A CQRQMREWE STUBY 0F PEKSGNALIZED EEAfiENS EH [1N GFEI‘é-LEAEMR'G ERVERQWER M33 BASA}. TEXT READERS EN A 'I‘EABI'EEOMLLEAEREEG EKVEEOEfiR-‘ééfi? Tfififlfiefi EARLY ELEMERYRR? PUPZL ACBEEVEMEN’? T5333: gov “we @cqma of pit“ D. XWC’EPMI STA'E‘E UNWEESITY Eess M Waiker 7.972 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Comparative Study of Personalized Reading In An Open-Learning Environment And Basal Text Reading In A Traditional -Learning Environment Through Early Elementary Pupil Achievement presented by Jess M. Walker has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D degreein Administration and Higher Education Major professor / Date _.InnL5_._121L__. 0-7639 ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PERSONALIZED READING IN AN OPEN-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND BASAL TEXT READING IN A TRADITIONAL—LEARNING ENVIRONMENT THROUGH EARLY ELEMENTARY PUPIL ACHIEVEMENT BY Jess M. Walker Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate hypotheses to ascertain the effect on reading achievement of two different learning environments and two different instructional approaches for first, second, and third-grade subjects. An experimental group was identified and exposed to an Open-learning environ- ment with personalized reading instruction. A control group was identified and exPosed to a traditional-learning environment with basal text group reading instruction. This study had three specific purposes: 1. To ascertain and compare pre- and post~mean difference scores on reading achievement for subjects in Jess M. Walker first, second, and third grades between the experimental and the control groups. 2. To ascertain and compare pre- and post-mean difference scores on reading achievement by sex for subjects in first, second, and third grades within and between the experimental and the control groups. 3. TO ascertain and compare pre- and post-mean difference scores on reading achievement by race for subjects in first, second, and third grades within and between the experimental and the control groups. Selected Review Of the Literature The Review of the Literature examined the principles on which present methods Of teaching are based, defined the problems and needs, and interpreted assumptions inherent in current educa- tional practice. The Review Of the Literature covered a study Of pertinent theory and research in the areas Of basal text reading instruction, the traditional-classroom philosophy and practice, personalized reading instruction, and Open-classroom philosophy and practice. Procedure The population from which the experimental and the control Jess M. Walker groups was drawn was composed Of first, second, and third—grade subjects at Crowell and Dalrymple Elementary Schools in the Albion, Michigan Public School District. The experimental group Of eighty-five subjects was assigned to Open-Learning Environment Project classrooms for the 1971-72 academic schOOl year in first, second, or third grade. The control group was randomly matched to the experimental group on the basis Of grade level, chronological age, sex, and race. The experimental research design was selected for this study. It could not be assumed that the experimental and the control groups were equal as they were not matched on the basis Of academic achievement. The pre-test mean scores Of the two groups were tested with a t-test. The resulting t-values were not significant, and the two groups were considered comparable for the purposes of this study. The research questions were stated as null hypotheses and were tested statistically by examining the difference between the experimental and the control group means. The Metropolitan Achievement Test battery was selected as the instrument tO pre- and post—test first, second, and third- grade subjects. The testing program was intended to determine whether Jess M. Walker or not the treatment Of the experimental and the control groups pro- duced a mean difference in reading achievement. The means and standard deviations were found and tested for significant differences in both groups. The critical ratio (t) was used to test the significant difference Of the mean. The t- statistic was tested for significance at the . 05 level. Findings and Conclusions The following findings were drawn from the data: Results Of the statistical testing Of the pre-te st data from the Metropolitan Achievement Test showed no significant difference in any subtest at first, second, or third-grade level between the experi- mental and the control groups. Hence, for purposes Of the study, the groups were assumed to be similar. Evidence from this study indicates that for this sample the personalized reading instruction program (experimental group) does not produce significantly different mean achievement in any subtest area (first grade: listening for sounds and reading; second grade: word knowledge, word analysis, and reading; third grade: word knowledge, word analysis, reading, and spelling) from the basal text group reading instruction program (control group). COInparisons were made within and between experimental and control groups between males and females in all subtest Jess M. Walker areas Of the MetrOpOlitan Achievement Test. Only the following comparisons resulted in t-tests of significance: 1. At the fir st-grade level, significant differences resulted when the female subjects in the experimental group were compared with female subjects in the control group on the subtest Listening for Sounds. This difference favored the females in the control group. 2. At the second-grade level, significant differences resulted when male subjects in the experimental group were com- pared with male subjects in the control group on the subte st Reading. This difference favored the males in the control group. 3. At the third-grade level, significant differences resulted when female subjects in the experimental group were compared with female subjects in the control group on the subtest Word Knowledge. The difference favored the females in the experimental group. Comparisons were made within and between experimenal and control groups between races in all subtest areas Of the Metropolitan Achievement Test. Only the following comparisons resulted in t-tests Of significance: 1. At the second-grade level, significant differences resulted when white subjects in the control group were compared with Black subjects in the control group on the subte st Word AnalySIs. The difference favored the Black subjects in the control Jess M. Walker group. 2. At the second-grade level, significant differences resulted when white subjects in the control group were compared with Black subjects in the experimental group on the subte st Word Analysis. The difference favored the Black subjects in the experimental group. 3. At the second-grade level, significant differences resulted when white subjects in the control group were compared with Black subjects in the experimental group on the subtest Reading. The difference favored the white subjects in the control group. 4. At the third-grade level, significant differences resulted at the . 05 level when Black subjects in the experimental group were compared with Black subjects in the control group. The difference favored the Black subjects in the experimental group. The evaluation Of reading achievement between the experi- mental and control groups in this study presented many problems to the investigator. The curricula of the control classrooms closely paralleled the content Of the MetrOpOlitan Achievement Tests. However, because the curricula in the Open-learning environ- ment classrooms originated and changed according tO the needs and interests Of the children, the content validity Of the Metropolitan Achievement Test for this group was in question. At the time Of testing, no standardized achievement test had been developed to Jess M. Walker measure the breadth and scope Of a personalized reading program in an Open-learning environment. The necessity Of children in early elementary grades to learn tO read and to comparatively measure that achievement is a position endorsed by educators and strongly held by parents. If new Options are tO survive in the framework Of public education, research evidence must demonstrate tO school boards, school administrators, teachers, and parents that children do indeed learn to read as well in the educational alternative as they do in existing programs. This study has proven that an Open—learning environment provides the setting in which personalized reading can function successfully, and thus it becomes a viable alternative for teaching reading. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PERSONALIZED READING IN AN OPEN-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND BASAL TEXT READING IN A TRADITIONAL-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT THROUGH EARLY ELEMENTARY PUPIL ACHIEVEMENT BY nbflr! Jess M?KWalker A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment Of the requirements for the degree Of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department Of Administration and Higher Education 1972 ACKNOW LEDGEME NTS The encouragement and assistance during the years Of academic study culminating with the completion Of this dissertation are the result Of the cooperative efforts and gentle understanding Of many people. My appreciation is extended to Mr. Charles Stewart Mott Of Flint and the Mott Foundation for their sponsorship Of the cooperative Leadership Program between the Flint Community Schools and Michigan State University--a program in which I had the privilege Of participating and from which I gained a solid foundation and renewed commitment to the challenges Of educa- tion. To Dr. Ernest O. Melby, my deepest gratitude is given for the inspiration he was to me during the development Of my personal philosophy Of education. Appreciation goes to Dr. Clyde Camp- bell for his immeasurable contribution tO the success Of the Mott Leadership Program; his encouragement for me to complete this dissertation continues with his service as a member Of my doctoral committee. With deepest respect, the writer wishes to thank his committee chairman, Dr. Howard Hickey, whose personal concern, encouragement, and assistance guided this dissertation to comple- tion. Appreciation is expressed tO Drs. Sheldon Lowry, Dale Alam, ii and Clyde Campbell. Their willingness tO advise and Offer encourage- ment for me to complete this task, I shall remember with both fondness and respect. Special thanks are accorded to Mrs. Kathy Filip, Mrs. Connie Strong, Mrs. Fran Reynolds, Mrs. Beryl Newsome, and Mr. David Johnson for their assistance at various stages in the conducting Of this study and the writing Of this dissertation. NO words can adequately express appreciation tO my wife, Jane, to whom I shall be eternally grateful for her love, inspira- tion, support, and constant help through the years Of academic study and in the writing Of this dissertation. TO my children, Janae, Jeffrey, Jory, Jennifer, and Jaime, who shared in the sacrifice to complete this dissertation, I thank you for your love, patience, and understanding. This dissertation is dedicated to my daughter, Jennifer, who during the period Of this study at age four, inspired her father as she learned tO read, using key vocabulary. And finally, for my son, Jaime, age two, may the Opportunity someday by yours to learn to read, using key vocabulary as a basis for personalized reading instruction in the public schools. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER II. III. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. . . Introduction The Problem. . ...... . . . ..... . . Hypotheses to be Tested. . . . . . . . . . . Definition Of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . Delimitations Of the Study . . . . . . . . Organization Of the Study . . . . . . . SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . Introduction . . . . . . . Basal Reading Instruction . . . . . . . . . . Traditional Classroom. . . . . . . Personalized Reading Instruction . . . . . Reading PhilOSOphy and Practice Based on the Writings of Sylvia Ashton- Warner . . Reading Philosophy and Practice Based on the Writings Of Jeannette Veatch . . An Open-Learning Environment. . . . . . . PROCEDURES, METHODS AND INSTRUMENTS. . . . . . . . . Introduction Procedures . . . . . . . Survey Of the Literature . . The Setting Of the Study . . . Open-Learning Environment PrOject - Open—Classroom Environment PrOject Student Population . iv PAGE iv 15 15 17 24 28 29 33 42 62 62 62 62 63 64 65 CHAPTER PAGE Selection Of Pupils for the Control Group . . . 67 Selection of Teachers ............. 68 Inservice Training for Teachers ........ 69 Selection Of Research Method and Instruments . ................. 72 Instrumentation .............. . . . 74 Data Analysis. . ..... . ........ . . 79 Summary . . . . . ............ . . . 81 IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA. . 83 Introduction. . . . . . . ....... . . . . . 83 Method Of Analysis . . ........ . . . . . 83 Null Hypothesis I ............... 85 Null Hypothesis II . . ..... . . . . . . . . 87 Null Hypothesis III . . . ...... . . . . . . 92 Null Hypothesis IV . . ......... . . . . 97 Null Hypothesis V . ...... . . . . . . . . 99 Null Hypothesis VI . . . . . .......... 106 Null Hypothesis VII. ............. .. 114 Null Hypothesis VIII . . ............ 117 Null Hypothesis IX . . . . ....... . . . . 124 Summary ............ . ...... . 134 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . ...... 137 Summary ....... . ............ 137 The Problem . ................. 137 The Sample ...... . . . ...... . . . . . 139 The Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Instruments Used to Collect Data . . ..... 140 Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . , . . .. . . 141 Findings ....... . . . . . ..... . . . 141 Conclusions. . . . ...... . . . . . . .. . . 144 Discussion .......... . . . . . . . . . 145 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. 147 Epilogue ........ . . .. . . . . ..... 149 BIBLIOGRAPHY............... . 158 TAB LE 111-1 111-2 IV-1 IV-2 IV-3 IV—4 IV-5 LIST OF TAB LES Student Make-Up Of the Open-Classroom Environment Project Divided by Grade, Sex, and Race Student Make-Up Of the Control Group Divided by Grade, Sex, and Race First Grade Description by Sex and Race Summary Of Statistical Comparisons Between First Grade Experimental and Control Groups on Two Achievement Variables as Measured by Pre- and Post-Test Raw Scores on the MetrOpOlitan Achievement Test Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Sex for First Grade Within and Between Experimental and Control Groups on the Subte st Listening for Sounds as Measured by Pre- and Post—Test Raw Scores on the MetrOpOlitan Achievement Test Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Sex for First Grade Within and Between Experimental and Control Groups on the Subte st Reading as Measured by Pre- and Post-Test Raw Scores on the MetrOpOlitan Achievement Test Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Race for First Grade Within and Between Experimental and Control Groups on the Subtest Listening for Sounds as Measured by Pre- and Post-Test Raw Scores on the MetrOpOlitan Achievement Test vi PAG E 66 68 85 86 89 91 94 TAD LE IV-6 IV-7 IV-8 IV-9 IV-lO IV-ll Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Race for First Grade Within and Between Experimental and Control Groups on the Subtest Reading as Measured by Pre- and Post-Test Raw Scores on the MetrOpOlitan Achievement Test Second Grade Description by Sex and Race Summary Of Statistical Comparisons Be- tween Second Grade Experimental and Control Groups on Three Achievement Variables as Measured by Pre- and PO st-Te st Grade Equivalent Scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Sex for Second Grade Within and Between Experimental and Control Groups on the Subtest Word Knowledge as Measured by Pre- and Post-Test Grade Equivalent Scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test Summary z-f Statistical Comparisons by Sex for Second Grade Within and Between Experi- mental and Control groups on the Subtest Word Analysis as Measured by Pre- and Post-Test Grade Equivalent Scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Sex for Second Grade Within and Between Experi- mental and Control Groups on the Subtest Reading as Measured by Pre- and Post-Test Grade Equivalent Scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. PAG E 96 95 98 101 103 105 TABLE IV—12 IV-13 IV-l4 IV-15 IV-l6 IV—17 PAGE Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Race for Second Grade Within and Between Experimental and Control Groups on the Subte st Word Knowledge as Measured by Pre- and Post-Test Grade Equivalent Scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test 108 Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Race for Second Grade Within and Between Experimental and Control Groups on the Subtest Word Analysis as Measured by Pre- and Post-Te st Grade Equivalent Scores on the MetrOpOlitan Achievement Test 110 Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Race for Second Grade Within and Between Experimental and Control Groups on the Subtest Reading as Measured by Pre- and PO st-Test Grade Equivalent Scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test 113 Third Grade Description by Sex and Race 114 Summary Of Statistical Comparisons Between Third Grade Experimental and Control Groups on Four Achievement Variables as Measured by Pre-- and Post-Test Grade Equivalent Scores on the MetrOpOlitan Achievement Test 115 Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Sex for Third Grade Within and Between Experi- mental and Control Groups on the Subte st Word Knowledge as Measured by Pre- and Post-Te st Grade Equivalent Scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test 118 viii TAB LE IV-18 IV-19 IV-20 IV-21 IV-22 IV-23 PAGE Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Sex for Third Grade Within and Between Experi- mental and Control Groups on the Subte st Word Analysis as Measured by Pre- and Post-Te st Grade Equivalent Scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test 121 Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Sex for Third Grade Within and Between Experimental and Control Groups on the Subte st Reading as Measured by Pre- and Post-Test Grade Equivalent Scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test 123 Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Sex for Third Grade Within and Between Experimental and Control Groups on the Subte st Spelling as Measured by Pre- and Post-Te st Grade Equivalent Scores on the MetrOpOlitan Achievement Test 125 Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Race for Third Grade Within and Between Experi- mental and Control Groups on the Subtest Word Knowledge as Measured by Pre- and Post-Test Grade Equivalent Scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test 127 Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Race for Third Grade Within and Between Experi- mental and Control Groups on the Subtest Word Analysis as Measured by Pre- and Post-Te st Grade Equivalent Scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test 129 Summary Of Statistical Comparisons by Race for Third Grade Within and Between Experi- mental and Control Groups on the Subtest Reading as Measured by Pre - and Post- Te st Grade Equivalent Scores on the Metro— pOlItan Achievement Test 131 ix TAB LE IV-24 PAGE Summary of Statistical Comparisons by Race for Third Grade Within and Between Experi- mental and Control Groups on the Subtest Spelling as Measured by Pre— and Post-Test Grade Equivalent. Scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test 133 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction The most important responsibility of the elementary school-- indeed, its central and crucial responsibility--is to develop childrens' love for learning and to teach the skills that facilitate learning. Chief among these skills is reading, for reading is the key to the past as well as the present. To teach children to read is to start them on a lifetime of learning. James E. Allen, Jr. , former U. S. Commissioner of Education, identified the inability to read as one of the most pressing problems con- fronting American education. The inability to read effectively, contaminating as it does every other dimension of education, is clearly one challenge deserving of our concentrated efforts. As We learn how to attack this deficiency cooperatively, we not only will be getting at this foundation of learn- ing, but will be gaining the strength and the skills to meet many other educational problems. From a variety of statistical Information accumulated by the U. S. Office of Education regarding reading deficienCIes throughout the country, these shocking facts stand out: One out of every four students nationwide has significant reading deficiences. In large city school systems up to one-half of the students read below expectation. There are more than 3, 000, 000 illiterates in our adult population. About one-half of our unemployed youth, ages sixteen to twenty-one, are functionally illiterate. In a recent U. S. Armed Forces program called, "Project 100, 000, " 68. 2 percent of the young fell below grade seven in reading and academic ability. Lacy has indicated the growing importance and close relationship of education and reading. Perhaps the clearest requirement of the years ahead is that education must occupy a far larger part of our energies and resources dealing with a far more complex body of knowledge, extending at every level to a higher proportion of the popu- lation and continuing for longer periods. As educa- tion occupies a more central role in our society, so inevitably will reading, its necessary accompani- ment. As James E. Allen, Jr. , has proposed, "We should immediately set for ourselves the goal of ensuring that by the 1James E. Allen, Jr. , "The Right to Read Target for the 1970‘s, " The PTA Magazine, LXIV (December, 1969), pp. 6-7. 2Dan Lacy, ”Reading's Place in an Effective Society, " International Reading Association Conference Proceedings, Volume 3, Scholastic Magazine, (New York: 1958), p. 20. end of the 1970’s the right to read shall be a reality for all; that no one shall leave our schools without the skill and the desire necessary to read to the full limits of his capability. The concern of educators today must be: Can current approaches to the teaching of reading be improved? The answers lie in the findings of research. The Problem The purpose of this study was to ascertain the effect on reading achievement in first, second, and third—grade subjects in an open-learning environment with a personalized reading pro- gram, as compared with the effect on reading achievement of a traditional-learning environment with a basal text reading pro— gram. The study was also designed to determine the relationship of reading achievement as correlated to sex and race within and between the experimental and control groups. Hypotheses To Be Tested The following hypotheses, which ordered and provided direction to the study, were tested: 3Allen, op. _C_1_t_ _. p. 7. NULL HYPOTHESIS I - There will be no significant difference in achievement of first-grade subjects between experi- mental and control groups as measured by pre- and post—test mean difference scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. A. Subte st: Listening for Sounds B. Subte st: Reading NULL HYPOTHESIS II - There will be no significant difference in achievement of first-grade subjects between males and females in the experimental and the control groups as mea- sured by pre- and post-test mean difference scores on the Metro- politan Achievement Te st. .’ A. Subtest: Listening for Sounds B. Subte st: Reading NULL HYPOTHESIS III - There will be no significant difference in achievement of first-grade subjects between races in the experimental and control groups as measured by pre- and post-test mean difference scores on the I». etropolitan Achieve- Inent Test. A. Subtest: Listening for Sounds B. Subte st: Reading NULL HYPOTHESIS IV ~ There will be no significant difference in achievement of second-grade subjects between experi- mental and control groups as measured by pre- and post-te st mean difference scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. A. Subtest: Word Knowledge B. Subtest: Word Analysis C. Subte st: Reading NULL HYPOTHESIS V - There will be no significant difference in achievement of second-grade subjects between males and females in the experimental and control groups as measured by pre- and post-test mean difference scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. A. Subte st: Word Knowledge B. Subtest: Word Analysis C. Subte st: Reading NULL HYPOTHESIS VI - There will be no significant difference in achievement of second-grade subjects between races in the experimental and control groups as measured by pre- and post-test mean difference scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. A. Subte st: Word Knowledge B. Subtest: Word Analysis C. Subte st: Reading NULL HYPOTHESIS VII - There will be no significant difference in achievement of third-grade subjects between experi- mental and control groups as measured by pre- and post-test mean difference scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. A. B. Subte st: Subte st: Subte st: Subte st: Word Knowledge Word Analysis Reading Spelling NULL HYPOTHESIS VIII — There will be no significant difference in achievement of third—grade subjects between males and females in the experimental and control groups as measured by pre~ and. post-ts st mean difference scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. A. B. Subte st: Subte st: Subtest: Subte st: Word Knowledge Word Analysis Reading Spelling NULL HYPOTHESIS IX - There will be no significant difference in achievement of third-grade subjects between races in experimental and control groups as measured by pre- and post- test mean difference scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. A. Subte st: Word Knowledge B. Subte st: Word Analysis C. Subte st: Reading D. Subte st: Spelling In the hypotheses investigated, the mean gain made by each group was the basis for comparison as to the effectiveness of the experimental and control groups. For each hypothesis the . 