reading I Oral Reading II ' of
Subjects Oral Reading II Oral Reading I t Signi-
ficance
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Black
Children 21.2 3.11 17.6 8.2 .410 N.S.
White
Children 23.8 6.76 23.0 7.0 .082 N.S.
Total

Subjects 22.5 5.15 20.3 8.0 .229 N.S.

 

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The results of the analyses of the data pertaining
to the morphological consistency of urban disadvantaged

first grade children are presented in this chapter.

The Data

In order to survey the young disadvantaged child's
ability to understand and apply selected morphological
generalizations, the subjects' responses were analyzed
in various ways including analysis of variance, plotting
of individual response patterns, tests for differences
in proportions of standard responses, test for differences
in means, analyses of item difficulty and discrimination,
and post hoc comparisons.

Correlation coefficients were computed to determine
the degree of relationship between the subjects' performance
on the Wug Test and each of the other tests:'

a. Meaningful Listening Test

b. Oral Reading Test I

c. Oral Reading Test II

Analysis of variance was used to determine whether

the presence of the graphic representation of standard

52

53

English morphology in Oral Reading Test I would prompt the
subjects to produce a significantly greater number of
standard responses to Oral Reading Test I than to the

Wug Test.

Analysis of variance was also employed to determine
whether the absence of the graphic representation of
standard English morphology in the Oral Reading Test II
would prompt agreater number of nonstandard responses to

Oral Reading Test II than to Oral Reading Test I.

The Results

 

The test data of the one hundred subjects revealed
many interesting observations regarding their performance
on the four measures, and the results are summarized in
Table 4.1.

An examination of Table 4.1 reveals a decided
difference in the mean scores of the Black and white
subjects which modifies the meaningfulness of the total
group mean as an indicator of the performance of the
subgroups. The means are plotted in Figure 4.1.

The presence of differences in performance which
appeared related to the variable of race prompted further
investigation. The performance of the white subjects
was relatively consistent from test to test, while the
performance of the Black subjects varied greatly from

measure to measure.

54

 

 

mam.~ osA.MH Hem.m. cmu.m mno.v OHN.HH HH umma mcfimmmm Hmuo
oom.~ omfl.va wbm.m omm.m mom.m omo.~H H pmma mcummmm ammo
mm~.N oms.qa mmo.m om~.m Noa.s omm.HH umma maucmumuu asumcuammz
oam.~ omo.va mmm.~ omm.m amm.¢ osm.m pmoe ms: 629
.a.m .2 .o.m .2 .o.m .2
mmuwnz mxomam msouo Hmuoa mummmmz

 

.mcowumNflHmnmcmo HMUHmoHosmHoz on noncommmm pumpcmumln.a.¢ mqmdB

55

15”

- ' fi~ ..
144» '— whites

Mean. ,.’—0"' -.. Total
Scores v ’/40 Group

10+. ,//' ‘,,,a——*’*“-—————. Blacks

 

 

wig Meaningful 0r£1 Oral
Test Listening Reading I Reading II

FIGURE 4.1.--Plots of Mean Scores of Subjects.

Analysis of variance procedures were employed to
determine the influence of selected variables on the per-
formance of the subjects. Table 4.2 contains a summary
of the data.

Thus it was evident that race was a statistically
significant factor when disadvantaged children were asked
to generate and apply morphological generalizations.

Since the ANOVA race by measures interaction was
significant, Scheffe multiple comparisons were computed to
examine the interaction between race and measures (see

Table 4.3).

56

 

 

 

hbeo.m mmaa mhmm.ommm mmuzo
mm. mm. mmm.o vam.~ m mhvm.m whammmz
x comm x xmm
mm. mm. OHH.H mmmm.m m mhva.oa monummmz x xmm
Ho. Ho. omm.vm mao.mh m mneo.m~m monummmz
muomnnsm snaps;
mmmm.v~ mm. ommm.mmm~ mmuo
mam. mmma.a mmmm.hm H mmmm.h~ comm x xmm
Hooo. Nmmo.mva mmmm.oamm H mmmm.oamm comm
mmm. sac. mm~¢.o a mmmv.o xom
. mpomflnsm cmm3pmm
m m>wum>ummcou m m m2 up mm vommwm

 

.muowmmm mo puma monmwum> mo mflmhamcdll.w.v mqmde

.Hc>ca mo. um coccucwmwp pcmoHMHcmHm mcuocco«

 

57

 

«NH.H HH .mom amHOIH.mpm ammo x comm vmm. I
«ma. HH .mom HmHoImchcuqu Howmcflcmcz x comm «mm.HI
mom. I 4H.mom HmHOImcHchmHA Hommcwcmcz x comm vmm.HI
mom. I «HH mcflpmcm HmHOImsz x comm www.mI
mmm.HI «H mcflpmcm HmHOImsz x comm vah.mI
own. I *mcflccuwwq HsmmcflcmczImsz x comm ¢HF.HI
mufieflq Hcmmo coflu mcoccucmmwa cmcz chEmm II. mpfleflq choq

Imasmom ocumEHumm

cowumasmom pcumEHumm

 

.mdomflummfioo camwuasz cmmcmomII.m.¢ mammfi

58

The table reveals that four of the six contrasts
were significant of the .05 level of confidence. The
difference between the means of The Wug Test and the
Meaningful Listening Test were not alike for the Black
and white subjects. Differences between the means of The
Wug and Oral Reading I, Wug and Oral Reading II, and
Meaningful Listening and Oral Reading I were not alike
for the Black and white subjects.

A review of Figure 4.1 showed that Black children
made a sharper increase in standard responses from the
Wug Test to the Meaningful Listening Test while the
corresponding increase was minimal for white children.
Once again, the Black subjects demonstrated marked
improvement from Wug Test to Oral Reading Test I while the
white children made little or no change. The white subjects
exhibited little or no change in performance from the Wug
Test to Oral Reading Test II, but the Black children
exhibited marked improvement. Similar relationships were
noted between the Meaningful Listening and Oral Reading I
tests, Black children improved and white children remained
the same.

Thus significant differences were noted between
Black and white children as they transferred their
morphological generalizations from nonsense words to

meaningful words and to standard reading passages.

59

The children did not answer all items with equal
ease. An examination of the subjects' responses (see Table
4.4) disclosed the following patterns. When children were
asked to generate morphological generalizations for nonsense
words (The Wug Test) they were most accurate when forming
g or z plurals, t or d past tenses, and progressive verb
forms. The formation of ezuplurals,_dgd and Eeg_past tenses,
and third person singular verbs were more difficult.
Irregular noun plurals and irregular verb past tenses were
most difficult to form, and the children responded with
29 and 5 percent correct responses respectively.

The white children usually responded quickly to
the items on the Wug Test, while the Black children usually
paused before responding. The latency of response may
indicate that many Black children did not have the under-
lying system of language generalizations which would permit
a more automatic response.

There was an increase in standard responses to items
in Meaningful Listening Test which utilized "real" words.
Black children made a sharp increase in standard responses
on this measure.

Slight.changes were noted in the number of standard
responses made on the two Oral Reading Tests, but the
difficulty pattern was consistent with the previous tests.
While the graphic representation of the morphological

changes apparently prompted more standard responses on

 

60

ON mm mm mm mm Am ma v om om o m cmcce ummm nuc> amasmcuuH

 

 

 

mm em we mm mm mm mm em we we om mm Amanda caoz umHsmmuuH
mm «a m.wm so am we on ma mv mo. NH ov nuc> Hmasmcflm comucm cum
mm mm mm mm mm om mm «m mm mm ma m.mm cmcce ummm nuc> mmmImmm
m.mm m.mv mm em m.~¢ n.mo m.vm Hm «.mm am Ha .mv amusam csoz mm
ooa om no em mm mm ooa mm vm mm vm mm Euom nuc> c>Hmmcumoum
mm as mm am an. am com me m.am com no m.mm mmcma ummm num> mnm
com m.am h.mm oom mm mm oom m.mm a.mm mm on m.hm Amanda 2:02 mIm
mcuflzz mxomam Qsouu mcuacz mxomam dsouu mcuagz mxomam macho mcuflmz mxomam msouw coflumNHHmucch
Hmooe Hmuoe amuoe Hmuoe
HH mcflomcm ammo H mcflpmcm Hmuo mcflccumflq admmcflcmcz umce 053

 

.mcoflummflamucccu HmonOHocmuoz o» mcmcommcm pumpcmum mo mcmmuccouchI.v.v mamme

61

Oral Reading Test I than on Oral Reading Test II, there
was generally a slight decrease in the number of standard
responses made to items needing £53 noun plurals, 27d verb
past tenses, and the progressive verb forms. In contrast,
there was an increase in the number of standard responses
to the remaining items in the Oral Reading Test I. While
there were fewer standard responses on Oral Reading Test II
than on Oral Reading Test I, the same pattern of performance
was observed with two exceptions. There were fewer standard
responses to third person singular verbs and more standard
responses to the formation of irregular noun plurals.

The responses of the children revealed that while
Black children usually made fewer standard responses than
white children, both groups demonstrated similar patterns
of mastery of the morphological generalization. The white
subjects demonstrated mastery (<75% standard responses on
all four tests) of five morphological generalizations
including: §f§_noun plural, EIE verb past tense, progressive
verb form, ez noun plural, and EEQTQEQ verb past tense,
while Black subjects evidenced mastery of the gfg noun
plural. In order to determine the significance of the
differences observed between the responses of Black and
white children, tests of the differences between percentages
were computed, and Table 4.5 contains a summary of the

findings.

62

 

 

 

Hm mcummcm mmuo

 

 

 

 

mo.v va.N OOH om NO.v ONm.N vm on NO.v ONm.N OOH mm HOO.v mvm.v mm vm 5H

HOO.v mom.v OO vH HOO.v va.m mo mH HOO.v mmv.m Oh OH HOO.v vah.m mm NH OH

HOO.v mmm.¢ mm VH HOO.v HNN.v Ow vN HOO.v mmv.m Oh OH HOO.v vah.m mO NH mH
.m.z HmO.H ON NH .m.z mNN. ON ON mo.V OOO.N OH O mO.v va.N OH O OH uuH
HOO.v HHN.O Oh OH HOO.V omv.v mm mm HOO.v MH¢.h Om OH HOO.v «Nw.h Nm OH NH pco
HOO.v mmv.m vm Om HOO.v omv.v Nm mm HOO.v ON¢.m vm Nm HOO.v va.h Nm vH NH cc»
HO.v HmH.m Nm mo HO.v Hmm.N mm on HO.v mmm.m OOH om HOO.v mNm.v OOH mm HH u
HO.v OhN.m mm on HO.v nnO.m mm mm HOO.v mHm.m OOH mm HOO.v vom.v OOH we OH 6
HOO.v mbH.m mm mm HOO.v HON.m om ov HOO.v Ovo.m vm ON HOO.v «No.5 vm m m Nc
HOO.v VHv.v mo vN .m.z va. Ow mm HOO.V va.v mm VN HOO.V hmH.v mv OH O HMH
HO.v NOO.m mm NO HO.v mvN.m Om Om HOO.v nmm.m om ON HOO.v mmw.h Nm 0 h Nc
HOO.v mHm.¢ Oh NN HOO.v OOO.m mo Nm HOO.v mNm.m vb OH HOO.v O¢m.m eh O O Nc
HO.v mv>.N OOH Om NO.» va.N OOH om .m.z mm>.H OOH «a .m.z mmm.H OO Om m m
HO.v mvn.N OOH om NO.v va.N OOH om No.v ONm.N OOH mm HOO.v mmm.v OOH cw v m
NO.v ONm.N OOH vv .m.z va.H OOH mm mO.v HvO.N OOH No HOO.v vom.v OOH mm m m
HOO.v OOO.v mm we HOO.v NmO.m vm vw HOO.v Omh.v vm Nm HOO.v mH0.0 vm VN N Nc
mO.v va.N OOH OO HO.v mem.N OOH um mo.v HVO.N OOH NO NO.v mvv.N mm cm H m

mHmusHm
cosmoucucmum u 3 m mocmoucucmum u 3 m oocmoumflcmflm u z m cosmoucucmum u 3 m
mo Hc>cq wo Hc>cq mo Hc>cq mo Hc>cq

H mchmcm Hmu mchcuqu Howmchmcz umce 0:3 mEcuH

lifll I

 

l. .I’I‘. 'Il lit-II IIIII.I.. IV. .lulll I IIIII I . - Ir| II‘ .....||..:.H|I.I MFI'IIIV [VIII .1

.mEcOH 0o mcmCOchm oumocmum wo

mcmmoccoucm ccc3ucm mcoccucuwHoII.m.v mqm<8

63

It is interesting to note that there were signifi-
cant differences between the percentages of standard
responses made by Black and white children to sixty-two
of the sixty-eight items. Three of the six items which
did not have significant differences were in Oral Reading
Test I which contained the standard morphological patterns.
The visual presence of the standard response may have been
a valuable aid to the subjects. In addition the six
items which did not have significant differences due to
race, were items which utilized the less difficult g
noun plural or the more difficult irregular noun plural
and verb past tense.

Item analyses were conducted on the seventeen
items used in each of the four tests, and the data can
be found in Appendix B. A summary of the findings is
contained in Table 4.6. The table indicates the number
of items on each test which could be placed in each of the
categories. According to the item analysis procedures
used at the Michigan State University Evaluation Services,

item difficulty indicates the proportion of individuals

 

answering incorrectly.

 

A survey of Table 4.6 indicates that more than
half of the items in the two listening tests were missed
by more than half of the Black children and could be
classified as high difficulty items. In contrast, those

items were given standard responses by most of the white

64

 

 

mm v «H Hm Hm mm msouo Hmuoa

mH O NH v mm ow mcUan

OH om ON HH ON nN mxomHm
mEcuH Hmuoa

a H m h m m msouo Hmuoe

v H m N m «H mcuHmz

m h m m w n mmomHm
HH mchmcm Hmuo

m H c n m m msouo Hmuoe

m H m H m mH mcanZ

h v m m h m - mmomHm
H mchmcm Hmuo

a H o m m m msouo Hmuoa

v H v o O OH mcpan

v m m H m n mmomHm
OCHccoqu HummchmcE

a H m m m a msouo Hmuos

v H N H HH mH mcanz

N OH O m b m mxomHm
once O53

COHumcHEmmommo onsonmHQ coHumcHEHHomHQ muHoonwmQ COHomcwEHuommo NUHDUHMWHQ uch

 

OOHIvO
cmcmm

vamm vMIO
cmcmm cmcmm

.moHumcHEHuomHo EcuH cam ononMMHQ EcuH mo mHmEESmII.m.v mqmda
.1

65

children and could be classified as low difficulty. The
white children's responses to the items in the two reading
tests indicated that most items had low difficulty, and
the presence or absence of the standard morphological
pattern did not have a strong influence. However, the
presence of the standard morphological pattern on Oral
Reading Test I appeared to prompt Black children to make
more standard responses and, thus, reduce the difficulty
of five items.

The indexes of item discrimination revealed that
some items had greater power to discriminate between the
children who had high and low mastery of the morphological
generalizations being studied. Table 4.7 contains a
summary of the items with discrimination indexes greater
than 75%.

The evidence presented in Table 4.7 shows that
items which required the formation of ea noun plurals,
irregular noun plurals, EEQTQEQ verb past tenses, and
third person singular verb forms were the best discriminators.
The formation of the irregular verb past tense was too
difficult for all subjects to be a valuable discriminator.

The responses of the one hundred subjects were
also analyzed to determine the nature of the nonstandard
responses. Table 4.8 contains a summary of that analysis.
The data revealed that omissions of endings were the most

common type of nonstandard morphological response to the

66

TABLE 4.7.--Items Which Discriminate Between High and Low
Achievers.

 

Meaningful Oral Oral
Task Item Wug Test Listening Reading I Reading II
Plural
s l
ez 2 GD
5 3
s 4
s 5
ez 6 GD C9 69
ez 7 69 C)
irr 8 Q9
ez 9
Past Tense
d 10 ®
t 11
ted 12 GD GD E3 GD
ded 13 ® ® ®
irr l4
3rd.P.S.
es 15 GD GD 83 E3
es 16 Q9 GD
Prog.
ing 17

 

Key: C) indicates an item discriminated between top and
bottom of total group.

X indicates an item discriminated between Blacks
and whites.

67

 

O
mH
ON

g—INQO
m

OH

NH

O
om

LOCO

O
OH
mm

Hm

MH

mH
mm

O
N
mNH

[\LnO

hN

HH

v
mN

NH

LDNO

OH

OH

mHH

OOO

OH
OH

H
mm

\000

OH
mm

OH
ON
O

O
mmH

mH
5H

OMNO
V

H
Ov

vH
mu

mmmo
fl'

MN
hm

NN
ON
O

O
MMN

mucnuo
mcoHusuHumnsm
chHmmHEO

QHc> c>Hmmchoum

mncmuo
mcoHusuHumhsm
mGOHmmHEO

mHmHsmch GOchm OHHSB

mnccuo
chHumNHHmHsmcm
mGOHDSUHumhsm
mGOHmmHEo

mcmccB ummm HmHsmcHHH

mucnuo
mGOHusuHumhsm
mQOHmmHEO

mcmcca ummm HmHsmcm

mucmuo
mCOHumNHumHsmcm
mGOHuDoHumhdm
mCOHmmHEo
mHmHon HmHsmcHHH

mncnpo

mGOHusuHumnum

mCOHmmHEo
mHmHSHm HmHsmcm

 

canz xomHm
HH maHmmmm

HmHO

cummz momHm
H mchmcm

Hugo

cuHmz momHm
ImchcumHH
Hammchmcz

comm; momHm
uchImnz

mcmcommcm
pnmocmumcoz

 

.mcmcommcm oumonmumcoz mo mHthmamII.m.v mamas

68

formation of regular plurals, past tenses, third person
Singulars, and progressive verb forms. Omissions were fre-
quent nonstandard responses to the formation of irregular
plurals and past tenses, but more subjects gave regularized
endings to such irregular forms. Random responses which
could not be classified were labeled "other" responses. An
evaluation of these responses suggests that the child does
not incorporate morphological changes in word forms into
his early language patterns. Since the children omitted
more endings than they substituted, there may be a develop-
mental pattern in effect. The regular endings which signal
morphological changes may appear as the children develop
more language maturity.

In order to examine the degree to which children
were consistent in their use of morphological generalizations
as they transferred such generalizations from listening
to reading situations, consistency plottings were made of
the response patterns of the one hundred subjects on the
four tests. A summary of the consistency of response
patterns is contained in Table 4.9 which reports both the
number and the percentage of times each pattern was observed.

The patterns were classified according to the
sequence of responses made by each subject to each item
as it appears in each of the four tests. The patterns were
coded according to type of response made, either standard
(g) or nonstandard (N), to The Wug Test, and the type of

responses made on succeeding tests. A consistency pattern

69

of N: 2N-lS indicates that the subject made a nonstandard
response on the first test followed by two additional

nonstandard reponses and one standard response.

TABLE 4.9.-—Consistence of Response Patterns.

 

 

 

 

 

Blacks White Total Group_
Pattern N % N % N %
N: 3N 237 27.9 . 96 11.3 333 19.6
N: 2N-ls 130 15.3 20 2.4 150 8.8
N: 1N-ZS 100 11.8 16 1.9 116 6.8
N: 38 92 10.8 13 1.5 105 6.2
S: 38 209 24.6 640 75.3 849 49.9
S: ZS-lN 53 6.2 47 5.6 100 5.9
S: 18-2N 20 2.4 16 1.9 36 2.1
S: 3N 9 1.1 2 .2 11 .6

 

An examination of Table 4.9 reveals that consistency
was the mode pattern for the subjects. For a majority of
the items, the same morphological generalizations were used
on the four measures.