05 level of significance was selected for rejecting the null hypothesis. Definition of Terms The following 1i st of definitions is presented to facilitate the understanding of key concepts used in this study. Basal Reading Program. A basal reading program is an approach to the teaching of reading aimed at the systematic development of reading ability through use Of one basal reader series and its accompanying materials. Pupils are grouped for instruction on the basis of reading ability. Basal Reader. A basal reader is a textbook which is part of a graded series designed to provide systematic instruction in reading. Group Instruction. Group instruction is "the act of attempting to teach a number of persons the same thing at the same time. "4 The term "group reading" generally is used where the children of a given class are organized into ability groups. Vite has stated: . a class or part of a class is taught from the same book at the same time. There may be three or four different groups using three or four different titles, or they may be reading the same book at different parts of the book. Usually reading groups are formed on the basis of the ability of the child to achieve in the subject of reading. This instruction commonly follows the genera15pattern which has been used by textbook series. Controlled Vocabulary. As defined by Good, controlled vocabulary is "vocabulary selected and spaced in a basal reader or other textbook so as to control the number of new words to be 6 learned by the child per unit of reading matter." Individualized Reading Instruction. Individualized reading provides for "differentiation of instruction according to individual 4Carter V. Good (Ed. ), Dictionary of Education, Second Edition, (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc. , 1959), p. 602. 5Irene W. Vite. "The Review and Analysis of the Litera- ture for the Past Twenty-Five Years on the Subject of Individualized Guidance in the Elementary Classroom, " (Unpublished Ed. D. Dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1958), p. 7. 6Good, pp. £i_t_. , p. 602. 7 differences in pupils. " In describing the features of an individualized reading program, Veatch has observed that: Individualized reading practice is an attempt on the part of the teacher to manage the classroom so that each child is learning to read at his own growing edge. Respect for the unique individuality of the child is safe- guarded. The child's purpose and plans are thus in- timately involved in establishing the thresholds of his own learning. Instruction is paced to the individual needs, concerns. likes, and aspirations. The selection of reading materials and resources is a matter of the particular child's recognition that "this is what I really want to try to read. " Personalized Reading Progam. A personalized reading pro- gram encompasses individualization of reading instruction and per- sonalization of reading content. Individualized Activity. An individualized activity permits the interests of the individual to provide the material for learning. Organic Reading. Organic Reading refers to the reading of words that have an intense meaning for the child because he has chosen the words and written them into his own story. Key Vocabulapy. Key Vocabulary words are elicited from the child. The illustrations seen by the inner eye (mind) are organic 71bid., p. 290. 8Jeannette Veatch, Individualizing Your Reading Program, (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1959). p. 8. 10 and have intense personal meaning for the child. . . they are a part of his being. These mind pictures when captioned become his key vocabulary. Trade Book. Trade book refers to a "book designed for the general bookstore and library market rather than text use. "10 Reading Achievement. Reading achievement is the status of the child's ability to read as determined by standardized reading tests. The Metropolitan Achievement Test was used in this study to measure reading achievement. Reading Level. Reading level is the term used to express the relationship between a child's reading achievement and the reading achievement of other children with an equivalent degree of experience in education. Reading level is usually expressed in grade equivalents . Mean Gain of Reading Achievement. The mean gain of reading achievement is the difference between the average reading score obtained by a class in the fall and the average reading score Obtained by the same class the following spring. 9Sylvia Ashton-Warner, Teacher, (New York: Bantam Books, 1963), pp. 32-44. 10Veatch, 2p. cit. , p. 12. 11 Traditional-Learning Environment. Class members in a traditional—learning environment are usually children of one age- group who frequently sit in straight rows facing the blackboard. The teacher talks to and questions the children for much of the day. The classroom is subject oriented and relies primarily upon textbooks and workbooks for subject content and development of skills. The timetable is very subject conscious, and, on the whole, each subject is treated in isolation; the emphasis is on instruction. Frequently the children are grouped for academic 11 instruction. Open- Learning Environment. An open-learning environ- ment is characterized by openness. There is a physical open- ness: doors are ajar, children come and go; classrooms are Open and children bring objects of interest in and take objects of interest out. The physical organization of the classroom is fluid and a variety of spaces are filled with a variety of materials; child- ren more openly from place to place, from activity to activity. There is an openness of self on the part of children and adults. It is an environment in which time is open, and the possibilities for 11Vincent R. Rogers, Teaching in the British Primapy School, (London: The Macmillan Company, 1970), pp. 1, 2. 12 exploration and learning of self and of worlds are unobstructured. 12 The curriculum content originates and changes according to the needs and interests of the children. The Hawthorne Effect. In an industrial efficiency study per— formed at the Hawthorne Plant of Western Electric in Chicago during the 1920's, it was observed that to single out a group of workers for a special research project makes them feel and act differently com- pared to regular workers. The effect of this was to bring about a consistent increase of productivity in spite of changes in the working conditions intended to both increase and decrease efficiency. Expla- nations for this effect point to the factors of: (1) novelty; (2) aware- ness that one is a participant in an experiment; (3) a modified environment involving observers, special procedures, and new patterns of social interaction; and (4) knowledge of results in the form of daily productivity figures and other feedback, ordinarily not systematically available. 13 1“zRoland A. Barth, "Open Education, " (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1970), p. 56. 13'Stephen Isaac and William B. Michael, Handbook in Research and Evaluation, (San Diego, California: Robert R. Knapp, Publisher, 1971), p. 58. 13 Delimitations of the Study The experimental classrooms were limited to those four teachers who were selected to participate in the Open- Learning Project. A further limitation concerned the criterion instruments used in this study. The reliability and validity of the data gathered were limited by the extent to which the test items adequately covered the curricular areas which the test was supposed to evaluate. The curricula of the control classrooms closely paralleled the content of the Metropolitan Achievement Tests; however, because the curriculum of the Open-Learning Project originated and changed according to the needs and interests of the children, the content validity of the Metropolitan Achievement Tests for this group was in question. At the time of testing, no standardized achievement measure had been developed to measure the breadth and scope of a personalized reading program in an open-learning environment. Facing accountability, school administrators and individual teachers recognized the need to measure reading achievement in early ele— mentary grades was imperative. It was further recognized that the need for children in experimental programs to achieve as well in reading as children in regular school programs on standardized achievement measures was crucial to the continuation of experimental 14 programs. The period of this study was the initial experience in per sonal- ized reading instruction for the teachers of the eXperimental group. Teachers of both the experimental and control groups were aware that their children were involved in experimentation. There was no way of determining the extent to which the Hawthorne Effect influenced the achievement of the children involved in this study. Organization of the Study Chapter I has stated the problem to be studied. Included are the introduction, the problem, the hypotheses to be tested, defini- tion of terms, and limitations of the study. A selected review of related literature is presented in Chapter H. A brief history of basal reading instruction, a descrip- tion of a traditional-classroom environment, a description of a personalized reading program, and an analysis of an open—learning environment are included. Chapter 111 includes a description of the Open-Learning Project, selection of experimental and control groups, selection and inservice training of teachers, methods, procedures, techni- ques, and instruments used to collect and analyze data and findings. Analysis of the data is presented in Chapter IV. The summary, conclusions, and recommendations are proposed in Chapter V. CHAPTER II SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The review of the literature is primarily directed toward the following areas: 1. An introduction stating the purpose of the literature reviewed. 2. A brief history of basal reading instruction in the United States from the Colonial Period to the present. 3. A description of the present traditional classroom-- its philOSOphy and implementation. 4. A description of a personalized reading program based on the philOSOphies and practices of Sylvia Ashton- Warner and Jeannette Veatch. 5. An analysis of an open—learning environment--its con- temporary history, philosophy, and implementation. Int roduction It is pertinent to this study to cite references from two well-known authorities in the field of reading who represent vary- ing opinions. Gerald A. Yoakam stated: 15 16 There must be a well-planned, systematic program of reading development for all children. Such a pro- gram is properly called basal reading instruction. Jeannette Veatch stated: Although reading achievement is improving in this country, it is not improving enough; and the blame for this too meager growth rests on those who, perhaps knowing no better, have led children to read books and other materials which are remote from their purpose. A new and different method of teaching reading is needed to replace the out- moded basic reading programs now in vogue in American schools. As these vieWpoints indicate, the approach to the teaching of reading is a controversial issue. It will continue to be con- troversial until research can reveal a more effective way of teaching reading. Because of the complexity of the reading process, the necessity for research in reading has always been crucial. The effects of reading upon both individuals and groups, as well as the reactions of these students toward reading, have extended the scope of reading research into many areas of study. For the lGerald A. Yoakam, Basal Readinglnstruction, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , 1955), p. 10. 2Jeannette Veatch, "Individualized Reading for Success in the Classrooms," The Educational Trend, No. 654 (New London, Connecticut: Arthur C. Craft Publications, 1954), p. 82. l7 purposes of this study, attention was focused upon providing Objec- tively derived evidence which would aid in understanding the teaching of reading and the setting in which it is taught, and which might suggest ways to improve reading instruction in the elementary school. Ba sal Readigg Instruction A lack of books was a major problem in American education as early as the Colonial Period; and because of this many people never learned to read. Children's literature was also scarce; so textbook publishers, including Lindlay Murray, Lyman Cobb, and others began to compile series of school readers. The outgrowth of their work was the modern basal reader textbook, the use of which has dominated reading instruction for over 100 years. 3 Programs for teacher education were just being developed in the 1840's. For the untrained teacher, little help was available except the guidance which the publisher furnished in the teacher's manual which accompanied the basal textbook readers. The American graded school evolved between 1840 and 1860. As a concomitant development, graded series of readers were pro- duced. These series usually consisted of a primer and a reader to 3Nila Banton Smith, Historical Analysis of American Read- ing Instruction, (New York: Silver Burdett Company, 1934), pp. 51-72. 18 be used at the first-grade level, and one reader for each successive grade. Among these graded reader series, the best known were prepared by William McGuffey and were published between the years 1836 and 1844. McGuffey, according to Smith, has the distinction of being "the first author to produce a clearly defined and carefully graded series consisting of one reader for each grade in the ele- mentary school. "4 He also provided in this textbook two innovations of importance. The first was recognition of the number of new words introduced per page. The second was provision for repeti- tion of words. 5 McGuffey readers were the first books to make use of controlled vocabulary-—an essential feature of present-day basal readers. Many sets of graded basal readers were produced between 1880 and 1925. These textbooks manifested progressive improve- ments in terms of better mechanicalimake-up, including the use of colored pictures, provision for gradual introduction of words with a significant reduction in the number of different words used, 41bid.. pp. 105-106. 51bid., pp. 103-109. l9 and inclusion of more variety in story content. Enforcement of the compulsory education laws by 1921 was keeping more children in school longer. This influx in the classroom load made it apparent to teachers that they needed more than one book per grade level. Three ability levels gradually evolved and were used for instruction. Smaller groups were structured within the classroom in order to bring together children of similar read— ing levels so that the instruction could be geared to the needs of each particular groups. Common today in many elementary class- rooms in America are these three ability groups: above-grade level, grade level, and below-grade level. This ability grouping plan has proven to be muchmore effective than the single presentation prac- tices. Preprimers for use in the first—grade reading program were added to the basal reader series around 1927. 8 Supplementary 6Paul Witty, Reading in Modern Education, (Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1949), p. 4. 7Dan Dawson, "Some Issues in Grouping for Reading," National Department of Elementary School Principals, 34th Year- book of the National Department of Elementary School Principals, (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, September, 1955), pp. 48-52., 8Gertrude Hildreth, TeachirELReading, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1958), p. 225. 20 materials to accompany the basal readers, such as teachers' manuals, flash cards for word drill, practice exercises, and tests, were also introduced at that time. Investigations into the vocabulary of primary level basal readers began in the thirties. Smith analyzed sixteen series of basal readers published after the year 1925 in order to determine new emphasis in reading materials. Among the trends revealed by her study were: (1) standard word lists, rather than author judgment, were used as the basis for vocabulary selection; (2) the number of new words, or vocabulary load, or primers had decreased; and (3) the average number of repetitions per word had increased. 9 In 1941, after examining preprimers, primers, and first and second—grade readers in terms of format and vocabulary, Spache reported three distinct trends: (1) extensive use of color and pic— tures; (2) lowering of the vocabulary load; and (3) increase in repetition of the vocabulary and greater integration and carry over 10 of the vocabulary to successive reader levels. In 1950, Kearney reported the results of an extensive study 9Smith, 22. £31, pp 200-210. George Spache, "New Trends in Primary-.Grade Readers, " Elementary School Journal, XLII, (December, 1941), p. 283. 21 of 42 preprimers, 38 primers, and 41 first readers. He summed up his findings by stating: . It appears certain from the study reported here that there is rather widespread agreement that reading vocabulary should be limited to certain words, and that a high degree of repetition is desirable. 11 Today, basal text reading instruction refers to a procedure in which children are grouped on the baSis of reading proficiency. Each group meets with the teacher for a daily reading lesson from a basal text, the context of which has been geared to current know- ledge of the interest and abilities of children at various stages of development. Generally, the groups remain the same throughout the year. Basal reading series represent a comprehensive program for developing children's reading skills in a sequential pattern. In general, the steps typically included in basal procedures are: (1) preparation and motivation; (2) word introduction and study; (3) guided silent reading; (4) rereading orally for specific purposes; (5) skills development; (6) workbooks and other related activities. 11Nolan C. Kearney, "An AnalySIS of the Vocabulary of First Grade Reading Materials, " Journal of Educational Research, XLIII, (March, 1950), pp. 481-493. 12Clifford L. Bush, Mildred H. Huebner, Strategies For Readingin the Elementary School, (The Macmillan Company, 1970), p. 248. 22 The teacher is aided by the teacher's manual which prov1des lesson plans that suggest readiness exercises; direction for the teacher to build vocabulary knowledge and heighten comprehension, and further actiVIties for practice, extenSIOn, and enrichment. She is also aided by workbooks and other supplementary materials designed to serve 13 as further exercises to give children extra practice in new skills. Yoakam summarized the basic characteristics of basal reading in the followmg manner: a. Material selected because of its appeal. (It should be noted that appeal means appeal to children in general rather than to any part1 -- cular child or group of children. Hence, it might appeal to some children and not to others.) b. Carefully selected library. c. Excellent illustration. (1. Teaching aids including a manual, workbooks, charts, word and phrase cards, and other supplementary materials. e. Development of a systematic, sequential approach. / He found that the necessity of basal instruction in such a complex skill as reading 18 supported by evidence from research in education and psyc hology. This ev1donce is summarized by the folIOWIng statements: 13Ib1d., p. 2249. 14Gerald A. Yoakam, Basal Reading Instruction, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , 1955), p. 8.. Z3 1. Evidence shows that in the learning of skills, systematic guidance and practice are essential. 2. Even though it is true that children learn to read by reading, basal instruction in reading is essential to establish skills which make learning by doing possible. 3. Carefully guided practice is always more effective than trial-and-error learning. 4. The criticisms of basal reading instruction are, in fact, criticisms of the misuse rather than the proper use of systematic teaching of reading. 5. Children of superior intelligence need less systematic basal instruction in reading than those of average or low intelligence. 6. It is impossible for the average teacher to achieve carefully controlled vocabulary and planned sequences which characterize basal reading instruction through the use of experience lessons based upon community life and the selection of reading material from sources other than those which are carefully written and planned for children. 7. Basal instruction from carefully prepared basal materials has over two-hundred years of experience behind it in America and goes back to the hornbook and the religious primer of the Middle Ages. 8. In teaching the basal skills, facts, and principles of any field, carefully planned and graded materials are universally used; at least in the beginning stage of the learning process or when any new fundamental skills or techniques are to be learned. Beginning basal reading programs proceed from speech to lslbid” pp. 6--8. 24 print, building the understanding that reading is, in the initial stages, a decoding process. The process of decoding words and sentences promotes the understanding that reading is also a pro- cess of interpretation. These readers are generally written in natural language patterns, consistently demonstrating that clues to meaning are carried by word forms, word order, and syntax. These facts explain why Gates' 1958 study showed that basal readers were employed in about 99 percent of the schools in the United States. 16 Traditional Clas sroom Public school curriculum can be divided into three broad categories, each expressing a particular value system--subject centered, child centered, or society centered. One author has estimated that 96 percent of all school curricula are subject oriented; that is, based almost completely upon organized bodies of knowledge. 17 Such traditional classrooms rely primarily upon the use of the textbook for subject content, development of skills, 16Arthur 1. Gates, ”Improvements in Reading Possible in the Near Future, " The Reading Teacher, Volume XII, (December, 1958), p. 84. 17 . . Lee J. Cronback, Ed. , Text Materials in Modern Educa- tio_n, (Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1955), p. 207. 25 and sequence of knowledge accrued. The advantage of dependence upon the textbook is that the complete course of study is contained in a volume, or series of volumes, which result in a logical develop- ment of skills and a sense of continuity within the system. Another frequently used tool of the traditional classroom is the workbook, which is usually correlated with the standardized text. Although the use of the workbook has been attacked as uncreative, piecemeal, or busywork, the defenders of workbooks point out that they have been prepared by skilled writers and save the classroom teachers much time and duplication of effort. Teachers who champion their use feel that they introduce a variety of experiences, complement the text, aid in class control, keep over sized classes busy, offer good diagnostic tests, help establish good work habits, and encourage in- dependence by setting a task, a plan, and a time in which to complete the task. 18 Objectives in elementary education have changed to a marked degree since the turn of the century. Emphasis on problems, exercises, and recitations have become, in the modern educational vernacular, learning experiences. As Dewey and other educational leaders have pointed out, the child learns through his own reactions, 18Robert E. Chasnoff, Elementary Curriculum, (New York: Pitman Publishing Company, 1964), pp. 179-180. 26 not those of the teacher. Methods now concentrate upon motivation, opportunity for practice, and guidance of the desired behavior. In the traditional classroom, the teacher plans for the kinds of experiences he feels are appropriate to the thinking activities of the students. It is often necessary that these plans be formal in nature. The teacher plans because he wants to provide his students with the best educational experiences as he faces severe limitations in time, materials, facilities, energy, and professional support. He plans because he realizes that all three elements in the teaching-learning triangle depend upon his ability to organize and integrate each element with the other two. The objectives must be reached through thoughtfully selected teaching procedures, which, in turn, must take into account the avail- ability of appropriate evaluative techniques. Various types of grouping are typical of the traditional c1assroom--the most obvious of which is grade level grouping. Less frequently observed in the elementary schools are depart- mental grouping, or grouping according to social maturity. 