While the white children made consistent standard
responses to 75 percent of the items, Black children made
consistent nonstandard responses to 28 percent of the items
and consistent standard responses to 25 percent of the items.
The Wug Test was the first test, and it appears to be a

viable means of assessing the child's underlying assumptions

70

about his language. Of the students who made nonstandard
responses to items on the first test, approximately one-
third of the Black children and one-half of the white
children were able to make one or more standard responses
to such items on successive tests.

An analysis of the patterns used in response to
various morphological generalizations (see Table 4.10)
reveals that consistency was the mode in regular and
irregular generalizations. The difficulty of the general-
ization determined whether the consistency would be
standard or nonstandard.

In an attempt to ascertain the effects of a
child's morphological generalizations on his performance
in listening and reading situations, it was hypothesized

that:

H1: There will be a positive correlation (.01
level) between the subjects' understanding
of English morphology as determined by The
Wug Test and their ability to make standard
English responses as demonstrated on each
of the following:

a. Meaningful Listening Test

b. Oral Reading Test I

c. Oral Reading Test II

Tables 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 contain the correlations

between the measures. An examination of the tables
reveals that all correlations were significant at or above
the .01 level of confidence. Therefore, it is possible
to reject the null hypothesis of no correlation between

the measures in favor of the research hypothesis of a

positive correlation (at the .01 level) between The Wug Test

71

 

 

 

O O H H O O OO OO NH NH O O m m N N Hmuoa

O O O O O O OO OO O N O O O O O O canz

O O N H O O OO NN ON OH OH O O O O N momHm
Euom c>HmmcHOoum

m m m O OH OH OO OO O O O O ON ON OO OO Hmooe

O O H H OH OH NO NO O O H H O O ON ON cUan

m m N N m O O O m m m O OH OH NO NO momHm
mumHsmch comucm OHHSB

O O H H O O O O N N O O OH OH On Oh Hmuoe

O O O O O O OH O N H O O OH O OO Om canz

O O N H O O O O N H O m ON OH on Om momHm
. mcmcca ummm HmHsmcuuH

H O 0.0 OH ON.OH HO OqNO OHN 0.0 OH ON.O HN 0.0 cm 0.0H OO Hmoos

O. H O.m O 0.0 OH mO OOH O O O. H O O O.m O canz

O.H m 0.0 HH O.HH ON NN OO 0.0 OH OH ON OH Om 0.0N HO momHm
mcmcce ummm HmHsmcm

H H O O O O ON ON O O HH HH OH OH ON ON Hmuoa

N H O O O N NO ON O N N H OH O ON OH canz

O O N H O N O N O O ON OH ON NH .Om OH momHm
mHmude umHsmcHnH

Ohm. m H.H O OO.m om ON.OO NOO .O OO H.O OO 0.0 OO 0.0H NO Hmuoe

O O ON.H O ON.N O 0.00 OOm .N O ON.N O H O O0.0 OH cuHsz

OO. O O.H O ON.O HN Om OOH OH OO OH OO OH OO OOH OO momHm
mHmusHm HmHsmcm

IMIIIm O z w z w z O z m z w z O z
ZOuO ZNIOHum zHIONHO Omum mmnz ONIzHuz OHIzNuz zO z

 

.mcoHomNHHmuccco cu OchHooom msucuumm cmcommchI.OH.O mHmmB

72

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOO.v OOHO. H OCHOmcm HmHo
Hoo.v Oomm. Hoo.v OHOmm. OchmumHH Hammchmmz
HO.v OOOm. HO.v OOOm. HOO.v OOOO. pch ms:
commoHOHcmHm H cosmonHcOHm H cosmonHcOHm H mcnsmmcz
mo Hc>cH mo Hc>cH mo Hc>cH
HH mchmcm HImchmcm mchcumHH
HmHO HmHO Hammchmcz
.muocflasm momHm now mcHSmmcz ccczucm OQOHuchHHOUII.NH.O mqmme
HOO.v OOOO. H mcHOmcm HmHO
Hoo.v OOHO. Hoo.v moms. mchmuqu HsOOaHamm2
HOO.v OOOO. HOO.v OOOO. HOO.v OOOO. once O53
cosmonHcmHm H cosmoHMHcmHm H cosmonHcmHm H mcmommcz
mo Hc>mH Ho Hc>cH. Ho Hc>cH
HH mchmcm H OCHomcm mcHscumHH
Hmno Hmuo Hummchmcz

 

.mquwflQHHm HMflOH. HON mefiwmmz Gmw3flmm mCOH#MH0HHOUII.HH.¢ H.H—”mafia”.

73

 

HOO.v NOOOO.

H OGHUmcm Hmno

 

 

Hoo.v OOON. Hoo.v OOAO. mchmuqu Hammchmm2
HOO.v MONO. HOO.v NOOO. HOO.v mmOmO. umca ODS
cocmOHchmHm H commonHcOHm H cosmonHcmHm H mcndmmcz
mo Hc>cH wo Hc>cH mo Hc>cH
HH mmHOmcm HIOGHOmcm OchcumHH
Hmuo Hmno HSOOGHcmcE

 

.muocnndm cuHmz How mcHSmmcz ccczocm chHuchHHOUII.mH.O mqmma

74

and each of the remaining measures. This information
supports previous data which depicted the importance of
The Wug Test as a method of assessing the underlying system
of rules which children use when generating their own
language patterns. It is worth noting that while the correla-
tions between the measures were higher for the white
subjects than for the Black subjects, such correlations account
for only a portion of the variance between the measures.

A basic question in this study was how much
influence does the child's system of underlying rules about
his language yield in listening and reading situations,
and can his usual language pattern be altered by the presence
of standard English morphology in reading material? In
order to examine this idea, it was hypothesized that:

H2: The presence of the graphic representation

of standard English morphology in the Oral

Reading Test I will prompt the subjects to

produce a significantly greater number

’(.01 level) of standard responses on Oral
Reading Test I than on The Wug Test.

TABLE 4.14.—-Tests of Differences Between Means.

 

Source of Variation df MS F Level of
Significance

 

Between Wug Test and
Oral Rdg. I l 4.33 71.01 <.01

Error 96 0.06

 

75

An examination of the data in Table 4.14 indicates
that the presence of the graphic representation of standard
English morphology in Oral Reading Test I did produce
significantly more standard responses on Oral Reading Test
I than on The Wug Test. Therefore, it is possible to
reject the null hypothesis of no difference between the
number of standard responses made on the two tests in support
of the research hypothesis of significantly more standard
responses to Oral Reading Test I than to The Wug Test.

There was another aspect of the previous question
which prompted investigation in this study. While the
presence of standard English morphology in a reading passage
prompted an increase in standard responses in reading as
Opposed to The Wug Test, would the deletion of the usual
standard English morphology pattern in Oral Reading Test
II prompt children to produce fewer standard responses
to this test than to Oral Reading Test I? Therefore it
was hypothesized that:

H3: The absence of the graphic representation of the
standard English morphology in the Oral Reading
Test II will prompt subjects to produce a
significantly greater number (.01 level) of
nonstandard responses to Oral Reading Test II
than to Oral Reading Test I.

An examination of the data in Table 4.15 shows that
there was a significant increase in nonstandard responses

on Oral Reading Test II over Oral ReadingTbst I. Therefore,

it is possible to reject the null hypothesis of no increase

76

TABLE 4.15.--Test of Differences Between Means.

 

Source of Variation df MS F Level of
Significance

 

Between Oral Rdg. I and
' Oral Rdg. II 1 .6561 10.79 <.01

Error 96 .0608

 

in nonstandard responses in support of the research hypothesis
of significantly more nonstandard responses to Oral Reading

Test II than to Oral Reading Test I.

Summary
An analysis of the data from this study reveals
information regarding the overt as well as the covert
systems of morphological assumptions used by young disadvan-
taged children. The implications and conclusions are

discussed in the following chapter.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary

The intent of this study was to learn more about
the relationship between the oral language patterns and
the oral reading behavior of disadvantaged first grade
children. Attention was focused on the morphological con-
sistencies exhibited by the children in listening, speaking
and oral reading. The study was designed to examine the
benefits as well as the difficulties which could result
if the child relied upon his own language patterns to
supply context clues during reading.

A review of the literature revealed important
similarities and differences between the spoken and written
forms of English, the nature and significance of context
clues, the disparities between the nonstandard language
pattern of the disadvantaged child and the standard language
patterns used in school, and the miscues which result from
this disparity and deter the child's ability to approximate
standard language patterns in speaking, reading and writing
situations.

Four tests, including The Wug Test, Meaningful

Listening, Oral Reading I and Oral Reading II, were

77

78

administered to twenty-five Black boys, twenty-five Black
girls, twenty-five white boys and twenty-five white girls
in order to examine their abilities to form noun plurals,
verb past tenses, third person singular verbs and progres-
sive verb forms in listening and reading situations. The
Wug Test was used to determine the language competence of
the children, while the Meaningful Listening test measured
their language performance. Oral Reading Test I surveyed
their abilities to read standard language patterns, while
Oral Reading Test II examined their behavior with non-
standard reading selections where the morphological changes
had been omitted.

While it was possible to reject the null hypotheses
for the three hypotheses, significant differences (<.001 to
.05) were reported for differential performance due to race.
Sex was not a significant variable in the performance of

the disadvantaged first grade subjects.

Conclusions

 

The results of this study indicated that:

1. White children scored higher than Black
children on all measures.

2. Young disadvantaged children can generate
standard S—Z noun plurals, t—d verb past tenses, and
progressive verb forms with greatest ease and greater

accuracy.

79

3. The generation of standard egfgz_noun plurals,
ted-deg verb past tenses, and third person singular verbs
were more difficult and less accurate.

4. The generation of irregular noun plurals and
irregular verb past tenses were the most difficult.

5. The Black children demonstrated mastery
(<75% standard responses) of §'§ noun plurals; the white
subjects demonstrated mastery of all the generalizations
surveyed except third person singular verbs, irregular
noun plurals and irregular verb past tenses.

6. For both Black and white children there was
a significant positive correlation between The Wug Test
and each of the other measures.

7. The language competence of a child (as
measured by The Wug Test) is a strong influence on his
use of language in other listening, speaking and reading
situations.

8. In a majority of the situations, children
demonstrated morphological consistency as they trans—
ferred generalizations from test to test.

9. Children tend to produce significantly more
standard responses when they are able to see the graphic
representation of the standard form in a reading passage,
than when they see a nonstandard pattern in the reading

selection.

80

10. The presence of standard English morphology
in a reading selection prompted children to make signifi-
cantly more standard responses to the reading situation
than they had made in a listening-speaking situation.

11. The children made more nonstandard responses
when reading passages written in nonstandard patterns
than when reading passages written in standard English.

12. Black children used more nonstandard
responses in listening situations than in reading situa-
tions, while white children made a similar number of

standard responses in listening and reading situations.

Discussion

 

An examination of the findings of this study
suggested that Black children may not have mastered the
morphological generalizations of standard English neces-
sary to generate the desired responses to the nonsense
words used in the test. However, their improved perform-
ance on the Meaningful Listening Test which used "real"
words suggested that they may have learned some standard
patterns through imitation and repetition, but they may
not have been able to generalize their observations
into concepts regarding the patterns of standard English.
Such behavior may be indicative of a develOpmental sequence
from nonstandard to standard English. Perhaps Black
children at this age are able to imitate and reproduce

selected standard patterns which they have learned, but

81

are unable to make any generalizations about the language
pattern which would enable them to make a comparable per-
formance on The Wug Test. For these subjects there appeared
to be a marked difference between language competence and
language performance as measured on the two listening tests.

Another factor pertaining to the differences
observed between the two listening tests may be related
to the level of abstraction needed by the children to
deal with The Wug Test as contrasted with the familiarity
they felt towards the concrete words used on the Meaningful
Listening Test. As the children encountered test items
which contained familiar words such as frgg_and star, they
made responses with greater speed and ease. When dealing
with the words wug and tor, on the other hand, one subject
said the answer could be anything, because nobody had
ever made words like those.

An analysis of the response patterns made by the
children indicated considerable consistency from test to
test and item to item. If a child added an ing|inflec-
tional ending to the first item in a subtest, it appeared
highly probable that he would continue that pattern
throughout the subtest. Such patterns of responses suggest
that the child may not be aware of the flexible structure
of standard English which permits the speaker to construct
new sequences based on the sentence patterns of the

language.

82

It is interesting to note that the Black students
exhibited their best performance on Oral Reading Test I.
On that test the children were asked to read standard
English patterns. Since all inflectional suffixes were
supplied in the passage, the child did not have to rely
on his own knowledge of morphology. It appears that the
presence of the graphic symbols did, to some degree, help
the child produce the standard pattern. This observation
is given further support since the Black children did less
well on Oral Reading Test II which contained nonstandard
patterns (the inflectional changes were omitted). Since
the mere presence of the graphic forms of the inflectional
changes was sufficient to prompt many children to articu-
late the standard response, it is suspected that the
standard patterns are at least part of their "listening
sentence patterns," though not yet part of their speaking
patterns.

Of the twelve children who commented on the irregu-
lar pattern found in Oral Reading Test II, four were Black
and eight were white. Many children standardized the
pattern found in Oral Reading Test II, but they did not
make any comment. In fact, when asked about the words,
some children revealed that they had not even noticed the
irregularities. For many children the context of the
passage appears to be a stronger stimuli for production

of correct inflectional endings than is the presence of

83

the graphic inflection. For the child who may be in
doubt, the graphic representation is helpful.

The marked improvement for Black children on Oral
Reading Test I tends to support the thoughts of Anastasiow
(1971) that oral language is important only in that it may
reflect the cognitive and perceptual mastery of the
language, but that it is not a sufficient and accurate
predictor for many children of their capacity to learn to
read. An analysis of the differences among the responses
on measures of listening and reading may suggest that
Black children may compartmentalize some of their thoughts
about language. Perhaps they treat informal speaking
situations with their familiar speech patterns, while they
approach the more formal reading situations with an
insecurity which can be relieved, in part, by attending

to the inflectional changes in the printed selections.

Implications

 

The Right to Read Project and other issues have
focused great attention on the problems of underachievement
in reading. At the same time, there has been considerable
discussion regarding the selection of methods and materials
apprOpriate for teching reading to disadvantaged children.
The results of studies regarding the superiority of one
instructional method over another have not produced con—
clusive nor even strongly suggestive guidelines for program

development (Bordeaux, 1966; COOper, 1964; Harris and

84

Serwer, 1966; Harris, Serwer and Gold, 1967; and Hughes,
1966). Smith and Brahce (1963) reported gains in reading
achievement when parents were involved and when there was
a strong emphasis on vocabulary development and reading
comprehension. Carlton and Moore (1966) observed that
language ability improved through the use of creative
dramatics. And Malpass, Williams and Gilmore (1966) stated
that both Negro and white students preferred integrated
texts over nonintegrated texts, though no differences were
reported in achievement with the use of the integrated
books.

The literature is replete with evidence that
language facility is an important factor in achievement.
Yet while the theory of "cumulative deficit" suggests that
early intervention is vitally important, this knowledge
has apparently not had a significant impact on instructional
procedures. Perhaps the failure of impact is related to
research implementation; indeed there is a need to translate
research findings into viable classroom procedures. The
limited attempts at language improvement have usually been
concerned with vocabulary development rather than syntax
or morphology. Though the former is easier to identify
and correct, it is the latter which causes greatest inter—
ference with learning.

The results of this study indicate the developmental

nature of the language patterns of Black and white

85

children in one midwestern metrOpolitan (Northern) city. An
examination of the pupil response sheets and error patterns
(see Tables 4.3 and 4.7) indicates that the errors made by
Black children (though greater in number) match those made
by white children. This observation suggests that the
Black children may be following the same development
sequence used by white children, but at a slower rate of
growth. It is possible that the difference in rate is due
to the fact that the white children received language
corrections at home, while the language of Black children
was not rectified until they entered school.

If the observation regarding the developmental
nature of language growth for Black children is accurate,
then an instructional program which would permit a "re-
living" of the language growth sequence would be helpful.
Such a program would sequentially trace, step-by-step,
the stages of normal language development, thus enabling
disadvantaged children to master the steps they had missed
or had not yet achieved. Attention would be placed on
the similarities versus the differences found in the Speech
of children. Gradually the child may gain the language
fluency and proficiency of children his age, he would no
longer be deemed linguistically disadvantaged, and he
could then continue regular language growth.

The findings of this study also indicate a strong
need for an integrated language arts program in the

elementary grades. The importance of thinking, listening,

86

speaking, reading and writing has not been ignored, but
instruction in these areas has often been so casual that
the disadvantaged child has been unable to understand,
conceptualize and then utilize the information gleaned
from such instruction. Since the disadvantaged child must
modify, not simply augment existing language patterns,
direct instruction involving inductive and deductive
learning would be of greater benefit. Flexibility in
language usage is the desired goal for the disadvantaged
child rather than a singular model of standard English
because such children must still cope with the language
of their home and neighborhood. While language patterns
and styles do have regularity, it is the individuality of
language patterns which contribute to the uniqueness of
each person.

Suggestions for an Integrated
Language Development Program

 

 

The young disadvantaged children in this study have
demonstrated some instructional needs. A possible approach
to the instructional needs depicted in this study would be
a carefully planned and integrated language arts program.
Such a program should be flexible, functional, creative
and action-oriented and, at the same time, should provide
for maximum student involvement. Children's literature
could provide a vehicle for instruction and an experience

common to all children in the group. As the teacher reads

87

or tells a story, the children would be able to hear and
become familiar with a wide variety of language patterns,
including standard language patterns. Discussion of the
story by the children and teacher could then contribute to
a development of auditory awareness by emphasizing the
pattern being learned. Through creative dramatics,
puppetry, choral reading, shadow dramas and other means

of expression, children would be able to "try on" the new
language patterns before synthesizing them into their

own language patterns.

The teacher would try to eXpand, through normal
discussion and instruction, the sentences used by the
children. When problem patterns are encountered, explana-
tions and illustrations, along with a little practice,
could be employed by the teacher in order ro rectify the
faulty pattern rather than immediately correcting the
child's mistake without further eXplication. As new words
or patterns are met in reading, the teacher would help the
children develop their usage as well as their meaning.
Gradually, then, the children should develop an awareness
of the flexibility of language. Several activities could
be used to demonstrate language flexibility; sentence

slot games, such as the one given below, may be helpful:

88

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He rode through John's zoo. '1
Susan ran around his 1house.
John went to the store.

I raced behind that barn.

We tip—toed past a cemetaryfi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since an aural-oral approach seems logical, various
instructional media could also be employed. Tape recorders,
records, films, filmstrips, Language Masters, and talking
toys would provide meaningful practice and variety and
stimulate interest at the same time. Cartoons and cartoon
characters may be used, too. Pictures, diagrams, miniatures,
diaramas and other realia could be utilized to spur language
growth.

In order to have parents involved in the activities
of the classroom, the child would be encouraged to take
home the materials he uses in the classroom. Even the
instructional media could be employed at home. Thus, the
child would receive extra practice, parents would be informed
and involved, and siblings could share in the learning. It
should be mentioned again that the goal of language instruc-
tion for the disadvantaged child is language flexibility,
and criticism of his language should be avoided since
language is a very personal characteristic.