19ibid., pp. 100-101. 20William Ragan, John Wilson, Tillman Ragan, Teaching in the New Elementary School, (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Inc., 1972), p. 113. 27 Frequently seen in the conventional classroom is ability-level grouping. Ragan defines ability-level groups as ". . . an attempt to form instructional groups composed of pupils who are near enough alike in respect to one or more traits to justify teaching time as a group and to reduce the task of adapting instruction to individual differences. "21 Just as the one-room schoolhouse has become a memory, methods of punishment known to the classrom of a century ago have given way to newer methods of discipline. Some teachers accept disruptive behavior as a symptom of maladjustment. Most teachers in the traditional classroom look upon classroom management as a method of encouraging self-control and self-discipline in the student. For this reason, they emphasize a learning situation which is free from distractions; keep children busy; consider short attention spans; reward good behavior; and plan their time carefully. This approach is preventive and seeks to avoid problems of poor dis- cipline by not allowing them to deveIOp. It can be summarized by this statement by Leslie Chamberlain: . proper classroom organization improves the teaching-learning Situation by saving time and energy, 21William Ragan, Modern Elementary Curriculum, (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Inc., 1966), p. 149. 28 helping preserve order, and contributing to character deveIOpment. Good teachers devise definite modes of seating pupils, recording attendance, directing traffic, distributing and collecting materials, arranging and caring for equipment, regulating light, heat, and ventilation, and for seeing that desks and floors are kept clean. 22 Personalized Reading Instruction The term, "individualized reading, " is not altogether sat- isfactory. With the present trend of "Performance Contracting" and ”Contract Learning, " the term, ”individualized reading instruction, " is frequently used. This term is also used by basal text writers, indicating that a child can move through a basal reading series on his own, not in a reading group. Many teacher guides for basal reading series feature sections on the adaptability of the basal reader for an individualized reading program, as well as sections providing for the individual differences in children. While the methods out- lined in the teacher's guides have merit, they are still limited by the restricted use of the basal reader and its supplementary materials. The reading program utilized in this study was based on a combination of the philosophies and practices of Sylvia Ashton-Warner and Jeannette Veatch as interpreted and adapted by each individual 22Chasnoff, 22. cit., p. 87. 29 teacher. As these two basic philosophies are consolidated, the term, "personalized reading, " will be used to refer to this new reading approach. The term, “personalized reading, " denotes not only individualization of instruction but also personalization of content. Personalized reading is not subordinate to, or an adjunct of, the basic reading program; it _i_s_ the basic reading program. Reading Philosophy and Practice Based on the Wrigngiof Sylvia Ashton-Warner Sylvia Ashton-Warner, while working with Maori and New Zealand children (1963), originated a unique way of bringing mean- ing to the child's language by using the child's personal vocabulary to teach reading and writing. Ashton-Warner called this technique, “key vocabulary. " The key vocabulary was a very simple but powerful technique based on the premise that if the teacher could reach into the child's own mind and find the words that had real meaning for him, reading would become a pleasant and natural task. Ashton-Warner began reading instruction by asking each child for a word he would like to learn to read and write. It was in that first word, she believed, that the love of reading was born; and the longer that reading was organic or natural to the child, the 3O stronger it became. 23 She further stated: First words must have intense meaning for a child. They must be part of his being. . . . They must be made out of the stuff of the child itself. I reach a hand into the mind of the child, bring out a hand- full of the stuff I find there, and use that as our first working material. Whether it is good or bad stuff, violent or placid stuff, coloured or dun. Ashton-Warner found that the "key vocabulary" words children asked for tended to be highly emotional words of intense meaning, frequently centering around the emotions of fear (6. g. , . . . . . 25 spider, fight, aligator) and sex (e. g. , kiss, darling, together). Key vocabulary was an individualized activity in that it provided each child the opportunity to give the teacher a word of his own that had powerful emotional connotations to him. These words, if they were accuractely chosen, proved to be one-look words, and the teacher seldom had to repeat to the child what they 26 were. 23Sylvia Ashton-Warner, Teacher, (New York: Bantam Books, 1963), p. 32. 24‘ilpid., p. 31. 251bid., pp. 35-36. 26Ibid. , pp. 32-44. 31 Jeannette Veatch gave the following five guidelines for using key vocabulary in the classroom: 1. Elicit the key word from each child. Ask children questions like "What is the BEST word you can think of--or the scariest word--or the nicest thing--? " Accept all words. If you doubt that the child is giving you a word of real power ask, "Why do you like that word? " Then let your conscience be your guide. The more powerful the word the better. Print the word on a piece of tag board (about 8 x 11) with a black marker or crayon. Have the child tell you the letters he recognizes as he watches you print. (Have him stand by your shoulder so that he does not look at the word upside down.) If he does not recognize the letter, say it as you print it. Have him trace your printing with his finger--"As if your finger is my marker--" and watch only to see that he makes the left side of the letters before the right side, and that he goes from top to bottom. Send him off to write the word, or draw a picture of it, or copy it on the blackboard, or do something with it. Once in a while (every other day?) have each child bring his words to you to say them as fast as possible. Those he cannot recognize INSTANTLY should be thrown away without criticism. "Oh, that just wasn't a good enough word to remember. You will think of a better one today or tomorrow. " 27Jeannette Veatch, Guidelines for Using the Key Vocabulary in the Classroom, Arizona State University: Tempe, Arizona, [ND] p. 1. (Unpublished, mimeo.) 32 Children had individual word boxes in which they kept their word cards. They read these to each other and to the teacher or aide. These were their words to use as they chose on individual work, to borrow from each other as they had need, and do indirect copying on their pictures. From these cards they began to notice similarities in beginning and ending sounds. The teacher discussed with the children the letters in these words and their beginning and ending sounds. Through this activity the children then learned words by sight as well as by letter and sound recognition. These were one-word sentences for beginning readers. Ashton-Warner believed that the number of letters in a word had no relationship to the difficulty in learning to read the word. Several slow readers in the class, she noted, had trouble learning short, basal reader type words like "come" or "look," yet rapidly learned much longer words like "frightened" or "together. " Once the child had learned to read approximately 40 words (the key vocabulary), Ashton-Warner assisted him in writing his own stories and books, using his words. While writing went on continuously all year, it was during this stage that emphasis was placed on reading back what was written. 22811mm. pp. 38-39. 33 Children were also encouraged to read each other's books and eventually published materials. But it was the child's key vocabulary, Ashton-Warner insisted, "that unlocks the mind and releases the tongue. It is the key that Opens the door upon love of reading. It is the organic foundation of a lifetime of books. "29 Key vocabulary provides and encourages this opportunity to focus on the child as an individual and to nourish his feelings for self. Reading Philosophy and Practice Based on the Writigs of Jeannette Veatch Individualized reading, as advocated by Jeannette Veatch, has certain major characteristics that set it off from current practices. The four following basic assumptions have distinguishing features; and it was upon these assumptions that Veatch based her recommendations in the teaching of reading. She maintained that reading instruction depends upon them. The first was the need for a variety of materials with 29 Ibid., p. 36. 34 literary merit. 3O Veatch stated that to begin a self-selection pro- gram in any classroom, the book supply should exceed the number of pupils by about three to five times. 31 The teacher needs to do the best he can to find reading materials that have appeal to his class, as well as fitting the relative achievement levels of each child. For example, she further stated that first grade teachers will need books for children with abilities ranging from non-readers to at least third and fourth—grade levels, picture books, beginner books of all kinds, more advanced trade books, and a smattering of basal readers from assorted sets. 32 From this beginning a teacher needs to take a kind of "interest census"33 of the class, finding out through subtle, probing questions what the children's interests are. Enough books must be collected to allow a teacher to begin a self-choice program. The second basic assumption was the prime use of children's own language in various ways and at all age levels in learning to read. With children there is a steady progression from ideas to 3OJeannette Veatch, Reading in the Elementary School , (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1966), p. 4. 311bid., p. 20. 321bid., p. 21. 33ibid., p. 20. 35 talk, to writing one's own words, to reading one's own words, to reading others' words, to reading books. 34 Van Allen suggested a sequence of concept development in a child as follows: What he thinks about he can talk about. What he can talk about can be expressed in painting, writing, or some other form. Anything he writes can be read. He can read what he writes and what other peOple write. As he represents the sounds he makes through speech with symbols, he uses the same symbols (letters) over and over. As Veatch perceived the art of teaching children to read her belief was that the major task is to help children realize the language they speak is the language that can be written and then read back. As children dictate labels for, or stories about their work, the teacher prints them, saying the words as they are written. The children then read these for her. They are able to read it back be- cause they remember what was said. While some children must dictate stories, others can write their own stories, getting help in spelling from their own word boxes, someone else's word cards, a fellow student, or the teacher. 34110101., p. 38. 35D. M. Lee and R. VanAllen, Learning to Read Through Experience, (Rev. Ed.), (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1963), p. 46. 36 Veatch stated further, "The language that children bring to school is more than a little important. It is the best mate rial that the teacher has to use. "36 Reading instruction should begin with and proceed from the language and experience of the pupils. 37 The third basic assumption was the incentive factor of pupil-selected materials. Every child should be taught to read with books that he himself chooses. He may and probably will be asked to justify his choices, but these are his instructional mate rials nevertheless. Brogan and Fox contended that a wide variety of materials, which meet the individual needs of pupils, make teaching easier and improve the quality of classroom instruction. Interest, ability, background of experience, and attitudes have long been recognized as factors which influence a child's reading development. Olsen referred to self-selection as a most important principle if children were to benefit from these personal 36Veatch, op. git” p. 237. 37ibid. , p. 301. 8 Peggy Brogan and Lorene Fox, Helping Children Learn, (Yonkers-on-Hudson, New York: World Book Company, 1955), 37 tendencies of seeking and picking in developing their reading ability. 39 The teacher of the individualized program should accept a number of basic assumptions relative to the concept of self- selection. These include: 1. The child, rather than a group, is the focal point of instruction. The child's methods of learning and his own ability influence his choice of materials and methods of instruction. 2. Reading is a process rather than a subject. This reading process is affected by a constel— lation of factors which influence its develop- ment. 3. Teaching is more effective when high interest is aroused, and this interest is highly developed and leads to greater learning ability when a wide variety of material is made available. 4. Learning is a responsibility of the child, and it is up to the teacher to make it as attractive as possible. 5. Learning requires a myriad of experiences to be provided so that all pupils have an opportunity to learn. 6. Learning is a continuous process and cannot be totally evaluated in intermittent terms. 40 3’9Willard C. Olsen, "Seeking Self-Selection and Pacing in the Use of Books by Children, " The Packet, Heath's Service Bulletin for Elementary Teachers, Volume 7, Number 1, (Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, Spring,l952), pp. 3-10. 40Esther Schatz, ExploringElementary Reading in the Elementary School, (The Ohio State UniverSity, 1960), p. 6. 38 The criteria for book selection are that the child likes the book and is able to read it. If he shows by his attitude that he wants to know more about it, he is ready to begin to participate in an unlimited self-selection program; and children in no uncertain terms prefer to choose their own books. 41 The fourth basic assumption was the importance of the teacher—pupil conference on a one-to-one basis. Every child must have a frequent, private, individual conference with his teacher wherein his own unique needs are assessed and steps are taken to improve his whole reading per- formance. There are several things that need to be done during the individual conference. The teacher needs to perfect his skill in analyzing the reading performance of the child in this close, intimate situation. There are usually four areas that should be explored in the individual conference. These are: l. The mechanical ability of the child to read silently. 2. The ability to read critically. 3. The personal involvement of the child. 411bid., p. 7. 39 4. The ability of the child to hold an audience while reading aloud. 42 Groups take on a whole new design and direction in the in- dividualized reading program. Groups organized for a specific purpose must be based upon a set assumptions that will not hold for those traditional patterns that depend centrally upon the following: a series of books with carefully controlled vocabularies to be used according to manuals; classroom groups organized upon generalized ability levels with planned sequential steps from grade to grade as outlined in manuals and intended for use in all schools in the entire nation. 43 Reading skills are taught to groups of children having similar specific difficulties. This emphasis on the individual and his reading needs is not based upon the assumption that all group procedures would be eliminated. On the contrary, the teacher will discover that much grouping is necessary; but this grouping is determined by the need for teaching specific skills. The primary difference of the individualized reading pro- gram is the importance and purpose of grouping. In the individualized 42Veatch, op. git” p. 50. 43ibid., p. 4. 40 reading program, groups are inititated and terminated as the needs are perceived. The personnel of the groups change constantly. No child is expected to participate in any group unless the purpose of that group meets his own individual need. _According to this plan, the child, who heretofore has received daily instruction in one basal reading book, may meet with several groups in‘one day; have an individual conference with the teacher; spend the entire time reading to answer either his own or class questions; or he may read simply for the satisfaction to be derived from literature. 44 Veatch summed up the merit of her reading approach by listing the following assumptions on which it rests: 1. Reading mu st be taught as part of all the other language arts. 2. Spelling is as important in learning to read as it is in learning to write. 3. Reading and spelling are but two sides of the same coin. 4. Children learn to read better and faster when they are free to pace their own growth, seeking help when necessary. 5. The act of reading must center upon the child, with the materials used of secondary importance. 44Marian E. Wilt, "Another Way to Meet Individual Difference, " Elementary English, Volume XXXV, Number 1, (January, 1958), pp. 26-27. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 41 Children's own language is a valuable source material for reading instruction. Individual differences are met by teaching individuals one by one. Classroom efficiency is enhanced when groups are organized upon an identified need, problem, difficulty, or interest. There is no established rank order of reading materials. There is a series of progressions or developmental stages that can be recognized and provided for with a variety of materials. Reading growth results when a pupil commits himself to a piece of material. As reading is. a personal act, the choice of material is an expression of self. The human factor of personal commitment of the pupil will enhance reading growth when matched by the ability of the teacher to change and adapt procedures on the spot. Not all skills need to be taught to every child, nor in identical sequence to more than one child. Progress may be steadily cumulative, but it also may be apparent in great leaps and bounds. Skills are gained during the act of reading and not before it. There is no clearly established sequence of skills for all children. There is no single piece of material that meets the needs of every pupil in any given class. While silent reading is central, oral reading is placed in a prominent position with a purpose. 42 20, The love of books and reading is encouraged when loved books are read. The aim of Veatch's reading program is to personalize the teaching of reading and base instruction on the human interaction 46 between child and teacher. The child and his teacher together grow 4 and strengthen each other. 7 Not only can the child read but he does read.48 An Open- Learning Environment Education must change, according to Audrey D. Sutton, Head of the Stebon Primary School in London; it cannot remain static. This necessitates constant experimentation and assessment of the 49 results to discover better methods of educating children. In the foreword to his book, Crisis in the Classroom - The Remaking of American Education, Silberman pleaded that all who have a stake in American education must be alerted to what is wrong 4'5Veatch, op. oit., p. 5. 461bid., p. iv. 47ibid., p. 524. 481bid., p. vi. 49Audrey D. Sutton, Ordered Freedom, International Center for Educational Development, (Encino, California, 1970), p. l. 43 and what needs to be done. 50 The crisis in the classroom, accord- ing to Silberman, cannot be solved if those who care about American education throw up their hands at the magnitude of the task; they must take hold of it where they can as the time for failure has long since passed.51 John Dewey, in one of his last published works, stated, ". . . the school has the power to modify the social order. "52 Silberman gave us a glimpse of how this is possible; that is, to create and maintain a humane society, we must create and maintain classrooms that are humane. An approach to teaching that discards the familiar elemen- tary classroom arrangement and the traditional, stylized roles of teacher and pupil for a far freer, highly personalized, child- centered learning experience is being introduced by theorists and 54 practitioners of early childhood education. This brand of education 50Charles E. Silberman, Crisis in the Classroom - The RemakinLof American Education, (New York: Random House, 1970), p. vii. 511bid., p. 520. 52John Dewey, Moral Principles in Education, (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959), p. v. 53Silberman, op. oi_t., p. 524. 54Beatrice Gross and Ronald Gross, "A Little Bit of Chaos, " Saturday Review, (May, 1970), p. 71. 44 has not just happened but has evolved slowly into practical existence over the past fifty years. It emerged, as Barth states, ". . - from fertile soil, tilled and harvested frequently during years of educa- tional history. "55 However, the literature considered in this study was confined to writers of the last twenty—five years who reflect contemporary thinking about open education. A. S. Neill, the founder of Summerhill, a British boarding school, has been applying the concepts of freedom, democracy and self-determination to education since 1924. He began the school with the prime intent of making the school fit the child, instead of making the child fit the school. 56 After World War I, Neill's principles for educating children swept across England and were the foundation for many dramatic changes, both theoretical and practical, in the primary educational system of the British State. Teachers discarded their direct teaching of compulsory lessons and integrated all fields of interest throughout the child's day at school. Charles Silberman in Crisis in the Classroom pointed out that the rapid growth of these schools went largely unnoticed in this country, and to a surprising degree, in England itself until 55 A. Roland Barth, Open Education, (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard, 1970), p. VIII. 56A. S. Neill, Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing, (New York: Hart Publishing Company, 1960), p. 4. 45 1967 when a Parlimentary Commission, the Plowden Committee, called attention to the new approach and urged its adoption by all 57 English primary schools. The Plowden report emphasized the underlying phiIOSOphy of today's British infant schools: Children need to be themselves, to live with other children and with grown-ups, to learn from their environment, to enjoy the present, to get ready for the future, to create and to love, to learn to face adversity, to bfgiave responsibly, in a word to be human beings. This philo SOphy is spreading to American classrooms. John Coe, Chief Primary Advisor, the Oxsfordshire Education Authority, Oxsfordshire, England, spoke of the quality of life for children in our schools. He stated that schools which are the happiest seem to be best preparing children for tomorrow. His belief was: "The best way to prepare for the future is to live 59 well today. " The conditions found throughout the American public 57Silberman, op. cit., p. 208. 58Lady Bridget Plowden, et. a1. , Children and Their Primary Schools: A Roport of the Central Advisory Council For Education, Volume 1, (London: HMSO, 1967), p. 190. 9Vincent Rogers, "Primary Education in England, An Interview with John Coe, " Phi Delta Kappan, Volume LII, (May, 1971), p. 535. 46 schools, verifying that many children are not living well in our schools today, has in part aided the growing respect and endorse- ment of an open-learning environment by educators in this country. 60 A consistent philosophy of education shapes the goals and methods of the open-learning environment concept of education. This philosophy is less an approach or method than a set of shared attitudes and convictions about the nature of childhood, learning, and schooling. 61 Emphasis is placed on teacher attitudes rather than physical arrangements; teacher commitment rather than the school building itself. This philosophy demands the restructuring of the curriculum and the teaching-learning setting. It is backed by a substantial body of theory regarding the nature of children and the ways in which children grow and learn, as well as regarding the nature of knowledge, the process of instruction, and the aims of education. The emphasis in an open-learning environment is on the child learning, rather than on the teacher teaching. The teacher develops his teaching plan, not on the basis of preconceived 60Richard Hubert, An Open Learning Environment - A Descriptive Study (Unpublished Master's Thesis, Western Michigan University, 1971), p. 29. élsilberman, op. c_it., p. 208. ézIbid. , p. 214. 47 curriculum, but according to the needs of the child. Herbert Kohl described this method in his book, The Open Classroom. , A teacher in an open classroom needs to cultivate a state of suspended expectations. It means not preparing to teach in any special way or deciding before hand on the complexity of the materials to be used during a school year. It means that plan- ning does not consist of finding the class's achieve- ment level according to the record cards and tailoring the material to those levels, but rather preparing diverse materials and subjects and discovering from the students as the yeajfi5 unfolds what is relevant to them and what isn't. 4 The child is the agent in his own learning. 6 Therefore, his learning is greatly enhanced if it is centered on his own experi- ences, needs, and interest, and when he participates in the direction . . . . . 65 . of his own learning act1v1ties. The role of the teacher, according to Leitman, is that of a travel agent--he helps a child go where the 66 child wants to go and counsels him on the best way of getting there. 63Herbert Kohl, The Open Classroom, (New York: New York Review, 1969). p. 20. 64 Plowden, op. _o_i_t_., p.194. 65 . . . . A Description of the New School, Univer51ty of North Dakota, (May, 1970), p. 3. 66Allen Leitman, "Travel Agent, " Housing for Early Childhood, (Washington, D.C.: ACEI, Institute, 1968), p. 42. 48 The teacher's job is to facilitate learning, to provide conditions which will encourage children to learn themselves, and to fulfill themselves . . 67 personally, soc1ally, and intellectually. John Holt further explained this learning conc ept in his book, How Children Learn. "Interesting, but not surprising, " he said, "the things we learn because, for our own reasons we really need t. "68 to know them, we don't forge Piaget's contribution to educational practices has been his demonstration that the child is the principal agent in his own educa- tion and mental development . . . the critical factor is the child's own activity in assimilating his experiences and accommodating to them. 69 Piaget explained the process of a child's self-discovery in the following way: This self-created conception is, of course, replete with errors and the child constantly revises it. He does so by testing reality through innumerable direct experiences with people and objects in the environment. Though memory plays a vital part in this process, learning which is based on memory alone is shallow. 67Barth, 9p. _c__i_t., pp. 117-118. 68John Holt, How Children Learn, (New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1967), p. 81. 695ilberman, op. c_ip, p. 215. The child learns most meaningfully by means of his own self-motivated discoveries. 7 As John Holt expressed, "It is before they go to school that children are likely to do their best learning. "71 Holt stressed that man is by nature a learning animal. We do not need to keep picking away at the minds of children to make sure that they are learning. What we need to do is bring as much of the world as we 72 can into the classroom and then trust the children to do the rest. Willard C. Olsen at the University of Michigan made many prolonged and detailed studies of babies, children, and adolescents. Olsen and his colleagues found that babies knew better than anyone else when they needed to eat and how much they could consume. 73 Pediatricians endorsed these findings and encouraged the supplant- ing of rigid feeding schedules by self-demand schedules. Blos 70Walter and Miriam Schneir, "The Joy of Learning in the Open Corridor, " New York Times Magazine, (April 4, 1971), p. 36. 71Holt, How Children Learn, p. 9. 721bid., p. 156. 73Willard C. Olsen, Child Development, (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1949), pp. 32-68. 49 50 reported older children proved that they could be trusted to balance their own diets when allowed to select from an adequate variety of foods. 74 Another study by Rand, Sweeney, and Vincent of the day- time sleeping needs of children dictated that children have the ability to choose what is needed for their own well-being. 75 Olsen termed the opportunity for children to select food and sleep as the "lush environment. " He claimed that it was necessary to provide such an environment before the self-selective process could operate satisfactorily. In this self-selection process, transitions were often made from physical choices to intellectual choices. It was concluded, therefore, that when this environment is carefully planned and provided for the child, he should be trusted to seek his own nur- ture--whether to satisfy the need for food or for intellectual growth. The teacher's responsibility for arranging an appropriate environment was described by Olsen as follows: The teacher's task is to guarantee that every class- room situation or its immediate surroundings will 74Peter Blos, The Adolescent Personality - A Study of Individual Behavior for the Commission on Secondary School Curriculum, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc, 1941), pp. 491-507. 75Winifred Rand, Mary E. Sweeney, Vincent E. Lee, Growth and Development of the Young Child, (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1946), pp. 210-218. 51 have in it tasks which are interesting in terms of intrinsic content, and which also cover a range of difficulty as great as the variability in the human material with which he deals. Olsen found that when the child in such an environment selected the reading material, it was more meaningful to him. When it came to assessing his own capabilities and interests, he appeared quite able. Whenever the child was permitted to read a book which he personally had selected, the reading instruction automatically be- came an individualized procedure and thus eliminated the necessity for ability grouping. 77 Bruner asserted that, "Any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually hone st form to any child at any stage of develop- ment. " He advocated that the structure of the subject must be rep- resented in terms of the way in which the child views things. Piaget indicated that the child has "characteristic ways of viewing the world" at different stages in his physical development. 7éoisen, op. £1_t., pp. 3-10. 77Ibid., p. 8. 78Jerome S. Bruner, The Process of Education, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1960), p. 33. 9Janellen Huttenlocher, "Social and Individual Orgins of the Self, " The Self in Growth, Teaching, and Learning: Selected Readings, Don W. Hamachek, Ed., (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice.- Hall, 1965), p. 114. 52 The evolution of language and thought in children was described in Piaget‘s theory of cognitive development. He posited three stages in children's perception of spatial relationships. These are the rhythmic, reflex-like stages of instinctual structures, the action- oriented regulations of sensorimotor structures (practical intelli- gence), and the intelligent regulations of operational structures. 80 Concepts of stages should not suggest the existence of static develop- mental levels that are neatly separated; nor are such concepts meant to convey the idea of sudden jumps from one stage to the next. Be- cause each child goes through these stages at different ages, "young children perceive things differently from adults. "81 The tc ‘ "operation," as defined by Piaget, was "the co- ordination of a perceptual action, which, if it has a stable point of reference, enables the person to fully understand the world from his perception. If he does not have a reference point, he merely receives a number of unrelated images. "82 80Hans G. Furth, Piaget for Teachers, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970), p. 18. 81Kenneth Lansing, "The Research of Jean Piaget and Its Implications for Art Education in the Elementary School, " Studies in Art Education, Volume VII, (Spring, 1966), p. 33. 82Ibid. , p. 37. 53 Suchman interpreted Piaget‘s levels of development in this manner: "Apparently, the age level for the attainment of a given state was task-specific rather than general, and a child could operate at stage one on one task and at stage two on another. "83 It would seem from this remark that according to Piaget, there is no fixed age scale. Piaget's work gives further substance to the notion that a child's visual symbols are intimately related to his conceptual growth. 84 According to Shane, Reddin, and Gillespie, "If children are to acquire a rapidly growing and functional store of language mean- ings, they need a rich diet of experiences rather than the thin gruel 1185 of rote-learning. "Verbal abstractions should follow direct ex- perience with objects and ideas, not precede them or substitute for 86 them. " Frequently verbal explanations in advance of understanding which is based on experience are an obstacle to learning; and children's 83J. Richard Suchman and Mary Jane McCue Ashner, "Per- ceptual and Cognitive Development, " Review of Educational Research, Volume XXI, (December, 1961), p. 456. 84Lansing, op. 3.13" p. 41. 85Harold C. Shane, Mary E. Reddin, and Margaret C. Gillespie, Beginning Language Arts Instruction with Children, (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1961), p. 21. 86Barth, op. oi_t., p. 33. 54 knowledge of the right words may conceal from teachers their lack of understanding. 87 Along this same line, according to British educator Marie Muir, in England primary schools teachers no longer think that basic skills have to be learned first and then used to acquire knowledge or deve10p understanding. These skills are more easily and effectively I learned by children in the context of investigating aspects of their: physical environment. Children learn while finding answers to the problems they personally encounter from day to day. This learning can occur in a way that requires little direct instruction from their teachers if they are in an environment that offers intellectual, aesthetic, and physical stimuli and challenges. 88 The teacher's responsibility in an open-learning environment is to create an environment that will stimulate children's interest in and evoke their curiosity about all the things they should be interested in and curious about--reading, writing, talking, counting, weighing, measuring; art, music, dance, sculpture; the beauty and wonder of the world about them; relationships with adults and with other children; and above all, the process of learning itself. 89 87Plowden, pp. c_it., p. 196. 8 Vincent R. Rogers, Teaching in the British Primary School, (New York: The MacMillian Company, 1970), p. 22. 89Silberman, op. oi} , p. 240. 55 Advocates of open-learning experiences believe in the im- portance of manipulative materials. 90 This means, as Silberman explained, providing young children with an abundance of concrete materials they can explore, manipulate, and handle--materials they can play with, for play is a child's work. 91 The distinction between work and play, so central to formal schooling, is not one that child- ren make until adults force it upon them. On the contrary, play is one of the principal ways young children learn. 92 It is a mistake to assume children can learn through play alone without the assistance or "teaching" by adults. The teacher makes the learning occasion possible in the first place by the kind of environment he creates and maintains. In an open-learning environment, he is structuring all the time; that is what teaching is. Indeed, the informal classroom can be termed a formal situation in the sense of having form and structure. 93 90Barth, op. o_i_’£., p. 82. 91Silberman, op. c_it_., p. 219. 921bid., p. 237. 93Ibid. , p. 238. 56 In a sense, teachers in an informal classroom do consciously and deliberately what mothers do unconsciously and more or less intuitively. The teacher's job, like the mother's, is to help children make the progression from purely random activity to more structured . . . . 94 and purposeful actiVity; and then to mastery through application. All the while the teacher must keep in mind that the child must "do" at his own rate, with the teacher arranging the classroom environ- ment in such a way as to permit the child to learn at his own pace as well as in his own way. 95 In John Dewey's phrase, "He learns through doing - his d ' I ”96 omg, and no one else 5. The words of an old Chinese proverb are appropriate for children working in an open-learning environment. I hear, and I forget; I see, and I remember; I do, and I understand. 97 An open-learning environment is set up so that a child can "do" and ultimately "under stand. " 94'Silberman, op. _c_i_t. , p. 237. 951bid., p. 218. 96ibid., p. 215. 97Ibid., p. 216. 57 An open-learning environment is a workshop in which "interest areas" take the place of the familiar rows of desks and chairs, and in which individualized learning takes the place of the teacher con- ducting a lesson for all the children simultaneously. The reading corner, for example, is typically an inviting place with a rug or piece of old carpet on which children may sprawl, a couple of easy chairs or perhaps a cot or old couch for additional comfort, and a large and tempting display of books at the child's height. 98 Learning is not confined to the classroom. There are a great many trips designed to extend the children's experience and to pro- vide experience that can be used as a base for both language and cognitive development. 99 "One has become a school teacher," Willard Waller's 1932 dictum ran, "when he has learned to fear the loss of dignity. "100 To the formal teacher, admitting ignorance meant the loss of dignity. The teacher in the informal classroom is the first to admit to the child that he doesn't know everything and is willing to learn. The informal teacher is the faciliator of learning rather than the source of learning, the source being the child himself, albeit with the teacher's 98Ibid., p. 221. 9911514, p. 315. 100Willard Waller, The SOCiology of Teaching, (New York: Russell and Russell, 1961), p. 389.. 58 aid, and sometimes at his instigation. The consequence is an atmos- phere in which everyone is learning together. 101 The teacher holds a conviction that learning is likely to be more effective if it grows out of what interests the learner, rather than what interests the teacher. To suggest that learning evolves from the child's interests is not to propose an abdication of adult authority, only a change in the way it is exercised. 102 According to Herbert Kohl, children in American schools are used to authoritarian methods. They experience them in school, in their families, and in society at large. 103 Yet a classroom can become mo re democratic. PeOple can come to listen to each other and care about each other's thoughts and feelings. It takes patience and a belief in the potential of the children. 104 As Beatrice and Ronald Gross have stated, the most basic principles underlying the open-learning environment concept are respect for and trust in the child. 105 101Silberman, op. _c_i_t, p. 268. 10211614, p. 209. 103Kohl, Open Classroom, p. 23. 104ibid., p. 24. 105Gross, Saturday Review, (May 16, 1970), p. 71. 59 Only when a teacher emerges as another human being in the classroom can a free environment based upon respect and trust evolve. A free way of existing is not necessarily an easy way of existing. Autonomy, the ability to make one's own decisions, can be quite painful, especially for children who have grown up in an authori- tarian system. 106 To enable an open-learning environment to succeed, children must be trained to discipline themselves, which is the only reliable kind of discipline. This means allowing children freedom to develop 107 Also, it can be observed that the dis- a sense of responsibility. cipline problem withers away in part because children are not required to sit still and be silent. The release of the teacher's energy is in- calculable; she is free to devote all her time and energy to teaching itself. The result is a kind of professional satisfaction and reward that simply is not found in the average formal classroom. 108 According to Silberman, schools can help to "create and main— tain a humane society" by making their first priority the production of "sensitive, autonomous, thinking, humane individuals." He further 106Kohl, op. oi_t_., p. 81. 107Sutton, op. c_ip. , p. 45. 108Silberman, op. 3:13., p. 269. states, "what tomorrow needs is not masses of intellectuals, but masses of educated men——men educated to feel and to act as well as to think. "109 These are the concrete goals of an open-learning environment. These goals when attained will prove, Arlene Silberman has said, "that learning can--and should- -be a joyous adventure."110 Veatch summarized how a child's learning can be a joyous adventure when she said: T h e learning child is an active child whose world is no longer bound by the walls of the classroom-- no longer limited to the jawbone, blackboard, and textbook. All sources of stimulation are used-- many books, many materials, the community out- side, and the world at large provides the laboratory in which the children learn. 11 According to Silberman, Horace Mann in 1848, gave us a glimpse of the potential of an open-learning environment in the reshaping of tomorrow's education when he said: But to all doubters, disbelievers, or despairers in human progress, it may still be said, there is one experiment which has never yet been tried. 1091bid., p. 7. 110 Good Housekeepipg, (March, 1971), p. 69. 111Veatch, op. c_it., p. 524. Arlene Silberman, "The School of Your Children's Dreams, 61 It is an experiment which, even before its inception, offers the highe st authority for its ultimate success. It's formula is intelligible to all; and it is as legible as though written in starry letters on an azure sky. But this experiment has never been tried. Education has never been brought to bear with one hundredth part of its potential force upon the natures of children, and through time, upon the character of men, and of the race. 12 112superman, pp. p;_t_-., p. 523. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES, METHODS, AND INSTRUMENTS Introduction This chapter contains a description of the study. A description of the instruments, of the collection of the data, and of the statistical treatment of the data are described in detail. Procedures The procedures used in this study consisted of (1) survey of existing literature related to the study; (2) setting of the study; (3) description of the Open-Learning Environment Project; (4) selection of subjects; (5) selection of teachers; (6) inservice training for teachers; (7) selection of research method and instruments to collect data; (8) submitting the data to statistical analysis; (9) analysis and interpretation of results; and (10) drawing conclusions and making recommendations. Survey of the Literature Prior to conducting the study, a survey of the literature was made by the investigator. This survey was done to examine the 62 63 principles on which present methods of teaching are based, to define the problems and needs, and to interpret assumptions inherent in current practices. The survey of literature covered a study of pertinent theory and research in the areas of basal text reading instruction, the tradi- tional-classroom philosophy and practice, personalized reading in- struction, and open-classroom philosophy and practice. The Setting of the Studl The investigation reported in this study was conducted in the Albion Public Schools in Albion, Michigan. Albion was originally established in 1839 on the forks of the Kalamazoo River and presently has a population of approximately 16, 000. Albion is a cosmopolitan community located in Michigan's industrial belt with a stable economy complemented by nearly 20 industrial firms. It is located approximately 100 miles west of Detroit and 196 miles east of Chicago and 40 miles southwest of Lansing. Albion is the home of Albion College--a coeducational, four- year liberal-arts institution that is recognized throughout the Mid- west for its academic excellence in higher education. 1 1The Greater Albion Chamber of Commerce, A Closer Look at Albion, (USA: Printed brochure), [n. n.] [n. d. ], p. 6. 64 The Albion Public Schools include a high school, a junior high school, and four elementary schools. The four elementary schools are: Harrington Elementary with approximately a ninety-nine per- cent white and a one percent Black population; North Elementary with approximately a ninety percent white and a ten percent Black population; Dalrymple Elementary with approximately a sixty percent white and a forty percent Black population and Crowell Elementary with approximately a thirty percent white and a seventy percent Black population. The Open-Learning Environment Project, which constituted the experimental group, was at Crowell Elementary, and the control group was randomly selected from traditional class~ rooms at Dalrymple and Crowell Elementary Schools. Open- Learning Environment Project The investigator in this study started meeting with Mr. Paul Foss, Principal of Crowell Elementary School, Dr. Jack Meeder, Superintendent of Albion Public Schools, and Mr. Emmet Lippe, Curriculum Director for the Albion Public Schools, in February, 1971. Plans were developed for the establishment of an Open—Learning Environment Project at Crowell Elementary School. The plans for the project were proposed to the Albion Board of Education and approval was given to implement the project. The project started 65 with the beginning of Summer School, June, 1971. The Open- Learning Environment Project was conducted at Crowell Elementary School with Mr. Paul Foss serving as build- ing principal. There was a four-week Summer School Program with approximately 100 children in kindergarten through third grade. This four-week Summer School Program was designed to serve as a training period for the teachers who continued in the open-learning environment during the 1971—72 academic school year. It was deter— mined that the Open-Learning Environment Project would occupy five classrooms in one wing of Crowell Elementary School. There was a total of 15 classroom teachers teaching at Crowell. The kindergarten pupils in the Open-Learning Environment Project were not included in this study as the Metropolitan Readi— ness Te st for kindergarten measured readiness and this study investigated reading. Open-Classroom Environment Project Student Population The selection of the pupils for placement in the four experimental classrooms was determined by the following criteria: 1. During the 1971-72 academic school year, a child's normal grade placement was first, second, or third grade. 66 2. Previous enrollment in the Summer School Program and a decision by the building principal, teacher, or parent that a child would or would not continue. (A decision was made for one child not to continue.) 3. Request by parents for placement in the Open- Learning Environment Project. (Requests were made for five children to be placed in the project.) 4. Recommendation by the principal or teacher that a child would benefit from the Open-Classroom Environment Project. 5. Assignment by the building principal of class loads in first, second, and third grades. See Table III-l for a breakdown by grade, sex, and race of the pupil make-up of the Open-Classroom Environment Project. TABLE III - 1 STUDENT MAKE-UP OF THE OPEN-CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT PROJECT DIVIDED BY GRADE, SEX, AND RACE Males Females Class Grade Totals BlackWhite: Total BlackWhite Total First 8 3 ll 11 4 15 26 Second 13 6 19 12 3 15 34 Third 10 4 14 7 4 ll 25 Totals 31 I3 44 30 ll 41 85 67 Selection of Popils for the Control Group The control group was selected from among first, second, and third grade pupils in traditional-learning environment at Crowell and Dalrymple Elementary Schools. Dalrymple Elementary School is in the Albion Public Schools and is the neighboring school area to Crowell Elementary School. The control group was randomly selected from teachers' classrooms where the basal reader approach was used as the primary instructional tool. The pupils in each grade were given a three-digit number and from a Table of Random Number 52 the con- trol group for each grade was selected. Each randomly selected child was then matched with a student in the experimental group on the basis of grade level, sex, race, and chronological age. Table III—2 gives a breakdown by grade, sex, and race of the pupil make-up of the control group. 