No program of language development for disadvantaged

children would be complete without speech improvement

89

designed to enhance articulation, enunciation, rate, etc.
Such instruction can be provided by the classroom teacher,
but the speech therapist is a valuable resource.

The rewards of an integrated language arts program
can be seen in the thinking, listening, speaking, reading
and writing efforts of the children. But, improvement
should also bring gains in achievement and in self-worth.
With greater language facility, children are more capable
of expressing their unique and creative ideas . . . a

dynamic payoff for any program.

Training of Teachers

 

This study indicates that teachers need to under-
stand the nature of language and the development of language
in children. Implementation of the ideas from this study
does not require a different approach to teacher education.
Rather it involves sparking teachers to use the myriad of
ideas that they can create to help children become more
effective communicators. Emphasis should be given to the
scope of the language arts program as well as to the ways
of enriching language growth. But the important key seems
to be integrating all facets of language learning into a

living structure of language behavior.

Material Selection

 

The performance of the subjects in this study

indicates that the standard pattern of English in reading

90

materials was a valuable aid to the Black child. The
presence of the standard pattern may haVe reinforced the
language patterns being heard in school, thus giving the
child greater integration of learning.

Contrary to the belief of Baratz, Shuy and others,
it is the observation of this investigator that the use
of nonstandard patterns in reading selections would be a
disadvantage to the Black child because it would provide
additional reinforcement to his nonstandard language
patterns and further delay the time when he would achieve
the goal of flexible language usage. If standard language
patterns are important in overcoming the "cumulative
deficit," in enhancing achievement and self-worth and in
opening doors for employment, then perpetuation of non-
standard language patterns through nonstandard reading

materials could be viewed as a strategy for failure.

Implications for Research
Further research into the developmental nature of
the language of disadvantaged children, both Black and
white, would be helpful. In fact, research is needed on
the value and feasibility of the language arts program
outlined in this chapter. Longitudinal research of
the children involved in an "intervention" type of language

arts program would also provide valuable information.

91

Research is also needed to assess the degree to
which children are aware of differences in language pat-
terns. Do children have the discrimination skills to
identify language patterns which match and differ from
their own patterns?

The influence of television on the vocabulary and
language patterns of young children is another area for
investigation. Do children assimilate into their own
language patterns the language patterns of cartoon and
other characters? What influence does Sesame Street have
on the language patterns of the preschool child?

The use of signal clues is another area for
investigation. Is the child aware of clues within our
language which signal morphological changes. Is he aware
of signals in oral communication? Does he use such
signals when he reads? Are such signals of equal value
in listening, speaking and reading? Are visual (written)
signals as powerful a clue as auditory (heard) signals?
Do signals aid comprehension?

Considerable study is being conducted in the area
of language use and language development. Still there are
many unanswered questions and many unopened doors. This
area of investigation is in urgent need of more effective
and creative devices for assessing language growth and

behavior. It is the Opinion of this investigator that

I-MT’ER‘RE‘Wffif-Wi": 3'." 9“".

92

the most important questions are still unanswered because

there are not adequate ways to extract the information.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

93

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ames, W. "A Study of the Process by Which Readers Determine
Word Meaning Through the Use of Verbal Context."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Missouri, 1965.

Ames, W.; Rowen, C.; and Olson, A. "The Effects of Non-
standard Dialect on the Oral Reading Behavior of
Fourth Grade Black Children." Language, Reading,
and the Communication Process. Edited by C. Braun.
Newark, Del.: International Reading Association,
1971.

 

 

Anastasiow, N. "Oral Language and Learning to Read."
Language, Readingy_and the Communication Process.
Edited by C. Braun. Newark, Del.: International
Reading Association, 1971.

 

Anderson, T. An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical
Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1958.

Applegate, M. Easy in English. New York: Harper and
Row, 1964.

 

Artley, 8. "Teaching Word-Meaning Through Context."
- Elementarnynglish Review, 2 (1943), 67-74.

Baratz, J. "Teaching Reading in a Negro School." Teaching
Black Children to Read. Edited by R. Shuy.
Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics,
1969a, 92.

 

Baratz, J. "A Bi-dialectal Task for Determining Language
Proficiency in Economically Disadvantaged Negro
Children." Child Development, 40 (1969b), 889-901.

 

Bereiter, C., and Englemann, 8. Teaching Disadvantaged
Children in the Preschool. New York: Prentice
Hall, 1966.

Berko, J. "The Child's Learning of English Morphology."
Word, 14 (1958), 150-177.

94

95

Bernstein, B. "Social Class and Linguistic Development:
A Theory of Social Learning." Education,
Economy, and Society. Edited by A. Halsey, J.
Floud, and C. Anderson. New York: Free Press of
Glencoes, Inc., 1961.

 

 

Biemiller, A. "Patterns of Change in Oral Reading Errors
During the First Grade." Unpublished paper, Project
Literacy, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., 1968.

Bloom, B. Stability and Change in Human Characteristics.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.

 

Bordeaux, E., and Shope, N. "An Evaluation of Three Approaches
to Reading Teaching in the First Grade." Reading
Teacher, 20 (1966), 6-11.

Brown, R., and Bellugi, U. "Three Processes in the Child's
Acquisition of Syntax." Harvard Educational Review,
34 (1964), 133-151.

 

Brown, R., and Fraser, C. "The Acquisition of Syntax."
Verbal Behavior and Learning. Edited by C. Cofer
and B. Musgrave. New York: McGraw-Hill Company,
1963.

 

Bond, G., and Tinker, M. Reading Difficulties: Their
Diagnosis and Correction. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1967.

 

 

Braine, M. "The Ontogeny of English Phrase Structure:
The First Phase." Language, 39 (1963), 1-13.

Burke, C., and Goodman, K. "When a Child Reads: A
Psycholinguistic Analysis." Elementary English,
47 (1970), 121-129.

 

Campbell, D., and Stanley, J. Experimental and Quasi-
Experimental Designs for Research. ChiCago: Rand
McNally, 1963.

 

 

Carleton, L., and Moore, R. "The Effects of Self—Directive
Dramatization on Reading Achievement and Self Con-
cept of Culturally Disadvantaged Children." Reading
Teacher, 20 (1966), 125-130.

Carroll, J. "Language Development." EngyclOpedia of
Educational Research. Edited by C. Harris. 3rd ed.
New York: MacMillan, 1960.

 

 

96

Carroll, J. "The Analysis of Reading Instruction: Per-
spectives from Psychology and Linguistics." Theories
of Learning and Instruction, N.S.S.E. Yearbook,

Part I . Edited by E. Hilgard. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1964.

Carter, H., and McGinnis, D. Teaching Individuals to Read.
Boston: D. C. Heath, 1962.

Chall, J. Reading: The Great Debate. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1967.

 

Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge,
Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1965.

Chomsky, N. "Comments for Project Literacy Meeting."
Project Literacy Reports. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University, September, 1964.

Cooper, J. "Effects of Different Amounts of First-Grade
Oral English Instruction Upon the Later Reading
Progress with Chamarro-Speaking Children." Journal
of Educational Research, 58 (1964), 123-127.

 

Cooley, W., and Lohnes, P. Multivariate Procedures for the
Behavioral Sciences. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1962.

Cordts, A. Phonics for the Reading Teacher. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.

Deutsch, M. "The Disadvantaged Child and the Learning
Process." Education in Depressed Areas. Edited
by H. Passow. New York: Bureau of Publications,
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1963, 163—179.

 

Deutsch, M. "The Role of Social Class in Language Develop-
ment and Cognition." American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 35 (1965), 78-88.

 

 

Dulin, K. "Using Context Clues in Word Recognition and
Comprehension." Reading Teacher, 23 (1970), 440-445.

 

Durkin, D. Teaching Them to Read. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, 1970.

 

Edward, T. "The Language-Experience Attack on Cultural
Deprivation." Reading Teacher, 18 (1964), 546-551.

 

97

Emans, R. "Use of Context Clues." Reading and Realism.
Edited by J. Figurel. Proceedings of the Inter-
national Reading Association, 13 (1969), 76-82.

 

Ervin, S. "Imitation and Structural Change in Children's
Language." New Directions in the Study of Language.
Edited by E. Lenneberg. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.
Press, 1964.

Fasold, R. Reported by W. Wolfram in W. Wolfram, A
Sociological Description of Detroit Negro Speech.
Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics,
1969.

Filmer, H., and Kahn, H. "Race, Socio—economic Level,
Housing, and Reading Readiness." Reading Teacher,
21 (1967), 153—157.

Fodor, E. "The Effects of the Systematic Reading of Stories
on the Language Development of Culturally Deprived
Children." Dissertation Abstracts, 27 (1966),
962-Ao

Frazier, A. "Helping Poorly Languaged Children." Elementary
English, 41 (1964), 149-153.

 

Fries, C. Linguistics and Reading. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1963.

Gleason, H., Jr. Linguistics and English Grammar. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965.

Goodman, K. "A Linguistic Study of Cues and Miscues in
Reading." Elementary English, 42 (1965a), 639-643.

 

Goodman, K. "Dialect Barriers to Reading Comprehension."
ElementaryiEnglish, 42 (1965b), 853-859.

Goodman, Y. "A Psycholinguistic Description of Observed
Oral Reading Phenomena in Selected Young Beginning
Readers." Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Wayne State University, 1967.

Goodman, Y. "Using Children's Reading Miscues for New
Teaching Strategies." Elementary English, 23
(1970), 455-459.

 

Gordon, E. "Characteristics of Socially Disadvantaged
Children." Review of Educational Research, 35
(1965), 377-388.

98

Gotkins, L. Programmed Instruction as a Strategy for
Developing Curricula for Disadvantaged Children."
"Lansuage Remediation for the Disadvantaged Pre-
school Child." Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development. Editediby M.
Brottman. 33, No. 8 (1968), 19-36.