2M. G. Kendall and B. B. Smith, Tables of Random Sampling Numbers, Tracts for Computers, Volume XXIV, (London: Cambridge University Press, 1939). TABLE III - 2 STUDENT MAKE-8UP OF THE CONTROL GROUP DIVIDED BY GRADE, SEX, AND RACE Males Females Class Grade Totals Black Whité Total Black White Total First 8 3 ll 11 4 15 26 Second 13 6 19 12 3 15 34 Third 10 4 l4 7 4 ll 25 Totals 31 13 44 30 11 41 85 Selection of Teachers On Tuesday, April 20, 1971, a meeting was held at Albion High School introducing the Open-Learning Environment Project to all interested staff members from the Albion Public Schools. The purpose of this meeting was to inform the professional staff concerning the project and encourage those who were interested in participating to apply for a teaching position. Twelve teachers from the Albion Public Schools and two from outside the district completed applications for teaching 68 69 positions in the project. During the week of May 17, 1971, the in- vestigator in this study and Mr. Paul Foss held personal interviews with each of the applicants. Five teachers, all from within the Albion Public School system, were selected as teachers in the project. Selection was determined on the basis of desire to participate in the project, eXperience and previous success in the classroom, and knowledge and commitment to the philosophy and practice of an open-learning environment. Two of the selected teachers had taught five years, another five and one-half years, another ten years, and another twenty-nine years. The teachers of the control group were teachers assigned to the Albion Public Schools to teach first, second, or third-grade pupils at either Crowell or Dalrymple Elementary Schools and who were using the district adopted basal reader as the primary tool of instruction in reading. Inservice Trainirg for Teachers Beginning in March, 1971, Albion College offered a series of three two-day workshops to explore some of the problems facing educators today. These workshops were open to all teachers in the Albion Public Schools who desired to attend. Following is a list of the major consultants who were available to participants: 1. Mr. Ronald Gross--writer, editor, and consultant in education from New York. 70 2. Dr. Fred Keller-~author and Professor of Psychology at Western Michigan University. 3. Dr. Mario Fantini--Dean of Education at the State University of New York. 4. Dr. Lillian Weber--author and specialist in early childhood education at the City College of New York. 5. Mr. Paul Gwinn--Principal of Fox Hills Elementary School, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. 6. Dr. Neil Postman--author and Professor of English at New York University. 7. Dr. David Bakan--author and psychologist at York University, Toronto, Canada. While educational problems are perhaps as universal as education itself, they are also as specific as the particular school and classroom in which they occur. It was the goal of the Albion College workshops to focus on Albion area schools and their pro— blems. Open-classroom learning was discussed in considerable detail. After selection of the teachers for the Open- Learning Environment Project, inservice training was provided in the following areas: philosophy and practice of open-learning, organiz- ing a personalized reading program, organizing an individualized mathematics program, record keeping in an open-classroom, fundamentals of child growth and development, physically organiz- ing and setting up an open-classroom environment, the use of 71 time in open-learning, discussions with other teachers who were teaching in an open-school, teacher/aide working relationships, and reporting to parent 5 . Following is a list of the consultants who were available to the teachers in the open-school: l. 10. Mrs. Marian Taylor--principal of Prospect School and chairman of the Vermont State Board of Education. Mrs. Pat Carini--school psychologist at the Prospect School in North Bennington, Vermont. Miss Jessica Howard--head teacher at the Prospect School in North Bennington, Vermont. Mr. David Kelso--teacher at the Prospect School in North Bennington, Vermont. Dr. Jeannette Veatch--author and Professor of Reading at Arizona State University. Mrs. Barbara Jones--director of an open-learning pre-school on campus at Western Michigan University. Mrs. Linda Comer--Kalamazoo Valley Intermediate School District consultant with Title 111 Regional Enrichment Center's New American Open School Project. Mrs. Suzanne Frazier-—teacher in an open-learning environment pre-school program in the public schools in Benton Harbor, Michigan. Dr. Erwin Fine stein--author and Professor of Mathematics at University of Chicago. Dr. Bruce A. Lloyd--Director of the Reading Center and Professor of Reading at Western Michigan University. 72 The inservice training took place in Albion, Kalamazoo, Watervliet, Michigan, and the Prospect School in North Bennington Vermont. Selection of Research Method and Instruments The experimental method of research was used in this study to test the following hypotheses: Null Hypothesis I - No difference will be found in reading achievement between first-grade subjects in experimental and con— trol groups. Null Hypothesis II - No difference will be found in reading achievement between males and females in first grade within and between experimental and control groups. Null Hypothesis III - No difference will be found in reading achievement between races in first grade within and between experi- mental and control groups. Null Hypothesis IV — No difference will be found in reading achievement between second-grade subjects in experimental and control groups. Null Hypothesis V - No difference will be found in reading achievement between races in second grade within and between experimental and control groups. 73 Null Hypothesis VI - No difference will be found in reading achievement between races in second grade within and between experimental and control groups. Null Hypothesis VII - No difference will be found in reading achievement between third—grade subjects in experimental and con- trol groups. Null Hypothesis VIII - No difference will be found in reading achievement between males and females in third grade within and between experimental and control groups. Null Hypothesis IX - No difference will be found in reading achievement between races in third grade within and between experi- mental and control groups. To test a hypothesis concerning improvement of two groups under different treatments, it was necessary to have a base-line measurement which was not affected by the treatment on the sub- jects in each group. The pupils of both the experimental and control groups were administered the Metropolitan Achievement Test as a pre-test in October, 1971. The pupils in the experimental group were then subjected to an experimentation period from October, 1971, through April, 1972. The experimental group was exposed to the Open-Learning Environment Project with personalized reading instruction, while 74 the control group was exposed to the traditional classroom environ- ment with the district adOpted basal reading series as the primary tool for reading instruction. It was further necessary to have a follow-up measurement at the end of the treatment. The pupils of both the experimental and control groups were administered the Metropolitan Achievement Test as a post-test in April, 1972, to determine whether or not the treatment produced differences in performance. The pre- and post-n.ean difference score was determined as a measurement for each group. Instrumentation The Metropolitan Achievement Test is a nationally standardized achievement test that provides for comparable evaluation in different subject areas and connparable evaluation from year to year. 4 The standardization of the Metropolitan extended over a three—year period and involved approximately 250, 000 pupils and their teachers.5 3Houghton-Mifflin Company Reading Series. 4Walter N. Durost, and others, MetrOpOlitan Achievement Tests - Teacher's Handbook, (U.S.A.: Harcourt. Brace, Jovanovich, Inc. , 1971), p. 2. 51bid., p. 13. 75 The Metropolitan Tests were empirically standardized in October and April. 6 Metropolitan Achievement Tests are designed to evaluate what is being taught in today's schools. The development of con- tent for the tests depended on extensive analysis of current curricular materials. At the beginning of the text development effort, lists were made of leading textbook series, syllabuses, state guidelines, and other curricular sources. The test authors and authorial assistants next analyzed and summarized these materials. Based on these comprehensive summaries, test "blue- prints" were prepared. The test blueprints indicated that the pro- portion of test items on various topics needed to give balanced coverage to the curriculum. After test blueprints were developed, the actual item writing took place. Items we re written to cover each sub-topic in the blueprints. Following item writing, the items were edited by the publisher and rev1ewcd by independent authorities. Appro- priateness of content and format, clarity of wording, and other 6113161., p. 14. 7ibid., p. 13-14. 76 8 such factors were examined, and, where possible, improved upon. The validity of an achievement test is defined primarily in terms of content validity. A test has content validity if the test items adequately cover the curricular areas that the test is sup- posed to evaluate. Since each school has its own curriculum, the content validity of Metropolitan Achievement Tests must be evaluated by each school. 9 The Primer, Form F, of the Metropolitan Achievement Test battery was selected as the instrument to pre-test the first-grade pupils. The Primer, Form C, of the Metropolitan Achievement Test battery was selected as the instrument to post-test the first- grade pupils. Three subtests are included in the Primer battery, two of which pertain to reading achievement. The first subtest, Listening for Sounds, consists of 39 items to measure pupils' know- ledge of beginning and ending sounds and sound-letter relationships. Twenty-two of these items are based on pictures; eight items are based on letters; and nine items use single words. The second 81bid., p. 14. 9Ibid., p. 14. 77 subtest was Reading, consisting of 33 items to measure pupils' be- ginning reading skills. Eleven items require pupils to identify letters; fourteen items require pupils, when given a picture of some common object, to select from four words the one word that des- cribes the picture; five items require pupils to select one of three simple sentences which best describes a picture. The Primary 1, Form F, of the Metropolitan Achievement Test battery was chosen as the instrument to pre—te st the second- grade pupils. The Primary 1, Form G, of the Metropolitan Achieve- ment Test battery was selected as the instrument to post-test the second-grade pupils. Four subtests are included in this Primary I battery, three of which pertain to reading achievement. The first subtest, Word Knowledge, contains 35 items to measure the extent of a pupil's reading vocabulary. Pupils are given a picture of a common object and must select from four words the one word that describes the picture. Words are generally from primary level readers. The second subtest is Word Analysis and consists of 40 items to measure pupils' knowledge of sound-letter relationships or skill in decoding. Pupils must identify a dictated word from 10Walter N. Durost, and others, Metropolitan Achievement Tests - Teacher's Directions - Primer, (U.S.A.: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc. , 1971), p. 3. 78 among several words with similar configurations and sound patterns. The third subtest is Reading and consists of 42 items to measure pupils' comprehension of written material. Thirteen items require pupils to select one of three easy sentences that best describes a picture. Nineteen items require pupils to read simple paragraphs and answer questions about what they have read. 11 The Primary II, Form G, of the Metropolitan Achievement Test battery was chosen as the instrument to pre-test the third- grade pupils. The Primary II, Form F, of the Metropolitan Achievement Test batter was selected as the instrument to post-test the third-grade pupils. Seven subtests are included in this Primary II battery, four of which pertain to reading. The first subtest is Word Knowledge and consists of 40 items to measure the extent of pupils' reading vocabulary. Seventeen items are in the word- picture association format. Twenty-three items require pupils to identify a synonym, antonym, or classification of a given word. The second subtest is Word Analysis, consisting of 35 items to measure pupils' knowledge of sound-letter relationships or skill in decoding. Pupils must identify a dictated word from several 11Walter N. Durost, and others, MetrOpOlitan Achievement Tests - Teacher's Directions - Primary I, (U. S. A.: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc. , 1971), p. 3. 79 printed words which have similar configurations or sound patterns. The third subtest is Reading, consisting of 44 items to measure pupils' comprehension of written material. Thirteen items require pupils to select one of three sentences which best describes a given picture. Thirty-one items require pupils to read a paragraph and answer questions about what they have read. The fourth subtest is Spelling, consisting of 30 items to measure pupils' ability to spell commonly used words. The test uses the familiar format in which the teacher reads a word and pupils write the correct spelling. 12 iThe data from these test administrations were obtained by the author of this study from the office of each school involved. These results serve as a pre- and post-test assessment of achieve- ment for both the experimental and control groups. Data Ana lys i s The experimental group was an intact group, and the control group was randomly matched to the experimental group from the Table of Random Numbers. Further matching was done by grade level, chronological age, sex, and race. According to Spence, the 12Walter N. Durost, and others, MetrOpOlitan Achievement Tests - Teacher's Diregtions - Primary II, (U.S.A.: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1970), p. 3. 80 mean scores of the two groups on the pre-te st are compared, and if the t-value is not significant the groups are sufficiently comparable for the purposes of the study. 13 This procedure was followed. The Metropolitan Achievement Test was administered as a pre- and post-te st to determine whether or not the treatment pro- duced difference in performance. The mean difference score was determined as a measurement for each group. The statistical t-test was used to test the mean difference for significance. The t-statistic was tested for significance at the . 05 level. The research questions in this study were stated as null hypotheses and were tested statistically by examing the difference between the experimental and control group means. Te sting the null hypothesis results in one of two outcomes: 1. Accepting (failing to reject) the null hypothesis as true; in which case it was concluded that any difference in the results were not statistically significant. 2. Rejecting the null hypothesis as false, in which case it was concluded that the differences in the results were statistically significant, and, therefore, due to some determining factor or condition. 14 13Janet T. Spence, and others, Elementary Statistics, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968), p. 145. l4Stephen Isaac and William B. Michael, Handbook m Research and Evaluation, (San Diego: Robert R. Knapp, Publishers, 1971), pp. 142-143. at th? 1'0 in .4 C) 81 The investigator made use of data processing facilities at Western Michigan University. Data was punched onto IBM cards and processed by the computer. Summa ry This experimental study was designed to investigate reading achievement of two equated groups of SUbJCCI-S in first, second, and third grades~ -an experimental group taught reading in an open— learning environment With a personalized instructional program, and a control group taught reading in groups in a traditional-class— room environirient, using the basal reader as the primary tool of instruction. Eighty—five students in the Open-Learning Environ- ment Project from the Albion School District were selected to comprise the experimental group; while eighty-five students from first, second, and third-grade classrooms within the same school district were randomily selected to comprise the control group. The total number of SlleCCIS participating in the study consisted of 170 first, second, and third- grade pupils. The techniques of measurement invol\.-'ed the use of the Metro- politan Achievement Test battery. Primer. Primary 1, and Primary II. The pre-test measurements were made in the Albion School District the first week of October, 1971. The post-test measurements 82 were made during the last week of April, 1972. The data were treated statistic ally by methods explained in this chapter The method of treatment of data discussed in this chapter was used in the presentation of the findings and analysis of data which is int luded in Chapter IV A summary of the study, concluSions, and recommendations are presented in Chapter V. CHAPT ER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction The purpose of this study, as outlined in Chapter I, were: 1. To investigate reading achievement of two equated groups of SUbJC‘ClS in first, second, and third grades; A. An experiemental group was taught reading in an open-learning enx'ironment With a personalized instructional program. B. A control group was taught reading in a traditional.- classroom envzronment. usmg the basal reader as the primary tool of instruction- 2. To investigate reading achievement correlated by sex in first. second, and third grades Within and between the experimental and control groups. 3. To investigate reading achievement correlated by race in first. second, and third grades Within and between the experimental and c ontrol groups. Method of AnalySI s The Metropolitan Achievement prevtests were analyzed for each grade level and for each subtest. The mean s<. ores of the two groups were compared. usmg the t statistic to test for Significance 83 84 at the . 05 level. There was no significant difference in any area. According to Spence, when the t-value is not significant, the groups are sufficiently comparable for the purposes of the study. 1 In order to investigate the nine hypotheses set forth in this study, the first, second, and third—grade subjects in the experimental and the control groups were administered the Metropolitan Achieve- ment Test battery as a pre- and post-test. Each hypothesis stated a null relationship between the mean difference scores of the groups and was tested at the . 05 level of significance. The results of the statistical analysis of the data are pre- sented in this chapter. Presentation of specific results related to the nine null hypotheses follows in the order in which they were stated in Chapter I. There were twenty-six subjects in the fir st-grade experi- mental group and twenty-six subjects in the first-grade control group. Table IV-l gives a description of these groups by sex and racial make-up. lSpence', 92. £i_t.,. p. 145. 85 TABLE IV-l FIRST GRADE DESCRIPTION BY SEX AND RACE Race Er Group Sex Race b1 Sex Group Total Number-3i Male Female White Black White Black Whit :B:1ack White Black Experi- ”mental 26 7 19 11 15 3 8 4 11 Control 26 7 19 11 15 3 8 4 ll Null Hypothesis one states: There will be no significant difference in achievement of fir st-grade subjects between experimental and control groups as measured by pre- and post-test mean difference scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. First-grade subjects were studied to determine if any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on the subtests Listening for Sounds and Reading. The mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV-Z, were determined for each group; and the statistical t-te st was used to test the mean difference for significance at the . 05 level. In the subtests Listening for Sounds and Reading, the t-test 86 Umz nwvé om wmm .m mmm.: oomfim whmdfi Hohhou wcwpmom who .0 bum .o wmo .mm New .mH Hmucmflfiuoaxm Umz acme . om cwm .N. mom :2 com .10. Hmm .oH Honfimou wswcmumwd wmw .N. mom .oH ooo .om moo .oH 3308?on amen—nu mp Om @3893wa “mom mum ADOHU 03.3.2”? «302 go: Emma. HZH§H>HEU< Z HZH2H>HHmU< 03H. 20 mnHDOmO JOMBZOU 024 JH ”Hum/NH. 87, of differences resulted in a t-value of less than 2. 008, which was the value necessary for the . 05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected; that is, there was no signifi- cant difference between the experimental and control groups in listening and reading at the first-grade level. The subtest Listening for Sounds measured the subjects' knowledge of beginning and ending sounds and sound-letter relation— ships. The subtest Reading measured subjects' beginning reading skills. In the subte sts Listening for Sounds and Reading, the control group improved more than did the experimental group, although the improvement difference was not statistically significant. Null Hypothesis two states: There will be no significant difference in achievement of fir st-grade subjects between males and females in the experimental and the control groups as measured by pre- and post-te st mean difference scores on the MetrOpOlitan Achievement Test. First-grade subjects were studied by sex to determine if any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on the subtest Listening for Sounds. Comparisons were made within and between experimental and control groups in the following categories: 88 1. Male and female subjects compared within the experi- mental group. 2. Male and female subjects compared within the control group. 3. Male subjects in the experimental group compared with male subjects in the control group. 4. Female subjects in the experimental group compared with female subjects in the control group. 5. Male subjects in the experimental group compared with female subjects in the control group. 6. Female subjects in the experimental group compared with male subjects in the control group. Mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV-3, were determined for each group, and the statistical t-test was used to test the mean difference for significance at the . 05 level. In categories 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 the t-test resulted in a verification of no significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis in categories 1, Z, 3, 5, and 6 was not rejected; that is, there was no significant difference in listening for sounds achievement of first—grade subjects between males and females within and between the experimental and control groups. The between group analysis, comparing female subjects in the experimental group with female subjects in the control group, resulted in a t-value of Z. 064 which was significant at the . 05 level. 89 32.: mo. 3 38:339. mdwz qua . vm hmw .w mom .3 2m Honuaom. «cm H coo -m egg. QmZ owo . em mmw .m new .2 Bmccom Hobcou oom .m mmv :3 332 33683..»me flag :m ad thm -m Jew -2 382m Hoaaqot muonmr new -n ccc -m 33%. $058. sz m3. ON Se .m 23.3 .892 zohaoo . co... .m m? .2 Egg szo; 4N mmm m SN .2 2an 33.80 acme -w coo -3 2 95.5 DmZ Hmm .H vm mom .5 ooo .w 0380M Haunocfiuomwm a393,? 00m .8 mmv qu 032 pm 3:» mp Om oucmumwfifl New QSOHO «gamumfl smog HmHH HZHEH>HEU< ZH HA m smog .HmHH. HZM2M>MEU< ZMEU< 2>HMQ Q24 22.2.3 HdemU Hmdfim mom HUANM Wm mZOmHmHOU A smog Hm0H H20§0>0EU¢ 2¢HHAOnHOMH02 00H. 20 m0000m >>¢m .Hm0HnHmOn0 02¢ -000 $0 0000m¢02 m¢ 0200¢00 .Hm0H00m 00.0. 20 mnHDOMU AOMHZOD 02¢ 0¢B20H>000n0um0 2003800 02¢ 20.0.03 00¢00 0000.0 00.0 0U¢m V0 m20m00¢n0200 0¢UHHmHH¢Hm .00 >0¢2§Dm @ I>H 000¢H 97 Null Hypothe51s four states: There Will be no significant; difference in achievement of second-grade subjects between experimental and control groups as measured by pre- and post -test mean difference scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. Secondgrade subjects were studied to determine if any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on the subte sts Word Knowledge, Word Analysis, and Reading. The mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV--8, were determined for each group, and the statistical t-test was used to test the mean difference for Significance at the . 05 level. In the subtests Word Knowledge, Word Analysis, and Reading, the t-test of differences resulted in a t-value less than 1. 997 which was the value necessary for the . 05 level of signi- ficance. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected; that is, there was no Significant difference in word knowledge, word analys1s, and reading between the experimental and control groups at the second-grade level. The subtest Word Knowledge measured the extent: of subjects' knowledge of sound-letter relationships of skill in decod- ing. The subtest Reading measured subjects' comprehension of written material. 98 22mz N3 .2 3 £0 .22 222222. 2223 .N cow .2 20.3280 222222.822 3225 N3. 222 2.3.2 23582802xm 22572 gm. 3 2.222 .m NS. .22. .N coo .2 28280 2:22... 2.2V .0 woo . $34 a: -2 2m2c¢EE¢m§ 2:03 392 2222.. 8 mom .2. 3m. 2:: .N 22.2 .N 20.3280 $323052 2342 2.2.1 2.2.th 2:: m . , 2:85 29.3-2 02o 0m oomwww/wfi0 um 00 920 Q5020 033.22....) «Gmommwwmo0 Inflow/H 222029202200 02320 Home rb2020>0000¢ 2¢800000H02 00.0. 20 m0000m 8200¢>HDO0 00¢00 .Hm0HJHw0nH 02¢ -000 V0 000Dm¢02>2 m¢ m000¢00¢> 82020>000¢ 0000.0. 20 m00000 0008200 02¢ 10¢8200>00000m0 00¢00u02000m 20025.0.00 m20m00¢nfl>200 0¢UHHmHH¢Hw .00 >0¢H>S>Hbm w I>H 0100¢H 99 In the subtests Word Knowledge and Reading, the control group improved more than the experimental group, although the improvement difference was not statistically Significant. In the subte st Word Analysis the experimental. group improved more than the control group, although the improvement difference was not statistically significant. According to the national norms of the Metropolitan Achieve- ment Test battery, the expected achievement level for second graders at the time of the post-test: was 2. 700. The control group achieved at the Z. 700 grade level in the subtest Work Knowledge. In all other areas, both groups were below the expected grade level. At the time of the pre-test the expected achievement level for second graders was 2.100 grade equivalent. The control group in the subtest Word Knowledge tested 2.141 and the experimental group in the subtest Work Knowledge tested 2.100. In all other subte st areas, both groups were below the expected grade level. Null Hypothesis five states: There will be no significant difference in at hievement of second-grade subjects between males and females in the experi- mental and control groups as measured by pre and post‘test mean difference scores on the Metropolitan Achievement. Test. Second-grade subjects were studied by sex to determine if 100 any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on the subtest Word Knowledge. Comparisons were made within and be- tween the experimental and control groups in the follow1ng categories: 1. 6. Male and female subjects compared within the experi— mental. group. Male and female subjects c onipared within the control group. Male subjects in the experimental group compared With male subjects in the control group. Female subjects in the experimental group compared With female subjects in the control group. Male subjects in the experimental group compared with female subjects in the control group. Female subjects in the experimental group compared with male subjects in the control group. Mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV ~9, were determined for each group and the statistical tv-test was used to test the mean difference for significance at the . 05 level. In each category the t-test resulted in a verification of no Significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejet ted; that is, there was no Significant difference in wordknowledge achievement of second-grade subjects between males and females within and between the experimental and control groups. Second-grade subjects were studied by sex to determine if any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on 101 . mz 222. . NM 32. .22 2.00. finalllauflao .lllmmm my 222% - gag 0d2 mow . mm mom .m m0. . «002200 000220 . .._..._|0.m~..lm o S. . 4022.04.43 0m2 mvm . mm mom .m m0. . 00.9.2200 00.32200 0220.20 «0a n0 1;; G0030m0 0m2 2.0 .0 cm :22. .w who . 3.32 00.32200 22me as.“ - «3%. 0m2 0.00 .0 NM mom .m M00. . 2089.0 00.32200 nmw .w who . 00.3.20 20 32 N2N .2 Mm 222222 to 2% - 225.2 265 2mucm2b0umn0x0 2202.303 mom .m ohm . @1202 um opus. 00o 0m $952800 xmm 0220.20 m0nm0hm> 23002 Hm00. H2020>0000¢ 2¢.0.0100n000.0._00>0 00.0. 20 m0000m .0.20.0¢>0DO0 00¢00 Hm00.-.0.m0n0 02¢ .000 0.0 000Dm¢002 m¢ 0000103020 0003 Hm0HODm 00.0. 20 mn002000 1000.0.200 02¢ 10¢.0.200>0000n000 20030.00 02¢ 200.003 00¢00 02000m 000 00m W0 m20m00¢n00>000 i0¢00.0.m0.0.¢.0.m .00 >0¢0)00>00m 0 ..>0 0i00¢.0. the subte st 102 Word Analysis. Comparisons were made within and between the experimental and control groups in the following categories: 1. Male and female subjects compared within the experi- mental group. Male and female subjects compared within the control group. Male subjects in the experimental group compared with male subjects in the control group. Female subjects in the experimental group compared with female subjects in the control group. Mal e subjects in the experimental group compared with female subjects in the control group. Female subjects in the experimental group compared with male subjects in the control group. Mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV-lO, were determined for each group and the statistical t-test was used to test the mean difference for significance at the . 05 level. In each category, the t-te st resulted in a verification of no Significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected; that is, there was no significant difference in word-analysis achievement of second-grade subjects between males and females within and between the experimental and control groups. Second-grade subjects were studied by sex to determine if any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on 103 11' 0022 2mm . mm Moo .o 32. . 00.3.4 20.32200 mmm .0. boo . 39.22.00 032.822.20.8me sz mg . a... wom .m 023 . 0295.0 232qu «5&1 mmm - «WE-dag. H202 «we - mm 03 -m moo . Havm 222.2300 mm... .m S... mam-gm. .288 22095000 sz com - on ado .20 S2. . mv2.2.2.2 20.22280 NE .m- .322. dag-gnaw”... 002 N20 . Nm mom .m 500 . Beam-.0 00.32200... 28 .0 22.. 23.2 m A22.0.2.0 5.2 2.2.2.- a... $2. .0 2.3. M2.2.50 - 2.22223 . 0.322ee02mn0x0 03. «m 0m . 00324 l... ”Emu-wit. 01 00 0022920000 lumflm 0220.20 0323.20? 2232 .0000. H2020>0000¢ 2¢.0.0100000.0.00>0 00.0.. 20 000000 0.20i0¢>0000 00¢00 000030000 02¢ -000 F0 00000¢002 0¢ 0000-10¢2¢ 00025 000.0000 00.0. 20 0000000 0000.200 02¢ .0¢.0.200>00000X0 20030.00 02¢ 200.0005 00¢00 020000 000 000 >0 020000¢00>000 0¢00HO0H¢.H0 00 >0¢0>00>0000 00 ->0 0100¢.0. 104 the subte st Reading. Comparisons were made within and between the experimental and control groups in the following categories: 1. Male and female subjects compared within the experi- mental group. 2. Male and female subjects compared within the control group. 3. Male subjects in the experimental group compared with male subjects in the control group. 4. Female subjects in the experimental group compared with females subjects in the control group. 5. Male subjects in the experimental group compared with female subjects in the control group. 6. Female subjects in the experimental group compared with male subjects in the control group. Mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV-ll, were determined for each group and the statistical t-test was used to test the mean difference for significance at the . 05 level. In each category, with the exception of number three, the t-test resulted in a verification of no significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis in categories 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 was not rejected; that is, there was no significant difference in reading achievement of second-grade subjects between males and females within and between the experimental and control groups. In category three, the between group analysis, comparing male subjects in the experimental group with male subjects in the 105 2962 3. 2m 22.822206 .2. 02 21mm . mm mom .22 0mm . 33./2 20.32200 2mm -22 2.2.22 . 332222022220 02 2f- -0 Nm won .0 mow . 09220.0 20.30200 mmN -2. .E2. - 3422382430 dam . 3 won -0 mmmt Sam-.2 20.328 2 - 22090 #3 .0 02.22 . mm- 2.... 58. cmoEmm .032. .N 2m” mom .mfl moo . W234 20.22220 m 3 -2. £2. . , 020105833, 52 2.3. mm mom .0 m3. Baum-.2 282.8 mom .22 $2.. 322 A285 .2. 22.2 .N mm 23.3 3.22. 295-0 2.2.2023 . 032205220020 m mm .2. 20N2. . $21327 “Emu-u 000 00 002820000 2.30 Q3090 00303.3( c2802 0008 82020>000¢ 2¢80i00000800>0 008 20 000000 82010¢>00000 00¢00 0008-8000 02¢ -000 >0 000Dm¢00>0 0¢ 0200¢00 80080000 008 20 0000000 10008200 02¢ 10¢8200>00000vm0 2003800 02¢ 200803 00¢00 020000 000 000 0.0 020000¢00>000 i0¢008m08¢80 .00 0040020200 00->0 0100¢8 106 control group, resulted in a t-zvalue of 2. 463 which was significant at the . 05 level. The males in the control group achieved signifi- cantly higher than did the males in the experimental group. Therefore, the null hypothesis in category three was rejected; that is, there was a significant difference in reading achievement between males in the experimental group and males in the control group. Null hypothesis six states: There will be no significant difference in achievement of second-grade subjects between races in the experimental and control groups as measured by pre- and post-test mean difference scores on the MetrOpOlitan Achievement Test. Second-grade subjects were studied by race to determine if any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on the subtest Word Knowledge. Comparisons were made Within and between the experimental and control groups in the following categories: 1., White and Black subjects compared within the experimental group. 2. White and Black subjects compared within the control group. 3. White subjects in the experimental group compared with white subjects in the control group. 107 4. Black subjects in the experimental group compared with Black subjects in the control group. 5. White subjects in the experimental group compared with Black subjects in the control group. 6. Black subjects in the experimental group compared with white subjects in the control group. Mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV-lZ, were determined for each group and the statistical t-te st was used to test the mean difference for significance at the . 05 level. In each category, the t-value resulted in a verification of no significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected; that is, there was no significant difference in word-knowledge achievement of second-grade subjects between races with and between the experi- mental and control groups. Second-grade subjects were studied by race to determine if any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on the subtest Word Analysis. Comparisons were made within and between the experimental and control groups in the following categories: 1. White and Black subjects compared within the experi~ mental group. 2. White and Black subjects compared within the control group. 108 002 wNN .0 mm 00% .0 0mm. . 00.3.3 0.3000 m3. .m $0.. .320 880820me 002 Hmo . mm mmm .0 00¢ . #0000 00.3000 2.0m -w H 3 - E23 Erica... .0.me - . . 0: 00 so dmzawhm xv Jmmm. 0 00¢ M 30 0 0 . 0 030.00 NHV dm «uNVi 000m 00+CGET~¢CNMH 00025me 002 0 Ho .0 a: 33 .m emu . 00E? HOEQOU waw .N. :m . 323 55820me 0020;. Nm mmm .0 00v. 00030 00v .0 cm» . 00.3.20 00.3000 0:000 002 nmv. mm mind vmv. x030 Est? 0000080000x0 «00 .W :m . 001:5 0mg-» :0 00 000000000 0000 0:000 05030> 0002 8008 82020>0000< 2<8000000802 008 20 000000 8200<>0000 00400 8008:8000 024 -000 0.0 000D0<02 0< 0000103020 0.00.3 8008000 008 20 00.0000 10008200 024 1048202000000 2003800 024... 2080.3 00¢00 020000 000 0040 >0 02003000200 104008008480 00 #0402200 N0 u>0 0100<8 109 3. White subjects in the experimental group compared with white subjects in the control group. 4. Black subjects in the experimental group compared with Black subjects in the control group. 5. White subjects in the experimental group compared with Black subjects in the control group. 6. Black subjects in the experimental group compared with white subjects in the control group. Mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV—13, were determined for each group and the statistical t-test was used to test the mean difference for significance at the . 05 level. In categories 1, 3, 4, and 5 the t-test resulted in a verification of no significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis in categories 1, 3, 4, and 5 was not rejected; that is, there was no significant difference in word-analysis achievement of second-grade subjects between races Within and between the experimental and control groups. In category two, the within group analysis, comparing white and Black subjects in the control group, resulted in a t-value of Z. 275 which was significant at the . 05 level. The Black subjects achieved significantly higher than did the white subjects in the con- trol group. Therefore, the null hypothesis in category two was rejected; that is, there was a significant difference in word—analysis achieve- ment between Black and white subjects in the control group. 110 02,2 mo. 0m. 38:830.“. .83 .N an E .0 mm“ . 33>» 3.3000 80 .m 0% . 003.038.8301 0073mm 1 0m 30 .m 3.0. 000.8...qu mmn .a 02.. BE? ESE: 300 002 omm. av 30 .m 310 . 520 33:00 «mm -m 000 - 03001403083. 0:000 :02 $0 « E E iv 00 . 3E? Hoflcou $03000 m3 -o 2:. . 9:55 «an. ES 0 0 034m 3&1 q1:0 33qu NS .0 0.: . BE? 0:80 002 mmo .0 mm 3N .m “VS. €20 03580.5me 5033. mm“ -o cow - $23 0.0 0.70 00 00 009000000 0000 05000 03030.? . G002 8008 82020>00004 2480100000802 008 20 000000 820A4>H000 00400 8008:8000 024 I000 00 00000402 04 00000424 000.3 8008000 008 20 000000 10008200 024 1048203000000 2003800 024 200803 00400 020000 000 0040 0.0 02000040200 104008008480 00 00430200 M0I>H 010048 111 In category six, the between group analysis comparing Black subjects in the experimental group with white subjects in the control group, resulted in a t-value of Z. 275 which was signi- ficant at the .05 level. The Black subjects achieved significantly higher than did the white subjects in the control group. Therefore, the null hypothesis in category six was rejected; that is, there was a significant difference in word—analysis ac .eve— ment between Black subjects in the experimental group and white subjects in the control group. Second-grade subjects were studied by race to determine if any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on the subte st Reading. Comparisons were made Within and between the experimental and control groups in the following categories: 1. White and Black subjects compared within the experi- mental group. 2. White and Black subjects compared within the control group. 3. White subjects in the experinientalgroup compared with white subjects in the control group. 4. Black subjects in the experimental group compared with Black subjects in the control group. 5. White subjects in the experimental group compared with Black subjects in the control group. 6. Black subjects in the experimental group compared with white subjects in the control group. 112 Mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV-14, were determined for each group and the statistical t-test was used to test the mean differences for significance at the . 05 level. In categories 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 the t-test resulted in a verification of no significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis in categories 1, Z, 4, 5 and 6 was not rejected; that is, there was no sigificant difference in reading achievement of second-grade subjects between races within and between the experimental and control groups. The between group analysis comparing white subjects in the experimental group with white subjects in the control group, resulted in a t-value of 2.165 which was significant at the . 05 level. The white subjects in the control group achieved significantly higher than did the white subjects in the experimental group. Therefore, the null hypothesis in category three was rejected; that is, there was a significant difference in reading achievement between white subjects in the experimental group and the control group. There were twenty-five subjects in the experimental third grade and twenty-five subjects in the control third grade. Table IV-lS gives a description of these groups by sex and rac1al make-up. 113 #33 mo . um Emogqmfim in. nngm 4 mm Sm .0 m8 .H . 333 ‘ 33:00 ome .m wwo . a? sz mow -d JNM NS iw @mm - Madam _CLECC boo J... odw q Min? . QmZog. mm nod .w 04mm- xnafim 3.355 @2050 Wmd A. war Acadmludmudmg, Cook/«mm .33 .M 3 Hmwo ma; 3E3 Hoflao 3.3. 8.3 3.33 a; DMZ wmo . mm 2: .w omw . xoflm Houunou ammo mmoJ 33.3 II-» - - i i QSOHU C02 mfim _ 3 oWo m «NE .4ch Houcmeflummxm a??? hcflw J» sewV . «amazon um Baa up Om 028.8wa oomm 95.20 m3m€m> 532 HmHH HZM2H>HEU< ZH HEB ZO mHMOOm HZMA<>SOH HDANMO HmmHIHmOnH QZ< ummm Wm DHMDmH Hdmmfih TABLE IV- 15 THIRD GRADE DESCRIPTION BY SEX AND RACE 114 Race by Group Sex Race by Sex Group Total Number White Blac k Male Female Male Female White BlackWhite Black Experi- mental 25 8 17 14 ll 4 10 4 7 Control 25 8 l7 14 11 4 10 4 7 Null Hypothesis seven states: There will be no Signific ant difference in achievement of third-grade subjects between experimental and control groups as measured by pre- and post-test mean difference scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. Third-grade subjects were studied to determine if any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on the subtests Word Knowledge, Word Ana1VSIS. Reading, and Spelling. The mean-difference scores, summarized in Table IV-—16, were determined for each group and the statistical ivtest of differences resulted in a t-value less than 2... 010 which was the value necessary for the . 05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypotheSis 115 994 N3. 3 3mg. N3. Nmm.m owed. Etccu . mfizomm NS .o 2%. NEC .m $9M HEEQEQQH Omz 02. we go .0 NS. 2% .m moo .N 3-2.50 . mczcwox EN K 3m. 3m d 004 .N EEEEEEM omz $4. we moms 3%. EN .m o? .N 6.5.3....c mafmmfl. >54.» OEV . wcfi .m mm» .N amacogioaxm p.53 .ime 30. we woos NE. @045, 03 cm 63:5. oweflaosx 93;: 344 03.4 ooo.~ $2258me 303 pmooiu— . - . ~ . to Om ocsfiwmmwm/WMVQ Tm, cmonw H whom C QDOLU c3dfm> «cw Mfw m. gflaucflmi: a atmsLm L Hmme HZHEM>MHIU< ZHDOH HD PZM2H>HH$U< mDOh ZO mQDOMO JOKHZOU Q24 J>HMQ mZOmHmm<223m n: ..>H H4QHEU4 24HHJOQO¢HH§ HEB 20 mHMOUm 82HA4>HDOQ HQ4~HU HmQHIHmOnH Q24 ummm cwm QHMDm4H§ w4 HUQHABOZM QMOB BmmHme HEB 20 mnHDOmO dOfiBZOU Q24 A4H2H2Hmmmvmm ZHMBHHQ Q24 25835 HQioij QMHEH MOh NHm Wm mZOme4nQZOU 1H4OHHmHH4Hm .mO Vmgsz >2 i>H MAQ4H 119 categories 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 the t-test resulted in a verification of no significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis in categories 1, Z, 3, 5, and 6 was not rejected; that is, there was no significant difference in word-knowledge achievement of third-grade subjects between males and females within and between the experimental and control groups. In category four, the between group analysis, comparing females in the experimental group with females in the control group, resulted in a t-value of 2.125 which was significant at the . 05 level. The females in the experimental group achieved significantly higher than did the females in the control group. Therefore, the null hypothesis in category four was rejected; that is, there was a significant difference in word-knowledge achieve- ment between females in the experimental group and females in the control group. Third-grade subjects were studied by sex to determine if any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on the subte st Word Analysis. Comparisons were made within and be- tween the experimental and control groups in the following categories: 1. Male and female subjects compared within the experi- mental group. 2. Male and female subjects compared within the control group. 120 3. Male subjects in the experimental group compared with male subjects in the control group. 4. Female subjects in the experimental group compared with female subjects in the control group. 5. Male subjects in the experimental group compared with females subjects in the control group. 6. Female subjects in the experimental group compared with male subjects in the control group. Mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV-18, were determined for each group and the statistical t-te st was used to test the mean difference for significance at the . 05 level. In each category, the t-test resulted in a verification of no significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected; that is, there was no significant difference in word—analysis achievement for third-grade subjects between males and females within and between the experimental and control groups. Third-grade subjects were studied by sex to determine if any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on the subtest Reading. Comparisons were made within and between the experimental and control groups in the folIOWing categories: 1. Male and female subjects compared within the experi- mental group. 2. Male and female subjects compared Within the control group. 121 dmmez - mm «Ne -c Sm - 242. 3.35 vag. mmc . Salaam, $2 is 4 MN moo .s w; i Bylaws 33:8 9: .0 SN . 032 I3. QmZ ONm . om moo .o mam . mfimgoh 203:0 . Hmw .N. mmo . Sarcasm Qmuaoeflnoaxm QSOHO It i . - q . “$63qu CUZCOF A: dNr c ANM 3 Houunou «E. «n :imi Bug Hauqufifluumxfl szhwhé MN mood mam. onth . was .s Sm . 22a Hobaoo 98.5 d I O m Qm2 owm H mm va N. mmo 3.98 h Houcogfiuomxm 230:3 . of. .o :.N . 2mg illeuuiu “no Qm mocopowfiQ Xmm QSOHO 62339.3( 982 .HmQH HZHEH>QEU4 24BHJOQOMHQ2 mm& 20 deOUm H2QQ4>HDOH HQ4MU HmQHuHmOnH Q24 imamm Wm QMMDm4H2 m4 mHmwiH424 QMO? HmHHmDm H28 20 mnm DOMO domHZOU Q24 ifizmzzfimmxm ZHHSHQQ Q24 2213.35 QQEU QMHEH MOM NQm WQ mZOmHm4nQ>QOU A4UHBmHH4Hm MO WM4§§Dw ma i>H H4Q4H 122 3. Male subjects in the experimental group compared with male subjects in the control group. 4. Female subjects in the experimental group compared with female subjects in the control group. 5. Male subjects in the experimental group compared with female subjects in the control group. 6. Female subjects in the experimental group compared with male subjects in the control group. Mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV—19, were determined for each group and the statistical t-test was used to test the mean difference for significance at the . 05 level. In each cate- gory, the t-test resulted in a verification of no significance. Therefore, the null hypotheSis was not rejected; that is, there was no significant difference in reading achievement for third-grade subjects between males and females within and between the experimental and control groups. Third-grade subjects were studied by sex to determine if any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on the subtest Spelling. Comparisons were made Within and between the experimental and control groups in the followmg categories: 1. Male and female subjects compared Within the experi- mental group. 2. Male and female subjects compared Within the control group. 3. Male subjects in the experimental group compared With male subjects in the control group. 123 Qmvao. mN ooofi «Am. 03 Hon—no mmm .N. ham . 0385 Haunoafluomxm QmZ ovm . MN NNm .o w; . 0188 20.3qu and r £3. E . Caz 4mm i QN NNm .0 mi... . 0.386 HotcoU I @5050 hmm -m mNm . madam Haucoccwuoaxmf soosfiom sz 2: . 0N OPQJ. film . 2m Houuco who .6 £4 . 234 23583».qu szomm . mm NNm .o 34. 395 QouunoU doc h VA m t m: QSOHU 092 02 . 8 >3 4. gm. 295m .333 mum .0 £4 . 032 FEoEComxm amouiu up Qm ooaon omfiQ xmm QSOHU mEmEm> Gmmz HmQH. H2M§Q>QED4 24BHiHOnHOMHQ§ NEH. 20 deOUm H2QJ4>HDGQ QQ4MU HmQBiHmOnH Q24 ummnw. .WQ Qmm2m4mz m4 02HQ4Qm HmQHQDm MZH 20 mnHDOMHD AOMHZOO Q24 J4HZQH>QMQQXQ ZQHBHHQ Q24 22.323 QQ4mU QmHmH .mOrA NQm Fm mZOmHm4nHH>HOU 44UHHmHH4Bm .mO >m4zzbm o2 u>H HJQ4H 124 4. Female subjects in the experimental group compared with female subjects in the control group. 5. Male subjects in the experimental group compared with female subjects in the control group. 6. Female subjects in the experimental group compared with male subjects in the control group. Mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV-ZO, were determined for each group and the statistical t-te st was used to test the mean difference for significance at the . 05 level. In each category, the t-te st resulted in a verification of no significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected; that is, there was no significant difference in spelling achievement for third-grade subjects between males and females within and between the experimental and control groups. Null Hypothesis nine state: There will be no significant difference in achievement of third-grade subjects between races in experimental and control groups as measured by pre- and post—te st difference scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. Third-grade subjects were studied by race to determine if any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on the subtest Word Knowledge. Comparisons were made within and 125 sz m S J mm o 3. am new - 334 35qu Sc .3 com . 23% 992 mam . mm 54 .6 cos. Bmfimm 3.3qu boo .w 3m . 3mg aficmcfiummxm 82 m3 .2 om :3 .0 cos. 2.88m 6.3.80 .330 Educ dd OON . 0A Maura” “NHGMEHHMQWH Quack/”wow amid 2 4 fl oz. .4 2}: 3&2 23280 coo 4a 3m. Egjflduaflqumi . . . w $80 092000 mm 84 o co» _ m 3.3.80 34 .4 2}. Egg 9.30 . - . . c235 v2 :3 mm 2.0 S mom Bactwm. fiEoECmaxn soc -w «3 . 222 pm 3..» mp Qm 6026.2;wa xmm Q3050 mzmzmxw smog HmQH HZQ2Q>HEU4 24HHJOQOMHQ2 HEB 20 mQMOUm 82m44>HDOQ QQ4mO HmQHifimOnH Q24 ummnm wm QHMDW4H2 m4 OZQJQQW HmmHmDm HEB 20 manOMO AOMHZOU Q24 A482H2Hmmnmvmm ZHHBHHQ Q24 22.223 QQ4mU QmHTQH MOM NQw Wm mZOmHm4nQ>HOU A4UHHmHH4Hm MO Wim4§§Dm ON .. >H H4 Q48 126 between the experimental and control groups in the following categories: 1. White and Black subjects compared within the experi- mental group. 2.. White and Black subjects compared within the control group. 3. White subjects in the experimental group compared With White subjects in the control group. 4. Black subjects in the experimental group compared with Black subjects in the control group. 5. White subjects in the experimental group compared With Black subjects in the control group. 6. Black subjects in the experimental group compared with white subjects in the control group. Mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV-21, were determined for each group and the statistical t--test was used to test the mean difference for significance at the .. 05 level. In categories 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 the t-test resulted in a verification of no significance. Therefore, the null hypotheSis in categories 1, 2, 3, 5,, and 6 was not rejected; that is, there was no Significant difference in word—knowledge achievement of thirdrvgrade subjects between races within and between experimental and control groups. The between group analy51s, comparing Black subjects in the experimental group With Black subjects in the control group. 127 2962 mo . 2m. EmoCEwfic. 22922.22 .2 mm 2.25.02 82 .2 82.2.3 28280 242-02 mmwt2 w W @sz2. mm 2% .2. 2223. v2.65 236qu 000 um m |M©mc dhmjg ~4aCQE2LQflrih 2m m 32.2 mm 23.2. mm... .233 M 282228 M M 23;: $22 .2324 1.58.8242 . 