Gray, 5., and Klaus, R. "An Experimental Preschool Program
for culturally Deprived Children." Child Develop-
ment, 36 (1965), 887-898.

 

Gray, W. On Their Own in Reading. Glenview, 111.: Scott,
Foresman and Co., 1960.

Harris, A., and Serwer, B. "Compensatory Reading Approaches
in First Grade Teaching with Disadvantaged Children:
Skills Centered and Language Experience Approaches."
Reading Teacher, 64 (1966), 631-635.

 

Harris, A.; Serwer, B.; and Gold, L. "Comparing Reading
Approaches in First Grade Teaching with Disadvantaged
Children, Extended into the Second Grade." Reading
Teacher, 20 (1967), 698-703.

Hess, R., and Shipman, V. "Early Experience and the
Socialization of Cognitive Modes in Children."
Child Development, 36 (1965), 869-886.

 

Hester, K. Teaching Every Child to Read. 2nd ed. New
York: Harper and Row, 1964.

 

Hildreth, G. Teaching Reading: A Guide to Basic Principles
and Modern Practices. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1958.

 

Hittleman, D. "Teaching Reading to the Disadvantaged
Elementary Pupil." Reading and Realism. Edited
by J. Figurel. Proceedings of the International
Reading Association, 13 (1969), 154-160.

 

Hughes, A. "Beginning Reading for Disadvantaged Children:
Hegler Project Reading Study." Instructor, 75
(1966), 128-129.

 

Ives, J. "Linguistic Principles and Reading Practices in
the Elementary School." Reading and Realism.
Edited by J. Figurel. Proceedings of the Inter-
national Reading Association, 13 (1969), 88-93.

 

99

John, V. "The Intellectual Development of Slum Children:
Some Preliminary Findings." The American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 33 (1963), 813-822.

 

 

Labov, W. "Hypercorrection by the Lower Middle Class as
a Factor in Linguistic Change." Sociolinguistics.
Edited by W. Bright. Proceedings of the U.C.L.A.
Sociolinguistics Conference 1964. The Hague:
Mouton & Co., 1966.

 

Labov, W. "Some Sources of Reading Problems for Negro
Speakers of Non-Standard English." New Directions
in Elementary English. Edited by A. Frazier.
Champaign, 111.: National Council of Teachers
of English, 1967.

 

Labov, W. "Stages in the Acquisition of Standard English."
Social Dialects and Language Learning. Edited by
R. Shuy. Champaign, Ill.: National Council of
Teachers of English, 1964.

 

Labov, W., and Cohen, P. "Systematic Relations of Standard
and Non-Standard Rules in the Grammars of Negro
Speakers." Project Literacy Report, No. 8.

Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., 1967.

Levin, H., and Turner, E. "Sentence Structure and the Eye
Voice Span." Project Literacnyepgrt, No. 7.
Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., 1966.

Loflin, M. "A Teaching Problem in Nonstandard Negro English."
English Journal, 56 (1967), 1312-1314.

 

Malpass, L.; Williams, C.; and Gilmore, A. Programmed
Reading Instruction for Culturally Disadvantaged
Slow Learners, ERIC’TED 010 065), 1966 (45pp.).

 

McCarthy, D. "Language Development in Children." Manual
of Child Psychology. Edited by L. Carmichael.
New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1954.

 

McCullough, C. "Learning to Use Context Clues." Elementary
English Review, 4 (1943), 140-143.

 

McCullough, C. "The Recognition of Context Clues in Reading.‘
Elementary English Review, 1 (1945), 1-5, 38.

 

McCullough, C. "Context Aids in Reading." Reading Teacher,
4 (1958), 225-229.

100

McKee, P. ReadingiA Program of Instruction for the Elementary
School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1966.

Miller, W. "Relationship Between Mother's Style of Com-
munication and her Control System to the Child's
Reading Readiness and Subsequent Reading Achievement
in First Grade." Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Arizona, 1967.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin Board of School Directors. Orientation
Classes for In-Migrant—Transient Children, Report I, 5
Part I, October 1961. ?

 

Newton, E. "Planning for the Language Development of
Disadvantaged Children and Yough." The Journal
of Negro Education, 39 (1964), 264-274.

 

 

Noel, D. "A Comparative Study of the Relationship Between
the Quality of the Child's Language Usage and the
Quality and Types of Language Used in the Home."
Journal of Educational Research, 47 (1953), 161-167.

,_..4;-A .l .nmSAV 5‘ :fi.'2-. ,'

Osborn, J. "Teaching and Teaching Language to Disadvantaged
Children." Mimeographed report. Champaign, 111.:
University of Illinois.

Raph, J. "Language Development in Socially Disadvantaged
Children." Review of Educational Research, 38
(1956), 389-400.

 

Robinson, H. "Communications and Curriculum Change."
Language, Reading, and the Communication Process.
Edited by C. Braun. Newark, Del.: International
Reading Association, 1971.

Ponder, E. "Understanding the Language of the Culturally
Disadvantaged Child." Elementary English, 42
(1965), 769-774.

 

Putnam, G., and O'Hern, E. "The Status Significance of an
Isolated Urban Dialect." Language, 34, No. 4,
Part 2 (1955).

Shuy, R. "A Linguistic Background for Developing Beginning
Reading Materials for Black Children." Teaching
Black Children to Read. Edited by J. Baratz and
R. Shuy. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied
Linguistics, 1969, 117—137.

 

101

Smith, B.; Goodman, K.; and Meredith, R. Language and
Thinking in’the’Elementagy School. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970.

 

Smith, K., and Truby, H. "Dialect Variance Interferes With
Reading Instruction." Reading and Realism. Edited
by J. Figurel. Proceedings of the International
Reading Association, 13 (1969), 166-171.

Smith, M., and Brahce, C. "When School and Home Focus on
Achievement." Educational Leadership, 20 (1963),
314-318.

Staats, A. Learning, Language, and Cognition. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968.

Stemmler, A. "An Experimental Approach to the Teaching
of Oral Language and Reading." Language and
Learning. Edited by J. Emig, et al. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966.

 

Stewart, W. "Nonstandard Speech Patterns." Baltimore
Bulletin of Education, 43 (1966), 52-65.

 

Stodolsky, S., and Lesser, G. "Learning Patterns in the
Disadvantaged." Harvard Educational Review, 37
(1967), 546-593.

Strickland, R. "The Language of Elementary School Children:
Its Relationship to the Language of Reading Text-
books and the Quality of Reading of Selected
Children." Bulletin of the School of Education
Indiana University, 38 (1962), 1-106.

 

Tatham, S. "Reading Comprehension of Materials Written
with Selected Oral Language Patterns: A Study
at Grades Two and Four." ReadingiResearch Quarterly,
5 (1970), 402-426.

Tinker, M. Bases for Effective Reading. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1965.

Tomlinson, L. "Accepting Regional Language Differences in
School." Elementary English, 30 (1953), 420-423.

Venezky, R. "Nonstandard Language and Reading." Elementary
English, 40 (1970), 334-345.

 

Weber, R. "A Linguistic Analysis of First—Grade Reading
Errors." Preliminary draft. Project Literacy,
Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., 1967.

102

Weber, R. "A Linguistic Analysis of First Grade Reading

Errors." Reading Research Quarterly, 5 (1970),
422-251.

Weikart, D. Perry Preschool Project Progress Report.
Ypsilanti, Mich.: Ypsilanti Public Schools,
1971. (Mimeographed.)

Weir, R. Language in the Crib. The Hague: Houton & Co.,
1962.

Whorf, B. "Science and Linguistics." Language, Thought,
and Reality. Edited by J. Carroll. Cambridge,
Mass." M.I.T. Press, 1956, 207-219.

 

Williams, C. "Verbs in Mountain Speech." Mountain Life
and Work. Berea, Ky.: Council of the Southern
Mountains, Inc., Spring (1962), 15-19.

 

Wolfram, W. A Sociological Description of Detroit Negro
Speech. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied
Linguistics, 1969.

Wolfram, W., and Fasold, F. "Toward Reading Materials for
Speakers of Black English: Three Linguistically
Appropriate Passages." Teaching Black Children
to Read. Edited by J. Baratz and R. Shuy.
Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics,
1969.

APPENDICES

103

APPENDIX A

INSTRUMENTS

104

THE WUG TEST

Jean Berko Gleason
110 Larchwood Drive
Cambridge, Mass. 02138

105

106

 

. 0:9 and 050:9
.acza no aha cud oucah
.oao Lozeocc nH chose hoz

 

 

. or» con chock
.acne «0 63¢ can chose
.ono Locooca nH chose >02

 
 

 

. _ .m.‘ a 3 5:.

 

 

. one can chomp
.aosa we ob» ohm chose
.oco Lcsaocc um «page :02

 
 

107

.66; d .« cash

 

 

 

 

. o>¢ can 05029
.8059 Ho o>a cudpcuosh
.oco uonuoum nH cause #02

 

.Loa u on name

 

 

E .II -I.’1..I!‘|l‘.‘u--llII‘ 7 ll

108

 

. ope on: chess
.acna «o O.H cud thank
.oco hczaocc OH ohcca hoz

 

.st a .H .Hne

 

 

II

. oha and chosH
muon¢ «a a)» one oLonH
coco chaocd OH chose .02

NOW

.auo a nH muse

Sc

109

Ill

. a)» cum ohozb
.Bc:¢ he ate on: oucsa
.oao Losaoam uH chose Ioz

 

.uaon a .H .Hga

 

 

. ole on: chAB

.acna Oo are 05¢ chcma
.oco uozaocm nH chose roz

 

.nnda c .H quh

 

llO

 

. on hcvhoa-cO

«Occupanoh on a: OHO ass: .hccuceuch
O35 25: 25 3.. 0: $5.59.“ 3 u:
.boam ca hon ckocx 0:! :cE 2 OH nmza

 

 

. aka on: oucna
.acsa no 939 cu: chcaw
.oflo ucguosu aH cucna Fez

.sudfi d n« anh

 

lll

 

. on noun-Hzow

sugarcane» on on OHe «ca:

. .hcvuceuch

ucHno cad. age uHu o: .uaHaaoz .H a:
.9c2 ca to: annex on) sea d 0H mush

 

 

. c:.hevhcancw

Ohocuc¢noh an o: OHO 9mg; .hacuoamoh
mcHHH can» on» OHO.o= .waHson OH 02
.mon co to: when: 0:: nae d mH mHna

 

112

rhavooauoh 9O on OHO ease

9:5 25:.
oNCflflc 0.?

as» OHO 0:

new
to: orozx 0;!