9652 2.. CowBEQm _omzmw2 .2 2.2 ooo .2: O2: .2 82.23 3.22228 _ .2 _ ddO .m mnwm .. mi GAME? HMHCUSALCQXHW 4. _ _ omzoos .2 mm 23. 2. . mm... . 23222 23:50 W 2.8.2: 252 .2 .2 2:23 M .2320 omzoso .N mm 22; .2 3w -2 m .255 W 2:22? . 2m2s6822omxm~ __ . . 000 m 2... E2223 _ $62.12 :o . Qm oococmwfiQ comm 920.20 _ oqflgcdfi2 smog m 2 w PWQH H2Q§Q>QHZU4 24BHJOQO~QHQ2 HEB 20 mQMOUm HZQJ4>QDOQ QQ4mU HmMHuHmOnH Q24 ummnw >Q QQmDm4mQ>Q m4 QOQQQEOZM QmOB HmQHQDm QZB 20 manOmU AOZHZOU Q24 44H2H22QQXQ ZQQBHQQ Q24 23.2835 QQ4mU QQOH MOM QU4M wm mZOmHm4nQ>HOU J4UHHmHH4Hm b0 wm4§2Dm QNi>H EQ4H resulted in a t-value of 2. 923 which was significant at the . 05 level. The Black subjects in the experimental group achieved significantly higher than did the Black subjects in the control group. Therefore, the null hypothesis in category four was re- jected; that: is, there was a significant difference in word-knowledge achievement between Black subjects in the experimental group and Black subjects in the control group. Thirdgrade subjects were studied by race to determine if any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on the subtest Word Analysis. Comparisons were made within and between the experimental and control groups in the following categories; 1. White and Black subjects compared in the experi- mental group. 2. White and Black subjects compared in the control group. 3. White subjects in the experimental group compared With white subjects in the control group. 4. Black subjects in the experimental group compared with black subjects in the control group. 5. White subjects in the experimental group compared with Black subjects in the control group. 6. Black subjects in the experimental group compared with White subjects in the control group. Mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV-122, were 128 129 Qm2 «+0 . MN 200 .0 wmv . @2233 2022.900 .22 22.3 2 .82. - 2.313353 2. 32 2:2. mm .5. .2 2223. fifllm. 29:28” 2 odd -s 2.2.2. - . $2.23 REEFE tmxww . _ QWZQNO . NM mmv .N. wdm . ”imam 20.322002 9.20.20 2.63. n 2&4- Judi 2m2cmfi2pmmxmw 56332.2 sz :22 . «2 23.0 222.. 82.23 222280 d3. r... m3. - «+£23.33. Caz 3:. MN mmw .2. wwm . xum2m . . o 2 20.32200 200 0 wmv 2.55 @5020 mmz $2 . mm 22.1. .s $2.. .235 235825me 2222223 mg 2. a- c.2255 um 23.» up Qm 6320.28wa comm 920.20 30.23.2232. Gmmz .HmMH H2Q2H>HHQU4 24BH1HOQOMHQ2 H29 20 mHMOUm HZQ1H4>HDOQ HQéU HmmHifimOnm Q24 immm .wm QHMDm4H2>H m4 mHmViH424 QMO? HmQHmDm $25 20 mnHDOMU AOQHZOU Q24 A482Q2HMHQNH ZHQBHQQ Q24 ZHEHES HQ4MU QMEH MOh QUE cwm mZOmHm4nQZOD J4UHHmHH4Hm .mO Vm4Q>Z>HDm NN u>H HAQ4H 130 determined for each group and the statistical t-test was used to test the mean difference for Significance at the .. 05 level. In each cate- gory, the item resulted in a verification of no Signific ance. Therefore, the null hypotheSis was not: rejected; that. is, there was no significant difference in wordvmanalysis achievement for third-grade subject's between White and Black subjects Within and between the experimental and control groups. Third-grade subjects were studied by rac e to determine if any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on the subtest Reading. Comparisons were made Within and between the experimental and control groups in the following categories: 1. White and Black subjects i ompared Within the experi- mental group. 2. White and Black subjects compared Within the control group. 3., White subjects in the experimental group compared with White subjects in the control group. 4. Black subjects in the experimental group compared with Black subjects in the control group. 5. White subjects in the experii'iienial group compared with Black subjects in the ( ontrol group. 6. Black subjects in the experimental group compared with white subjects in the com rol group Mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV 23, were determined for each group and the statistical t -iest Was used to 131 t. sz hmv . MN moo .0 wwv . @333. HOHEOU mmm .s m3. xoflm amoaofiioaxm 82 Se. MN £5 .5 m3. fiflm Hotqou 03 tm wmm i cth .552:ch I @280 omz 30. 3 e8 .s m3. xufim notcoo cation mmm .Ni 0N0 . xomfim doucoEConm QmZ om» . w; 000 .0 www. . @333 3.32qu Sm m a: E23 223:: «mam mmz m8. mm coo c. m3. fiflm 32:6 000 .0 ma. ofiha Q3050 szcswtfi mm mmmtm omet xuflm Ext? omw rm 2N . SE3 nfismECoaxm poo»; ho Om monouowfifl momm msouU o3mCm> Cmmz HmmHH BZHEM>HEU¢ ZHDOM HQm Qmm3mH Himmacdu 132 test the mean difference for Significance at the . 05 level. In each category, the t-test resulted in a verification of no significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected; that is, there was no Significant difference in reading achievement for third-grade subjects between white subjects and Black subjects within and between the experimental and the control groups. Th1 rdvgrade subjects were studied by race to determine if 1;— any statistical difference resulted in mean difference scores on I ‘ the subtest Spelling. Comparisons were made within and between the experimental and control groups in the following categories: 1. White and Black subjects compared within the experi- mental group. 2. White and Black subjects compared Within the control group. 3. White subjects in the experimental group compared with white subjects in the control group. 4. Black subjects in the experimental group compared with Black subjects in the control group- 5. White subjects in the experimental group compared with Black subjects in the control group, 6. Black subjects in the experimental group compared with white subjects in the control group Mean difference scores, summarized in Table IV - 24, were determined for each group and the statistical t test was used to test the mean difference for significance at the .05 level. In each .___ 3 3 szmow. mm EN .0 mm». 333 Hofisoo gm .0 coal 5.2m ESE: ommm mmzoi. mm 26 .w mmm. imam 33:00 a: .o mmm. Bets $206.8me . . . QSOLU awe/:3. mm com a. mmm imam notsoo . Coosiom NNm .0 00¢ . xoflm _‘ECoECoaxm 32 $0. 3 «cm 6 wms. 82:5 35.80 a: .o mam - 833 ESE: tcxu mmsz. mm coo .w mmm. fflm . #08500 3N5 w? t 0:3 96.6 emu/$3. MN Rm .0 wow . Mama 2523 am: .0 £5. 223 Hmtcmficmmxm pm only do Qm monopowfifl oomm QSOSU osmimxz 532 Emma“. HZH2H>HHEU< ZHDGM HQ> MDdaMU QmHEH MOM ”MU/mm wm mZOmH.mH ”Hum/NH. 134 category, the t-te st resulted in a verification of no significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected; that is, there was no significant difference in spelling achievement for thi rd-grade subjects between white subjects and Black subjects within and between the experimental and the control groups. n Sum ma ry At the first-grade level, there was no significant difference ' in achievement between the experimental group and the control group in listening for sounds and reading. Within and between experimental and control group comparisons were made between males and females in the subte st areas of listening and reading. The only comparison in which the . 05 level of significance re- sulted was in the comparison of female subjects in the experimental group with female subjects in the control group, on the subtest Listening for Sounds. This difference favored the females in the control group. All other comparisons of males and females within and between the groups resulted in t-tests of no significance. With- in and between experimental and control group comparisons were made between races in the subte st areas of listening and reading. All comparisons of white subjects and Black subjects within and between the groups resulted in t-tests of no significance. 135 At the second grade level, there was no significant differ- ence in achievement between the experimental group and the control group in word knowledge, word analysis, and reading. Within and between experimental and control group comparisons were made between males and females in the subtest areas of word knowledge, word analySis, and reading. The only comparison in which the . 05 level of Signitit ance resulted was the comparison of male subjects in the experimental group With male subjects in the control group on the subtest Reading. This difference favored the males in the control group. All other comparisons of males and females within and between the groups resulted in t—te sts of no Significance. Within and between experimental and control groups, comparisons were made between races in the subtest areas of word knowledge. word analy51s, and reading. The following comparisons resulted in t-values Significant at the .05 level: (1) White subjects compared with Black subjects in the control group. The Blac k subjects improved significantly more than did the white subjects on the subtest Word Analysis. (2) The Black subjects in the experiiriental group im.— proved Significantly more than did the white subje< ts in the control group on the subtest Word Analysis. (3) The white subjects in the control group improved Significantly more than did the Black subjects in the experimental group on the subtest Rtading. 136 At the third-grade level, there was no significant difference in achievement between the experimental group and the control group in word knowledge, word analysis, reading, and spelling. Within and between experimental and control groups, comparisons were made between males and females in the subtest areas of word knowledge, word analysis, reading, and spelling. The only comparison in which the . 05 level of Significance was achieved, was in the comparison of female subjects in the experimental group with female subjects in the control group on the subtest Word Knowledge. The difference favored the females in the experimental group. Within and between experimental and control group compari- sons were made between races in the subtest areas of word know- ledge, word analysis, reading, and spelling. The only comparison in which the . 05 level of significance was achieved, was in the comparison of Black subjects in the experimental group with Black subjects in the control group. This difference favored the Black subjects in the experimental group. .f CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS m The Problem It was the intent of this study to ascertain the effect on reading achievement of two different learning environments and two different inst ructional approaches for first, second, and third- grade subjects. An experimental group was identified and exposed to an open—learning enVironment With personalized reading instruc- tion. A control group was identified and exposed to a traditional- learning environment With basal text group reading instruction. This study had three specific purposes: 1. To ascertain and compare pre- and post -mean differences scores on reading achievement for subjects in first, . second, and third grades between the experimental and control groups. 2. To ascertain and compare pre- and post ~mean differences scores on reading achievement by sex for subjects in first, second, and third grades Within and between the experimental and the control groups. 137 138 3. To ascertain and compare pre- and post-mean difference scores on reading achievement by race for subjects in first, second, and third grades within and between the experimental and the control groups. The validity of the following null hypotheses was investigated by testing: NULL HYPOTHESIS I - No difference will be found in read- ing achievement between fir st-grade subjects in experimental and control groups. NULL HYPOTHESIS II - No difference will be found in read- ing achievement between males and females in first grade within and between experimental and control groups. NULL HYPOTHESIS III — No difference will be found in reading achievement between races in first grade within and be- tween experimental and control groups. NULL HYPOTHESIS IV - No difference will be found in reading achievement between second-grade subjects in experimental and control groups. NULL HYPOTHESIS V - No difference will be found in reading achievement between males and females in second grade within and between experimental and control groups. NULL HYPOTHESIS VI - No difference will be found in 139 reading achievement between races in second grade within and between experimental and control groups. NULL HYPOTHESIS VII - No difference will be found in reading achievement between third-grade subjects in experimental and control groups. .3 a! NULL HYPOTHESIS VIII - No difference will be found in ‘: reading achievement between males and females in third grade 1 within and between experimental and control groups. r NULL HYPOTHESIS IX — No difference will be found in reading achievement between races in third grade within and be- tween experimental and control groups. For each hypothesis the . 05 level of significance was selected for rejecting the null hypothesis. The Samgle The population from which the experimental and the control groups were drawn was composed of first, second, and third-grade subjects at Crowell and Dalrymple Elementary Schools in the Albion Public School District. The experimental group of eighty-five subjects was assigned to Open-Learning Environment Project classrooms for the 1971-72 academic school year in first, second, and third grade. 140 The control group was randomly matched to the experimental group on the basis of grade leve, chronological age, sex, and race. The Design The experimental research design was selected for this study. I] It could not be assumed that the experimental and the con- trol groups were equal as they were not matched on the basis of '.1..:: academic achievement. The pre-test mean scores of the two groups were tested with a t—test. The resulting t-values were not significant and the two groups were considered comparable for the purposes of this study. The research questions were stated as null hypotheses and were tested statistically by examining the difference between the experimental and control group means. Instruments Used to Collect Data The Primer, Form F, of the Metropolitan Achievement Test battery was selected as the instrument to pre-test the first- grade subjects. The Primer, Form G, of the Metropolitan Achieve- ment Test battery was selected as the instrument to post-test the first-grade subjects. The Primary 1, Form F, of the Metropolitan Achievement Test battery was selected as the instrument to pre-test the second -. 141 grade subjects. The Primary 1, Form C, of the Metropolitan Achievement Test battery was selected as the instrument to post- test the second-grade subjects. The Primary II, Form G, of the Metropolitan Achievement Test battery was selected as the instrument to pre-test the third- grade subjects. The Primary 11, Form F, of the Metropolitan Achievement Test battery was selected to post-test the third-grade subjects. Data Analysis The testing program was intended to determine whether or not the treatment of the experimental and the control groups pro- duced a mean difference in reading achievement. The means and standard deviations were found and tested for significant differences in both groups. The critical ratio (t) was used to test the significant difference of the mean. The t- statistic was tested for significance at the . 05 level. Findings Results of the statistical testing of the pre-te st data secured from the Metropolitan Achievement Test showed no significant difference in any Subtest at first, second, or third-grade level be—- tween the experimental and the control groups. Hence, for purposes 142 of the study, the groups were assumed to be similar. The findings of this study indicate that for this sample the personalized reading instruction program (experimental group) does not produce significantly different mean achievement (first grade: listening for sounds and reading; second grade: word knowledge, word analysis, and reading; and third grade: word knowledge, word analysis, reading, and spelling) from the basal text group reading instruction program (control group). At the first-grade level, comparisons were made within and between experimental and control groups and between males and females in the subtest areas of listening for sounds and reading. The only comparison in which the . 05 level of significance resulted was in the comparison of female subjects in the experimental group with female subjects in the control group. This difference favored the females in the control group. All other comparisons of males and females within and between the groups resulted in t-tests of no significance. At the sec ond—grade level, comparisons were made within and between experimental and control groups and between males and females in the subtest areas of word knowledge, word analysis, and reading. The only comparison in which the . 05 level of signi- ficance resulted was in the comparison of male subjects in the 143 experimental group with male subjects in the control group on the subtest Reading. This difference favored the males in the control group. All other comparisons of males and females within and between the groups resulted in t-tests of no significance. At the third-grade level, comparisons were made within and between experimental and control groups and between females and males in the subte st areas of word knowledge, word analysis, reading, and spelling. The only comparison in which the . 05 level of significance was achieved was in the comparison of female subjects in the experimental group with female subjects in the control group on the subtest Word Knowledge. The difference favored the females in the experimental group. At the first-grade level, comparisons were made within and between experimental and control groups and between races in the subtest areas of listening for sounds and reading. All comparisons of white subjects and Black subjects within and between the groups resulted in t-te sts of no significance. At the second-grade level, comparisons were made within and between experimental and control groups and between races in the subtest areas of word knowledge, word analySis, and read- ing. The following comparisons resulted in t-values Significant at the . 05 level: (1) White subjects compared With Black subjects 144 in the control group— -the Black subjects improved significantly more than did the white subjects on the subtest Word Analysis. (2) The Black subjects in the experimental group improved significantly more than did the white subjects in the control group on the sub- test Word Analysis. (3) The white subjects in the control group improved significantly more than did the Black subjects in the experimental group on the subtest Reading. At the third-grade level, comparisons were made within and between experimental and control groups and between races in the subtest areas of word knowledge, word analysis, reading, and spelling. The only comparison in which the . 05 level of significance was achieved was in the comparison of Black subjects in the experimental group with Black subjects in the control group. This difference favored the Black subjects in the experimental group. Conclusions l. A basic conclusion of this study is that in first, second, and third grades there is no significant difference in reading achievement between those taught in an open-learning environment using individualized instruction and those taught in a traditional- classroom environment using traditional group instruction. 145 2. Evidence from this study indicates that in reading achievement there were sex and race differences within and be- tween the sample groups. However, these differences were neither consistent nor predictable by sex or race. 3. The Open-Learning Environment Project has proved that even in the first year of operation, reading skills can effectively be taught to students, Black and white, male and female, using distinctly alternative methods and approaches. Discussion For many years teachers and administrators believed that ability group reading approaches were the best answer to the pro- blems of providng for individual differences in reading. A program of systematic and sequential instruction with basic reader systems, it was thought, gave assurance that children would not miss the learnings considered to be important by reading authorities. In addition, it was quite logical to contend that the teacher's effective- ness would be increased when working with groups that were rela- tively similar in reading ability. There are those who have contested this stand and expounded a different point of view--that no two children are alike in what they need to learn, in how they learn, and in how fast they learn. 146 Therefore, no one set of books or specific plan of teaching can satisfy the requirements of each child in the group. Further, the child himself can assist, with help from the teacher, in deter- mining what he needs and in what way it is best for him to learn. The type of reading program on which this thinking is based is '3 loosely referred to as personalized reading. ‘--1 For teachers who are strongly committed to systematic ' inStrUCtion for groups 0f Children and believe in following a clearly full? defined set of guidelines for the teaching of skills, allowing the child to learn using the key vocabulary and selecting his own books according to his individual needs is considered to be using a lassiz faire approach with incidental instruction. On the other hand, teachers who believe in the teaching of skills at the moment of need and who feel that there is no preconceived system of teaching that fits the needs of each child in a group, look upon a prescribed set of steps as stifling to the teacher and to the child in terms of their personal needs and desires. Evidence from this study suggests that both personalized reading in an open-learning environment and basal text reading in a traditional-learning environment can be effective in promoting reading competency. 147 Recommendations This investigation was undertaken to test the relationship between pupil reading achievement, classroom environment, and methods of reading instruction. As a result of this study, it is recommended that: 1. One year of personalized reading instruction may not be sufficient time to reveal significant differences between this and other methods. It is recommended that this study be continued for a minimum of two additional years so that reading achievement may be seen as at least a three-year process. The twenty-six subjects in the experimental group first grade and the twenty-six subjects in the control group first grade should be followed through fifth grade to determine whether a personalized reading instruction program would be significantly superior or inferior to group instruction for developing reading skills. A study of the behavior and characteristics of successful and unsuccessful children in both personal- ized reading instructional programs and basal text reading instructional programs should be carried out. 148 The purpose of this study would be to determine how well different types of children do in a particular program and whether there are identifiable qualities and behaviors for which a particular form of program seems to be more suitable than another. F3 A study should be made to determine the teaching skills #1 necessary for teachers to carry out a personalized reading instruction program. I ‘2“- A study should be made to determine whether beginning teachers have the necessary competencies for carrying out a personalized reading instruction program. Such a study might have implications for teacher education curricula. A study should be conducted to develop test items which would more adequately measure the intent and scope of an open-learning environment. A study should be conducted to determine the nature and quality of children's learning in an open-learning environment. What do children really learn in this environment, and do they learn it better than in other kinds of classrooms? Further study should be conducted to determine parental 149 expectations and aspirations for their children as it relates to reading achievement. 9. Further study should be conducted to continue the investigation of sex and race differences in relation- ship to reading achievement. Epilogue Teachers are commonly held responsible for what their students learn, principals are judged in part by the performance of students in their school, and superintendents are accountable to school boards for the progress of their districts. The public is demanding more frequently that the public schools, as a whole, be held accountable for producing demonstrable learning in children. The principal method by which teachers' performance has been evaluated and students' achievement measured is the written standardized testing programs. Written tests were not used extensively in American schools before 1845. Horace Mann predicted, in the Common School Journal for October 1, 1845, that this novel mode of examination would constitute a new era in the hi story of our schools. He said the new method, using printed questions and written answers, 150 settled the question of what quality of instruction had been given by the master as definitely as it did the question of what amount of proficiency had been gained by the pupils. 