 

III-III-Il OS hfl «HonOéa 0%

.hmchcanch

.OcstHHo OH c:
C Md. ”M5“.

 

_ __..._.i.._.-.._... .mm——

     

. ...... on havuoa-pn
«bdvhoaoo» cc 0: OHO ads; .Oavuoacoh
9:5. 3..., :3 3.. g: .2338 .H .2

.OOO ad has ahead 8:: use d aH nuns

.&W 2

 

113

C
0.
‘

 

I“ on has hue)”
.511 has). 0H .03. on .95.qu : a:
.uuz ca be: chasm 0:4 col a -H cane

 

 

'i

. . on but hue)“

.hdv Ono». ¢H noon 0: .ucHOOooH n« c:
.owvooq 09 to: .9624 can :ca : um aHma

 

 

 

 

 

114

 

 

rm- non Imon how to 21b. What. in
he doing? He in

What would you call 5 non rho-o Job
is to 21b?

MEANINGFUL LISTENING TEST

Adapted by:
Marilyn Kay Stickle

115

AIL2__W ”A": H) ‘7.»i—N-f
. , 5

 

ll6

. 03» ohm cnoma

.Ecmp Ho 03% ohm chose
.cso Acmponm mH chomp 302

A

.Hoadfi O OH mHHB

 

O!

03» ohm chose
.Ecmp Ho 03p chm cucma
.czo Hcmposm mH cacao Boz

 

.moHH m OH mHma

 

 

117

 

I

03» cum comma
.acmp Ho 03p cum cucma
.cso nonponm mH chomp zoz

 

.noaoH m mH mHmH

 

. 03p chm cncme

.acmp Ho 03p chm oncms
.cso Hcmposm mH chomp zoz

 

.cuopm m mH mHma

       

E3141.

Kiwi“. ..m’ U.

WW

   

118

. .....AIilIIlIIeIN 1.14.31» . .

 

03p cum cncme
.scsp Ho 03p cum chose

.cso Hcmposm mH cucmp 302

 

.cmon m mH mHmH

 

 

 

o 03». O.H.m O.H $38

.acmp Ho 03» cpm cucme
.cno Hcmposm mH chomp 302

.Omnp m mH mHme

 

 

119

 

03p chm chose
.Ecmp Ho 33» ohm moose
.cco pompomm mH cscsp 302

 

.mHst a mH mng

\III.§

 

. 03p chm chose
.Ecnp mo 03p cum cmcme

.cmo mccuocm mH chomp Soz

 

.mmmHo m mH mHme

 

 

 

. cm OmOHcpmcw . 03p chm chze

OOmOncpch 0O c: OHO pmmz .OmOscpch .Eczp O0 03» cum muons
mchp csmw cnp OHO cm .OGHZcm mH cm .ccc occpocm mH chomp 302
.3cc op 30; mSocm 0:3 sms m mH mHne

.U

1|.

 

121

 

cs Omumcpmcw

 

. c Om kc cc
2 a p H Osmepmpmms ow m: eHe pmsz .Hmesmpmms
Ohmoncpwch 0O on OHO Hmmz .Omvncpch mcHsp cemw ctp OHO cm .OCHmoHH mH c:

mmHmp cemm one OHO cm .mmHHpmn mH cm .NoHH 0H 30: mzocx 0:3 QOO m mH nge

.umo ow 303 m302x 0:3 ace m mH mHna

 
 

122

 

. cm OmOHcpmcw
Ohmuucpmch 0O 0: OHO vmm3 .Omcncpmch
msHmp camm cap OHO cm .msHmsHm mH cm
.OsHm 0p 30: m3osm 0:3 :ma m mH mHme

 

. cm Omcncumcw

OOmOHcpch 0O cm OHO pmms .OmOHcpch
OGHQH 08mm cmp OHO cm .msHucos pom wH cm
.Oon pom 0» 30m m30mm om3 smfi m mH mHme

 

123

NPIHLILEEVth ......Il... II. . b

 

cg OmO Onc>m
.Omu OHc>c pH mcoc cm .msHNmHO mH cm
.cumnm op 30: m30cm 0:3 300 m mH mHma

 

. cm OmO Onc>m
.OmO OHc>c pH mcoc cm .mmHmOs: mH cm

.cmcss 0p 30: m3osm 0A3 nma m mH mHma

 

124

 

This man knows how to pitch. What is
he doing? He is

 

125

ORAL READING TEST I

Adapted by:
Marilyn Kay Stickle

'T.

‘ i L f.’.'.'

126

.wocotzco 03H mum mtmcH
.eOcH +0 02H mum mtmcH

.mco nonwocw w_

.cotzco a

 

J

U

mtmcw soz

 

25.

 

awman 02H mtm mtmcH
.EOOH Ho 02H mum mtocH
.mco mewocm w_ mtmcp :02

 

.msn . m_ w_;e

..
.PO‘I..EIHE..5.GLN€£ . . .1'

. .mtmo 02H mt“ mtmcH
mczw 03H mum mmeH .smcw Ho 02p mtg mtmcH

smcw Ho 02H mew osmCH .mco meHocm w_ mtmzw =04
.oco tmcwocm m_ OLOLH :02

 

.cam a w_ m_nH

 

 

vilfildluu‘lulo) :II..II II: I

.mmmoc 02+ wt“ ¢L¢g+
.smcH +0 oz+ wt“ ¢L¢c+
.mco Lcswocm m_ wits“ :02

p
_

 
 

128

.¢m0: a m. m_c+

 

 

.me2 02+ mta mtmc+
.socH +0 03+ mt“ mtmc+
.mco tmzpocm m_ otmcw :02

/J.
\

\ .

\-

.>m3 a m_ m_;+

129

1111511111.!!Z. . .. . .Id

.m0>me 02H mtm mtocH
.smgw +0 02+ mum mtmcH

.oco meyocm w_ mtocw =0:

 

.ton a w_ m_;+

 

.mmwwaHO 03+ at“ ctmcH
.smc+ +0 oz+ mum 0Lm5+

.oco nonwoca w_ mtmcH :02

.wmaHO a m_ w_c+

130

lli.‘ lily-.‘NIVIIIII ‘31.. I

.um30L m; Hango+wm+

+3mngm+w0> on on

u_u +a23 .Hmutm+mmH Oc_c+ .wmmmtam 03+ mum mLOOH
msmw 03+ n_n 0: .30L 0+ .Emc+ +0 03+ mtm mtmc+
30: m3ocx 0:3 ass a m_ m_c+ .oco Loz+0cm w_ mtmc+ 3oz

 

.ommtmm m w. w_c+

 

 

 

131

L
.

 

.rlIlFlwIIELIrlh..m. F. . t

.Oo++aa 0; Hmuto+wo+

33.31o+wm3 on 0; u_u +«33
Hautc+m0H O3_3+ 03am 03+ u_0
o: .Oc_++«a w_ m: .+aq 0+
30; «30:3 053 cue a w. w_;+

 

 

.u0x0_x 0; Owntm+m0+

+>mugm+wm> on on

u_u +ac3 .Hanto+mm3 mc_c+
”saw 03+ u_u 6: .xo_x 0+
30; m3ocx 0:3 cue a w_ m_c+

   

132

 

.Ocat 0c Haut0+00>

+H~0L0+00>

on 0; u_u +~33 .3.u.0+003
30.2+ 02.. 03+ u_u 0:
.O3_Oc_t 0_ 01 .Oc_t 0+
30; 03033 033 cps a 0_ 0_z+

 

.
'

 

.00000: 0; Huuto+w0+

Haut0+00> O3_c+ 05mm 05+ 0_O
0: .O:_u00c 0_ 0: .00: 0+
30; 03003 053 :05 0 w. 0_c+

 

133

i.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.91 fill .511. ASE-.5115... r. .. ..

.00N00 0: >00 HL0>O

.Omn >L0>0 +_ 0000
0: .Oc_~00 0_ 0: .0N0u 0+
30; mxocx 0:3 :05 a 0_ 0.2+

 

 

.00OcaHa 0; >00 Ht0>m

.Hmu >20>0 +_ 0000 0:
.Oc_mc:Ha 0_ 0: .0Ocan 0+
30; 03ocx 0:3 :05 0 0_ 0_c+

 

134

...,“— H‘..— a... OHM-r..-

 

 

 

 

This man knows how to sleep.

E What is he doing?
3He is sleeping.