1 His enthusiasm for written examinations provided an interesting prelude to what was to happen later as a consequence of the scientific movement in education and the rapid growth in the use of objective tests. Leonard P. Ayres wrote, in 1915, "We have awakened to a startling realization that in education, as in other forms of organized activity, applied science may avail to better even those processes that have rested secure in the sanction of generations of acceptance. ”2 During the years that followed this statement by Ayres, the testing movement has expanded to include tests designed to provide objective evidence in regard to almost every conceivable aspect of teaching and administrating. 3 The influence which a nation-wide testing program can exert on the determination of curriculum content is an important 1Otis W. Caldwell and Stuart A. Curtis, Then and Now in Education, (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. , 1925), pp. 238-244. 2Leonard P. Ayres, Making Education Definite, Bulletin Number 11, (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana UniverSity Press, 1915), p. 4. 3’William B. Ragan, Modern Elementary Curriculum, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), pp. 475-479. 151 question to ponder. Critics point out that whatever is included in tests that pupils must take determines to some degree what will be taught. When the Federal Government has tests developed to be given to all elementary and secondary schools, the legally responsible agencies, state boards of education, and local school boards no longer have control over what is taught in the schools. Critics point out that this constitutes an indirect approach to a'national curriculum without any systematic effort to give the concerned people an opportunity to accepted or reject the idea.4 American education in general and in particular Albion School District, in which this study was undertaken, was accustom- ed to evaluating teacher performance and measuring student achievement by scores on national-standardized-achievement tests. Fantini suggests that, Th e Problem in the Rocket Age is not to improve a rickety curriculum; we have already done that. The problem in the seventies and beyond is to pro- vide options and choices inside the frameword of public education. Why cannot distinct alternatives exist in the public schools? 5 4ibid., p. 478. 5Mario Fantini, Opinion expressed by Mario Fantini at an Albion College Inservice Workshop, Albion, Michigan, May 19, 1971. 152 It was maintained by the investigator in this study that for new options and choices to survive within the framework of public education, data had to be gathered and evaluated, using the methods of evaluation that the school district and parents within the district were accustomed to using in evaluating and comparing the success n of existing programs. The necessuy of children in early elementary grades to "-1; learn to read is a position endorsed by educators and strongly held by parents. If new options are to survive in the framework of public education, research eV1dence mu st demonstrate to school boards, school administrators, teachers, and parents that children do indeed learn to read as well in the educational alternative as they do in existing programs. The Albion Board of Education and School District adminis- trators were faced with accountability, and the data from this study was intended to assist them in evaluating this experimental option within the framework of their schools. The evaluation of reading achievement between the experi- mental and control groups in this study presented many problems to the investigator. The curricula of the control classrooms closely paralleled the content of the Metropolitan Achievement; Tests. How- ever, because the curriculum of the Open-Learning Environment 153 Project originated and changed according to the needs and interests of the children, the content validity of the Metropolitan Achievement Test for this group was in question. At the time of testing, no standardized achievement test had been developed to measure the breadth and scope of a personalized reading program in an open- learning environment. Although difficult, the problems surrounding the evaluation of an open-learning environment personalized reading program must be solved. The problems are compounded by the negative attitudes of many open-learning environment proponents towards any type of evaluation. This approach, though strikingly humane, remains somewhat naive. A statement on evaluation by a highly respected proponent of an open-learning environment states: The question of evaluation is a very difficult one. Objective assessment of factors that really matter would seem to be almost impossible. As a result, things that we can and do measure are often trivial. Anybody engaged in a new development or innovation has faith in it and, therefore, it is more likely to succeed. The "Hawthorne Effect" is always operative. In Leicestershire, evaluation of innovations was seldom attempted. We were content to judge sub- jectively, to decide by the ”feel" of the situation whether or not it was in the best interests of children: Even in such subjects as the teaching of mathematics and reading. 6 6L. G. W. Sealey, "Looking Back on Leicestershire," ESI Quarterly Report, (Spring-Summer, 1966), p. 19. 154 American public education in the seventies does not allow the luxury of choosing not to evaluate innovative programs. Not only must innovative programs be evaluated, they must produce results in a relatively short period of time and be compared with existing programs that: have been refined through the years. 7 Open education is a way of thinking about children, about i’fil learning, and about knowledge. It is characterized by openness. Physical openness is apparent-i—doors ajar and children are free ’4: to come and go. Open classrooms allow children to bring objects of interest in and take objects of interest out; space is fluid, not preempted by desks and chairs organized in rows or in any inflexible pattern; a variety of spaces are filled with a variety of materials; children move openly from place to place, from activity to activity; and time is open to permit and release rather than constrain or prescribe. The curriculum is open to choices by adults and child- ren as a function of the interests of the child. Open education is characterized by personal openness on the part of children and adults. Persons are openly sensitive to and supportive of other persons, not closed off by anxiety and threat. Feelings are exposed and respected. Teachers are open to the possibilities inherent in children; children are Open to the possibilities inherent in other children, in materials, and in themselves. Open 155 education implies an enVironment in which the possibilities for exploration and learning of self and of the world are unobstructed. Open education encompasses the philosophy that children learn by exploring liVing things, inanimate materials; and by exploring the real world in all its richness and variety. Learning i is not di stinguished from living, nor living from learning. 7 1..“ The goal of open education is knowledge, and the teacher and school are important means of reaching this goal, but the ’4': meaning of knowledge is radically changed. Knowledge is the child's personal capability to confront and handle new experiences successfully, not the ability to verbalize adult expectations on demand. Knowledge is a system of strategies and processes, intellectual, personal, social, which an individual develops for handling his world. Because a teacher cannot provide a child the exploratory experiences which lead to learning, he must provide materials which will engage the child's innate curiosity and involve him in the learning process. Through materials, the teacher influences the direction of the child's exploration and hence his learning. 7Barth, pp. c_it., pp. 56-57. 8Ibid. , pp. 57-58. 156 In an open-learning environment, the teacher's role is to facilitate learning, to provide conditions which will encourage children to learn for themselves, and to fulfill themselves, person- ally, socially, and intellectually. Rarely does the teacher convey to children his own knowledge or someone else's knowledge; '3 instead, he helps each student find truths inherent in his experience and to evaluate and revise these tentative truths in the light of sub- '4. sequent experiences. The child has both the right and the compe- tence to make important decisions about his own learning; the teacher has the responsibility of helping him to do so. 9 The final test of an education is what a man is, not what he knows. Know- ledge is a means of education, not its end. What kind of school is be st for my child? This is not a question of finding a system that works for everybody, but of find- ing a system that works, and then determining for whom it works, including both teacher and child, and under what circumstances. Only when we permit our educational system to become as plural- istic as other sectors of our society, religiously, architecturally, 91bid., p. 117. lOIbid., p. 46. politically, and ethnically, will open education make its contribution to American society. 11 This study has proven that an open-learning environment provides the setting in which personalized reading can function successfully, and thus it becomes a viable alternative for teaching reading. Veatch shares her glimpse of the beckoning horizons for personalized reading and Open Education: Teaching is a human act, and so we present methodo- logy that puts children and their adult teachers together, not as automatons, but as human beings that grow and strengthen each other. Beauty is a major force, if not the major force, for good in the world. So we present a way in which the most beautiful of books, the trade books, find their way into the too frequently drab surroundings of classrooms. Knowledge is crucial in our burgeoning world. It is to be seized, to be shaken, and to be loved, for itself alone, and for what it can do for he who possesses it. We present a means toward its acquisition within the limits of only time and space. There are no limits to being human, to lov1ng beauty, to cherishing knowledge. Learning without limitations. Teaching without boundaries. These are the beckoning horizons. 12 llibid. , pp. 272-273. leeatch, pp. c_it., p. 524. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Ac kerman, Nathan W. , and others. Summerhill: For and Against. New York: Hart: Publishing Company, 1970. Allen, Paul M., William D. Barnes, Jerald L. Reece, and E. Wayne Roberson. Teacher Self-Appraisal: A Way of Looking Over Your Own Shoulder. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1970. Ashton-Warner, Sylv1a. Spinster. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971. Teacher. New York: Bantam Books, 1967. Ayres, Leonard P. Making Education Definite. Bulletin Number 11, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1915. Barbe, Walter B. Educators Guide to Personalized Reading Instruction. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, 1961. Beck, Carlton E. , and others. Education for Relevance. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Blos, Peter. The Adolescent Personality - A Study of Individual Behavior for the CommiSSion on Secondary School Curriculum. New York: Appleton—Century-Crofts, Inc. , 1941. Borton, Terry. Reach, Touch and Teach. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1970. Brogan, Peggy and Lorene Fox. Heliiing Children Learn. New York: World Book Company, 1955- Brubaker, Dale L. The Teacher as a Decision --Maker. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm,.C. Brown, 1970.. Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. , 1960- 158 Bush, Clifford L. , and Mildred H. Huebner. Strategies for Read- ing in the Elementary School. London: The Macmillan Company, 1970. Caldwell, Otis W. , and Stuart A. Curtis. Then and Now in Education. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1925. Chasnoff, Robert E. Elementary Curriculum. New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1964. Cohen, S. Alan. Teach Them All to Read. New York: Random House, 1969. Combs, Arthur W. The Professional Education of Teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1965. Cronbach, Lee J. (Ed. ). Text Materials in Modern Education. Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1955. Cullum, Albert. Push Back the Desks. New York: Citation Press, 1967. Daniels, Steve. How 2 Gerbils, 20 Goldfish, 200 Games, 2, 000 Books and I Taught Them How to Read. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969. Dawson, Mildred A. , and Freida Hayes Dingee. Children Learn the Language Arts. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, 1959. Dennison, George. The Lives of Children. New York: Vintage Books, 1969. Dewey, John. Moral Principals in Education. New York: PhiIOSOphical Library, 1959. Dolch, Edward W. Individualized Reading vs. Group Reading. Champaign, Illinois: Garrard Publishing Company, 1962. Draper, Marcella K. , and Louise H. Schwietert. A Practical Guide to Individualized Readifl. New York: Board of Education, City of New York, Bureau of Educational Research, 1960. 159 160 Duker, Sam. Individualized Reading: An Annotated Bibliograplfl. Metchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, 1968. Individualized Reading: Readingg. Metchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, 1969. Epstein, Charlotte. Intergroup Relations for the Classroom Teacher. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Esbensen, Thorwald. Working With Individualized Instruction. Palo Alto, California: Fearon Publishers, 1968. Fader, Daniel N. , and Elton B. McNeil. Hooked On Books: Program and Proof. New York: A Berkley Medallion Book, 1970. Fantini, Mario D. , and Gerald Weinstein. The Disadvantaged - Challenge to Education. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. , and Gerald Weinstein. Toward A Contact Curriculum. New York: Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B‘rith, 1969. Farber, Jerry. The Student as Nigger. New York: Pocket Books, 1970. Flesch, Rudolf. Why Johnny Can't Read. New York: Harper and Row, 1955. Fromm, Erich. The Art of Lovirlg. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Furth, Hans G. Piaget for Teachers. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. Glasser, William. Schools Without Failure. New York: Harper and Row, 1969. Good, Carter V. Dictionary of Education. Second Edition; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , 1959. Goslin, David A. The School in Contemporary Sciciety. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1965. 161 Greenberg, Herbert M. Teaching With Feelirfi. New York: Pegasus, 1969. Gross Ronald, and Beatrice Gross (Ed. ). Radical School Reform. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969. Haddan, Eugene E. Evolving Instruction... London: The Macmillan Company, 1970.. Hamachek, Don E. (Ed. ). The Self in Growth, Teaching, and Learn- ing, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: 1965. Hanna, Lavone A. , Gladys L. Potter, and Neva Hagaman. Unit Teaching in the Elementary School. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Heilman, Arthur W. Phonics in Proper Perspective. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, 1964. Hentoff, Nat. Our Children are Dyigg. New York: The Viking Press, 1966. Hickerson, Nathaniel. Education for Alienation. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1966. Hildreth, Gertrude. Teaching Reading. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1958. Holt, John. How Children Fail. New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1964. How Children Learn. New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1967. The Under-AchieVing School. New York: A Delta Book, 1969. What Do I Do Mondflr? New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1970. Howes, Virgil M. Individualizing Instruction in Reading and Social Studies. London: The Macmillan Company, 1970. 162 Huttenlocher, Janellen. ”Social and Individual Origins of the Self. ” The Self in Growth, Teaching, and Learning:_ Selected Read- _i_ngs_. Don W. Hamachek (Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965. Isaac, Stephen, and William B. Michael. Handbook in Research and Evaluation. San Diego, California: Robert R. Knapp, Publishers, 1971. Jeseph, Stephen M. The Me Nobodgr Knows. New York: Avon, 1969. Kendall, M. G. , and B. B. Smith. Tables of Random Sampling Numbers. Tracts for Computers, Volume XXIV, London: Cambridge UniverSity Press, 1939. Kohl, Herbert. The Open Classroom. New York: New York Review, 1969. 36 Children. New York: The New American Library, 1967. Kvaraceus, William C. , and others. Negro Self-ConceRt. New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1965. Lavatelli, Celia Stendler, Walter J. Moore, and Theodore Kaltsounis. Elementary School Curriculum. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972. Lee, D. M. , and R. VanAllen. Learning to Read Through Experi- ence. (Rev. Ed.). New York: Appleton-CenturyaCrofts, Inc., 1963. Lurie, Ellen. How To Change the Schools. New York: A Vintage Book, 1970. Lyon, Harold C. , Jr. Learning to Feel-Feeliiggto Learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1971. Mager, Robert F. , and Peter Pipe. Analyzing Performance Pro- blems or 'You Really Oughta Wanna'. Belmont, California: Fearon Publishers, 1970. Miel, Alice (Ed. ). Indigidualizing Reading Practices. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. 1958. 163 Neill, A. S. Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing. New York: Hart Publishing Company, 1960. Olsen, Willard C., Child Development. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1949. O'Neill, William F. Selected Educational Heresies. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresrnan and Company, 1969. Orem, R. C. (Ed.). A Montessori Handbook. New York: Capricorn Books, 1966. Otto, Wayne, and Ric hard A. McMenemy. Corrective and Remedial Teachingg . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966. Palardy, J. Michael. Elementary School Curriculum - An Anthology of Trends and Challenges. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971. Plowden, Lady Bridget, et. a1. Children and Their Primary Schools: A Report of the Central Advisory Council for Education. Volume 1, London: HMSO, 1967. Possien, Wilma M. They All Need to Talk-Oral Communication in the Language Arts Program. New York: Appleton-Century— Crofts, 1969. Postman, Neil, and Charles Weingartner. Teaching as a Sub- versive Act1v1ty. New York: Delacorte Press, 1969. Powledge, Fred. To Change a Child. Chicago: Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 1967. Ragan, William B. Modern Elementary Curriculum. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. , John H. Wilson, and Tillman J. Ragan. Teaching in the New Elementary School. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972. Rand, Winifred, Mary E. Sweeney, and Vincent E. Lee. Growth and Development. of the Young Child. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1946. 164 Rathbone, Charles Horace (Ed. ). Open Education - The Informal Classroom. New York: Citation Press, 1971. Raths, Louis E. , Merrill Harmin, and Sidney B. Simon. Values and Teaching. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1966. Robbins, Jerry H. , and Stirling B. Williams, Jr. Student Activities in the Innovative School. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Burgess Publishing Company, 1969. Rogers, Vincent R. Teaching in the British Primary School. London: The Macmillan Company, 1970. Rosenthal, Robert, and Lenore Jacobson. Pygmalion in the Class- room. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. Ryan, Kevin, and James M. Cooper. Those Who Can, Teach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972. Schatz, Esther. Exploring Elementary Reading in the Elementagy School. The Ohio State University, 1960. Schwebel, Milton. Who Can Be Educated? New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1968. Shane, Harold G. , Mary E. Reddin, and Margaret C. Gillespie. Beginning Lagguage Arts Instruction With Children. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc. , 1961. Silberman, Charles E. Crisis in the Classroom - The Remaking of American Education. New York: Random House, 1970. Skinner, B. F. The Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1968. Smith, Nila Banton. Historical Analysis of American Reading Instruction. New York: Silver Burdett Company, 1934. Spence, Janet T. , and others. Elementary Statistics. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968. 165 Sutton, Audrey D. Individualized Instruction - Ordered Freedom. Encino, California: International Center for Educational Development, 1970. Thomas, George I. , and Joseph Crescimbeni. Individualizing Instruction in the Elementary School. New York: Random House, 1967. Van Till, William (Ed. ). Curriculum: Quest for Relevance. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1971. Veatch, Jeannette. Reading in the Elementary School. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1966. Waller, Willard. Sociology of Teachi_ng. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Science Editions, 1965. Wardhaugh, Ronald. Reading: A Linguistic Perspective. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1969. Weber, Evelyn. Early Childhood Education: Perspectives on Change. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1970. Witty, Paul. Reading in Modern Education. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1949. Yoakam, Gerald A. Basal Reading Instruction. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1955. PERI ODI CA LS Allen, James E. , Jr. "The Right to Read - Target for the 1970's. " The PTA Magazine. LXIV, (December, 1969). Dawson, Dan. "Some Issues in Grouping for Reading. " National Department of Elementary School Principals. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, (September, 1955). Gates, Arthur I. ”Improvements in Reading Possible in the Near Future. " The Reading Teacher. Volume XII, (December, 1958). 166 Gross, Beatrice and Ronald Gross. "A Little Bit of Chaos. " Saturday Review. (May, 1970). Kearney, Nolan C. "An Analysis of the Vocabulary of First Grade Reading Materials. " Journal of Educational Research. Volume XLIII, (March, 1950). Lacy, Dan. "Reading's Place in an Effective Society. " International Reading Association Conference Proceedings, Volume 4, Scholastic Magazine. (New York: 1958). Lansing, Kenneth. "The Research of Jean Piaget and It's Implica- tions for Art Education in the Elementary School. " Studies in Art Education. Volume VII, (Spring, 1966). Leitman, Allen. "Travel Agent. " Housing for Early Childhood. Washington, D.C.: ACEI, (1968). Rogers, Vincent. "Primary Education in England - An Interview with John Coe. " Phi Delta Kappan. Volume LII, (May, 1971). Schneir, Walter and Miriam Schneir. "The Joy of Learning in the Open Corridor. " New York Times Magazine. (April 4, 1971). Sealey, L. G. W. "Looking Back on Leicestershire." ESI Quarterly Report. (Spring-Summer, 1966). Silberman, Arlene. "The School of Your Child's Dreams. " Good Housekeeping. (March, 1971). Spache, George. "New Trends in Primary Grade Readers. " Elementary School Journal. Volume XLII, (December, 1941). Suchman, Richard, and Mary Jane McCue Ashner. "Perceptual and Cognitive Developmen . " Review of Educational Research. Volume XXI, (December, 1961). Veatch, Jeannette. "Individualized Reading for Success in the Classroom. " The Educational Trend. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1955. 167 Wilt, Marian E. "Another Way to Meet Individual Difference." Elementary English. Volume XXXV, Number 1, (January, 1958). UNPUB LISHED MAT ER IA LS Adams, P. S. "An Investigation of an Individualized Reading Pro- gram and a Modified Basal Reading Program. " Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1962. Barth, Roland S. "Open Education. " Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, Harvard University, 1970. Bennett, S. W. "The Key Vocabulary in Organic Reading: An Evaluation of Some of Ashton-Warner. " Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1970. Hubert, Richard. "An Open Learning EnVironment - A Descriptive Study." An unpublished ma ster's thesis, Western Michigan University, 1971. Rathbone, Charles Horace. "Open Education and the Teacher. " Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1970. Vite, Irene W. "The Review and AnalySis of the Literature for the Past Twenty-Five Years on the Subject of Individualized Guidance in the Elementary Classroom. " Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1958. OTHER SOURCES A Description of the New School, University of North Dakota, (May, 1971). 168 Durost, Walter N. , and others. Metropolitan Achievement Tests-- Olsen, Teacher's Directions--Primary I. U. S.A.: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1971. , and others. Metropolitan Achievement Tests- -Teacher's Directions- -Prima ry 11. U. S. A. : Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc. , 1970. , and others. Metropolitan Achievement Tests--Teacher's Directions-Primer. U.S.A.: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1971. , and others. Metropolitan Achievement TestS--Teacher's Handbook. U.S.A.: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1971. Willard C. "Seeking Self-Selection and Pacing in the Use of Books by Children." The Packet. Heath's Service Bulletin for Elementary Teachers, Volume VII, Number 1, (Spring, 1952). The Greater Albion Chamber of Commerce. A Closer Look at Albion. U. S.A.: Printed Brochure. [n. d.] 2 1 ’