135

ORAL READING TEST II

Adapted by:
Marilyn Kay Stickle

136

   

 

030+00 00+ 000 0003+
.003H +0 00+ 000 0003+
.030 m03+030 0H 00033 002

 

 

 

 

.an 00+ 000 0003+
.003+ +0 00+ 000 0003+
.000 003+030 0H 0003+ 002

 

.03 0 a 2.3

 

137

 

.5O.00+ 80 0003+
.005 +0 00+ 00 0003+

.000 00580 0+ 0003+ 002

 

 

 

 

.030 00+ 000 0003+

.005 +0 00+ 000 0003+
. 030 0050.00 0+ 0003+ 002

0 0O

.3. 0 s .20

138

}. I‘fi‘ 1,?1. 1 a,

.0000 00+‘000 0003+

.003+ +0 00+ 000 0003+
.000 003+000 0+ 0003+ 002

..V 9

.0000 0 0+ 02+

9V

 

.+0x 00+ 000 0003+
.003+ +0 00+ 000 0003+

.000 003+030 0+ 00035 002

 

 

 

.++030 00+ 000 0003+
.003+ +0 00+ 000 0003+
.000 003+000 0+ 0003+ 002

 
 

139

£20 a a 3.0

 

.00003 00+ 000 0003+
.003+ +0 00+ 00» 0003+
.000 003+000 0+ 0003+ 002

 

.00003 0 0+ 0+3+

 

140

i-.1.4.l:l.l|..l:l|:1.-. : 0;

.+0+0 03 +0000+00+

0503...: a 2. 00. +00 .5033.
053+ 0000 0.0 00. 0: 00:30 0+ 0:
.+0+0 0+ 003 00003 030 000 0 0+ 0+3+

 

 

 

.0000 00+ 000 0003+
.003+ +0 00+ 000 0003+
.000 003+000 0+ 0003+ 002

 

 

 

 

.0000 0 0+ 0+3+

 

141

.+0+00 03 +3038»

$000300» 8 03 0+0 +05 .+0000+00+

0.0.0 0.8 20 30 0.. .0553 0+ 0.
.053 3 .2. 2...... 20 03 0 2 2.0

 

 

...... 2. 5.30.0

0.0000300» 0+. I 0+0 +0.3 $000300»
0.0.: 0.3 0.0 30 2. .0033. 3 0..
.500 0+ 003 0005. 2+. 000 0 0+ 0+3+

142

 

H INK a. .‘Mué‘.iiruialn'lil}l.c ,

.mcuuu 0: x0000000»

mam000000» 00 0: 000 00;: .x0000000»
0...... 83 2.. 3.. .... 550...: a... 0..
.00000 00 .0; 0.0:: 0:: x00 0 00 cash

 

 

 

.0000 0: x0000000»

~a0000000» 00 as 000 «as: .x0000000»
0...... 2.3 2.. 3.. ... .0502 2 0..

..000- 00 00: 000:: 0;. >00 0 00 005p

 

143

s
i‘llj ‘11:.41luilfii‘! ‘5'! 0....Ull 1 A .‘ 1'

.-=0 0: x00 x00>m
.x00 x00>0 .0 0000 0: .m=0-00 00 0:
.-=0 00 00; 0000x 000 000 0 00 000k

ll'

‘ ... z r m.
9.0.0.30. \%
0 ..i

..

 

.00000 on x00 x00,“
.000 a0000 00 0000 0: .00000000 00 a:

.00000 00 00: 000=x 0;; :00 0 0w 000~

 

144

\
\\

\‘ ‘ g
v
:4‘1’

 

 

 

/'\
/‘/’
o

     

Q

wflfi

This man knows how to fish.
Hhat is he doing?
He is fish.

APPENDIX B

TEST ANALYSES

145

14.... v‘u ..v

146

The Wug Test

 

 

 

 

Item Item
Difficulty Discrimination
Items Task
Black White Total Black White Total
Group Group
Plurals
1 z 16 O 8 38 31 30
2 ez 76 18 47 54 31 78
3 z 32 0 16 85 0 56
4 z 34 0 17 69 0 59
5 z 32 2 17 62 8 63
6 ez 94 28 61 23 69 100
7 ez 94 18 56 23 46 ’ 96
8 f/v 90 38 64 38 85 81
9 ez 90 16 53 23 46 96
Past Tenses
10 d 32 0 16 39 0 48
11 t 36 0 18 38 0 48
12 ted 86 8 47 38 31 96
13 ded 84 8 46 16 31 89
14 ang 100 90 95 0 31 19
Third Person
Singular
15 ez 88 32 6O 31 77 92
16 ez 88 32 60 31 77 89
Progressive
Form
17 ing 46 4 25 61 15 59
Total
Black White Group
Subjects . 50 50 100
Mean Item Difficulty 66 17 42
Mean Item Discrimination 39 32 70

Kuder Richardson Reliability # 20 .7485 .7931 .9228
Standard Error of Measurement 1.4340 1.1416 1.3692

-- -“w—W —-...m-...g..h

147

The Meaningful Listening Test

 

 

 

 

Item Item
Difficulty Discrimination
Items Task
Black White Total Black White Total
Group Group
Plurals
1 z 8 O 4 31 0 15
2 ez 48 6 27 77 8 7O
3 z 8 0 31 0 15
4 z 14 0 46 0 22
5 z 6 0 23 0 11
6 ez 84 26 55 54 69 96
7 ez 74 14 44 69 46 96
8 f/v 76 32 54 69 69 78
9 ez 70 16 43 69 54 100
Past Tenses
10 d 22 ll 31 33
11 t 18 9 30 26
12 ted 68 38 54 31 89
13 ded 84 10 47 3O 33 93
14 ang 96 84 90 0 54 30
Third Person
Singular
15 ez 84 30 57 54 69 96
16 ez 84 3O 57 54 69 100
Progressive
Form
17 ing 12 O 6 23 0 15
Total
Black White Group
Subjects 50 50 100
Mean Item Difficulty 50 15 33
Mean Item Discrimination 43 29 57
Kuder Richardson Reliability # 20 .7849 .7678 .8873
Standard Error of Measurement 1.3957 1.0936 1.3468

_ 0 A w\-h‘

148

Oral Reading Test I

 

 

 

 

Item . Item
. Difficulty Discrimination
Items Task
Black White Total 'Black White Total
Group Group
Plurals
1 z 16 38 8 38 0 22
2 ez 34 69 20 69 23 56
3 z 4 15 2 15 O 7
4 z 10 7 5 7 0 11
5 z 10 23 5 23 0 19
6 ez 68 30 50 30 85 63
7 ez 44 77 30 77 54 85
8 f/v 40 62 38 62 62 44
9 ez 60 69 35 69 38 85
Past Tenses
10 d 22 46 12 46 0 30
11 t 24 31 14 31 8 37
12 ted 60 100 39 100 54 85
13 ded 62 92 40 92 62 93
14 ang 72 31 73 31 77 41
Third Person
Singular
15 ez 76 69 55 69 62 89
16 ez 92 30 57 30 69 82
Progressive
Form
17 ing 24 69 15 69 8 37
Total
Black White Group
Subjects 50 50 100
Mean Item Difficulty 42 17 29
Mean Item Discrimination 50 35 52
Kuder Richardson # 20 .7763 .7838 .8415

Standard Error of Measurement 1.5937 1.2087 1.4567

149

Oral Reading Test II

 

 

 

 

Item 'Item
Difficulty Discrimination
Items Task
Black White Total Black White Total
.Group Group
Plurals
1 z 10 0 5 38 0 19
2 ez 36 4 20 77 15 67
3 z 12 0 6 46 22
4 z 12 O 6 30 19
5 z 14 0 7 38 22
6 ez 76 30 53 62 69 86
7 ez 40 12 26 69 38 74
8 f/v 72 32 52 69 62 89
9 ez 6O 12 36 70 46 85
Past Tenses
10 d 24 4 14 54 15 37
11 t 34 8 21 77 31 56
12 ted 70 18 44 47 62 93
13 ded 84 24 54 46 77 92
14 ang 88 80 84 7 54 30
Third Person
Singular
15 ez 84 42 63 30 85 92
16 ez 86 40 63 38 77 89
Progressive
Form
17 ing 10 0 55 23 0 11
Total
Black White Group
Subjects 50 50 100
Mean Item Difficulty 48 18 33
Mean Item Discrimination 48 37 57
Kuder Richardson # 20 .8009 .8214 .8781
Standard Error of Measurement 1.4811 1.1746 1.3857

A;

" “ fr?”

APPENDIX C

FORMS USED

150

I
‘ Khan LIAN;-

151
Language Survey Observations

To the Teacher:

participated in a brief
language appraisal which surveyed a child's ability to
complete the language tasks described below. It is hoped
that this report will provide you with helpful feedback

on his/her performance. A star (*) indicates a strength,
and a check (/) denotes weakness or an area for future
instruction and growth. Since the survey covered the
areas of formation of plurals, past tenses, third person
Singulars and progressive tenses, the observations have
been grouped in the same manner.

Forming plurals for nouns:
requiring a "2" sound as in dogs.
requiring an "s"" sound as in ducks.
requiring an Hes sound as in churches.
requiring a change from "f" to ”v as in half
to halves- plus the additional "s" or "es"
ending.

Forming past tenses of verbs:
using a "t" or "d" sound as in hopped or called.
using a "ted" or "ded" sound as in patted or nodded.
using an 1rregu1ar pattern as in sw__qfsw__g.

Forming third person Singulars:
using "s" or "es" as in hop-hops and catch-catches.

Forming the progressive form:
using "ing" as in sleep-sleeping.

Your assistance has been greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

M. Kay Stickle

L- 1.1.... ...-.01 ~ :1

152

 

 

 

 

mew

.moum

 

 

Nm

 

 

Nm

.mm.num

 

 

mam

 

 

cmc

 

 

emu

 

 

 

 

 

 

ummm

 

 

Nm

 

 

>\m i

 

 

N0

 

 

N0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm

 

 

N

llllllill
‘“ llllHlll
IIIHIHI

mz m m2 m2 m mz m amusam
mucwEEOU HH mcflpmmm H mcflomom mcflcmumflq oxumm mmomhsm

 

 

Hoocom 00mm xmm mpmuu mod
mucoumfimcou HMUHmoHonmuoz mo mumoe

>m<ZZDm mmZOmmmm

5H

ma
ma

ea
ma
NH
Ha

HNMV‘mKDf‘mm

mEmuH

GEM Z

”'l’iifixfiinfiflfnjufififlijijilwmmfimEs

5 9823